4 ms·

I'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

by umvi 8y ago

I'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 ago
  You 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 ago
    Renewables are subsidized no?
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      Yes. 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 ago
        I 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 ago
        You continue repeating this number, despite being politely corrected numerous times.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        You are welcome to find a better source.
        imtringued 8y ago
        I don't think your numbers make sense. As far as I now the world needs around 22000TWh a year and Germany produced around 220TWh just with renewables alone which is enough to reach your 1% claim.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        You are welcome to find better sources.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Probably a good time to mention the UK's coal-free generation timespans: https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/uk-breaks-coal-free-power-generation-record-by-huge-margin/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/uk-breaks-coal-... (Dark irony is that due to global warming the winter need for energy has gone down. Of course, in the summer, the AC need is going to go up...)

by umvi 8y ago

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

toomuchtodo 8y ago
You 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 ago
  Renewables are subsidized no?
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Yes. 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 ago
      I 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 ago
        You continue repeating this number, despite being politely corrected numerous times.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        You are welcome to find a better source.
      - imtringued 8y ago
        I don't think your numbers make sense. As far as I now the world needs around 22000TWh a year and Germany produced around 220TWh just with renewables alone which is enough to reach your 1% claim.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        You are welcome to find better sources.
pjc50 8y ago
Probably a good time to mention the UK's coal-free generation timespans: https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/uk-breaks-coal-free-power-generation-record-by-huge-margin/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/uk-breaks-coal-... (Dark irony is that due to global warming the winter need for energy has gone down. Of course, in the summer, the AC need is going to go up...)