8 ms·
California Will Stop Using Coal as a Power Source Next Month
https://archive.ph/3kesn https://archive.ph/3kesn
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jeffbee 1y agoOn the other hand, the state courts finally concluded, a few weeks ago, that Oakland can't stop a developer from building a coal export terminal.
- epistasis 1y agoLast time I heard about this Intermountain plant a few years ago, it was about the LADPW union being absolute assholes to do anything to keep it running. Good riddance, be gone, coal is expensive and unreliable and it's mostly political manipulation to pick winners and losers that keeps it around. TVA is begging to be able to get rid of this coal plant which causes massive reliability problems: https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_number=20240103-5125&optimized=false https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_number...
- mythrwy 1y agoCoal is dirty for sure but "expensive and unreliable"?
- oooyay 1y agoCoal has rising costs that occur on the facilities side and the aging facilities are becoming more unreliable on a modern grid that often needs to fluctuate power demands relatively quickly. It's also more expensive than alternatives like solar and wind, even if their subsidies are disregarded.
- toomuchtodo 1y agoThe only coal plant economical to run in the US is Dry Forks, WY compared to new renewables and storage. > The cost of running existing coal power plants in the United States continues rising while new wind and solar costs keep falling. Our first Coal Cost Crossover report (2019) found 62 percent of U.S. coal capacity was more expensive to run than to replace with renewables, while our second (2021) found 72 percent of capacity more expensive than renewables. Our latest Coal Cost Crossover research finds incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act accelerate this trend – 99 percent of all U.S. coal plants (209 out of 210) are now more expensive to run than replacement by new local solar, wind, or energy storage. > This report finds 99 percent of the existing U.S. coal fleet is more expensive to run compared to replacement by new solar or wind. Replacing coal plants with local wind and solar would also save enough to finance nearly 150 gigawatts of four-hour battery storage, over 60 percent of the coal fleet’s capacity, and generate $589 billion in new investment across the U.S. Our report provides policy recommendations to facilitate a just transition through the Coal Cost Crossover. (report is from 2023, the economics of renewables and solar have only improved since then) https://energyinnovation.org/report/the-coal-cost-crossover-3-0/ https://energyinnovation.org/report/the-coal-cost-crossover-...
- dmix 1y agoComparing idealized costs of one form of energy replacing another doesn't make it a non-economical form of energy. > Replacing coal plants with local wind and solar would also save enough to finance nearly 150 gigawatts of four-hour battery storage, over 60 percent of the coal fleet’s capacity, and generate $589 billion in new investment across the U.S. That sort of wishy-washy language is classic political sales pitch stuff. And I say that in favour of transitioning to solar/wind where it makes sense.
- toomuchtodo 1y agoCoal generators are reaching the end of their life, and to be frank, the US doesn't have the ability to build more if they tried (labor and skill shortages, primarily, but capital is also going to be hard to come by considering stranded asset risk). There is a 5-10 year backlog of gas turbines by the three companies in the world that build them. Coal retirements will continue, and hopefully, low carbon energy sources (being the least expensive option) will backfill them. Could the US face power shortages due to refusing to build new power generation out of ideology? Certainly. But are 50-60 year old coal plants going to run forever? Unlikely, based on mechanical limitations, supply chain constraints, etc. Solar, wind, and batteries will continue to decline in cost; whether the US chooses to adopt them is a choice. Make good choices, as I tell my children. Trump’s major coal sales flop in Wyoming and Montana - https://wyofile.com/trumps-major-coal-sales-flop-in-wyoming-and-montana/ https://wyofile.com/trumps-major-coal-sales-flop-in-wyoming-... - October 8th, 2025 Gas-Turbine Crunch Threatens Demand Bonanza in Asia - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-10-07/gas-turbine-crunch-threatens-asian-lng-demand-bonanza https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-10-07/gas-tu... | https://archive.today/z4Ixw https://archive.today/z4Ixw - October 7th, 2025 AI-Driven Demand for Gas Turbines Risks a New Energy Crunch - https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-bottlenecks-gas-turbines/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-bottlenecks-gas-turb... | https://archive.today/b8bhn https://archive.today/b8bhn - October 1st, 2025 Most of the planned coal capacity retirements are in the Midwest or Mid-Atlantic regions - https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65744 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65744 - July 14th, 2025 Nowhere to go but down for U.S. coal capacity, generation - https://ieefa.org/resources/nowhere-go-down-us-coal-capacity-generation https://ieefa.org/resources/nowhere-go-down-us-coal-capacity... - October 24th, 2024 ("More than 8,100 MW of currently operating coal capacity will be at least 60 years old by 2030, but plant owners have not yet announced retirement dates. It is highly unlikely any of those units will still be operational by 2040, given the increase in maintenance costs and the decline in performance that go hand in hand with aging coal plants. Another 20,000MW of coal-fired capacity will be at least 50 years old by 2030, putting them at or near their expected operational lifespans.") US Coal Plant Map Retirement Tracker - https://www.sierraclub.org/coal/coal-plant-map https://www.sierraclub.org/coal/coal-plant-map (think in systems)
- tempfile 1y agoI know it's not what OP meant, but dirty equals expensive, in the medium term. We are going to be paying the costs of climate change much sooner than we would like to admit.
