America's Renewable Energy Capacity Is Now Greater Than Coal (cnn.com) 240
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: The renewable energy sector had slightly more installed capacity than coal in April, according to a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report. That means U.S. power plants can produce more energy from clean sources than coal for the first time in history, according to the SUN DAY Campaign, a nonprofit research group supporting sustainable energy. The breakthrough reflects the plunging cost of solar and wind as well as heightened environmental concern about coal. Also in April, the renewable energy sector was projected to have generated more electricity than coal, according to a separate report published by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. That transition was partially driven by seasonal issues.
Hey folks. (Score:3, Insightful)
You lost. That's the free market, kicking your dirty coal black ass. Capitalism won out, socialism died. You kinda were right, kinda. But also so dumb.. lol. Nuclear and coal can't compete with renewables, even gas will be replaced too.
Just like you!
Sorry, I know Trump promised you all jacuzzis full of imported whores too...
Re:Hey folks. (Score:4, Funny)
now we can put the coal miners to work harvesting rare earth elements since china is threatening to withhold. I am _always_ ok with economics beating out other sources. Its only when we have to subsidize to drive a business out of business that i have issue. I dont think we need to subsidize coal just to keep the people in a job. those skills translate to other things that require mining.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hey folks. (Score:5, Interesting)
Rare earth elements would be cheap in the USA if there was a means to dispose of the thorium that came with it cheaply.
Artificially concentrated thorium is considered a controlled nuclear material, even though it's worthless for weapons and produces little radiation. Normally mining tails are just dumped back in the hole it came from, topsoil is put on top, and grass is planted. The place would look better than when the miners came. But since it is considered some kind of radioactive waste, rather than valuable fuel for nuclear power, the only thing that can be done with it is to carry it off to some federal radioactive waste site, where it would be guarded from... I don't know what, until it decays away in a few billion years.
We'll have our cheap rare earth elements when we have nuclear power plants fueled by thorium. At that point the mines can become profitable because the thorium is producing income rather than being an expensive nuisance.
Because of how minerals were deposited on the planet the places we find rare earth elements in abundance we also find uranium and thorium in abundance. Fix the problem of how to deal with the thorium and we will have our cheap rare earth elements in the USA.
Oh, some people might wonder what China does with it's thorium that comes from their rare earth element production. They pile it up out in the open. Thorium is not all that soluable in water, so it doesn't wash away in the rain. It's denser than most elements known, so it doesn't blow away. It's not readily absorbed into organisms, so plants and animals don't spread it around. It just kind of stays where it's been put. Put it in a heavy water reactor with some plutonium that's been taken from some retired nuclear weapons and it will create a lot of electricity for us. That's what the Chinese plan to do. And they got the idea from the USA. Sure would be nice if we did the same thing here.
Re: (Score:2)
Because no one would ever throw neutrinos at thorium . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Correct! Because neutrinos don't do anything to thorium.
Of course, you probably meant "neutrons", not "neutrinos". Guess what? Neutrons don't do much of anything with thorium either, other than make U-233. Which is useful for a nuclear power plant, but doesn't really do the BOOM! thing very well at all.
Re:Hey folks. (Score:4, Informative)
India's three stage nuclear weapons program? I believe you are confused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
As best I can tell there's been one nuclear weapon that used thorium as part of it's core, and while it did detonate it was considered a failure as it did not produce the yield they had expected.
If the existence of nuclear weapons concern you then you should support nuclear power. The current practice of downblending and disposal of weapons grade material doesn't destroy the material, it only makes it expensive to dig back up and put in a weapon again. To destroy the material in any meaningful time frame (it has a shelf life, just one that's millions of years long) then it must be destroyed in a nuclear reactor. This is also an expensive process except when done in a nuclear power plant, then it becomes profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
winner.
Subsidies (Score:3)
now we can put the coal miners to work harvesting rare earth elements since china is threatening to withhold.
Seriously, not a bad idea at least to a casual inspection. Probably are problematic details of course...
I am _always_ ok with economics beating out other sources.
Really? "Always"? You might not want to be quite so dogmatic about that. Those same rare earth minerals you mention are a good example at least in the short term. Almost all research has unpredictable economic outcomes. You definitely don't want unconstrained economics when it comes to health care. There are also cases where something isn't economic today but with some subsidies it will be a long t
Re: (Score:2)
Almost everything you enjoy was initially invented as part as a subsidy program.
Now, as for coal miners, while it's not the easy, coal mining involves begin ably to operate and understand machines, and work with your hands.
It would take little training to pivot them to solar installations. The one issue with that has been: Coal miners refusing to want to pivot. At which point, fuck em.
