6 ms·

Renewables Surpass Coal in U.S. Power Mix

112 points by philipkglass 7y ago

Fjolsvith 7y ago
"The clean energy industry should enjoy this moment while it lasts. One of the main reasons coal-fired power plants produced so little in April was because some were down for routine, springtime maintenance. Coal is forecast to return to its perch as the second-biggest source of electricity -- after natural gas -- as those units return to service and demand peaks this summer."
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Two noisy signals will cross many times before overall trends dominate.
  - smt88 7y ago
    Unfortunately, I don't think "nationwide, planned maintenance" could be considered noise in the coal-output signal.
    - 1986 7y ago
      If, as implied, this maintenance is done on a regular yearly basis, and this is the first time that that's been enough to change coal's placement in the mix, it would still seem to indicate that the larger trend is starting to outweigh the fluctuations.
    - ajross 7y ago
      What's your point then? The point of the article is that the renewable share of the energy production budget is growing (and coal isn't), and the notable data point is that "for the first time ever, renewables surpass coal". That's the way news works. It wants a fact to hang the trend on. And both the fact and the trend are correctly reported. The fact that this is a local maximum doesn't say anything about the shape of the function on either side.
    - adventured 7y ago
      We don't need to speculate. We have the data on US coal use. The trend is aggressive and consistent in the downward direction. Dec 4 2018: "EIA expects total U.S. coal consumption in 2018 to fall to 691 million short tons (MMst), a 4% decline from 2017 and the lowest level since 1979. U.S. coal consumption has been falling since its peak in 2007, and EIA forecasts that 2018 coal consumption will be 437 MMst (44%) lower than 2007 levels, mainly driven by declines in coal use in the electric power sector." Simultaneously the US is bringing effectively zero new coal-based production online: "In 2007, coal-fired capacity in the United States totaled 313 gigawatts (GW) across 1,470 generators. By the end of 2017, 529 of those generators, with a total capacity of 55 GW, had retired. ... Only one, relatively small, new coal-fired generator with a capacity of 17 megawatts is expected to come online by the end of 2019."
- dyslexit 7y ago
  > But the trend is clear: Renewable energy will continue to eclipse coal in future months as more wind and solar farms are deployed, EIA’s forecasts show.
  - RickJWagner 7y ago
    And hydro. I wish we had more nuclear, too.
philipkglass 7y ago
Energy Information Agency: Planned U.S. Electric Generating Unit Retirements https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_06 https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph... I count 4144.6 megawatts of coal retirements planned for 2019. But this table was last updated in April. 2000 MW of coal retirements directed this week: "Illinois directs Vistra to retire 2 GW coal by 2020" https://www.utilitydive.com/news/illinois-directs-vistra-to-retire-2-gw-coal-by-2020/557452/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/illinois-directs-vistra-to-... The order directs Vistra to retire 2 GW of coal generation by the end of the year. ... The process to retire so much coal by the end of the year must begin very soon, as Vistra must notify the Midcontinent ISO (MISO) of any intended retirements 180 days in advance. Two weeks ago: "In a Surprise Announcement, Colstrip Units 1 and 2 to Close by Year-End" https://www.powermag.com/in-a-surprise-announcement-colstrip-units-1-and-2-to-close-by-year-end/ https://www.powermag.com/in-a-surprise-announcement-colstrip... That's another 614 MW to retire by year's end.
blix 7y ago
I would like to see how the renewable section breaks down in to carbon-intensive varieties vs others. Non-solar, non-hydro renewables make up the bulk of renewable energy, and with the notable exceptions of wind and geothermal, many of these methods are very dirty. Burning of waste/biomass is probably not significantly better than coal from an emissions or pollution standpoint.
- noneckbeard 7y ago
  While burning waste/biomass adds air pollution it does not introduce new carbon into the system, making it far better than burning coal.
  - blix 7y ago
    It takes carbon that was not in the air and puts it into the air. The marginal decision to burn a bunch of wood or coal for a unit of energy produces roughly the same effect. It would be better to keep that carbon out of the atmosphere. Especially when grown specifically, biofuels may have a strong net negative effect as conversion from forest/swamp to arable land releases a huge amount of stored carbon. Burning a forest to grow palm ethanol is a step in the wrong direction.
    - i2amsam 7y ago
      Biomass is a very small percentage of US electric generation.
    - p1necone 7y ago
      If you keep growing, cutting down, burning and regrowing trees the co2 load in the atmosphere will look like a sine wave (ish). The long-term trend will be flat, not upwards. We can't "regrow" coal in the same way (across reasonable time scales). (Although burning coal, and planting a corresponding amount of trees and never cutting them down is also an option)
    - lostapathy 7y ago
      But if the waste biomass is just going to rot if we don’t burn it, the carbon will return to the atmosphere without having any energy harvested along the way. Might as well get something out of the cycle. Granted, we are speeding up the cycle by burning it now vs rotting over time, it the balance of carbon is the same.
BLKNSLVR 7y ago
The growing disconnect between the politics and the reality of renewables versus (specifically) coal is troubling. The current Australian government has been denying climate change since they came to power in 2013. They've been talking down renewables and placing national-security-scale importance of the role of coal in Australia's future economic success (which I actually find a significant worry because the bottom will drop out of the coal market sooner rather than later). Without much support from federal government policy (but with some support from state governments), renewables in Australia have been steadily growing in their contribution to the overall energy generation mix at a rate higher than expectations, such is the purely commercial justification of renewables. And yet politics is trying to (s|t)ell a different narrative without providing any foundational reasoning other than motherhood statements about the importance of coal to Australia's economy. Either politicians know more than they're letting on about the fragile state of Australia's economy and its fundamental over-dependence on a single mineral, or the Australian powers-that-be are over-dependent on a single mineral for their power base. The more politicians talk down renewables, the more they damage their legitimacy on any other topic; the more they advertise that their speeches are for sale.
- wilsonthewhale 7y ago
  The moment it becomes more economically viable to use renewables on a large scale than to use coal is when this stops. The tipping point isn't here yet, but it's coming. Always follow the money.
  - rsj_hn 7y ago
    This all boils down to economic realities, available technology, etc. Yes, the politicians can wring their hands but don't end up actually doing much because they understand that people like to complain about global warming but when asked how much money they are willing to spend to reduce carbon emissions, the dollar amount is usually like 20 bucks per person/per year. Macron discovered how angry people get when you actually force them to pay more and he quickly backtracked. None of the Paris signatories have met their goals, nor are they on track to meet their goals, because of political reality, not despite it. So the politicians are generally smarter at reading the pulse of the public than the activists on this issue. People care, but only a little bit. But as technology continues to progress, I have no doubt that long term we will not be using coal anymore. But solar has serious problems, the most intractable being the disposal of the solar cells -- they are quite toxic, and no one has figured out what to do with the decommissioned cells -- and we will have a lot of them if solar accounts for a non-trivial share of global electricity output. As in billions would need to be disposed of each year. So I don't think solar is the answer, given current materials. Personally, I like nuclear, but I could be wrong. We will move on from coal just as we moved on from wood and whale oil and all the energy sources of the past, but it's going to happen on a timeline determined by technological feasibility and economics, not by politics or political pledges.