- trimbo 1y ago> coal is expensive and unreliable Please elaborate. China is building an absurd amount of new power plants, and most of that has been coal, with last year hitting a new high of coal deployment[1]. Why would they do that if it's expensive and unreliable? The letter you linked is advocating for a new gas plant. And no, I am not advocating for building more coal plants. [1] - https://www.ft.com/content/4658e336-930f-49db-abc9-0036ee0ea777?accessToken=zwAGLlh1FGbYkc9GWOM2kw9J29OryQA27g6ndw.MEYCIQCWjOmjF6dqr6oeCacea5DYlrGCZUbL6ZMUCIr9zY45tQIhAKsKQqw4BLx2Wxk9OcllGEFCZd2WF9ksn4yIUKpH3x-L&sharetype=gift&token=0d7fe398-6e71-46c6-9b77-e0f205b227bd https://www.ft.com/content/4658e336-930f-49db-abc9-0036ee0ea...
- jes5199 1y agothey build them but they’re mostly not running them, utilization numbers keep falling. It’s either a central-planning failure or some kind of hedge
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mullingitover 1y ago> China is building an absurd amount of new power plants, and most of that has been coal Are you sure about that 'most' part? Hasn't China been building something like a coal plant's worth of solar power generation every eight hours for the past year or so?
- MobiusHorizons 1y agoMy knowledge is a few years out of date, but at the time china’s power generation was mostly coal, despite the heavy investment in solar. New power generation at the time was not replacing old but just keeping up with rising demand, so china was building new coal plants as well. I don’t think most _new_ generation was coal even 5 years ago, but most existing _generation_ was coal , and I expect that is still true
- adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
- palmotea 1y ago> Last time I heard about this Intermountain plant a few years ago, it was about the LADPW union being absolute assholes to do anything to keep it running. Please be more specific about how you think they were being "absolute assholes."
- cmxch 1y agoThen if renewables are going so well, renewable energy firms can directly cut huge, career checks to Appalachians impacted by the decline.
- cmpolis 1y agoKeep Diablo Canyon running!
- gorfian_robot 1y agonaw
- toomuchtodo 1y agohttps://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/us-electricity-2025-special-report/insight-2-the-rise-of-batteries-plus-solar/ https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/us-electricity-2025... https://seia.org/state-solar-policy/california-solar/ https://seia.org/state-solar-policy/california-solar/ https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energy-storage-system-survey https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo... https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/US-CAL-CISO/ https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/US-CAL-CISO/
- SirHumphrey 1y agoIt annoys me immensely that all provided grid storage statistics are in MW, not MWh. The only statistics that speak about capacity brag that California- one of the leaders in grid storage deployment- can store nearly a third of solar generation in February (which represents only a third of the energy production) on a sub-day time scale.
- epistasis 1y agoI'm not sure why anybody is annoyed by this, but if it does: just multiply the MW by 4 hours. That's the standard deployment for storage right now.
- epistasis 1y agoPlease no! Our electricity rates are already too high. The massive cost for short-term extensions to Diablo Canyon will drive them even higher. Think of how much an extension to the lifespan might cost in your head. Now go and look: $8.4B to $11B to keep it running only until 2030. There is massive political support for nuclear right now, which is the only reason it's being considered. The whole reason it was initially decided not to extend the license was that the cost would be too high. Now people that know nothing about electricity costs, but really love nuclear, have pre-determined that Diablo Canyon should be kept running without regard to better ways to spend that money on our electricity grid.
- coredog64 1y agoCalifornia will stop using coal throughout the entire supply chain, or will stop burning coal within their geographical boundaries? (Power is frequently generated and transported across state lines)
- airza 1y agoYou could learn the answer to this question in the second sentence of the article.
- lokar 1y agoI could tell from the wording of the headline
- wat10000 1y agoConsidering that the article is all about the closing of a specific power plant in Utah, I think they're aware of this.
- jncfhnb 1y agoThe article is about cutting off a plant in Utah
- bombcar 1y ago/.? There's a name I've not heard in ages ...
- outside1234 1y agoThe more impressive thing in my mind is that California has also reduced the use of natural gas by 37% since 2023 through the combination of solar + batteries. * https://www.threads.com/@1mzjacobson/post/DPjmVLcDqFo/impressive-5-more-days-straight-with-100-windwatersolar-on-california-iso-grid-m https://www.threads.com/@1mzjacobson/post/DPjmVLcDqFo/impres...
- next_xibalba 1y agoCalifornia also has the most expensive rates in the country. Much less impressive when taking cost into account. https://www.newsweek.com/electricity-prices-surge-us-map-shows-most-expensive-states-2037618 https://www.newsweek.com/electricity-prices-surge-us-map-sho... https://www.energybot.com/electricity-rates/ https://www.energybot.com/electricity-rates/
- triceratops 1y agoThat's because of the wildfires. California will have high rates no matter what just because of that.