Re: Hey folks. (Score:3, Insightful)
Alchemy isn't a thing. Rare earth materials can't be produced chemically because we're referring to elements. Sure some you can create by atom smashing in nuclear reactors or linear accelerators but that's the sort of thing where you end up with shit costing billions of dollars a gram
Re: Hey folks. (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/race-for-rare-earth-minerals
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
https://www.sciencealert.com/s... [sciencealert.com]
-i could go on forever, but the point is made, you can educate yourself, or you can be a kendall-
Composite metamaterials IMO show the most promise, and that's largely proprietary secret shit you won't hear about publically until someone capitalizes.
Just.. you know, a heads up (your coal ass)
sg_oneill is right. You can't synthesize rare-earth elements.
The first of your three links talks about creating synthetic alternatives to rare-earth elements. That's not the same thing as synthesizing rare-earth elements.
The other two links talk about cleaner and more efficient ways to mine and refine rare-earth elements, not synthesize them.
I'll leave it to the reader to decide who is the ass here.
Re: (Score:2)
HOW do you synthesize an element that is not radioactive? And how do you do it cheaper than mining? And finally, do you understand that NO REM is used in batteries? They ARE used in some motors for magnets, and some electronics, but not batteries.
And yes, we need REMs. We are just going at it wrong.
Re: Hey folks. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The headline conveniently fails to mention how much the USA depends on "Freedom Gas".
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I was wondering. It's not saying renewables are generating more electricity than coal used to generate. Just that they're beating coal now. In other words, so much coal generation has been replaced by natural gas that now it generates less electricity than renewables do.
Don't get me wrong. I'm sure renewable generation has gone up dramatically. But headlines like this create a false sense of breaktrhough.
Re:Hey folks. (Score:4, Interesting)
Nuclear and coal can't compete with renewables, even gas will be replaced too.
Yeah, funny. But the truth is that gas beat coal, not renewables. Solar has made astounding progress, but we still have very little capacity to store it when the sun does not shine. We are making progress, but still have a way to go. Meanwhile, nuclear and gas can help reduce carbon emissions compared to coal.
Re: (Score:2)
When the sun does not shine, you only need half the power. Because it is night. ... where is the 110% and 120% solar production you want to store for the night? Hu? There is none.
So why do you "idiots" always want to store something? To be able to store solar power, you need to overproduce during daytime. A no brainer. So, you have 100% demand around 11:00 - 12:00 AM and 4:00 - 7:00 PM
Solar power is best fed into the grid right away and consumed, unless you have a really high percentage of solar power contr
Re: (Score:2)
The American capitalism vs socialism debate is actually quite stupid.
The two party system, both supports capitalism and socialism just in difference sectors. If the sector supports for you to be in power, you are going to push socialist ideas to make that sector prosper despite the direction of the unfeeling invisible hand of capitalism. While the sector that doesn't support you for power. Just push normal free market if they succeed then you can show that you are not playing favoritism, if they fail, it
Capacity is not the same thing as generation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Capacity is not the same thing as generation. (Score:4, Interesting)
"Renewables still lag on actual electricity generation" - And considering they've been around so few years, they're lagging on centuries of subsidies, research, development, massive "socialist" works projects... endowments...
In that regard, renewables truly are playing catchup. HOWEVER IN THE REAL WORLD? Renewables are cheaper, cleaner, faster, and bang/buck kick your ass back to mothballs, and you don't have to take my word for it.
https://www.hoover.org/research/high-and-hidden-costs-nuclear-power -- not the final word, lol. Google around, see that $32-$34 generation COST, (not selling price!) and compare it to 12$ or $14 completely unsusbsidized renewables, lol...
You lost on unfair terms that were in your favor. This is the free market saying renewables, free, sustainable-potentially-forever energy "from the heavens, literally" that you can either "extract, or not" and waste either way...
It's a non d'braineur, mon failbottes.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a non d'braineur, mon failbottes.
I love this guy - I hope you have a pseudonym Monsieur AC. Thanks for the link.
Re:Capacity is not the same thing as generation. (Score:5, Interesting)
"Renewables still lag on actual electricity generation" - And considering they've been around so few years, they're lagging on centuries of subsidies, research, development, massive "socialist" works projects... endowments...
I'd argue that it's nuclear power playing catchup, not in generated power but in R&D.
Not that long ago, the economics of wind and solar were pretty bad, but they were slowly being rolled out nonetheless (with generous subsidies). Now that we know how to build that stuff cheaper, more durable, cheaper to maintain and with greater efficiency, they make economic sense. That's usually how things go: once something is out there being used, it tends to get better and cheaper fast. Somehow that hasn't happened with nuclear. There's a few next-gen designs but few are being built, instead we have opted to keep aging (and dangerous) designs in operation well past their projected lifespan. Little is happening in the way of new reaction cycles like the ones using thorium: if we'll ever see thorium plants they will most likely have been designed in India or China.
