Wind, Solar Provide 67% of New US Electrical Generating Capacity In First Half of 2022 (electrek.co) 106
Klaxton shares a report from Electrek: Clean energy accounted for more than two-thirds of the new US electrical generating capacity added during the first six months of 2022, according to data recently released by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Wind (5,722 megawatts) and solar (3,895 MW) provided 67.01% of the 14,352 MW in utility-scale (that is, greater than 1 MW) capacity that came online during the first half of 2022. Additional capacity was provided by geothermal (26 MW), hydropower (7 MW), and biomass (2 MW). The balance came from natural gas (4,695 MW) and oil (5 MW). No new capacity was reported for 2022 from either nuclear power or coal. This brings clean energy's share of total US available installed generating capacity up to 26.74%. To put that in perspective, five years ago, clean energy's share was 19.7%. Ten years ago, it was 14.76%.
Misleading headline (Score:4, Insightful)
The summary is better at least...
New capacity added - not total installed capacity as implied in the title... (And certainly not share of total generated energy)
The capacity is also misleading - it might make more sense to use annual average output power capability instead of peak values... With the current ratings 1GW of nuclear would generate a lot more power than 1GW of solar / wind, but it seems equivalent...
Re: (Score:2)
(Rereading the headline it does not seem that bad though)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, 67% of "new capacity" is at least a questionable figure.
Re: (Score:1)
That's TRUMP
Re:Misleading headline (Score:5, Informative)
Did we have 33% of "new capacity" implemented with coal or did we build new dams or something?
How much of that 67% "new capacity" has been used to replace coal power plans? I would assume none since it wouldn't be "new capacity" then.
How much coal power plan capacity has actually been replaced with solar and wind? If you count any new solar and wind input to the grid as "new capacity", it means that you are still emitting the same CO2 as before.
Anyway, that was only a few examples of why it was "questionable".
I have been a democrat all my life but with people like yourself, I am thinking of voting for the dark side for the first time in my life this fall!
I hope that you have a nice honeymoon with AOC.
Dunno what numbers you are looking at but it's kind of irrelevant whether that 'new' capacity is replacing coal or something else or whether it's a net addition to the existing capacity. In fact it's a good thing if coal is being replaced by something with an orders of magnitude lower carbon footprint. The point is that this data shows that when people are building new power plants for what ever reason, smart money is overwhelmingly flowing into renewables, not coal, not nat-gas, not nuclear, ..., etc. and soon enough it will be funding grid storage and improved grid connectivity through ultra-high-voltage electricity transmission lines and modern smart grid tech. Since these people do their maths before investing for decades in anything this it speaks volumes about in which tech the market sees the future.
Re: Misleading headline (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Capacity and actual production are two different things. There are 4 wind turbines through my commute in Cleveland and 90% of the time they are not spinning even on windy days.
So is that a graph showing their actual production data speaking or is it your personal bias? Because if you didn't just pull that data about them being idle 90% of the time out of your fundament then I'd like to see it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Misleading headline (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Capacity and actual production are two different things.
Indeed. TFA is intentionally misleading by conflating peak output with actual production.
90% of the time they are not spinning even on windy days.
That may be true but is far from typical. No one is going to invest in idle wind turbines. The average "capacity factor" (actual-production/theoretical-max-production) for wind in America is 42%.
With a 10 year lifespan ...
A typical lifespan for a wind turbine is 25 years.
Lincoln Electric Turbines [Re: Misleading headline (Score:5, Informative)
Capacity and actual production are two different things.
True, and an important point.
There are 4 wind turbines through my commute in Cleveland and 90% of the time they are not spinning
That would be the Lincoln Electric [lincolnelectric.com] turbine (and a smaller wind machine nearby). I drive past it too, and you're right, most of the time it (and the smaller one) is not moving.
But... real electrical production from wind looks like this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/... [flickr.com] or this https://en.mercopress.com/data... [mercopress.com] : hundreds of wind machines. Not one or two wind machines in a city. And they're emplaced in locations where the wind is reliable, not in a random location in a big city strategically placed to be visible from the highway.
The Lincoln Electric machine was a demo machine, because Lincoln Electric manufactures parts for the generators.