112 points by philipkglass 7y ago

"The clean energy industry should enjoy this moment while it lasts. One of the main reasons coal-fired power plants produced so little in April was because some were down for routine, springtime maintenance. Coal is forecast to return to its perch as the second-biggest source of electricity -- after natural gas -- as those units return to service and demand peaks this summer."

jessaustin 7y ago
Two noisy signals will cross many times before overall trends dominate.
- smt88 7y ago
  Unfortunately, I don't think "nationwide, planned maintenance" could be considered noise in the coal-output signal.
  - 1986 7y ago
    If, as implied, this maintenance is done on a regular yearly basis, and this is the first time that that's been enough to change coal's placement in the mix, it would still seem to indicate that the larger trend is starting to outweigh the fluctuations.
  - ajross 7y ago
    What's your point then? The point of the article is that the renewable share of the energy production budget is growing (and coal isn't), and the notable data point is that "for the first time ever, renewables surpass coal". That's the way news works. It wants a fact to hang the trend on. And both the fact and the trend are correctly reported. The fact that this is a local maximum doesn't say anything about the shape of the function on either side.
  - adventured 7y ago
    We don't need to speculate. We have the data on US coal use. The trend is aggressive and consistent in the downward direction. Dec 4 2018: "EIA expects total U.S. coal consumption in 2018 to fall to 691 million short tons (MMst), a 4% decline from 2017 and the lowest level since 1979. U.S. coal consumption has been falling since its peak in 2007, and EIA forecasts that 2018 coal consumption will be 437 MMst (44%) lower than 2007 levels, mainly driven by declines in coal use in the electric power sector." Simultaneously the US is bringing effectively zero new coal-based production online: "In 2007, coal-fired capacity in the United States totaled 313 gigawatts (GW) across 1,470 generators. By the end of 2017, 529 of those generators, with a total capacity of 55 GW, had retired. ... Only one, relatively small, new coal-fired generator with a capacity of 17 megawatts is expected to come online by the end of 2019."
dyslexit 7y ago
> But the trend is clear: Renewable energy will continue to eclipse coal in future months as more wind and solar farms are deployed, EIA’s forecasts show.
- RickJWagner 7y ago
  And hydro. I wish we had more nuclear, too.

