33 ms·

Renewables 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

Renewables 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 7y ago
And 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 7y ago
  Natural 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 7y ago
    Nuclear would be the other long term solution as an alternative to cheap storage.
    - scythe 7y ago
      Nuclear 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.
      - Retric 7y ago
        The issue is Wind is vastly cheaper than nuclear power, but makes demand less predictable. As you add more wind power you get a random unmet demand and oversupply, but are paying less than half as much per kWh. Nuclear can fill in the gaps assuming you design for it, but at extreme cost.
- fred_is_fred 7y ago
  At least where I live you either burn it in a power plant (or gas furnace) or you flare it at the well head. It's a by-product of frack oil. Until that changes, we may as well generate power with it.

vkou 7y ago

And 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 7y ago
Natural 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 7y ago
  Nuclear would be the other long term solution as an alternative to cheap storage.
  - scythe 7y ago
    Nuclear 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.
    - Retric 7y ago
      The issue is Wind is vastly cheaper than nuclear power, but makes demand less predictable. As you add more wind power you get a random unmet demand and oversupply, but are paying less than half as much per kWh. Nuclear can fill in the gaps assuming you design for it, but at extreme cost.
fred_is_fred 7y ago
At least where I live you either burn it in a power plant (or gas furnace) or you flare it at the well head. It's a by-product of frack oil. Until that changes, we may as well generate power with it.