Re: (Score:2)
> There are 4 wind turbines through my commute in Cleveland and 90% of the time they are not spinning even on windy days.
I will bet you 1 million dollars that statement is not true.
> With a 10 year lifespan
20 years fleet average, 25 on newer designs.
Re: Misleading headline (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they are moving but at a rate that it appears to you that they aren't moving. Think about that?
Re: (Score:2)
Since these people do their maths before investing for decades in anything this it speaks volumes about in which tech the market sees the future.
Not so fast dude! Since those are highly subsidized by the government, maybe "these people" just wish to grab the subsidies and profit then run once they stop.
For example, I have nothing against Musk but he basically built Tesla on government subsidies/credits/tax exemptions. If and once everybody has converted, the subsidies will obviously stop and it will be time to pay for everything at last!
For one thing the LCOE for renewable energy sources and nat-gas is far lower than coal and nuclear even when you strip away all subsidies. Secondly, it's not as if coal, fossil and nuclear are completely un-subsidised now is it? ... especially nuclear.
Subsidies [Re:Misleading headline] (Score:2)
Not so fast dude! Since those are highly subsidized by the government, maybe "these people" just wish to grab the subsidies and profit then run once they stop.
do keep in mind that subsidies are there for fossil fuels as well; they're just mostly invisible.
For example, I have nothing against Musk but he basically built Tesla on government subsidies/credits/tax exemptions.
If you said that about SpaceX, I'd say you had a case: SpaceX got big when NASA invested in it by giving it a contract to design and build the Falcon-9. Tesla, not as obvious. But the electric vehicle tax break for the early Tesla cars was so small a part of the cost that I don't think it really was much of a factor in purchase decisions. Tesla made it big because they made good marketing decisions, deciding n
Start at the top [Re:Subsidies] (Score:2)
Stop pissing about and say it. Tesla is a luxury brand
Absolutely! That was Tesla's brilliant stroke, making an electric automobile that was not merely the equal of an economy car but with a battery, but the equal or superior of the top luxury cars.
and Tesla will never solve the problem of electrifying the global automobile fleet because it is a Luxury brand.
Now that's not at all clear. Technologies, in general, percolate into use from the top down. The HP-9100A desktop calculator, released in 1968, cost $5,000. It led to the $395 HP-35. Now you can get a calculator in the dollar store.
Starting at the top is a wise decision for how to get a new technology out into th
Re: (Score:2)
Data Source [Re:Misleading headline] (Score:3)
Did we have 33% of "new capacity" implemented with coal or did we build new dams or something?
The data source is here:: https://cms.ferc.gov/media/ene... [ferc.gov]
(scroll down to page 4). The data is "New Generation In-Service (New Build and Expansion)"
How much of that 67% "new capacity" has been used to replace coal power plans? I would assume none since it wouldn't be "new capacity" then.
This is data on new electrical generating plants put into service by June 2022. If you want to know what types of old plants are being taken out of service, you'll have to look elsewhere.
Dunno what numbers you are looking at but it's kind of irrelevant whether that 'new' capacity is replacing coal or something else or whether it's a net addition to the existing capacity. In fact it's a good thing if coal is being replaced by something with an orders of magnitude lower carbon footprint. The point is that this data shows that when people are building new power plants for what ever reason, smart money is overwhelmingly flowing into renewables, not coal, not nat-gas, not nuclear, ..., etc. and soon enough it will be funding grid storage and improved grid connectivity through ultra-high-voltage electricity transmission lines and modern smart grid tech. Since these people do their maths before investing for decades in anything this it speaks volumes about in which tech the market sees the future.
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Did we have 33% of "new capacity" implemented with coal or did we build new dams or something?
The data source is here:: https://cms.ferc.gov/media/ene... [ferc.gov] (scroll down to page 4). The data is "New Generation In-Service (New Build and Expansion)"
How much of that 67% "new capacity" has been used to replace coal power plans? I would assume none since it wouldn't be "new capacity" then.
This is data on new electrical generating plants put into service by June 2022. If you want to know what types of old plants are being taken out of service, you'll have to look elsewhere.