- celeritascelery 1y agoCan you elaborate on why that is or provide a source? Other states also have high wildfire risk and don’t have the expensive power like California.
- toomuchtodo 1y agohttps://www.energysage.com/news/ca-electricity-rates-increase-96-percent-2014-to-2024/ https://www.energysage.com/news/ca-electricity-rates-increas...
- celeritascelery 1y agoInteresting. That article didn’t explain the relationship between wildfires and power costs, so I did some digging. California is unique in that it uses a legal doctrine called “inverse condemnation.” This means utilities are strictly liable for wildfire damage caused by their equipment - even if they weren’t negligent. This leads to tens of billions of dollars in extra costs for the utility companies in the state. California essentially passes on the cost of the wildfires to consumers in their electricity prices. This is unique to the California and not a factor in other states.
- gwbas1c 1y agoI recommend updating the link to the primary source: https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2025-10-08/essential-california-california-dumps-coal-power https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2025-10-08/ess...
- seanmcdirmid 1y agoI was just surprised Slashdot still existed.
- 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- gwbas1c 1y ago(From the article that Slashdot links to) > Key to making that shift has been the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, which has ordered less electricity from the Utah plant while simultaneously building a natural gas and hydrogen burning power station just across the street from Intermountain. Does that mean that LA is building a plant in Utah? Why not build the plant in LA? Is it more efficient to ship electricity instead of gas; or is it just more politically convenient to pollute Utah instead of LA?
- toomuchtodo 1y ago> Why not build the plant in LA? Is it more efficient to ship electricity instead of gas; or is it just more politically convenient to pollute Utah instead of LA? Great question. It is easier to rely on existing transmission at Intermountain than it is to build a gas turbine in LA (along with whatever infra is needed to provide a reliable supply of fossil gas to the generator site). You can even add batteries, solar, wind etc in the future at that site; coal sites are being remediated and turned into battery storage colo in many situations to rely on that existing transmission infra. Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_27 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_27 (first two paragraphs are relevant to total transmission capacity to LA from Intermountain, ~2.4GW at ±500kV) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Department_of_Water_and_Power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Department_of_Wate... https://openinframap.org/ https://openinframap.org/ https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64604 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64604 (consider the fungibility of electricity vs other energy mediums)
- mullingitover 1y agoI read somewhere that old coal plants would in theory be trivial to drop-in upgrade to nuclear: you just need to replace the heat source with a nuclear one, but the rest of the infrastructure can continue to be used. The problem is that coal plants are sprinkled with a whole bunch of radioactive fly ash, and normal radiation level for a coal plant would violate the hell out of regulations for a nuclear plant.
- 1y ago
- mud_dauber 1y agoMeanwhile over here in WV, we are saddled with above-market electricity rates thanks to our state (non-)regulatory commission and a desire to keep old coal-fired generators operating. It drives us nuts.
- hungryhobbit 1y agoWhen you let industry run your government ...
- epistasis 1y agoThis is sadly the state for a good number of PUCs across the nation. That's one reason that electricity costs are rising even as generation is getting cheaper thanks to renewables and storage.
- cameldrv 1y agoCould be worse. If you lived in California you'd pay triple the "above-market electricity rates" you currently pay.
- kjkjadksj 1y agoNot if you have a municipal energy provider.
- jaredklewis 1y agoBased on numbers here (https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/ https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/) it would be double, not triple.
- cameldrv 1y agoThe Non-PG&E areas pull the average down I guess. PG&E is more like 45-50 cents/kwh
- 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- fair_enough 1y agoOn a related note, I'm skeptical of the feasibility of their 2035 EV-only mandate. They haven't made any meaningful progress toward building up a grid that can support as much electrical power consumption as they will need. I know gasoline-powered cars are not going to disappear overnight, but the average American replaces their car about every 12-14 years according to Professor Google. Either that number is going to become 25-30 in California, or people will be heating their homes with peat and dry, fire-prone CA lumber. I'll admit I have selfish interest in seeing nuclear power take over our electrical grids, but I don't want to see the lives of 40M people upended just because it will give the companies in my portfolio more pricing power.
- nradov 1y agoCalifornia's 2035 EV-only mandate was already blocked at the federal level. https://calmatters.org/environment/2025/06/california-sues-trump-blocking-clean-air-rules-cars/ https://calmatters.org/environment/2025/06/california-sues-t...
- toomuchtodo 1y agoOnly relevant until regime change or similar governance shifts.
- ZeroGravitas 1y agoEV mandates have one of the strongest divergences in opinion between the people whose job it is to run critical infrastructure and people commenting online. Possibly some really effective bit of propaganda got released and no one fact checked it. The anti-EV lobby absolutely loved when California issued a standard demand warning a few years ago during a summer peak. I wonder if that's the cause?
- cindyllm 1y ago[dead]