As to the cost of nuclear: if I google around I see the same thing in various studies: the levelized cost per kWh (taking the cost of building, operating, decommissioning and other costs into account) shows unsubsidized nuclear power to be expensive, but still below offshore wind and small-scale solar installations. Nuclear needs no subsidies, over here we've seen a couple of proposals for nuclear plants by commercial parties who receive no subsidies beyond what every new power plant gets (mostly in the form of supporting infrastructure such as grid facilities). Those plans have all been abandoned for a variety of reasons, but not because they weren't economically viable.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear got far more subsidy for R&D than renewables ever did, in large part because it was needed for weapons. Back in the 50s, 60s and 70s lots of different designs were tried and failed, at enormous cost.
That's why it's hard to get finding for nuclear power research today. Developing a new wind turbine or battery has costs in the millions range and only requires a few building permits at most. It's a good investment, the technology is in high demand and as long as you do due diligence there is a good
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good point there. When looking at levelized costs we only consider the costs of successful previous designs, but omit the vast government spending on the entire design space. That would be a form of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Survivorship Bias. (another example would be to look at average returns from stockbrokers over a number of years but only looking at stockbroking firms who still exist, then saying that's your average return if you invest with a stockbroker *now*. Similarly for evaluati
Re: (Score:2)
excess geothermal should be diverted to hydrogen and LNP generation in a way to transport the energy in a loss-less format. Trying to cable these location-specific power sources yields too much attenuation. I think of hydrogen as a 'battery' more-so than a power source. Its transportable over distances vastly greater than trying to cable, even if you use crushed sapphire. We are not yet good at the distribution. We already have a oil/gasoline distribution system in place. The same trucks could just as easil
Re:Capacity is not the same thing as generation. (Score:4, Informative)
It cannot realistically be compressed to high densities, even at very high pressure, so transport is very expensive.
And unlike something like gasoline, you get serious losses during every transfer: main tank to transport truck, transport truck to distribution center (gas station), from. fuel station to car... losses every step of the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not current/correct.
Either Jane Q. Public made it up, or it was wrong information already 30 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
excess geothermal should be diverted to hydrogen and LNP generation in a way to transport the energy in a loss-less format. Trying to cable these location-specific power sources yields too much attenuation.
A high-temperature superconducting power cable can achieve losses of as little as 0.18% at a distance of 810 km [sciencedirect.com]. We can safely assume that excess electrical power can be moved at approximately zero loss, assuming there's enough excess energy to warrant the cost of doing so. Either way, even the 5% average losses from traditional transmission lines pale in comparison with the double-digit percentage loss involved in even a theoretically ideal hydrogen fuel cell.
Besides, what's the point of using steam to r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yea all the forest fires and unsightly powerlines are preferred to a clean burning source like hydrogen. I think you're using way outdated hydrogen information. Someone holds a patent for a material to contain hydrogen that does not require high pressure tanks, that was even displayed in that special on hydrogen cars by Alan Alda (go watch it, its about 15yrs old). Getting power from the west coast all the way to lets say New England, where its overcast and rainy more often than not, would take tremendous p
Re: (Score:2)
And the oil in the pipelines flows by itself.
It turns itself into gasoline.
Or the gas in the pipelines moves by itself ...
Your 20% numbers are way off ... however the gas/oil in a pipeline is pumped by ... uh, who had guess it ... by burning gas/oil and using it to drive a turbine to pump the gas/oil. No idea how much you lose over 1000 miles ... but it is not zero.
Who hd guessed that transporting energy, costs energy. Facepalm.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you show us those numbers and the reference you are claiming are the exact opposite of the article.
Re:Capacity is not the same thing as generation. (Score:5, Informative)
It's called capacity factor [eia.gov]. Nuclear is up around 92%; solar is around 23%. Wind is around 34%. Coal is around 54% [eia.gov]. Meaning you need at least TWICE the capacity for renewables as you do for coal, to actually deliver the power needed. And you'd need to go a factor of 5 to eclipse that of nuclear.
Capacity is quite deceiving; it's what you could theoretically do if the sun was shining brightly for 12 hours every day, or you had a 30 MPH wind for 12 hours every day. In reality, production is what matters - we consume the production, not the capacity. And so you need 2-3 times more capacity for solar or wind to out-produce, in the real world, what coal does.
Re: (Score:2)
A better question is how much it costs to meet the demand with each technology. If you need 5x as much wind but it's 10x cheaper, it makes sense to use wind.
Unfortunately it's almost impossible to calculate the actual cost of each source. There are various estimates of the levelized costs, but they tend not to take in to account things like non-monetary subsidies such as free insurance.
In the long run offshore wind is the best solution. It's difficult for NIMBYs to complain about since they can't see it, us
Re: (Score:2)
Well, make sure you add in baseload capacity as well. What happens when the wind doesn't blow, or it's not sunny? You need alternate power sources. Those should be factored in to the cost for both renewable AND non-renewable. Of course, that's already "baked in" to the non-renewable side of things - they are the baseload, so this doesn't affect their cost calculation at all. But it's an extra cost for renewables - and is somehow always ignored.
Do your math assuming you need a 100% backup for your renew
Re: (Score:2)
Capacity factors are relevant for?
In reality, production is what matters
Correct.
