9 ms·
Renewables predicted to beat coal for the first time in US later this year
- dmix 8y agoSo it's still an "estimate" not hard data yet? Does that mean anything? From the chart it looks like coal will still be cheaper for most of the next two years, at least the majority of the time. But it looks like intermittently renewable energy will be cheaper, which is good news. Which hopefully also means renewables are getting cheaper, not just coal getting more expensive.
- foota 8y agoThat chart is generation, not cost.
- umvi 8y agoI'm slightly confused, but I think "beat" in this context means "generated more megawatts in a single day than coal did on the same day". That's encouraging I guess, but looking at their chart it looks like coal will still remain dominant for a few more years. Also, price isn't mentioned at all.
- Jedd 8y ago> “Coal’s proponents may dismiss these monthly and quarterly ups and downs in generation share as unimportant, but we believe they are indicative of the fundamental disruption happening across the electric generation sector,” ...
- SilasX 8y ago<insert snarky reply about how solar never beat coal for any timespan between 10pm and 6am that still contains a kernel of legit insight about the need for better energy storage to solar/wind to ever completely replace non-renewables>
- toomuchtodo 8y agoYou only need cheap renewables to apply pain to coal long enough for the economics to fall apart for coal (as occurred for nuclear, requiring subsidies in Illinois and New York for continued operation), regardless of time of day of peak generation for solar and wind. Natural gas and then batteries will naturally fill the gap as the economics develop. Natural gas generation stranded assets is another discussion entirely, but those investment losses are someone else’s problem. Pick better energy assets to invest in. Too bad you can’t harness snark as a power source.
- ThomPete 8y agoRenewables are subsidized no?
- toomuchtodo 8y agoYes. As they should be. Utility scale batteries should be subsidized, and there are some efforts to implement policy to do so. I take no issue with existing nuclear subsidized until renewables and storage can bridge the gap. Just don’t waste money on new nuclear that’ll never be cost effective, and will take decades to build. Also set funds aside for nuclear decommissioning and ensure it isn’t misappropriated.
- ThomPete 8y agoI take great issue and do not agree at all that energy should be subsidized. Renewables are not going to provide us with the energy we need, not even by a longshot. It's less than 1% of the worlds energy needs, will only be around 3% in 2040. Renewable energy is a linear solution to an exponential problem.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ncmncm 8y agoYou continue repeating this number, despite being politely corrected numerous times.
- robertwiblin 8y agoHere's what it comprises: https://imgur.com/a/BZDJ4wT https://imgur.com/a/BZDJ4wT 43% wind, 38% hydro, 10% solar.
- tedsanders 8y agoThe article doesn't even get the units right. Generation is megawatt-hours per day, not megawatts per day. The source data from EIA shows this here: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/data/browser/#/?v=22&f=M&s=&start=201112&end=202012&id=&linechart=CLTO_US~RTTO_US&ctype=linechart&maptype=0&map= https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/data/browser/#/?v=22&f=M&s... Also, the unnamed strawman coal proponents are probably correct that short-term variations are unimportant. What matters is the long-term trend. And the long-term trend is more renewables and less coal.
- reitzensteinm 8y agoWow, I just assumed it was megawatts peak per day (which would be a much less impressive win over coal). Maybe that book should have been called Physics for Future Presidents (and Current Journalists). Broaden the market a bit and do us all a favor in the process.
- cydonian_monk 8y agoRenewables continuing to grow in output is great news. Yet that's only part of the story. Coal, at least domestic steam coal, is still being actively displaced by natural gas. That's also a significant factor in the downward trend this projection shows. This is covered in more detail in the original source [1] the linked QZ article draws from. 1: http://ieefa.org/ieefa-u-s-april-is-shaping-up-to-be-momentous-in-transition-from-coal-to-renewables/ http://ieefa.org/ieefa-u-s-april-is-shaping-up-to-be-momento...
- vkou 8y agoAnd while switching from coal to natgas is an improvement in our emissions profile, natural gas cannot be a meaningful part of any long-term climate strategy. On a long-term, 50% of the emissions profile of coal is still 50% too much. (Also - and this is a bit off-topic - in the EU, natgas comes from Russia, which adds a political problem, on top of the climate problem.)
