No Fossil Fuel-Based Generation Was Added To US Grid Last Month (arstechnica.com) 123
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: In the U.S., two types of electricity generation are on the rise: natural gas and renewables. If one of those is set to make a bigger mark than the other this year, it's natural gas: in 2018, natural gas-burning capacity is expected to outpace renewable capacity for the first time in five years, according to data from the Energy Information Agency. Although natural gas additions are expected to overtake renewable energy additions in 2018, forecasts for renewable energy additions to the grid roughly match what we saw in 2017. Natural gas is overtaking renewables not because renewable energy adoption is slowing, but more because natural gas facilities are seeing a considerable boom.
In fact, barring any changes in the EIA numbers, natural gas, wind, and solar generation are the only electricity generation sources that will be added to the U.S. grid in any consequential manner in 2018. Battery, hydroelectric, and biomass facilities make up the small percentage of "other" sources that are expected to come online this year. Renewable energy also started off the year strong. According to the EIA, "in February 2018, for the first time in decades, all of the new generating capacity coming online within a month were non-fossil-fueled. Of the 475 MW of capacity that came online in February, 81 percent was wind, 16 percent was solar photovoltaic, and the remaining 3 percent was hydro and biomass."
In fact, barring any changes in the EIA numbers, natural gas, wind, and solar generation are the only electricity generation sources that will be added to the U.S. grid in any consequential manner in 2018. Battery, hydroelectric, and biomass facilities make up the small percentage of "other" sources that are expected to come online this year. Renewable energy also started off the year strong. According to the EIA, "in February 2018, for the first time in decades, all of the new generating capacity coming online within a month were non-fossil-fueled. Of the 475 MW of capacity that came online in February, 81 percent was wind, 16 percent was solar photovoltaic, and the remaining 3 percent was hydro and biomass."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, like climate change doesn't result in increased costs. Want to see the effects? Check with the fishes. Along the Atlantic seaboard, fisherman have had to cruise much further north because it turns out fish like cooler water and the tropics have been heating up...which also kills off the coral (which is another cost at the base of the food chain). This increases the cost of fishing.
That's only one effect. Increased cooling costs for the humans is another.
So you can either pay for increased power costs due to renewables, or you can pay for increase power costs due to global warming. You will probably choose the latter, which will come a quite a relief to the poor people in the tropics.
If you would learn a bit of systems theory, you wouldn't have such an uneducated view of power.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know much about fishing huh? It's not that the fish are going further north. It's that warmer climates have been over-fished to the point that we're moving into the actual spawning grounds to catch fish. It also doesn't help that despite treaties, there are numerous governments that let commercial fisheries operate right along the territorial limits, or catch more then is allowed by quota. Or simply black-flag companies that simply don't care(I'm looking at you Finland and China), and the governme
Re: (Score:2)
Okay there. Don't worry that your desire to impose communism on people is missed by people, or your desire to leave the shithole you helped create and try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently I know more about fishing then you. Especially since the oxygen levels in the water are the same as recorded ~50 years ago. The problem isn't fish fleeing, the problem is too much fishing and not allowing them to rebuild their numbers. One of the reasons for instance that Canada has been pushing fish farms and direct population of depleted stock. Maybe ask yourself why Finland is against this.
Re: (Score:2)
I cant speak for him, but I have a huge understanding of this, as a former navy nuclear engineer. However, anyone talking about these issues without demanding the abolition of crypto currency and the energy crisis it is creating either does not understand, or is motivated by pure greed. Telling people to replace lightbulbs with CFL to save the planet is crap in the era of crypto currency. The amount of power cryptocurrency mining is drawing in a single day exceeds small third world countries over a year of
Re: (Score:2)
Not all crypto-currencies require a lot of power. Proof of work like Bitcoin, sure. But there are a lot of different types out there.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Solar + wind works best with storage. But nobody wants to invest in storage before there's actually a problem that needs to be solved. So, first step is to invest in solar + wind, and create a problem. 2nd step is to invest in storage now that it is becoming profitable to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Or in the absence of grid-scale storage, we could use the German approach: wait until there's a problem, then dig enormous strip mines for spinning-reserve coal. Moah jerbs in Wyoming and West Virginia!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
What will the price actually be at that point
That depends on a lot of factors, and I'm not an expert in any of them, so I can't tell you that. Do you know the cost of fossil fuel in 10,20,30 years ? Do you know that we can rely on Russia to keep supplying Europe with natural gas for reasonable prices ? Having an alternative source of energy seems like a useful thing, even if the price is high right now.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I do know that we have 1.5 trillion barrels of oil [wikipedia.org] in the lower 48, and it is economically viable [wikipedia.org] at today's oil prices. That would be close to 3 centuries of oil reserves - plenty of time to make real movement toward either breeder reactors (quick) or fusion (slower to achieve, but reasonable with a 300 year effort). So the cost would be about what it is, today - if we had the political willpower to recover it.