And so you need 2-3 times more capacity for solar or wind to out-produce, in the real world, what coal does.
Incorrect.
Why is your coal CF 54%? Oh, because at night the coal plant is not running. Because you don't need its capacity. In the same sense you don't need the "capacity" of solar power at night.
You are mixing up dispatchable/non dispatchable with capacity factors.
Re:Capacity is not the same thing as generation. (Score:5, Informative)
The article explains this:
The FERC report measured capacity, not the actual amount of power generated. And renewable energy typically has a lower capacity utilization than other fuel sources. In other words, just because renewable power has the potential to generate this much electricity, doesn't mean that it actually will -- at least not yet.
Renewable generation isn't expected to surpass coal on an annual basis for several years.
Of course the current administration is trying hard to make the US reach that point later than it could. Stupid if you ask me, even from a purely economic perspective propping up dinosaur industries doesn't make sense. Other countries will get there first & save big bucks doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm concerned about the possibility that renewable power might someday generate as much power as its theoretical potential, as that would mean that the Earth will have stopped spinning so the panels are always facing towards the sun, and that the ensuing winds will be blowing continuously at speeds that will likely make the planet completely uninhabitable.
I
Re: (Score:2)
But I would think that a warmer Earth would also result in more water evaporating from the oceans, which would result in more clouds, which in turn would reflect more light on the sun side, which would then push the planet towards a higher orbit, which would decrease the solar drag on the moon, which would probably cancel out most of that difference. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
renewable energy typically has a lower capacity utilization than other fuel sources
This is quite an understatement though. For solar PV the utilisation is something like 15% whereas with coal and nuclear it's more like 90%. That factor of six isn't something to be glossed over.
Re: (Score:2)
Dinosaur industries get getting preserved by the Alleged Administration because the Orange Man learned about the industrial base of the 1960s and figures if it was good enough back then, then it must be good enough now because circumstances never change. You ignore that he's a stable genius.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if there is a different motivation other than what is assumed (that the president is working in our best interest)?
It's not exactly stupid if it helps enrich you and your friends now, is it?
It is if you put the interests of yourself & a few of your friends above the interests of >300 million Americans. Especially after you've been elected by those same Americans to SERVE THE COUNTRY.
Re: (Score:2)
Renewables still lag on actual electricity generation.
You should RTFA. A separate report projected (yes, projected; I'll address that) that renewable generation would exceed coal generation in April. Not just capacity, but actual generation. The projection shows that renewable generation fluctuates significantly, and spring is a particularly good time for renewables, especially hydro, and a particularly bad time for coal since it's a period of lower utilization and coal plants are often taken offline for maintenance in the spring. Still, based on installed
Re: (Score:2)
Renewables still lag on actual electricity generation.
Engaging in the time-honored Slashdot tradition of not even reading the summary I see.
Coal still generates much more electricity than hydro, geo, biomass, wind and solar.
No it doesn't. It generates just a little more most of the time, and less some of the time. Per the summary:
Also in April, the renewable energy sector was projected to have generated more electricity than coal, according to a separate report published by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
Hydro, geo, biomass, wind, and solar generated more than coal in April. Probably. Numbers not yet confirmed. Regardless, some months, they definitely do, especially summer months. The gap will only widen with time. So yeah, the capacity factors of (some types) of renewables are pretty poor, but it no longer ma
Re: (Score:2)
But that ca do it.
"Hydro/geothermal is still location dependent."
how come everyone who spews nonsense about green tech is unaware of an invention called "wires"?
Capacity vs production (Score:4, Interesting)
Capacity factor for nuclear is typically around 90%. For coal and gas it's around 50%-60% [eia.gov]. Hydro is usually down around 30%-40% because there's only so much rain which falls in a year. Hydro is easy to ramp up and down in response to demand, so it (along with gas) is saved to use for dynamic load instead of as base load. Offshore wind is typically 30%-40% (though it gets over 60% off Scotland). Onshore wind is around 25%. Solar for fixed panels averages about 14.5% for the continental U.S (10% in Germany). For the desert southwest it can get as high as 19.5%. You can increase this more using panels which track the sun, or with concentrators (basically big lenses which concentrate the sunlight like a magnifying glass frying ants), but it peaks at around 25% - there's no getting around night, atmospheric absorption at low angles, and weather.
So matching coal in generating capacity is pretty meaningless. To "surpass" coal, the power source's capacity multiplied by its capacity factor has to exceed that of coal. Which means if renewables are just now passing coal in capacity, then they have yet to reach half of coal in terms of actual power generation. (Also note that a large part of the reason for this isn't an increase in renewable generation, but a reduction in coal generation. Power companies have been switching from coal to gas [usnews.com] with reckless abandon. But the percentage of electricity generated by coal + gas has only dropped a little, from a bit more than 65% to a bit less than 65%. Wind, solar, and geothermal generation has increased from 5% to 10% in the last 10 years. A big increase for those power sources, but small relative to fossil fuels.)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"but you really need to be comparing these based on production, not capacity."
