Wind and solar are now beating coal in the US(electrek.co)
electrek.co
Wind and solar are now beating coal in the US
https://electrek.co/2023/04/27/wind-and-solar-are-now-beating-coal-in-the-us/
11 comments
I'd be curious, is this at the expense of coal? Or has demand just grown because of cheaper electricity due to more supply being available.
Coal generated electricity peaked in the United States in 2007. Since then it has dramatically declined both percentage-wise and absolutely:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
In 2022 coal generated electricity was down to 854 terawatt hours from 2,016 terawatt hours in 2007. It's declining even more this year:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55960
In our March Short-Term Energy Outlook, we forecast the wind share of the U.S. generation mix will increase from 11% last year to 12% this year. We forecast that the solar share will grow to 5% in 2023, up from 4% last year. The natural gas share of generation is forecast to remain unchanged from last year (39%); the coal share of generation is forecast to decline from 20% last year to 17% in 2023.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
In 2022 coal generated electricity was down to 854 terawatt hours from 2,016 terawatt hours in 2007. It's declining even more this year:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55960
In our March Short-Term Energy Outlook, we forecast the wind share of the U.S. generation mix will increase from 11% last year to 12% this year. We forecast that the solar share will grow to 5% in 2023, up from 4% last year. The natural gas share of generation is forecast to remain unchanged from last year (39%); the coal share of generation is forecast to decline from 20% last year to 17% in 2023.
Coal has been on the decline for quite a while now, mostly because it's been outcompeted by natural gas as a fuel source for conventional burn-a-thing-to-boil-water power plants.
However, despite coal's decline, let's not discount the impressiveness of this achievement. Renewable sources have made huge strides over the past few years, and the growth of renewables is accelerating year-over-year. It feels like we've hit an inflection point WRT to renewable adoption, where it's simultaneously economical, politically popular, and proven to be practical.
However, despite coal's decline, let's not discount the impressiveness of this achievement. Renewable sources have made huge strides over the past few years, and the growth of renewables is accelerating year-over-year. It feels like we've hit an inflection point WRT to renewable adoption, where it's simultaneously economical, politically popular, and proven to be practical.
> Or has demand just grown because of cheaper electricity due to more supply being available.
The world have an ever increasing demand for more electricity. Even though we add lots of wind and solar generation every year. It is not enough to meet the increase in demand. However, we are very close, and 2023 [1] could be the year where we could see an actual decline of fossile fuel usage for electricity generation for the first time.
[1] https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/global-electrici...
The world have an ever increasing demand for more electricity. Even though we add lots of wind and solar generation every year. It is not enough to meet the increase in demand. However, we are very close, and 2023 [1] could be the year where we could see an actual decline of fossile fuel usage for electricity generation for the first time.
[1] https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/global-electrici...
The increase of natural gas has been at the expense of coal. Many existing coal plants can be converted over to run on gas, which became economically viable as the shale boom has made natural gas more plentiful and it is easier to meet emissions standards.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44636
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44636
It's more complicate than that, because the renewables replace natural gas utilization much quicker than they replace natural gas capacity.
Your link is about capacity, and it is not clear how much it has been used.
Your link is about capacity, and it is not clear how much it has been used.
The drop in total power generated amount by coal (since the peak in 07) has mostly been absorbed by natural gas, with a smaller fraction taken by renewables.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
That jives with my anecdotal experience. All of the power plants around me have been converted to natural gas.
Thanks, that's a much more relevant view.
Yes, much more than half of it. But renewables absorbed a visible share of it.
Yes, much more than half of it. But renewables absorbed a visible share of it.
To further put this in perspective (2007-2021 data from the source above).
Gas absorbed about 60 percent, while renewables absorbed about 40. The numbers are in billion kilowatthours. Coal usage was reduced by 1117, in the same time period gas went up with 678 and renewables went up with 473.
Gas absorbed about 60 percent, while renewables absorbed about 40. The numbers are in billion kilowatthours. Coal usage was reduced by 1117, in the same time period gas went up with 678 and renewables went up with 473.
To add to what other have already said, electricity generation in the US has be flat since 2007. There has been no significant increase in supply.
This is why climate accounting startups are dumb. Soon, very soon, clean energy and electric cars will literally be cheaper. Why track carbon credits anymore?
We are far away from eliminating all CO2 emissions and GHGs are emitted from far more than EVs. Factories, commercial facilities, agricultural, all emit a lot of CO2. Not accounting GHGs at this point is just pretending those emissions don't exist.
The problem is that they need to beat natural gas.
If they really want to be "green" then the don't just have to beat NG, they have to lap it several times.
The issue is steel, which is a cornerstone of "green" energy. That steel must be made with metallurgical coal and while there are alternative processes, they require hydrogen.
Hydrogen is currently impossible to generate efficiently (from an energy perspective), much less a cost-effective manner. Hydrogen will also need to be generated without fossil fuels, which is how most hydrogen today is generated.
I see prices going up in the "green" future.
The issue is steel, which is a cornerstone of "green" energy. That steel must be made with metallurgical coal and while there are alternative processes, they require hydrogen.
Hydrogen is currently impossible to generate efficiently (from an energy perspective), much less a cost-effective manner. Hydrogen will also need to be generated without fossil fuels, which is how most hydrogen today is generated.
I see prices going up in the "green" future.
> Hydrogen is currently impossible to generate efficiently (from an energy perspective)
Thermolysis of water at high temperature directly driven by a nuclear reactor. Roughly a thousand tonnes of hydrogen per gram of uranium. Admittedly, this is somewhere between entirely theoretical and barely prototyped at the kilowatt scale in research reactors. But Atomic Energy Ltd. of Canada was investigating it as an application of their next generation CANDU design before it was shelved.
Or use some other source of heat. Concentrated solar power has been proposed.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-th...