Now, Europe? Not a clue, we've been stung going to war in the Mideast to protect their oil
Re: Good (Score:1)
Nevermind the effects on environment and health. Oil is worth killing for!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I do know that we have 1.5 trillion barrels of oil [wikipedia.org] in the lower 48, and it is economically viable [wikipedia.org] at today's oil prices.
That first link has this comment about that 1.5 trillion barrel projection: "However, the estimates of recoverable oil has been questioned by geophysicist Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, who argues that the technology for recovering oil from the Green River oil shale deposit has not been developed and has not been profitably implemented at any significant scale." So maybe not really available in such quantity?
And about that second link (which depends on speculative projections on price declines, reinforcing Pierr
Re: (Score:3)
What we've done in the UK is switch from coal to natural gas. That halves the CO2 emissions, and is much more flexible, it can start and stop much more quickly.
Then you ramp up wind and solar.
You only need storage when you get to the point where the renewable production completely shuts down the natural gas, but unfortunately we're a fair way from that. By the time that happens battery storage will be cheap, just a few pence per kilowatt hour extra for the stored electricity. There's technologies like vehic
Re: (Score:2)
teslas storage system in australia seems to be doing a good job. Though IMO the best storage method should be hydrogen gas. Its portable, distributable, and burns clean.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, Americans are so special they are the only people who live in warm places...(What's Canada's excuse?)
You think Nigeria is the world average for household electricity consumption? And I'm the one who is deliberately maliciously flawed?
You could cut back (closer) to other first world country levels and then you wouldn't have to use more coal powered electricity per person than China does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Since America is just about the worst CO2 producer, and it's households wastes the most energy, and it's people are one of the richest. They could afford to pay a bit more for green energy to help save the environment.
You could cut back your use at the same time and it wouldn't even cost a cent more. Just an incentive to be less wasteful. You don't really need to use 3x everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome rant, yet:
How does that relate to the correlation between amount of green energy and cost per kWh?
Re: (Score:2)
the crypto currency problem is a global one.. the USA households are not 'wasting the most energy'. Burning even a single clock cycle on crypto currency on its face is wasting energy and yet the energy it devours is enormous and grows exponentially. In 4yrs the energy cryptocurency draws, globally, will exceed the energy non-crypto sources draw.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They will (Score:2)
What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Natural Gas is a fossil fuel. Who writes this stuff?
Yea, but it's natural and everything natural is good for you right? Good thing we have those 30% tariffs on solar panels, they are so full of artificial chemicals that they are the cheapest power around but it just isn't worth the risk to the environment. /s
Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)
Yea, but it's natural and everything natural is good for you right?
Well, the author of the article seems to think that natural means that it is organic and vegan, and you can buy it at a higher price at Whole Foods, compared with conventional gas.
Score one for PETG . . . People for the Ethical Treatment of Gas.
The whole article raves about natural gas . . . but then claims that no fossil fuel based energy was added to a the grid.
I had to face-palm myself so hard that I nearly knocked myself out!
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
The whole article raves about natural gas . . . but then claims that no fossil fuel based energy was added to a the grid.
Yeah, it's very poorly written article. There are a number of separate things: 1) no gas plants were added in the month of February. 2) other gas plants will be added in the entire year of 2018. 3) no coal/nuke plants are being added.
Re: (Score:2)
why are you ok with Chinese workers and their environment being subjected to conditions the Left has deemed unacceptable for Americans and America??
It's up to the Chinese to fix their own problems, not me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're told that
You don't seem like the kind of person who gives a fuck what they're told.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It could be worse, last I checked we paid in cash instead of opium [britannica.com]....that and nobody is forcing China to enforce their environmental laws about as often as the USA enforces their immigration laws.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you know why we import these things?
Because our environmental laws won't allow them to be made here.
So the question is, why are you ok with Chinese workers and their environment being subjected to conditions the Left has deemed unacceptable for Americans and America??
None made in the USA?
Heliene – Mountain Iron, MN (U.S. manufacturing facility)
Itek Energy – Bellingham, WA
Mission Solar – San Antonio, TX
Seraphim – Jackson, MS (U.S. headquarters)
Solaria – Fremont, CA (U.S. headquarters)
SolarTech Universal – Riviera Beach, FL
SolarWorld Americas – Hillsboro, OR
Suniva – Norcross, GA
SunSpark – Riverside, CA
Tesla/Panasonic – Buffalo, NY (U.S. manufacturing facility)
The reason they supply so little of the Ame
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
It's in the last two sentences of the summary:
According to the EIA, "in February 2018, for the first time in decades, all of the new generating capacity coming online within a month were non-fossil-fueled. Of the 475 MW of capacity that came online in February, 81 percent was wind, 16 percent was solar photovoltaic, and the remaining 3 percent was hydro and biomass.