philipkglass 7y ago

Energy Information Agency: Planned U.S. Electric Generating Unit Retirements https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_06 https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph... I count 4144.6 megawatts of coal retirements planned for 2019. But this table was last updated in April. 2000 MW of coal retirements directed this week: "Illinois directs Vistra to retire 2 GW coal by 2020" https://www.utilitydive.com/news/illinois-directs-vistra-to-retire-2-gw-coal-by-2020/557452/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/illinois-directs-vistra-to-... The order directs Vistra to retire 2 GW of coal generation by the end of the year. ... The process to retire so much coal by the end of the year must begin very soon, as Vistra must notify the Midcontinent ISO (MISO) of any intended retirements 180 days in advance. Two weeks ago: "In a Surprise Announcement, Colstrip Units 1 and 2 to Close by Year-End" https://www.powermag.com/in-a-surprise-announcement-colstrip-units-1-and-2-to-close-by-year-end/ https://www.powermag.com/in-a-surprise-announcement-colstrip... That's another 614 MW to retire by year's end.

blix 7y ago

I would like to see how the renewable section breaks down in to carbon-intensive varieties vs others. Non-solar, non-hydro renewables make up the bulk of renewable energy, and with the notable exceptions of wind and geothermal, many of these methods are very dirty. Burning of waste/biomass is probably not significantly better than coal from an emissions or pollution standpoint.

noneckbeard 7y ago
While burning waste/biomass adds air pollution it does not introduce new carbon into the system, making it far better than burning coal.
- blix 7y ago
  It takes carbon that was not in the air and puts it into the air. The marginal decision to burn a bunch of wood or coal for a unit of energy produces roughly the same effect. It would be better to keep that carbon out of the atmosphere. Especially when grown specifically, biofuels may have a strong net negative effect as conversion from forest/swamp to arable land releases a huge amount of stored carbon. Burning a forest to grow palm ethanol is a step in the wrong direction.
  - i2amsam 7y ago
    Biomass is a very small percentage of US electric generation.
  - p1necone 7y ago
    If you keep growing, cutting down, burning and regrowing trees the co2 load in the atmosphere will look like a sine wave (ish). The long-term trend will be flat, not upwards. We can't "regrow" coal in the same way (across reasonable time scales). (Although burning coal, and planting a corresponding amount of trees and never cutting them down is also an option)
  - lostapathy 7y ago
    But if the waste biomass is just going to rot if we don’t burn it, the carbon will return to the atmosphere without having any energy harvested along the way. Might as well get something out of the cycle. Granted, we are speeding up the cycle by burning it now vs rotting over time, it the balance of carbon is the same.

BLKNSLVR 7y ago

The growing disconnect between the politics and the reality of renewables versus (specifically) coal is troubling. The current Australian government has been denying climate change since they came to power in 2013. They've been talking down renewables and placing national-security-scale importance of the role of coal in Australia's future economic success (which I actually find a significant worry because the bottom will drop out of the coal market sooner rather than later). Without much support from federal government policy (but with some support from state governments), renewables in Australia have been steadily growing in their contribution to the overall energy generation mix at a rate higher than expectations, such is the purely commercial justification of renewables. And yet politics is trying to (s|t)ell a different narrative without providing any foundational reasoning other than motherhood statements about the importance of coal to Australia's economy. Either politicians know more than they're letting on about the fragile state of Australia's economy and its fundamental over-dependence on a single mineral, or the Australian powers-that-be are over-dependent on a single mineral for their power base. The more politicians talk down renewables, the more they damage their legitimacy on any other topic; the more they advertise that their speeches are for sale.

wilsonthewhale 7y ago
The moment it becomes more economically viable to use renewables on a large scale than to use coal is when this stops. The tipping point isn't here yet, but it's coming. Always follow the money.
- rsj_hn 7y ago
  This all boils down to economic realities, available technology, etc. Yes, the politicians can wring their hands but don't end up actually doing much because they understand that people like to complain about global warming but when asked how much money they are willing to spend to reduce carbon emissions, the dollar amount is usually like 20 bucks per person/per year. Macron discovered how angry people get when you actually force them to pay more and he quickly backtracked. None of the Paris signatories have met their goals, nor are they on track to meet their goals, because of political reality, not despite it. So the politicians are generally smarter at reading the pulse of the public than the activists on this issue. People care, but only a little bit. But as technology continues to progress, I have no doubt that long term we will not be using coal anymore. But solar has serious problems, the most intractable being the disposal of the solar cells -- they are quite toxic, and no one has figured out what to do with the decommissioned cells -- and we will have a lot of them if solar accounts for a non-trivial share of global electricity output. As in billions would need to be disposed of each year. So I don't think solar is the answer, given current materials. Personally, I like nuclear, but I could be wrong. We will move on from coal just as we moved on from wood and whale oil and all the energy sources of the past, but it's going to happen on a timeline determined by technological feasibility and economics, not by politics or political pledges.