This is true to a point, but as you add capacitance to a lower-cost slower-producing source... you bank.
This is what we're seeing already on the markets. The low cost of renewables to get into the market is a factor also.
Would you add a huge expense you can't afford to make a baseload you might not even need and would proabably NEVER BE PROFITABLE? The free market says no.
That's why renewable investment growth is 45% + year over
Re:Capacity vs production (Score:5, Interesting)
Hate to be a downer, but you really need to be comparing these based on production, not capacity
Hate to be a downer, but they literally did this in the report.
So matching coal in generating capacity is pretty meaningless.
Unless you're just trying to measure the trends in the growth of various generating technologies....which, shockingly enough, is the point of this report.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
From the source for that report [ieefa.org]:
To be fair, there are seasonal considerations. Of particular note, is the long-held practice of taking coal plants offline during the lower demand periods of the spring (and fall) to perform maintenance and upgrades to ensure that they are ready for the higher demand of the summer and winter seasons. In addition, spring tends to be peak time for hydro generation.
So, when you take a bunch of coal plants offline, THEN renewables can finally equal the production output. Wow - who would have guessed that renewables did better in terms of production compared to a bunch of idled coal plants!
And then we had peak hydro coming in too, thanks to record rain and snows melting, keeping the dams spinning at massive capacity! Wow - who would have guess that a transitory burst of water down the rivers (which has to be released to avoid flooding/t
Re:Capacity vs production (Score:5, Informative)
From the source for that report [ieefa.org]:
To be fair, there are seasonal considerations. Of particular note, is the long-held practice of taking coal plants offline during the lower demand periods of the spring (and fall) to perform maintenance and upgrades to ensure that they are ready for the higher demand of the summer and winter seasons. In addition, spring tends to be peak time for hydro generation.
So, when you take a bunch of coal plants offline, THEN renewables can finally equal the production output.
The key is that this is the first time it's happened... and that the EIA projects that it will continue happening every spring, but for longer and longer periods, gradually creeping into other parts of the year. We're probably still a decade away from renewables exceeding coal on an annual basis, and a bit longer than that before renewables exceed coal all the time, but the trend lines are clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Availability and Utilization vs Capacity Factor (Score:2)
Capacity factor for nuclear is typically around 90%.
This is a nearly useless figure without the Availability Factor and Utilization because it presumes a reactor is always available to generate power and precludes things like refueling and servicing a reactor.
Consequently a reactor may have a much lower ability to deliver power than the CF alludes to. Work has been done to explain this in Utilization and service: Decomposing nuclear reactor capacity factors [sciencedirect.com] which has a nice summary of why CF is too simplistic to be useful on its own.
In comparison Geoth
Did you add them up? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you add up water, wind, biomass, geothermal, and solar you get 257.53 compared to 257.48 for coal alone. So... what really is the big deal?
Plus, the top comment says something about good old fashion free market. But, this market is anything but free with all the subsidies and such.
The only news worthy item here is someone is still listening to CNN. That's pretty amazing.
Why are so many ppl IDIOTS (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, the report referred to installed CAPACITY. How many solar systems run in the night, or during storms? Not many. How many wind generators run when the wind is zero? Again, not many. In fact, only nuclear, geo-thermal, bio-mass, and most hydro, are capable of running at 100% capacity like coal does.
Third, how many of you will learn that generated electricity is what matters WRT intermittent systems? For example, in CHina, IIRC, solar/wind runs less than 20%. In America, and I believe western Europe, both run at better than 30% for both solar/wind. So, just to equal the electricity that America/Europe generate, China must have 50% more installed capacity,
Finally, nat gas is growing fast. NOT A GOOD THING.
Re:Why are so many ppl IDIOTS (Score:4, Insightful)
Finally, nat gas is growing fast. NOT A GOOD THING.
It's better than coal.
Re: (Score:2)
We really should be pushing Nukes, geo-thermal, hydro. In addition, storage, such as hydro, air, thermal and of course chemical, otherwise known as Batteries.
Re: (Score:3)
Not by much.
By about half [eia.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
That number ignores transmission losses, though. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, so natural gas leaks are a pretty big concern. Estimates are that about 1.4% of all natural gas leaks before being used. So add 40% to the natural gas numbers, and suddenly, it doesn't look nearly as good (not that it looked good to begin with).
Methane is also a big problem for hydroelectric, if you aren't already building a dam for flood control or drinking water purposes anyway, because it requires
Re:Why are so many ppl IDIOTS (Score:4, Insightful)
You are not taking the shorter lifetime of methane in the atmosphere into account.
and at the bottom of that lake, plants die and rot, releasing methane
Plants die and rot on dry ground as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I *was* taking that into account. That's why I used the ~30x multiplier, which is based on averaging its impact over... I think a hundred years or so. The short-term impact is much worse — something like 80x as bad, IIRC. (I forget the exact numbers.)