- Retric 8y agoNatural Gas is a much better fit with renewables than coal. So, until cheap grid storage or massive over supply of renewables shows up it’s still a great short mid term solution. Aiming for 20% from natural gas is 1/5th the green house emissions of 50% coal. That’s a massive impact and meaningful change even without vast grid storage.
- ummonk 8y agoNuclear would be the other long term solution as an alternative to cheap storage.
- scythe 8y agoNuclear and gas fit into different niches. Nuclear makes sense up to the point where installed nuclear capacity is sufficiently lower than the lowest demand on the grid, eg. 4 AM demand. Gas fills in for renewables when available solar/wind is less than demand at high-usage times, eg. 10 PM demand. If energy storage is expensive, it makes sense to have both.
- teslaberry 8y agokeep lying about renewables by including hydropower. ....keep on keeping on. :)
- strommen 8y agoCoal is dying in the US. There hasn't been a new power plant built in years, and facilities are getting retired early because it's cheaper to build new solar/wind than to run on coal. The bad news is that many of the coal plants are getting converted to natural gas rather than being replaced by renewables. And when it comes to climate change, gas is only marginally better than coal. (Though when it comes to air pollution, gas is much better.) A tiny coal plant recently opened in Fairbanks, Alaska.
- webninja 8y agoGood to know about the natural gas. It now costs less to make a new solar or wind plant than it does a coal plant for the equivalent energy. However it costs less to maintain an old coal plant than it does to replace it with a new solar or wind plant.
- tomohawk 8y agoWas driving on a back country road. Those living in the area lived in a beautiful place, but in poverty. The beautiful mountain views were marred by the windmills put there at the behest of elites living in far off cities. The quiet of the countryside was broken by the constant thrum of the windmills. I really couldn't imagine living there with that constant low frequency noise. With the best of intentions, these poor people were robbed of one of the very few perks in their lives - the beauty of the area they lived in, and the peace and quiet they once had. EDIT: given the area of the country, it is highly likely that a large number of these people had formerly been employed in the coal industry.
- threeseed 8y agoYou should go spend some time in the South Pacific then. And talk to the locals about the impending devastation of their countries and entire way of living. Or how about go spend some times in hurricane or snow affected areas around the US which have been devastated by the increasing instability of our climate. Most of these people would kill for a stable climate and some low frequency noise.
- davesque 8y ago> EDIT: given the area of the country, it is highly likely that a large number of these people had formerly been employed in the coal industry. I'm not following the logic of this.
- magpie_mcgee 8y agoIf you hate what windmills do to the view, you should see what mountain top removal does to it.
- opportune 8y agoI can't imagine thinking millions or billions of people getting displaced and potentially losing secure access to food is less important than having to look at windmills
- ajross 8y agoAll resource exploitation has externalities, and sure, those are real costs and worth discussing. If you want to make a case that the externalities of wind power are more expensive than those for coal extraction and power generation, then you go ahead and make that case. But cut the hyperbole and poetry, dude. I see your "marred views" and "constant thrums" and raise you a bunch of fucking removed mountaintops, an acid rain epidemic and generations of health problems we're still paying for. "Marred views", sigh...
- misterprime 8y ago/edit/ thanks for updating the headline. The title seems misleading. I suggest changing it to: "Solar, wind, plus other renewables predicted to beat coal for the first time in US later this year." It's clear from the chart that the trend of coal generated power decreases later in the year before increasing again. The reverse is true of renewables. It's during this time where renewables generation is at it's annual high while coal is at it's annual low that this predicted event is expected. The title is misleading even though it is welcome news.
- khawkins 8y agoThe author links to a study guide for elementary school students in the first paragraph. This should be a hint as to how little the author thinks of the intellectual capacity of his readers.
- yellowapple 8y agoYes, because God forbid an author cares enough to make sure as many readers as possible have at least some basic education on a subject. Most individuals will each have (at best) an elementary-school-level understanding of most topics. That's the nature of humans having finite time to learn about things. Shaming people for actually trying to help with that is exactly why so many people lack the educational background to know that man-made climate change is actually a real thing.