Granted, the "Last Month" is wrong. It was three months ago.
Re: (Score:2)
That part of TFS stuck out to me like it was bolded.
I kept looking for a clarification.
One idiot said, "Hey ... it's 'natural.' "
Goddam.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What fraction of natural gas used for electric generation comes from swamp gas or other renewable sources?
Re: (Score:2)
What fraction of natural gas used for electric generation comes from swamp gas or other renewable sources?
Somewhere between jack, and shit [eia.gov]: literally 11 billion kWh from landfill gas, and 1,273 billion kWh from natgas. I'm sure you knew that, but it's gratifying to be able to find the figures.
Re: (Score:2)
i think fossil fuel is a name being used as a placeholder for hydrocarbons.
Re: (Score:3)
Battery and solar are good solutions.
I am surprised there is not more motion to add batter plants like Australia's where they were able to really level out the generation requirement and feed a lot of short demand peaks with batter plants. It sure seems to add a lot of stability and efficiency to a system.
Part of the problem is republicans see these ideas as only half baked.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But but Coal! (Score:4, Funny)
Obama's war on Coal, especially Clean Coal, ended so all the Coal Miners should have gone back to work, and mined Coal, which is America's number one best product.
As we all know, the sun does not work, it is only shining half the day at best, and wind can't work, the air is far too small, you can't even see it. And besides, Obama was behind it, and we all know that Obama was a Kenyan and Kenya is home to Chewbacca, and Chewbacca hates America. That is why he kept us from building our nuclear waste storage site on Tattoonine. Even though nobody except a bunch of fat, welfare moms lives there.
In conclusion, this report is wrong. Trump's America is now coal and nuclear powered, and it is the biggest and best.
Re: (Score:1)
Wars tend to leave countries and economies in ruin and it takes a long time to bring them back.
You're thinking like an environmentalist.
Given the current roles of the EPA (Score:2)
I'm surprised that there aren't tons of coal burning plants being built or brought back online. /s
Most of the coal burning plants around here have already been torn down, or replaced by a much smaller scale/footprint natural gas generating plants.
There is a push for solar, and wind farms, I'd like to see more emphasis on storage.
Since when was Natural Gas not a fossil fuel? (Score:2, Insightful)
how did that idiocy get a +1 (Score:3, Informative)
According to the EIA, "in February 2018, for the first time in decades, all of the new generating capacity coming online within a month were non-fossil-fueled. Of the 475 MW of capacity that came online in February, 81 percent was wind, 16 percent was solar photovoltaic, and the remaining 3 percent was hydro and biomass."
What are those giant fans? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look Windy, renewables are becoming less and less [eia.gov] of your new electricity... 2015 66% 2016 62% 2017 55% 2018 36% No wonder your CO2 will rise this year.
Only because coal is steep decline, with natural gas picking up the slack (it produces about half the CO2 of coal, and much less of other pollutants). Actual renewable deployment is holding steady. It is fine if natural gas steps in to kill coal, the faster we get to coal zero the better.
Re: (Score:1)
battery (Score:4, Insightful)
>"Battery, hydroelectric, and biomass facilities make up the small percentage of "other" sources "
Sorry, but "battery" is not a "source" of electricity, it is just a storage of one.
>"Of the 475 MW of capacity that came online in February, 81 percent was wind, 16 percent was solar photovoltaic, and the remaining 3 percent was hydro and biomass."
Kewl! Reduction of fossil fuel usage is great for everyone, regardless of ideology or party. Energy independence, sustainability, and long-term cost control (because it doesn't "run out") are vitally important to security, peace, and the economy. Everything else is icing on an already delicious cake :)
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but "battery" is not a "source" of electricity, it is just a storage of one.
When it's providing energy, it's a source.
Re: (Score:2)
>"When it's providing energy, it's a source."
And when you are charging it, it is a drain. What, will we just charge it with other batteries? I don't think that will help with actual sources of power.
Listing "battery" as a power "source" when comparing to fossil fuels, nuclear, biomass, wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, makes no sense at all. If it is being listed as ways to improve power distribution, reliability, or even help cut costs, then great- but that is not what the summary says.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
OT: Could you vote for this topic
https://slashdot.org/submissio... [slashdot.org]
that it will be published on Slashdot.
Could you be more specific about the compounds in your blue pills and red pills? Some of us have to worry about allergies and side effects, you know.