The economics are not necessarily favourable vs. fossil fuels. But they're not horrible either. Even something more conservative, like standard electrolysis of water, driven by traditional nuclear power, would be something like 2x - 5x more expensive than current hydrogen sourced from natural gas. In locations where electricity is very cheap, it is sometimes competitive already.
Fossil fuel prices never really represented their full cost. We were paying far more than we thought.
Thermolysis of water at high temperature directly driven by a nuclear reactor. Roughly a thousand tonnes of hydrogen per gram of uranium. Admittedly, this is somewhere between entirely theoretical and barely prototyped at the kilowatt scale in research reactors. But Atomic Energy Ltd. of Canada was investigating it as an application of their next generation CANDU design before it was shelved.
Or use some other source of heat. Concentrated solar power has been proposed.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-th...
The economics are not necessarily favourable vs. fossil fuels. But they're not horrible either. Even something more conservative, like standard electrolysis of water, driven by traditional nuclear power, would be something like 2x - 5x more expensive than current hydrogen sourced from natural gas. In locations where electricity is very cheap, it is sometimes competitive already.
Fossil fuel prices never really represented their full cost. We were paying far more than we thought.
I own a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle so I keep a close eye on hydrogen tech and prices and it is expensive and not a easy chemical to work it.
Even the commercial hydrogen that comes from natural gas at the pump costs $26/ KG in California - up from only $13 this time last time.
As much as I would like to see a robust hydrogen economy we are long way from using hydrogen for proper energy storage .
From my experience, density and leaks are major problems that is going to be hard to solve at scale cheaply, commercial hydrogen i. buy is already at 10,000 psi and 5kg tank(carbon fiber no less) my car has is massive .
The pumps usually have dedicated buildings just to store <1000 kg .
Even the commercial hydrogen that comes from natural gas at the pump costs $26/ KG in California - up from only $13 this time last time.
As much as I would like to see a robust hydrogen economy we are long way from using hydrogen for proper energy storage .
From my experience, density and leaks are major problems that is going to be hard to solve at scale cheaply, commercial hydrogen i. buy is already at 10,000 psi and 5kg tank(carbon fiber no less) my car has is massive .
The pumps usually have dedicated buildings just to store <1000 kg .
I do wonder how economical it would be to run high energy processes like hydrolysis, aluminum extraction, and desalinization only when renewable supply is high. Like a peaker plant, but in reverse.
Th co2 emissions from steel used by the turbine are tiny compared to the co2 avoided by building the turbine. So it is still a big net win in terms of CO2. Also, recycling steel releases less co2 than making it from scratch so there is a benefit after construction.
Low energy efficient hydrogen will work if electricity is sufficiently cheap at purchase and hydrogen is sufficiently expensive at sale. Those factors will probably come to dominate more than conversion efficiency. Steel production just adds another potential customer to the mix.
Low energy efficient hydrogen will work if electricity is sufficiently cheap at purchase and hydrogen is sufficiently expensive at sale. Those factors will probably come to dominate more than conversion efficiency. Steel production just adds another potential customer to the mix.
If we got everything but industrial processes off fossil-fuels, it would be a colossal win for the environment.
When we do that, I'll start getting concerned about industrial use of carbon.
Losing sleep about the cost of green steel is like worrying about traffic jams on Mars. Utterly irrelevant in our current timeline.
When we do that, I'll start getting concerned about industrial use of carbon.
Losing sleep about the cost of green steel is like worrying about traffic jams on Mars. Utterly irrelevant in our current timeline.
Industrial processes are not the problem. The industries that use a lot of energy also make large long-term investments. That forces them to think in longer term than most other fields. In Europe, we are already seeing industries telling politicians not to back down from climate goals, because unpredictable policy is bad for business. In their time horizon, adapting to climate change is inevitable, and there are business opportunities in it.
Transportation is a bigger problem. Not only people are still buying new cars, ships, and aircraft that use fossil fuels, but businesses continue designing new models. It's likely that transportation's share of total emissions will increase, as electricity, heating, and industrial processes decarbonize.
Transportation is a bigger problem. Not only people are still buying new cars, ships, and aircraft that use fossil fuels, but businesses continue designing new models. It's likely that transportation's share of total emissions will increase, as electricity, heating, and industrial processes decarbonize.
> Transportation is a bigger problem. Not only people are still buying new cars, ships, and aircraft that use fossil fuels, but businesses continue designing new models.
Europe is very close to banning ICE cars from 2035 - 2040. And part of the people pushing for this ban are... European automobile manufacturers, especially VW. Funny, right?
Volkswagen has invested tens of billions of euros into EVs and will invest about 80 billion more until 2030 and I think they expect their entire lineup to be EV-only by 2030 or so, so if they manage to ban ICEs by 2035, they'd basically be banning some of their slower moving competitors :-))
Europe is very close to banning ICE cars from 2035 - 2040. And part of the people pushing for this ban are... European automobile manufacturers, especially VW. Funny, right?
Volkswagen has invested tens of billions of euros into EVs and will invest about 80 billion more until 2030 and I think they expect their entire lineup to be EV-only by 2030 or so, so if they manage to ban ICEs by 2035, they'd basically be banning some of their slower moving competitors :-))
Why, the problem is not carbon, and not even CO2 per se. It's CO2 escaping to the atmosphere. Why let it escape?
Steel plants are a perfect setting to capture the CO2 which the furnaces emit: it's highly concentrated and is emitted from compact, well-controlled areas (blast furnaces, and even converter furnaces).
The CO2 thus collected can be meaningfully reprocessed into hydrocarbon fuels, for instance. There are even solar-powered methods [1] which can run when the sunlight is available. since the CO2 can stay safely captured in a typical industrial gas storage facility.
[1]: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1904856116
Steel plants are a perfect setting to capture the CO2 which the furnaces emit: it's highly concentrated and is emitted from compact, well-controlled areas (blast furnaces, and even converter furnaces).
