6 ms·

This headline is such clickbait. Netting out all fossil fuels is silly. Natural gas is alive and well and growing quite quickly, while coal is suffering.

alex_young 9y ago
Agreed. Link should be changed to reflect this.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
NickM 9y ago
Why would you call it silly? The headline basically implies "total fossil fuel generation has stopped growing, while renewables have grown substantially," which is both accurate and interesting. The fact that the coal/gas mix has shifted toward gas doesn't change the fact that total fossil-based generation capacity has basically leveled off.
- fineng123 9y ago
  Because it's a lie. A lot of natural gas plants came online in 2017, which makes it a lie.
  - pwinnski 9y ago
    Your objection is that natural gas shouldn't be considered non-renewable? Or that the comparison happens at too high a level? If you'd like to write about the shift from coal to natural gas, that's probably worth drilling down to one level below this comparison, but that doesn't make this comparison invalid or misleading.
    - jtbayly 9y ago
      When you define "new" in such a way that you can only count renewables then it's really not "new" is it? Unless you can come up with some stats that prove that all of the non-renewable production that was added was directly replacing old non-renewable production, and all of the renewable production was added just to meet new needs, then you have no case.
      - pwinnski 9y ago
        Last year I ate 100 pounds of food. This year I ate 120 pounds of food. Last year I ate 50 pounds of vegetables and 50 pounds of meat. This yea, I ate 50 pounds of vegetables and 70 pounds of meat. Is it fair to say that my meat consumption has increased by 20 pounds? Or is it unfair on the grounds that I've not mentioned a big shift from potatoes to carrots within the 50 pounds of vegetables? I mean, my potato consumption is way down, but my carrot consumption is way, way, way up. My carrot consumption has gone up by a bigger percentage than my pork consumption, for sure. Except... it doesn't matter. My meat consumption went up, and my vegetable consumption remained flat. That's new meat consumption. Shifts from potatoes to carrots and pork to beef are irrelevant to the subject at hand.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  > "The headline basically implies "total fossil fuel generation has stopped growing, while renewables have grown substantially," which is both accurate and interesting." It's not accurate, it's bullshit. Look at the graph here, which is based on the official US government figures: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31892 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31892 Does it look like fossil fuel usage is slowing down to you?
  - EngineerBetter 9y ago
    You appear to have mistaken generation capacity (discussed in the Electrek article) with usage (cited by you).
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      How do you think we get additional usage of fuel types? By growing the generation capacity. The point is, there's no sign of the expansion of natural gas usage slowing down. Install base of power plants/generators running off natural gas is growing. I haven't got all the figures to hand, but consider this report, which covers changes in electricity production in the southern states of the US: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33992 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33992 In particular, look at this graph: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2017.12.05/chart4.png https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2017.12.05/chart4.p... Can you at least admit that, in 2017, natural gas capacity grew faster than renewable capacity in southern US states?
  - trophycase 9y ago
    Yes, actually. It looks like the increase in petroleum and gas in the last 5 years is more or less nullified by the drop in coal, while renewables is steadily increasing. What do you see?
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      I see that the drop off in coal is masking the growth in other fossil fuel sources. It should be renewables that take the place of coal, not natural gas and petroleum.

alex_young 9y ago

Agreed. Link should be changed to reflect this.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

NickM 9y ago

Why would you call it silly? The headline basically implies "total fossil fuel generation has stopped growing, while renewables have grown substantially," which is both accurate and interesting. The fact that the coal/gas mix has shifted toward gas doesn't change the fact that total fossil-based generation capacity has basically leveled off.

fineng123 9y ago
Because it's a lie. A lot of natural gas plants came online in 2017, which makes it a lie.
- pwinnski 9y ago
  Your objection is that natural gas shouldn't be considered non-renewable? Or that the comparison happens at too high a level? If you'd like to write about the shift from coal to natural gas, that's probably worth drilling down to one level below this comparison, but that doesn't make this comparison invalid or misleading.
  - jtbayly 9y ago
    When you define "new" in such a way that you can only count renewables then it's really not "new" is it? Unless you can come up with some stats that prove that all of the non-renewable production that was added was directly replacing old non-renewable production, and all of the renewable production was added just to meet new needs, then you have no case.
    - pwinnski 9y ago
      Last year I ate 100 pounds of food. This year I ate 120 pounds of food. Last year I ate 50 pounds of vegetables and 50 pounds of meat. This yea, I ate 50 pounds of vegetables and 70 pounds of meat. Is it fair to say that my meat consumption has increased by 20 pounds? Or is it unfair on the grounds that I've not mentioned a big shift from potatoes to carrots within the 50 pounds of vegetables? I mean, my potato consumption is way down, but my carrot consumption is way, way, way up. My carrot consumption has gone up by a bigger percentage than my pork consumption, for sure. Except... it doesn't matter. My meat consumption went up, and my vegetable consumption remained flat. That's new meat consumption. Shifts from potatoes to carrots and pork to beef are irrelevant to the subject at hand.
ZenoArrow 9y ago
> "The headline basically implies "total fossil fuel generation has stopped growing, while renewables have grown substantially," which is both accurate and interesting." It's not accurate, it's bullshit. Look at the graph here, which is based on the official US government figures: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31892 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31892 Does it look like fossil fuel usage is slowing down to you?
- EngineerBetter 9y ago
  You appear to have mistaken generation capacity (discussed in the Electrek article) with usage (cited by you).
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    How do you think we get additional usage of fuel types? By growing the generation capacity. The point is, there's no sign of the expansion of natural gas usage slowing down. Install base of power plants/generators running off natural gas is growing. I haven't got all the figures to hand, but consider this report, which covers changes in electricity production in the southern states of the US: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33992 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33992 In particular, look at this graph: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2017.12.05/chart4.png https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2017.12.05/chart4.p... Can you at least admit that, in 2017, natural gas capacity grew faster than renewable capacity in southern US states?
- trophycase 9y ago
  Yes, actually. It looks like the increase in petroleum and gas in the last 5 years is more or less nullified by the drop in coal, while renewables is steadily increasing. What do you see?
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    I see that the drop off in coal is masking the growth in other fossil fuel sources. It should be renewables that take the place of coal, not natural gas and petroleum.