[HN Gopher] Wind and solar are now beating coal in the US
___________________________________________________________________
Wind and solar are now beating coal in the US
Author : mfiguiere
Score : 94 points
Date : 2023-04-27 18:54 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (electrek.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (electrek.co)
| beastman82 wrote:
| headline gore. Beating them at what? toxic waste generation?
| kalkr wrote:
| Probably at the thing they're designed to do (generate
| electricity)
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Generating capacity.
| VintageCool wrote:
| > 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.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| > 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
| otherme123 wrote:
| I bet coal still beat anything at toxic waste generation:
| https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
| nightski wrote:
| 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| 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
| marcosdumay wrote:
| 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| 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
| -...
| deelowe wrote:
| That jives with my anecdotal experience. All of the power
| plants around me have been converted to natural gas.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Thanks, that's a much more relevant view.
|
| Yes, much more than half of it. But renewables absorbed a
| visible share of it.
| cinntaile wrote:
| 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.
| kibwen wrote:
| 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.
| philipkglass wrote:
| 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._
| kasperni wrote:
| > 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...
| learn_more wrote:
| 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.
| jtaillon wrote:
| 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?
| merpnderp wrote:
| This is great, but keep in mind firming cost of renewables is
| quite expensive and not carbon friendly.
| sxcurry wrote:
| Could you show some facts please? Everything I've seen shows
| the cost of solar especially to be much lower than carbon based
| generation.
| WheatMillington wrote:
| The word "firming" is important. Wind and solar cannot
| produce base load electricity.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| What is "firming cost of renewables?"
| acidburnNSA wrote:
| Providing reliable power when it's dark and/or still.
| shortcake27 wrote:
| 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.
| ricardo81 wrote:
| 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.
| VintageCool wrote:
| 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.
| danans wrote:
| > 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).
| RC_ITR wrote:
| The problem is that they need to beat natural gas.
| tenpies wrote:
| 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.
| vkou wrote:
| 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.
| 7952 wrote:
| 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.
| retrac wrote:
| > 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| Natural gas is better than coal, at least. What we need for
| base load is a serious investment in nuclear.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Nuclear is so expensive that you can't have non-serious
| investment.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| At current rate of growth, that'll take (40%-16%)/6% = 4 years.
|
| Or 3 years if you include hydro.
| thatfrenchguy wrote:
| 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.
| Bilal_io wrote:
| Baby steps
| kieranmaine wrote:
| 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."
| [deleted]
| babelthuap wrote:
| 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.
| shortcake27 wrote:
| 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.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| > 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.
| usefulcat wrote:
| 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...
| danans wrote:
| > 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...
| Etrnl_President wrote:
| [dead]
| epistasis wrote:
| 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.
| babelthuap wrote:
| 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.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| 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.
| Etrnl_President wrote:
| [dead]
| EamonnMR wrote:
| 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.
| babelthuap wrote:
| Yes. Exactly. What if they could retract into the ground? Now
| that would be awesome and a real advancement. Protect that
| bag of eggs!
| 123pie123 wrote:
| 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
| kasperni wrote:
| 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...
| 123pie123 wrote:
| 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)
| tomxor wrote:
| 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.
| babelthuap wrote:
| 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.
| shortcake27 wrote:
| 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?
| kube-system wrote:
| Electricity generated by coal also requires power lines.
| fauxpause_ wrote:
| https://electrek.co/2023/03/14/cat-5-hurricane-proof-wind-
| tu...
| ubermonkey wrote:
| 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.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Because he's a paid astroturfed.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| 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.
| namibj wrote:
| And that disaster recovery equipment runs on coal and/or
| methane?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-27 23:01 UTC)