The CO2 thus collected can be meaningfully reprocessed into hydrocarbon fuels, for instance. There are even solar-powered methods [1] which can run when the sunlight is available. since the CO2 can stay safely captured in a typical industrial gas storage facility.
[1]: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1904856116
> The issue is steel, which is a cornerstone of "green" energy. That steel must be made with metallurgical coal and while there are alternative processes, they require hydrogen.
That's not really much of a problem. How much steel is going to be used for energy generation compared to the steel that's used by basically everything else, including construction? That's not a consumable (barring any hardware losses) and emissions will be offset across the lifetime of the generator.
That's not really much of a problem. How much steel is going to be used for energy generation compared to the steel that's used by basically everything else, including construction? That's not a consumable (barring any hardware losses) and emissions will be offset across the lifetime of the generator.
Hydrolysis works good enough to pair with solar, it's not quite 'just' a matter of scaling it up, but it's not far off.
Cite for the steel thing? I have a hard time believing that the total energy input to smelting and casting the plant mechanics makes up anything more than a vanishing fraction of a wind or solar generation facility.
At current rate of growth, that'll take (40%-16%)/6% = 4 years.
Or 3 years if you include hydro.
Or 3 years if you include hydro.
If you look at the California grid, you’ll find out that the first 50% is the easy 50%. No grid runs on low-carbon sources that’s not hydro or nuclear today. The last 50% is a major challenge both in infrastructure and gCO2/kWh, as storage is not free in that regard.
It looks like this will happen in time:
"Between now and February 2026, FERC anticipates 17,690 megawatts (MW) of “high probability” net capacity additions by wind and 77,791 MW of “high probability” solar. FERC also reports that there may actually be as much as 66,322 MW of wind and 213,969 MW of solar in the three-year pipeline.
In contrast, it anticipates no new coal capacity additions, and total installed coal capacity may actually shrink by 28,507 MW. The net “high probability” capacities of both oil and natural gas are also seen as declining – by 1,572 MW and 574 MW, respectively – while that of nuclear power may fall by 123 MW."
"Between now and February 2026, FERC anticipates 17,690 megawatts (MW) of “high probability” net capacity additions by wind and 77,791 MW of “high probability” solar. FERC also reports that there may actually be as much as 66,322 MW of wind and 213,969 MW of solar in the three-year pipeline.
In contrast, it anticipates no new coal capacity additions, and total installed coal capacity may actually shrink by 28,507 MW. The net “high probability” capacities of both oil and natural gas are also seen as declining – by 1,572 MW and 574 MW, respectively – while that of nuclear power may fall by 123 MW."
Natural gas is better than coal, at least. What we need for base load is a serious investment in nuclear.
Nuclear is so expensive that you can’t have non-serious investment.
Baby steps
[deleted]
> including biomass, geothermal, and hydropower) is considered, renewables accounted for nearly a quarter (24.1%) of total generation and outproduced coal by 50.8%. Electrical production by the mix of renewables also surpassed that of nuclear power by 21.9%.
Renewables: 24.1%
Coal: 16%
Nuclear: 19%
Other non-renewables: 41%
Renewables: 24.1%
Coal: 16%
Nuclear: 19%
Other non-renewables: 41%
everyone cheers the demise of coal, and it is certainly the dirties modern energy source, but this is clearly a dangerous direction until we have enough grid level energy storage. we pay insane amounts for electricity compared to the rest of the world and we think it's due to a greener future, but it really is just bad policy. look how hard it is to get virtual power plants approved in this country or politicians turning off nuclear power generators.
This is great, but keep in mind firming cost of renewables is quite expensive and not carbon friendly.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz... - Estimated unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States in 2021, by technology (in U.S. dollars per megawatt hour)
The thing is, wind/solar costs have been decreasing and also have a predictable ongoing cost. Fossil fuel prices are volatile.
The thing is, wind/solar costs have been decreasing and also have a predictable ongoing cost. Fossil fuel prices are volatile.
What’s your definition of carbon friendly? Wind turbines generate an equivalent of 5-26 grams of CO2 per kWh over their operating lifespan. Is it zero? No. But it’s significantly better than coal powerplants which generate 437-758 grams of CO2 per kWh.
The firming cost of renewables is paid running grid-scale batteries or by running a natural gas power plant during the hours in which renewables are unavailable, right?
The natural gas power plants don't need to be built, because that is the marginal electricity provider that exists already and is being replaced by renewables.
Meanwhile, grid-scale batteries are the fastest growing electricity provider on the grid because it turns out that they are cheaper to run than natural gas peakers.
The natural gas power plants don't need to be built, because that is the marginal electricity provider that exists already and is being replaced by renewables.
Meanwhile, grid-scale batteries are the fastest growing electricity provider on the grid because it turns out that they are cheaper to run than natural gas peakers.
> Meanwhile, grid-scale batteries are the fastest growing electricity provider on the grid because it turns out that they are cheaper to run than natural gas peakers.
Only for the very short term firming today, i.e. for frequency regulation. For days-weeks storage you need much lower cost/kWh of storage. There are contender technologies but nothing at scale deployed as far as I know (other than pumped hydro, which is geographically limited).
Only for the very short term firming today, i.e. for frequency regulation. For days-weeks storage you need much lower cost/kWh of storage. There are contender technologies but nothing at scale deployed as far as I know (other than pumped hydro, which is geographically limited).
The 4-hour batteries are most profitable right now. They're used both for frequency regulation and price arbitrage: buying cheap power like midday solar to discharge at dusk, or cheap wind/nuclear/coal at night to discharge in the morning.
For days/weeks storage -- it's not a problem yet. We already have plenty of natural gas plants in the US. I'm perfectly happy, environmentally, if we have to run natural gas plants two weeks a year but it means that we get to 80 or 90% clean energy a decade or two faster than Plan B.