The key difference is the amount of oxygen available underwater versus on dry ground. Methane production predominantly
Re: (Score:2)
And being kicked in the ass is better than being kicked in the balls, but that hardly makes it a good thing.
Re: (Score:3)
nat gas generate 50 - 60 percent less carbon than coal. it's a great thing. If the world cut all its carbon emission in half we'd be a break-even for what the Earth can sink.
P.S. I'm more worried about ocean acidification than climate
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
coal use is declining in USA, just not enough / not fast enough
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. I'm more worried about ocean acidification than climate
After listening to Dr. Patrick Moore speak on ocean acidification I'm no longer concerned about it. He's explained that there is enough pH buffering material in the ocean, and on the ocean floor, that there is no reason to be concerned about the ocean getting too acidic.
Who is Dr. Patrick Moore? Look here -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
People have accused Dr. Moore of being a global warming "denier". As I recall he's called himself a "global lukewarmer", or maybe someone else labeled him such and
Re: (Score:2)
He is wrong as the hydronium ion concentration in ocean is already up 30% and still climbing, buffering isn't working
Re: (Score:3)
As it shows, solar pv runs around 25%, while wind runs around 33%.
Nice table in here that shows the issues about Capacity factors [canadafreepress.com]
So why did you lie in your other post WindBourne? (Score:2)
As it shows, solar pv runs around 25%, while wind runs around 33%.
So why did you lie in this post and say solar in America was more than 30?
In America, and I believe western Europe, both run at better than 30% for both solar/wind. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
First, CNN has it wrong. 'Renewable' has NOT exceeded coal. 'CLEAN' has exceeded coal. What is the difference? 'CLEAN' is renewable COMBINED with Nuclear
Water, wind, biomass, geothermal and solar adds up to 257.53.
Coal adds up to 257.48
Notice that the word "nuclear" doesn't appear in that?
Secondly, the report referred to installed CAPACITY. How many solar systems run in the night, or during storms?
This is actually covered in both the CNN article and the report.
The point of this was to measure changes, and when you do that you pick some units. Capacity is a better representation than capacity factor because it changes quicker.
Oh, I'm sorry, I interrupted you in the middle of injecting your agenda.
Speaking to IDIOTS... HI THERE MORAN! (Score:2, Flamebait)
First, CNN has it wrong. 'Renewable' has NOT exceeded coal. 'CLEAN' has exceeded coal. What is the difference? 'CLEAN' is renewable COMBINED with Nuclear.
Nope!
You COULD have clicked on that link and then at least ranted from a neutral position.
But you chose to go the "ME AM ZMART! PEPL AM IDJITZ!" path instead...
Ah well...
It's not CNN, it's the goddamn FERC report.
Total Available Installed Generating Capacity
Installed Capacity (GW)
Coal 257.48
Natural Gas 531.08
Nuclear 106.99
Oil 39.77
Water 100.44
Wind 98.62
Biomass 16.10
Geothermal Steam 3.83
Solar 38.54
Waste Heat 1.32
Other* 0.78
Total 1,194.95
* "Other" includes purchased steam, tires, and miscellaneous technology such as batteries, fuel cells, energy storage, and fly wheel.
Secondly, the report referred to installed CAPACITY. How many solar systems run in the night, or during storms? Not many. How many wind generators run when the wind is zero?
Which is why it is a mix of sources - not those false dichotomy strawmen you're putting up.
Third, how many of you will learn that generated electricity is what matters WRT intermittent systems? For example, in CHina, IIRC, solar/wind runs less than 20%. In America, and I believe western Europe, both run at better than 30% for both solar/wind. So, just to equal the electricity that America/Europe generate, China must have 50% more installed capacity,
Did you wash your hands after pulling those numbers out of your ass?
BTW, you forgot to actually make an argument there.
You just threw a bunch of made up numbers and pretended to compare them because "somethin
Re: (Score:3)
First, CNN has it wrong. 'Renewable' has NOT exceeded coal. 'CLEAN' has exceeded coal. What is the difference? 'CLEAN' is renewable COMBINED with Nuclear.
This is incorrect.
Here are the US EIA's numbers for April 2019 (source [eia.gov]), in megawatt hours per day:
Coal: 1840
Natgas: 3388
Petroleum: 43
Other gases: 31
Nuclear: 2019
Renewable: 2389
Pumped storage hydropower: -11
Other nonrenewable: 34
"Renewable" is further broken down in to hydropower (966), wind (1001), wood biomass (101), waste biomass (56), geothermal (45) and solar (221).
As you can see, it's not that renewable PLUS nuclear exceeded coal... actually, both renewable AND nuclear exceeded coal --
Re: (Score:2)
First, CNN has it wrong. 'Renewable' has NOT exceeded coal. 'CLEAN' has exceeded coal. What is the difference? 'CLEAN' is renewable COMBINED with Nuclear.
First you start off with a blatant lie.
Secondly, the report referred to installed CAPACITY.