- khawkins 8y agoUnless you're literally writing for elementary school kids, speaking to an adult or even teenager as if they are that young is an insult. The lack of belief in climate change isn't a a problem of a lack of education, its a problem of a lack of trust in the institutions which say it is a problem. You can understand the greenhouse effect, radiative forcing, the relative effects of methane and CO2, ice core samples, tree ring proxies, solar cycles, IPCC reports, cloud albedo, heat island effects, ocean heat sink effects, etc., and know how these scientific theories factor into climate science, but still be skeptical about whether anthropogenic climate change is a drastically harmful phenomenon. Understanding scientists think about climate science doesn't mean their predictions and theories will hold out. The fact that IPCC predictions from 20 years ago didn't anticipate the flat line in global temperature over recent years suggest a science that isn't fully matured. The fact that there is so much paranoia coming from politicians and global governing bodies, inconsistent with what IPCC reports claim, suggests something fishy. Even observers who are largely ignorant about the specifics of the issue can sense that there is an amount of zealotry involved in confirming climate change's apocalyptic predictions. It's easy to believe significant bias is affecting climate science results.
- Proven 8y agoMisleading article. Just because more electricity was generated using these methods it doesn't mean they "beat" coal. It's like saying staying inside beat outdoor activities at a maximum security prison.
- ThomPete 8y agoYet wind and solar is less than 1% of the worlds energy consumption and even in 2040 its not going to be projected to more than 3%. It's pretty important to understand the difference between electricity and energy. Electricity is only a small part of the entire picture. Poor countries can't afford the rich mans toys and they are the ones who will be increasing their energy consumption dramatically. So it's the classic of winning the battle but loosing the war.
- maxerickson 8y agoWe should hold war tight. Which projection are you using? One of the ones that is wrong (on the low side) every 3 years?
- ThomPete 8y agoIEA https://www.iea.org/weo/?fbclid=IwAR0IEeDUoV-VGjztxl5JKYaJWZXnc5MKW-8ShEffCZUEd1xufwZpdiQDCCs https://www.iea.org/weo/?fbclid=IwAR0IEeDUoV-VGjztxl5JKYaJWZ... Current energy usage is not projection and thats less than 1% globally.
- ozborn 8y agoGiven their electricity projections are so awful, why would we trust IEA for energy or anything else? They consistently underpredict renewables each year. https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/06/iea-gets-hilariously-slammed-continuously-pessimistic-renewable-energy-forecasts/ https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/06/iea-gets-hilariously-sl... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/05/iea-accused-of-undermining-global-shift-from-fossil-fuels https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/05/iea-accu...
- ThomPete 8y agoAwful compared to what? Whats your better data?
- new4thaccount 8y agoIf anyone wants to get a really good view for year to year changes in fuel mix by region, just look for your RTO or ISO's website. ISO-NE, PJM, MISO, SPP, ERCOT, & CAISO all track this in real-time and do regular reports on it. These are the entities that watch over large sections of transmission and generation and act as "air traffic controllers" for the grid. They also run the optimization software that chooses which generation runs each day based on minimizing production cost while maintaining reliability. You might have to Google a little bit. In the SPP region, they've seen massive wind penetration and coal has decreased considerably in the last 4 years.
- amacbride 8y agoFor example, here’s the CAISO report for today (there are other reporting options as well): http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.aspx http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.aspx
- RenRav 8y agoHas anyone made predictions for what future decades of energy generation might look like? Specifically any ideas for how big if any a return to nuclear will affect everything else?
- eagletusk 8y agoRamez Naam likes to make predictions like this: http://rameznaam.com/2019/04/02/the-third-phase-of-clean-energy-will-be-the-most-disruptive-yet/ http://rameznaam.com/2019/04/02/the-third-phase-of-clean-ene...