For days/weeks storage -- it's not a problem yet. We already have plenty of natural gas plants in the US. I'm perfectly happy, environmentally, if we have to run natural gas plants two weeks a year but it means that we get to 80 or 90% clean energy a decade or two faster than Plan B.
> . I'm perfectly happy, environmentally, if we have to run natural gas plants two weeks a year but it means that we get to 80 or 90% clean energy a decade or two faster than Plan B.
Natural gas isn't the only way to avoid plan B (assuming that refers to giving up on controlling global heating).
In CA, natural gas peakers emit 60M metric tons of CO2 per year (out of a statewide 420M metric tons), so a significant portion. Much of the non-peaker C02 is also natural gas based.
In addition, as more natural gas in baseload gets supplanted by renewable and storage and maybe small modular nuclear, the utilization of natural gas will drop, resulting in that generation becoming stranded assets (similar to what is happening to coal now).
Natural gas isn't the only way to avoid plan B (assuming that refers to giving up on controlling global heating).
In CA, natural gas peakers emit 60M metric tons of CO2 per year (out of a statewide 420M metric tons), so a significant portion. Much of the non-peaker C02 is also natural gas based.
In addition, as more natural gas in baseload gets supplanted by renewable and storage and maybe small modular nuclear, the utilization of natural gas will drop, resulting in that generation becoming stranded assets (similar to what is happening to coal now).
Pumped hydro studies find 10x as many sites as required to fully decarbonize using solar + wind worldwide. There isnt that much of a shortage of up.
This is also before accounting for all the other ways power could be stored batteries, demand shaping and storing syngas.
This is also before accounting for all the other ways power could be stored batteries, demand shaping and storing syngas.
> Pumped hydro studies find 10x as many sites as required to fully decarbonize using solar + wind worldwide.
But what percentage are close enough to existing transmission? Perhaps some, but I suspect many suitable locations will be remote enough that new transmission needs to be built. It might make economic sense to do so in some circumstances, but not in others.
In contrast, grid scale chemical storage (flow batteries, metal-air, etc) could be easily placed at existing fossil fuel plants and use the existing grid interconnects.
But what percentage are close enough to existing transmission? Perhaps some, but I suspect many suitable locations will be remote enough that new transmission needs to be built. It might make economic sense to do so in some circumstances, but not in others.
In contrast, grid scale chemical storage (flow batteries, metal-air, etc) could be easily placed at existing fossil fuel plants and use the existing grid interconnects.
Could you show some facts please? Everything I’ve seen shows the cost of solar especially to be much lower than carbon based generation.
The word "firming" is important. Wind and solar cannot produce base load electricity.
This is why we need long distance transmission (which is surprisingly cheap and has been broadly deployed in eg China)
What is "firming cost of renewables?"
Providing reliable power when it's dark and/or still.
headline gore. Beating them at what? toxic waste generation?
I bet coal still beat anything at toxic waste generation: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
Probably at the thing they're designed to do (generate electricity)
> Wind and solar combined now provide more generating capacity and produce more electricity than coal in the US, according to new data from the EIA
> Together, wind and solar provided 16.1% of US electrical generation in the first two months of 2023; by comparison, electrical generation by coal dropped by 32.7% and provided 16.0% of total US electrical generation.
Generating capacity.
1. What do we do if people want to use electricity, but the wind's not blowing and the sun's not shining?
2. What will happen to people and places who were economically dependent on coal mining? Something tells me the factories for solar panels and wind turbines aren't being built in West Virginia -- or perhaps not in the US at all. And I'm sure they require a completely different skill set.
2. What will happen to people and places who were economically dependent on coal mining? Something tells me the factories for solar panels and wind turbines aren't being built in West Virginia -- or perhaps not in the US at all. And I'm sure they require a completely different skill set.
1) I don’t see how this is a problem. First we are not only dependent on these and have a mix of natural gas , nuclear as well as coal. Out of all coal is the dirtiest for direct pollution into the atmosphere. If we can reduce or eliminate coal by replacing it with wind and solar that is a good thing. Technology will improve to improve storage.
2) while this is an issue coal has been declining for some time. There are health issues with coal and the jobs have been shrinking and half of coal jobs have been lost since 2012. This is with coal usage higher today. The jobs will continue to be reduced regardless. Part of the 2 trillion dollar infrastructure plan includes training and assistance for jobs like coal miner lost. That is the best solution possible for jobs that will not exist in 100 years unless there is suddenly a new purpose for coal.
Nacco industries for example is expecting the closing of one mine and plant this year in Texas. It is attempting to diversify into lithium and other minerals. There is a small fight from at least one state senator that may keep it another year but over all it’s not economically viable to keep it with other alternatives.
2) while this is an issue coal has been declining for some time. There are health issues with coal and the jobs have been shrinking and half of coal jobs have been lost since 2012. This is with coal usage higher today. The jobs will continue to be reduced regardless. Part of the 2 trillion dollar infrastructure plan includes training and assistance for jobs like coal miner lost. That is the best solution possible for jobs that will not exist in 100 years unless there is suddenly a new purpose for coal.
Nacco industries for example is expecting the closing of one mine and plant this year in Texas. It is attempting to diversify into lithium and other minerals. There is a small fight from at least one state senator that may keep it another year but over all it’s not economically viable to keep it with other alternatives.
Expanding on your reply to question 1 here are some details on what the UK is doing:
* There's a large pipeline of battery storage projects (https://www.energy-storage.news/800mwh-of-utility-scale-ener...)
* 6 new Interconnectors will be built in the next 3 years with a capacity of 7.5 GW - https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-policy-and-regulation/policy...
* In the last 12 months (https://www.mygridgb.co.uk/last-12-months/):
* battery storage supplied 0.7% of demand
* Interconnectors supplied 6.4% of demand in the last 12 months
* There's a large pipeline of battery storage projects (https://www.energy-storage.news/800mwh-of-utility-scale-ener...)
* 6 new Interconnectors will be built in the next 3 years with a capacity of 7.5 GW - https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-policy-and-regulation/policy...
