Posted on Jun 14, 2023
In a First, Wind and Solar Generated More Power Than Coal in U.S.
4.62K
10
5
4
4
0
Power markets have witnessed a precipitous drop in coal-fired generation this year, driven by low natural gas prices, a mild winter and a wave of coal plant retirements. Renewable energy generation exceeded coal-fired power in 2020 and 2022, but only when hydropower was counted as a source of renewable energy, according to figures compiled by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
This year has been different. Wind and solar sources generated a combined 252 terawatt-hours through the first five months of 2023, compared with coal output of 249 TWh, EIA data shows. Hydro generated an additional 117 TWh through May.
This year has been different. Wind and solar sources generated a combined 252 terawatt-hours through the first five months of 2023, compared with coal output of 249 TWh, EIA data shows. Hydro generated an additional 117 TWh through May.
In a First, Wind and Solar Generated More Power Than Coal in U.S.
Posted from scientificamerican.com
Energy
Climate Change
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
True statement, but contextually a bit misleading. It's not that wind/solar is increasing tremendously, it's because coal plants are being retired or converted to natural gas* at an increasing pace.
I still think one of the biggest win-win-win scenarios is to convert existing/retiring/retired coal plants to nuclear (C2N) and the DOE estimates as many as 80% of coal plants can be converted*. There is a tremendous drop in CO2 emissions (win), a much higher output of electricity compare to other forms (win), and reuses/repurposes most/all the infrastructure that is already present (win). The main downside to C2N is that there is an increased cost up front, far less than to building one from scratch.
Because of this, the Levelized Cost of Energy* (LCOE - lifetime cost to build and operated divided by energy production - used to compare various energy technologies) is much less for C2N since 60% of the LCOE for a nuclear power plant is up-front construction costs.
----------------------------------
* https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44636
* https://fuelcycleoptions.inl.gov/SiteAssets/SitePages/Home/C2N2022Report.pdf
* https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/08/f25/LCOE.pdf
I still think one of the biggest win-win-win scenarios is to convert existing/retiring/retired coal plants to nuclear (C2N) and the DOE estimates as many as 80% of coal plants can be converted*. There is a tremendous drop in CO2 emissions (win), a much higher output of electricity compare to other forms (win), and reuses/repurposes most/all the infrastructure that is already present (win). The main downside to C2N is that there is an increased cost up front, far less than to building one from scratch.
Because of this, the Levelized Cost of Energy* (LCOE - lifetime cost to build and operated divided by energy production - used to compare various energy technologies) is much less for C2N since 60% of the LCOE for a nuclear power plant is up-front construction costs.
----------------------------------
* https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44636
* https://fuelcycleoptions.inl.gov/SiteAssets/SitePages/Home/C2N2022Report.pdf
* https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/08/f25/LCOE.pdf
More than 100 coal-fired plants have been replaced or converted to natural gas since 2011
Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
That's why I included the short extract from the article about the coal plant retirements. C2N is an interesting idea although this is the first I've heard of it. I'm not sure how many coal plants would even be a suitable for conversion considering the infrastructure needed for a nuclear plant and the proximity to water. When you say upfront costs I just think of delays and overruns. you never know what you're going to end up with. Think VC Summers in SC - $9B wasted.
(1)
(0)
COL Randall C.
SSG (Join to see) - DOE did an analysis of the existing coal plants. I mentioned the 80% number, but I have the link above to the report if you want to look into it more.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
What they fail to mention is the longevity of those projects. Oil and Gas will give you 10+ years of double the output of a 5 acre solar site. 1 wind turbine takes up the same space as a single well site, and has a life cycle of less than 5 years before needing replaced, and produces 1/10th the power capability of a gas well.
If there was the same standards applied to permits on wind and solar as there are for oil and gas, there wouldn't even be an argument as to which is more efficient or productive.
If there was the same standards applied to permits on wind and solar as there are for oil and gas, there wouldn't even be an argument as to which is more efficient or productive.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google