- new4thaccount 8y agoThis is what transmission planning engineers do for a living. Distribution planning engineers do it on a smaller scale. Back in the day, the utility would look at population growth which correlates well with electrical demand growth and did 1,5,10, & 20 year projections which told them if they needed to build new generators or transmission lines. They looked at expected fuel costs and federal/state policy changes too. One common simulation they run is called "contingency analysis" or "CA" for short. You start with a model of your grid at peak winter and summer loading. You then take each transmission line out of service in the model (1 at a time) and then run a loadflow calculation for the modified model(basically solving a massive set of nonlinear equations) to determine the amount of power flowing over all equipment. Any overloads are logged in a master list and studied to see if they can be fixed. There are also studies to look at voltage and many other things. Today, studying the grid is a lot more complex and time consuming due to things like renewables and energy markets. For example, a long time ago before optimization software was available for large models, you would probably most likely have a list of which resources to run when and it didn't deviate much throughout the year. You would simply call on a gas plant to help you get over peak and that is about it. Now, things like probability are becoming very deeply ingrained in planning in a way they never were before. In essence, folks working for utilities, government entities, state commissions...etc do this all the time.
- snowwindwaves 8y agosorry for the nitpick, but what part of a load flow study is non-linear?
- tpkj 8y agoTony Seba has an interesting perspective on "Clean Disruption of Energy & Transportation", with one of the main takeaways being as options like solar become more viable, their takeoff could be exponential rather than moving up gradually in a straight line. https://tonyseba.com/portfolio-item/clean-disruption-of-energy-transportation/ https://tonyseba.com/portfolio-item/clean-disruption-of-ener... Also, more immediately interesting is how first world reliance on the grid could be changing. "Distributed Energy Poised for 'Explosive Growth' on the US Grid" https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/distributed-energy-poised-for-explosive-growth-on-the-us-grid https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/distributed-ene... In third world countries, there could be a complete bypassing of the traditional grid; e.g., consider Zola Electric. http://zolaelectric.com/blog/zola-electric-announces-infinity-autonomous-power-grid http://zolaelectric.com/blog/zola-electric-announces-infinit...
- tpkj 8y agoP.S. One of the companies in the solar space I follow closely is Enphase Energy. https://enphase.com/en-us https://enphase.com/en-us There is a cool little demo a solar installer from Australia made to show Enphase's upcoming off-grid microinverter in action. https://www.reddit.com/r/solar/comments/b3sgec/demo_clip_of_enphase_iq8_offgrid_solution/ https://www.reddit.com/r/solar/comments/b3sgec/demo_clip_of_... Also, an interesting talk from Sunnova Solar CEO dealing with future of the grid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2915&v=6Dx0U2y-YgU https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2915&v=6Dx0U2y-Y...
- sunkenvicar 8y agoVery misleading headline and article. Wind and solar are hardly renewable. Most of the time they produce zero energy and are backed by gas turbines.
- sunkenvicar 8y agoNot sure which special interest group is sending the hate. This is a fact of life in the utility industry. People want power 24/7 and wind and solar don’t produce power if it’s dark or calm. Pretty useless during nighttime and wintertime. Natural gas powerplants are running when these renewables are not. This whole dog and pony show is much more expensive and carbon intensive than nuclear. Compare the price of nuclear carbon-free power in France with the price of brown coal “renewable” power in Germany. I know which bill I want to pay...
- imtringued 8y agoThey generally produce power when it's needed most. Also the percentage of energy renewables produce on a given day follows a nornmal distribution. There will be a few extremely bad days and a few extremely good days in a year but most of the time they produce exactly how much they should. So why does it matter if they have to use gas as backup power if it is only needed for a few days in the year?
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago> Wind and solar are hardly renewable. How so? Of course one day the sun will die, but for now I think they're close enough.
- BearsAreCool 8y agoDoes anyone have any links to good statistics on the comparison of costs of different forms of energy generation before government interference? All I can find is either after subsidies or about total generation and not cost.
- jillesvangurp 8y agoThe assumption buried in this question is that subsidies are only applicable to clean energy. It's a wrong assumption. The reality is that coal, oil, and gas sectors are heavily dependent on subsidies, tax benefits, federal programs for building pipelines, and in some cases very expensive military interventions (e.g. most conflicts with US involvement in the middle east). Arguably the amount of money involved with that is far more than anything dedicated to clean energy currently.