* In the last 12 months (https://www.mygridgb.co.uk/last-12-months/):
* battery storage supplied 0.7% of demand
* Interconnectors supplied 6.4% of demand in the last 12 months
The US is a huge country with no restriction on internal migration. Location probably isn't as large a problem as the difference in required skills.
> 2. What will happen to people and places who were economically dependent on coal mining? Something tells me the factories for solar panels and wind turbines aren't being built in West Virginia -- or perhaps not in the US at all. And I'm sure they require a completely different skill set.
What nobody really wants to tell you, the same thing happens that happened to people in deindustrializing area. As a group, they get stuck in poverty.
The problem is... we can't really do much about it. Progress needs to happen, especially in this case.
Everybody keeps yapping about it but in practice only the longshoremen, through their very powerful unions, managed to have a decent transition when their jobs died out. Everybody says "we should so something" but nobody's willing to sacrifice their money to actually do anything.
What nobody really wants to tell you, the same thing happens that happened to people in deindustrializing area. As a group, they get stuck in poverty.
The problem is... we can't really do much about it. Progress needs to happen, especially in this case.
Everybody keeps yapping about it but in practice only the longshoremen, through their very powerful unions, managed to have a decent transition when their jobs died out. Everybody says "we should so something" but nobody's willing to sacrifice their money to actually do anything.
1. It’s a very complex problem…and the solution isn’t coal. Because natural gas is cheaper than coal, and less polluting.
2. We build a robust safety net with worker retraining and…haha, I can’t even finish that sentence. It’s the same thing that tends to happen to the working class: nothing good.
2. We build a robust safety net with worker retraining and…haha, I can’t even finish that sentence. It’s the same thing that tends to happen to the working class: nothing good.
1. The wind may not be blowing here and the sun may not be shining here but I guarantee it's windy and sunny somewhere. Given a well-structured grid and energy market, this ceases to become a problem. This is a political problem, not a technology or resource problem.
> I guarantee it's windy and sunny somewhere. Given a well-structured grid and energy market, this ceases to become a problem.
Windy, probably, mostly. Sunny, not really; the Pacific ocean is big and there's a big gap in time before solar drops in California and it comes up in Asia. Not to mention that electricity transmission across the oceans is basically infeasible.
A more interconnected grid helps, and storage helps, but you also have to acknowledge that highly available electricity tends to cost more than opportunistic sources, especially as solar and wind costs have gone down. And if you want electricity to be dependable, someone has to pay the higher cost for the desired availability.
Windy, probably, mostly. Sunny, not really; the Pacific ocean is big and there's a big gap in time before solar drops in California and it comes up in Asia. Not to mention that electricity transmission across the oceans is basically infeasible.
A more interconnected grid helps, and storage helps, but you also have to acknowledge that highly available electricity tends to cost more than opportunistic sources, especially as solar and wind costs have gone down. And if you want electricity to be dependable, someone has to pay the higher cost for the desired availability.
For 1, is it possible to fallback to non-renewables?
Wind and solar are parasites. They can't exist without the fossil fuel energy sources handling the times when the wind doesn't blow and the Sun doesn't shine.
Like the employee who gets all the easy shifts and never works weekends.
Like the employee who gets all the easy shifts and never works weekends.
What a strange take. It reads as "nothing is worth improving on if it cannot 100% completely replace the thing that we're trying to get rid of". If we can reduce our dependence (say 50%) on a power source that has huge negative externalities, isn't that a worthwhile effort?
I've seen this kind of thinking very often.
Like the controversy when traffic light bulbs were replaced and incandescent were phased away in favor of LEDs. In some places where it gets very cold they got obstructed by ice. Because incandescent bulbs were so inefficient and generated so much heat, they didn't have the same "problem". So, because they could not handle the few days where this was a problem (just because it's cold, doesn't mean ice will form there), people were arguing that they were a bad idea.
It didn't matter that for 300+ days they would save a lot of energy. It didn't matter that they were better (and in most locations this would never even be a problem in the first place). It mattered that they were different and had different issues that needed to be solved. In those places, having a different design (or adding a heating element, only active when temps were low) would solve the remaining problem.
I've seen this sort of thinking in corporate settings too. A vastly inferior solution stays in place because a new solution doesn't solve all problems people can possibly think of - even when the existing solution doesn't solve them either!
It boggles the mind.
Like the controversy when traffic light bulbs were replaced and incandescent were phased away in favor of LEDs. In some places where it gets very cold they got obstructed by ice. Because incandescent bulbs were so inefficient and generated so much heat, they didn't have the same "problem". So, because they could not handle the few days where this was a problem (just because it's cold, doesn't mean ice will form there), people were arguing that they were a bad idea.
It didn't matter that for 300+ days they would save a lot of energy. It didn't matter that they were better (and in most locations this would never even be a problem in the first place). It mattered that they were different and had different issues that needed to be solved. In those places, having a different design (or adding a heating element, only active when temps were low) would solve the remaining problem.
I've seen this sort of thinking in corporate settings too. A vastly inferior solution stays in place because a new solution doesn't solve all problems people can possibly think of - even when the existing solution doesn't solve them either!
It boggles the mind.
Technology Connections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiYO1TObNz8
What's worse is that he points out you could have a lighting system with integrated defroster that only gets turned on when it's super cold, and you're STILL using less energy overall.
What's worse is that he points out you could have a lighting system with integrated defroster that only gets turned on when it's super cold, and you're STILL using less energy overall.
1. Only a part of energy consumption is base load, the rest fluctuates anyway... mostly with the day/night cycle (shocker!).
2. The Sun always shines somewhere, the wind always blows somewhere. It's not just about your personal backyard, ironically named "learn_more".
3. We have the thing called The Grid™, and electricity transportation at far distances is very efficient. Building these long distance connections is cheaper than you'd expect.