Second you wen't with more lies
Also in April, the renewable energy sector was projected to have generated more electricity than coal, according to a separate report published by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
The report referred to both capacity and generation.
Third, you pulled a bunch of numbers out your ass. We know they came from your ass because you later showed completely different numbers.
Finally, nat gas is growing fast. NOT A GOOD THING.
Finally you ended with some nonsense. Nat gas
Some "journalist" still has not figured out (Score:2)
the difference between nominal "capacity" vs. actual output.
Properly accounted for, the actual capacity is almost an order of magnitude less.
Also, the big "winner" in the US is not "renewable", it is gas.
So, no difference for anything that matters, like the global warming.
Thanks, US.
Re: (Score:2)
Some "slashdot" poster still has not figured out you measure things in units based on what you're measuring.
When you're attempting to measure the changes in construction/decomissioning of power plants, capacity is what you use.
When you're attempting to measure all of the sources of electricity on the grid, you use capacity factor.
So, no difference for anything that matters, like the global warming
Only when you're demanding we be at the end state right now. Some of us actually understand change has to happen first.
Installed capacity... can produce (Score:2)
Notice how they don't have actually produces.
There is the capacity to do so, it's just not actually being done.
I also assume there is still more coal capacity now than any other time in history, unless there has been a bunch of coal stations being decommissioned recently?
An inconvenient truth... (Score:3)
We already saw natural gas exceed coal in electricity production, that happened somewhere around 2015 or 2016.
Renewable energy capacity beat out coal but it's still in fourth place in actual production. So, if renewable energy is in fourth place, natural gas in first place, and coal in second, then what's in third place?
That would be nuclear power.
At this rate we will see nuclear power come to second place in electricity production very soon. Then what?
Nuclear power hasn't been getting a lot of news because coal was the big bogeyman that needed to be contained. We're getting there fast. Next in line will likely be natural gas. So, we slay that dragon. Then comes nuclear power. Are we really going to get rid of nuclear power? An energy source with a lower carbon output than any other energy source we have? I don't think so. I believe we are on the verge of a second nuclear age, kind of like the craze for nuclear power we saw start in the 1950s.
It's another nuclear age, or the lights go out. Take your pick.
Re: (Score:3)
At this rate we will see nuclear power come to second place in electricity production very soon
That would require building new nuclear power plants.
Guess what we're not doing. since they cost 10x-100x the cost of building other kinds of plants and costs the most per kwh?
Are we really going to get rid of nuclear power?
Yep.
Takes too long to build a new plant. Even if there was zero red tape, it still takes 5-10 years to go from ribbon cutting to pushing electrons on the wire. These plants can also only be built by a very small number of companies on the planet. And it takes a ton of time and expertise to create a new entry into the field, so we'r
Re: (Score:2)
That would require building new nuclear power plants.
No, it doesn't. It only requires the current trends of coal being replaced by natural gas, nuclear power staying where it is, and the longstanding trend of renewable energy growing very.... very... slowly.
Nuclear isn't gonna be the savior you are dreaming of.
It's all a dream? Then what's this?
https://morningconsult.com/201... [morningconsult.com]
Looks like Democrats and Republicans deciding that new nuclear power plants are going to be part of the future national energy policy.
Anyone that has taken a serious look at the problem of producing energy in the future cannot exclude nu
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't. It only requires the current trends of coal being replaced by natural gas, nuclear power staying where it is, and the longstanding trend of renewable energy growing very.... very... slowly.
So under your theory, when A and B are growing while C remains the same, C will end up the largest? Basic math says "No".
Also, renewable energy isn't the one of those that's growing slowly. It's growing faster than the others. Starting from basically 0 means it takes a long time to supplant the others, but that doesn't mean it's growing slowly.
It's all a dream? Then what's this?
It's an article saying someone in the House might propose legislation that might pass that might be signed that might affect nuclear power construction.
To pretend
Re: (Score:2)
So under your theory, when A and B are growing while C remains the same, C will end up the largest? Basic math says "No".
That's not my theory.
It's an article saying someone in the House might propose legislation that might pass that might be signed that might affect nuclear power construction.
Then you didn't read the whole article, this is just the latest bill among many passed in the last year. Old government policies that made nuclear power expensive are being replaced with new policies that reduce the costs.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not my theory.
Did you not realize your old post is still up there, where you claim that by not growing, nuclear will become dominant? You'll find " nuclear power staying where it is" is part of it.
Then you didn't read the whole article, this is just the latest bill among many passed in the last year
When making a claim about not reading an article, it's probably a good idea to actually read the article.
For example, the bill in the article has not passed, despite you claiming it has. The article is about someone in the House saying they may introduce a Senate bill....that has not passed the Senate.
Also, there have been pr
We already have the potential (Score:3)
US is the largest producer of natural gas at the moment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Especially after shale gas drilling techniques US has surpassed Russia, which has more of the resource underground. This led to gas taking over the top source of electricity in US grid. Which is a good thing for the country, but of course an inconvenience for coal mining industry.