2. The Sun always shines somewhere, the wind always blows somewhere. It's not just about your personal backyard, ironically named "learn_more".
3. We have the thing called The Grid™, and electricity transportation at far distances is very efficient. Building these long distance connections is cheaper than you'd expect.
But what the parent is saying is true.
Production from wind and solar is random and doesn't work without corresponding guaranteed (controllable) capacity, unless you are willing to accept so-called brown-outs and black-outs.
(Increasing installed capacity of these random generators is not a solution since it leads to situations where the production exceeds demand ... which puts very different demands on the infrastructure.)
Production from wind and solar is random and doesn't work without corresponding guaranteed (controllable) capacity, unless you are willing to accept so-called brown-outs and black-outs.
(Increasing installed capacity of these random generators is not a solution since it leads to situations where the production exceeds demand ... which puts very different demands on the infrastructure.)
Does that matter? If it turns out to be cheaper and greener to build out renewables and keep some gas plants on backup, then sounds good to me.
That math doesn't work -- at least until someone can demonstrate cost effective grid scale energy storage systems. In other words it is not cheaper and perhaps not greener (it isn't clear how green the production and long term maintenance of solar/wind is)
The basic problem is that in order to provide reliable energy 365 days a year you need to account for the daily and \ seasonal variability of solar and wind. You have two options:
The basic problem is that in order to provide reliable energy 365 days a year you need to account for the daily and \ seasonal variability of solar and wind. You have two options:
* maintain a duplicate fossil fuel backup system (fully maintained, staffed, and fueled) for those cold windless nights (so no longer cheaper)
* deploy a storage system that can effectively time shift energy created by solar and wind across entire seasons (also not cheaper nor demonstrated with current battery technology)
* suck it up when there is no sun or wind availableCitation needed.
My power utility in the Bay Area powers residential customers 100% on renewable energy. Commercial and industrial do have fossil fuels still.
> maintain a duplicate fossil fuel backup system (fully maintained, staffed, and fueled) for those cold windless nights (so no longer cheaper)
Guess what, this is needed even in a world that only fossil fuels are used. Energy demand is variable and we need peaker plants on standby.
> deploy a storage system that can effectively time shift energy created by solar and wind across entire seasons (also not cheaper nor demonstrated with current battery technology)
We already need some storage in the current grid until said peaker plants come online. Maybe it's not 'cheaper' but it's been demonstrated. California alone has 2239MW of stored power at the moment I'm writing this (check the California ISO).
I'm not entirely sure you are familiar with how power grids work.
My power utility in the Bay Area powers residential customers 100% on renewable energy. Commercial and industrial do have fossil fuels still.
> maintain a duplicate fossil fuel backup system (fully maintained, staffed, and fueled) for those cold windless nights (so no longer cheaper)
Guess what, this is needed even in a world that only fossil fuels are used. Energy demand is variable and we need peaker plants on standby.
> deploy a storage system that can effectively time shift energy created by solar and wind across entire seasons (also not cheaper nor demonstrated with current battery technology)
We already need some storage in the current grid until said peaker plants come online. Maybe it's not 'cheaper' but it's been demonstrated. California alone has 2239MW of stored power at the moment I'm writing this (check the California ISO).
I'm not entirely sure you are familiar with how power grids work.
I've experienced a few major hurricanes in my life. Wind and solar will not beat anything in a major storm. It's ok to put all your eggs in one basket but you better defend that one basket as the saying goes. Who's taking down all the solar farms and wind farms before a hurricane? Might want to figure this out first before putting all the eggs in one basket.
> Who's taking down all the solar farms and wind farms before a hurricane?
Nobody. Wind turbines blades can be locked to prevent damage in very high winds [1]. Many offshore turbines are already designed to withstand very high winds (like in the North Sea) and still operate.
Practically speaking a few solar panels might be damaged in a hurricane but not likely the entire array. The damaged panels can be easily replaced.
1. https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/wind-turbines-extreme-w...
Nobody. Wind turbines blades can be locked to prevent damage in very high winds [1]. Many offshore turbines are already designed to withstand very high winds (like in the North Sea) and still operate.
Practically speaking a few solar panels might be damaged in a hurricane but not likely the entire array. The damaged panels can be easily replaced.
1. https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/wind-turbines-extreme-w...
I’m confused about what your point is. Coal powerplants aren’t immune from natural disasters and is quite literally putting all your eggs in a very small basket. Distributed systems such as wind/solar distribute the risk across a larger area which seems to be the exact thing you’re in favour of.
In addition, would you like home solar for the week of downed power lines after the hurricane, or not?
So many low intelligence likely astroturfing comments in this thread.
Thing is, you know wind solar is winning the war because irrational AstroTurfing is all that can be parroted in response.
So many low intelligence likely astroturfing comments in this thread.
Thing is, you know wind solar is winning the war because irrational AstroTurfing is all that can be parroted in response.
Texas gets hit by hurricanes regularly yet still manages to generate a decent amount from wind and some from solar too. A lot of the turbines are near the coast--where there's more wind, and also more risk from hurricanes.
About 1/3 of the electricity consumed in the state as I write this is being generated by renewables. That's with mild temperatures and lower than average wind generation. On a day like today with more typical winds it would probably be about half from renewables.
http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/real_time_system_condi...
About 1/3 of the electricity consumed in the state as I write this is being generated by renewables. That's with mild temperatures and lower than average wind generation. On a day like today with more typical winds it would probably be about half from renewables.
http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/real_time_system_condi...
If anything, a single solar farm, or single wind farm is more resilient due to being more distributed. Individually damaged solar panels and wind turbines do not necessarily take all power production offline for that site.
Power lines are more likely to be a single point of failure, but that's the same for all power distribution.
Power lines are more likely to be a single point of failure, but that's the same for all power distribution.
Have you ever experienced a CAT 4 or 5? There won't be much left standing. It looks like a nuclear blast. This is just wind damage. I've seen water move entire homes a mile with the height of water being as high as 30ft. It can take weeks to months to restore electrical power. To clean the mess up takes heavy machinery run by fossil fuels. And what if you want to start doing repairs to your property that may not be damaged that bad? You will need a gas generator. Solar will not cut it doing heavy power tool work hours on end...meh.
This, children, is known as moving the goalposts.
The question of "what fuel do I want for power tools after a natural disaster" is entirely distinct from "what mix of sources should we use to power the grid?" Babelthuap is deliberately muddying the water here.
And, yeah, Babel, I live in Houston, and except for college have spent all of my 53 years within an hour or so drive of the gulf coast. I know about hurricanes, even big ones. That's a dumb objection to including renewable energy in a grid plan.
The question of "what fuel do I want for power tools after a natural disaster" is entirely distinct from "what mix of sources should we use to power the grid?" Babelthuap is deliberately muddying the water here.
And, yeah, Babel, I live in Houston, and except for college have spent all of my 53 years within an hour or so drive of the gulf coast. I know about hurricanes, even big ones. That's a dumb objection to including renewable energy in a grid plan.
Because he's a paid astroturfed.
Much of the time required to restore power after a major storm is grid repair. More distributed wind and solar farms would imply less need to fully-connect the grid to get people back online.
So your point is that the grid shouldn’t be powered by renewables because in a disaster you need to drive petrol powered vehicles and run a generator?
Electricity generated by coal also requires power lines.
And that disaster recovery equipment runs on coal and/or methane?
> Solar will not cut it doing heavy power tool work hours on end
Of course it will.
Of course it will.
Do you think that wind farms and solar farms have not survived hurricanes?
You might want to check on data before making smug and condescending false assertions.
You might want to check on data before making smug and condescending false assertions.
I know they do not because I have lived through several CAT 4/5 storms and have seen them fail. Also a brutal freeze in Houston recently where EVERYTHING failed to include wind turbines that froze solid.
I'm for solar and wind but fossil fuels are still needed as a backup plan (another basket of eggs). Gotta have it. I survived the hard freeze in Houston with no electrical power with stored gasoline and a couple of generators for 5 days no problem. I just fueled up the other day. With additives the fuels last several years. Good to go for a freeze or a major storm for a couple weeks.
I'm for solar and wind but fossil fuels are still needed as a backup plan (another basket of eggs). Gotta have it. I survived the hard freeze in Houston with no electrical power with stored gasoline and a couple of generators for 5 days no problem. I just fueled up the other day. With additives the fuels last several years. Good to go for a freeze or a major storm for a couple weeks.
You're going to need to show me a cite that wind turbines freezing was a major part of the problem during the big Texas freeze a couple years ago. Just because Abbott says it was doesn't make it so; he was outright lying (as he often does).
It is more accurate to say that the real problem was the failure of ERCOT & etc to winterize any part of the grid, which led to failures of transmission and/or generation across the board, for every source type.
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/15/texas-power-grid-win...
Gas is the biggest source of power in Texas. While all power sources were poorly winterized, the failure to prepare the fossil fuel infrastructure hurt the most because gas provides more power than wind or solar in the Texas grid.
And, of course, almost NOTHING has been done about this failure despite how close the state came to a weeks-long power grid failure, and virtual no one has been held responsible.
It is more accurate to say that the real problem was the failure of ERCOT & etc to winterize any part of the grid, which led to failures of transmission and/or generation across the board, for every source type.
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/15/texas-power-grid-win...
Gas is the biggest source of power in Texas. While all power sources were poorly winterized, the failure to prepare the fossil fuel infrastructure hurt the most because gas provides more power than wind or solar in the Texas grid.
And, of course, almost NOTHING has been done about this failure despite how close the state came to a weeks-long power grid failure, and virtual no one has been held responsible.
The problem you have in TX is that your utility providers haven't designed their equipment to work in cold temperatures.
In parts of the country where we plan for cold weather, our natural gas flows and our wind turbines spin in the winter.
In parts of the country where we plan for cold weather, our natural gas flows and our wind turbines spin in the winter.
Wind turbines need to be de-iced in cold weather. In practice, it is accomplished by spraying warm water.
If you didn’t purchase a turbine that has ice protection systems built in.
For a fact is check here, I recommend that people do a quick web search. "Solar panel hurricane" or "wind turbine hurricane" will set the record straight here, that they survive hurricanes just fine.
And for people or small communities with battery storage on their solar, they are back online before everyone else. Solar panels also work absolutely great in freezes, without requiring due supply.
And since a grid built on renewables has far more battery storage on it, and is used to shifting power sources frequently due to the intermittency of renewables, a renewable grid will have fewer single points of failure and be more resilient when there are large weather events that take out large generators.
And for people or small communities with battery storage on their solar, they are back online before everyone else. Solar panels also work absolutely great in freezes, without requiring due supply.
And since a grid built on renewables has far more battery storage on it, and is used to shifting power sources frequently due to the intermittency of renewables, a renewable grid will have fewer single points of failure and be more resilient when there are large weather events that take out large generators.
> where EVERYTHING failed to include wind turbines that froze solid.
McMurdo station in freakin Antarctica uses wind turbines. They run just fine in the cold. Texas utilities just didn't want to pay for proper weather proofing.
Backups are backups. They can be fossil fuel based, it's fine and I don't know who is arguing that it's not ok.
We can't optimize for natural disasters at the expense of all the other times there isn't a natural disaster.
McMurdo station in freakin Antarctica uses wind turbines. They run just fine in the cold. Texas utilities just didn't want to pay for proper weather proofing.
Backups are backups. They can be fossil fuel based, it's fine and I don't know who is arguing that it's not ok.
We can't optimize for natural disasters at the expense of all the other times there isn't a natural disaster.
The areas on earth where Tropical Cyclones occur are pretty limited [1]. And most of it is deep ocean where you wouldn't place wind turbines (or solar panels) anyway.