Now we have renewables (solar, wind, geo), and might even see a resurgence of nuclear, if the newer designs reach fruition (I am okay either way, as long as it is economically viable).
Basically we are the the point where we can have abundance of energy, at much lower cost, both in Dollar costs, and the environmental impact.
We should just celebrate it, not try to impede the progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear will never be economically viable. Too many people in that industry are dirty.
Waaah, nuke these plants! (Score:2)
The US has to use _dirty_ energy to show everybody who is the most hairy, most smelly barbarian on the planet! Clean energy is for softies that also do things like recycle or not dump toxic chemicals into the environment. Real men do all these things and are _proud_ of it!
Capacity != generated power (Score:4, Informative)
From the article:
"The FERC report measured capacity, not the actual amount of power generated. And renewable energy typically has a lower capacity utilization than other fuel sources. In other words, just because renewable power has the potential to generate this much electricity, doesn't mean that it actually will -- at least not yet.
Renewable generation isn't expected to surpass coal on an annual basis for several years"
Natural gas? (Score:2)
I'm skeptical when they fail to mention another source of electricity we're turning to: Natural gas.
Which is cleaner than coal, but it's still spewing CO2, yes?
I mean, this is nice and all, but I think excluding natural gas' growth makes this somewhat misleading.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm skeptical when they fail to mention another source of electricity we're turning to: Natural gas.
I'm skeptical when an article on energy trends fails to mention nuclear.
Which is cleaner than coal, but it's still spewing CO2, yes?
Nuclear produces less CO2 than wind or solar, that's certainly relevant.
I mean, this is nice and all, but I think excluding natural gas' growth makes this somewhat misleading.
Especially misleading since the largest "zero carbon" energy source wasn't mentioned at all, even though it produced more energy than all renewable energy sources combined.
(I know nuclear is not zero carbon, that's why I put it in scare quotes. You know what is also not zero carbon? Wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal. It's like "zero calorie" soft drinks, there's
Re:Natural gas? Or not (Score:2)
Incorrect. You can get a full energy supply curve using a combination of wind and solar pretty much anywhere in the continental US, and then use things like flywheels (used in Alaska Scotland and other tidal energy places) and batteries to infill the remaining 0.1 percent needed for shaping. You can even use stored water up an incline running turbine blades.
The world has changed and renewables are far cheaper and we figured all this stuff out over the last 20 years or so.
Only when (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hydro is extremely location specific. Also there are some physics at play. Hydro is a technology based on converting kinetic energy into another form. If you take too much kinetic energy from rivers and streams, one must really consider the ecological impact of rivers and streams with a lot less force. Will this unbalance the ecology of the lakes? Will this impact the wildlife and the bugs the wildlife feed on? its like seeding a cloud. Yes youre helping yourself, but are you harming things outside your imm
Re: (Score:3)
> Any plans to build more of that?
Honestly, how many places are LEFT where damming a river and flooding a valley are economically and politically viable, that don't have dams ALREADY?
Remember, damming a river and flooding a valley behind it isn't exactly free, and AFAIK, Niagra Falls is pretty much the ONLY waterfall of its scale -- or anything remotely close -- anywhere in North America.
Sure, we have mountains with snowmelt... but do you seriously think it makes sense to spend tens of millions of dollar
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, though, I think the only things environmentalists hate more than nuclear power are hydroelectric dams and fracking.
Which tells me that they have no real concern on actually solving the problem of environmental impact.
It used to be that natural gas was going to save us all. I had people tell me how metro buses in California used to advertise that they burned "clean" natural gas. That certainly helped clean up the air pollution. Once it became clear that natural gas was affordable and could actually replace gasoline and diesel fuel for transportation then the support for switching stopped. Had this support continued t
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ya, but ... (Score:4, Interesting)
> At night
Where I live, in Australia, day time electricity is currently priced 4 times higher than night time energy. That's "off peak pricing" to encourage consumption at night, because of the base-load generation from things like coal plants. If they move to solar, the utilities can just scrap that "off-peak" nonsense or just charge more for electricity at night, disincentivizing its usage. We're already using variable pricing to get people to use electricity when it's not wanted so it's not much of a stretch to change the pricing structure so people use it when solar is available. The "OMG what about night-time" thing is still a thing, but much, much less than is claimed. Night-time energy use is artificially inflated via off-peak pricing already.
Re: (Score:3)
* https://www.canstarblue.com.au... [canstarblue.com.au]
That's the table. 52c/KWh during the day time and 13c/KWh for the same electricity at night. That's how little people actually *need* electricity at night. We can just stop doing that or reverse it so that sunny times are cheaper, and presto, people won't use so much at night. It's not a big problem. We already do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump isn't lying, he simply believes that to be the case because he wants it. More to the point, he wants the votes he thinks he'll get. The fact that the miners get sold down the river isn't something he's concerned about.