[1] https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/typ...
[1] https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/typ...
No one has to take anything down. Babcock Ranch weathered Hurricane Ian (cat5) just fine. Didn’t even lose power. Unlike their neighbors.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/02/us/solar-babcock-ranch-florid...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/02/us/solar-babcock-ranch-florid...
Worth noting in this context that the second worst energy disaster of all time (Fukushima) was caused by a natural disaster. If they'd been using green energy (or to be fair gas or coal) people would have been able to return to their homes by now.
Wind farms are designed to survive hurricanes anyway. See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-31/harvey-pu...
There's some evidence that large off-shore wind farms reduce the severity of hurricanes too:
> A large array of offshore wind farms can have significant impacts on precipitation during a hurricane. This claim is proven through a series of simulation cases, with different layout configurations, inter-turbine spacings, and wind farm parameterizations. Precipitation is found to be reduced inland and increased offshore in all the wind farm simulations. However, the amount of precipitation reduction varies in the different cases. The location of the wind farm also matters.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad245#...
Wind farms are designed to survive hurricanes anyway. See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-31/harvey-pu...
There's some evidence that large off-shore wind farms reduce the severity of hurricanes too:
> A large array of offshore wind farms can have significant impacts on precipitation during a hurricane. This claim is proven through a series of simulation cases, with different layout configurations, inter-turbine spacings, and wind farm parameterizations. Precipitation is found to be reduced inland and increased offshore in all the wind farm simulations. However, the amount of precipitation reduction varies in the different cases. The location of the wind farm also matters.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad245#...
There's no actual reason why Fukushima should have been evacuated (beyond flooding, electricity loss, etc. caused by the tsunami, of course). The natural background radiation of the area is low, so outside the bounds of the plant the radiation is and always was fine, knowing that the radiation would go down over time.
> There's no actual reason why Fukushima should have been evacuated
This is completely untrue. Even outside the exclusion areas there are signs of the damage the disaster has caused.
The Japanese government has raised the acceptable radiation limit for people living in the area from 1 to 20 milliSieverts per year. No-where else is this amount considered acceptable.
Even with this increase it's still dramatically below the measured amounts, which is up to 0.04 microSieverts per hour.
> doctors have left the area because the government refuses to reimburse them when they list radiation sickness as the cause for nose bleeds, spontaneous abortions, and other ailments resulting from ionizing radiation. (The only acceptable diagnoses are so-called “radiophobia,” nervousness, and stress.) The spike in thyroid cancer among children in Fukushima is dismissed as a survey error, produced by examining too many children.
https://thebulletin.org/2021/03/fukushima-today-im-glad-that...
This is completely untrue. Even outside the exclusion areas there are signs of the damage the disaster has caused.
The Japanese government has raised the acceptable radiation limit for people living in the area from 1 to 20 milliSieverts per year. No-where else is this amount considered acceptable.
Even with this increase it's still dramatically below the measured amounts, which is up to 0.04 microSieverts per hour.
> doctors have left the area because the government refuses to reimburse them when they list radiation sickness as the cause for nose bleeds, spontaneous abortions, and other ailments resulting from ionizing radiation. (The only acceptable diagnoses are so-called “radiophobia,” nervousness, and stress.) The spike in thyroid cancer among children in Fukushima is dismissed as a survey error, produced by examining too many children.
https://thebulletin.org/2021/03/fukushima-today-im-glad-that...
please explain "one basket" in a major storm context?
are there storms that cover the entire US at the same time?
or are there no interconnecting power cables between wind/ solar farms from different states? (ie other states farms still continue to function whilst one area is not)
are there storms that cover the entire US at the same time?
or are there no interconnecting power cables between wind/ solar farms from different states? (ie other states farms still continue to function whilst one area is not)
Actually, Texas has made quite a big thing out of not connecting their grid to anyone else's. Because They're Real Men Who Go It Alone.
Of course, that means when there is a natural disaster in Texas (with the existing, largely-fossil-fuel-powered grid!), they...can't really get help from anyone else. (My hazy understanding is that there are a few limited-duty linkages that can be activated, or something, but it's woefully inadequate to serve the whole state.)
IIRC, the last time this happened, the only parts of Texas that were still getting power were a few that had wind & solar plants going. Because those were still operating just fine.
Of course, that means when there is a natural disaster in Texas (with the existing, largely-fossil-fuel-powered grid!), they...can't really get help from anyone else. (My hazy understanding is that there are a few limited-duty linkages that can be activated, or something, but it's woefully inadequate to serve the whole state.)
IIRC, the last time this happened, the only parts of Texas that were still getting power were a few that had wind & solar plants going. Because those were still operating just fine.
> Who's taking down all the solar farms and wind farms before a hurricane?
Just one more thing for ERCOT to add to their todo list after they shut down the gas power plants.
But on a serious note, this is the most diverse the grid has ever been.
Just one more thing for ERCOT to add to their todo list after they shut down the gas power plants.
But on a serious note, this is the most diverse the grid has ever been.
Be pretty cool if a wind farm could be tough enough to run normally during a hurricane, though you'd need a lot of storage.
And immensely strong turbines (aka expensive). We could do it, but there would be no point.
Yes. Exactly. What if they could retract into the ground? Now that would be awesome and a real advancement. Protect that bag of eggs!
I suspect wind turbines are already designed to deal with high winds, especially if you're building them in hurricane-prone areas.
what is this obsession with eggs and "green" energy
are you trying to do some sort of propaganda thing implying green energy is fragile?
fwiw - they're not, they're designed to a seriously stronge even in hurrican weather, but never let your personal opinions get in the way of your misinformation or story
are you trying to do some sort of propaganda thing implying green energy is fragile?
fwiw - they're not, they're designed to a seriously stronge even in hurrican weather, but never let your personal opinions get in the way of your misinformation or story