If it's coal and other fossil fuel plants I'm not crying any salty tears over it. In fact if this entire new renewables capacity replaced nothing but coal plants I'll be happier about that than if it was net new capacity. Coal is the worst imaginable choice for a power plant both in terms of pollution and the economics of it. The only reason anybody would subsidise a coal plant, and they'd have to subsidise it to a ridiculous degree for it to be competitive, is as pork for the likes of Joe Manchin.
Re: (Score:1)
Coal is the worst imaginable choice for a power plant both in terms of pollution and the economics of it. The only reason anybody would subsidise a coal plant, and they'd have to subsidise it to a ridiculous degree for it to be competitive,
NoX and SO2 controls make coal more expensive [wikipedia.org] than wind and solar for new installations. However, not all plants in the world have these controls. In those cases, it's likely cheaper than gas (it is in countries like India). So, while coal isn't the best power source from a cost-to-build-and-permit--a-plant perspective, it's hardly the "worst imaginable". Cost wise, Nuclear is much more costly according to that Wikipedia article. The worst imaginable is a bunch of fat Leftists on a treadmill attached to a
Re: (Score:2)
when people are building new power plants for what ever reason, smart money is overwhelmingly flowing into renewables, not coal, not nat-gas,
Also: Of the part that IS fuel-based, almost all was natural gas, with oil a trivial ~1%. That's great, because natural gas is the least CO2-producing of all the fossil fuels, with about half the CO2 of oil. NONE was coal (all CO2 exhaust and lots of it).
Re:Misleading headline (Score:4, Informative)
Did we have 33% of "new capacity" implemented with coal or did we build new dams or something?
If only there were a summary that mentioned
and
I guess we'll never know.
Re:Misleading headline (Score:5, Insightful)
No coal or nuclear was added.
Natural gas made up almost 33% of the year's added capacity.
Less than 1% combined of geothermal, dams, oil, and biomass, the bulk of which was geothermal.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, a little digging finds that a similar coal plant capacity (14 GW) is being retired in 2022, but that's a projection for the whole year.
Re:Misleading headline (Score:4, Interesting)
Did we have 33% of "new capacity" implemented with coal or did we build new dams or something?
No to either. Coal plants at best are being replaced with gas if not outright shut down. For dams, there is a movement to convert older dams to generate power as 90% of current US dams do not do that. However the problem is retrofitting old dams [washingtonpost.com] is not easy as it seems as newer dams are designed to allow water to flow (run-of-the-river) and capture the energy as opposed to blocking flow in reservoir dams.
How much of that 67% "new capacity" has been used to replace coal power plans? I would assume none since it wouldn't be "new capacity" then.
Then you would be wrong. New capacity is new capacity. If I bought a new car, I bought a new car. It says nothing about whether it is an additional car or a replacement car.
How much coal power plan capacity has actually been replaced with solar and wind? If you count any new solar and wind input to the grid as "new capacity", it means that you are still emitting the same CO2 as before.
Considering coal plants output have declined by 30% [reuters.com] in the last decade and wind and solar have increased I would say a lot.
U.S. coal power capacity peaked over 317,600 MW in 2011, according to EIA data. It has declined every year since and was down to about 216,800 MW by the end of 2020.
I have been a democrat all my life but with people like yourself, I am thinking of voting for the dark side for the first time in my life this fall!. I hope that you have a nice honeymoon with AOC.
Yes let's bring in partisan attacks into a conversation that had nothing to do with politics.
Re: (Score:1)
How much of that 67% "new capacity" has been used to replace coal power plans? I would assume none since it wouldn't be "new capacity" then.
Nonsense.
New capacity = energy not previously available. The usual Rightwing spew. Ignore the words, recreate them in your image, claim victory
You're like the pigeon playing chess.
Re: (Score:2)
67% of new capacity.
Okay, and how does that measure up to installed capacity?
If the US generates 1.0 Terrawatts (1,000,000 MW) from installed capacity, and NEW capacity is 100MW. this means you've added 0.0067% to installed capacity.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, the fact that you can't understand something mathematically simplified for easy absorption.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary is better at least...
New capacity added - not total installed capacity as implied in the title... (And certainly not share of total generated energy)
The capacity is also misleading - it might make more sense to use annual average output power capability instead of peak values... With the current ratings 1GW of nuclear would generate a lot more power than 1GW of solar / wind, but it seems equivalent...
I think the text that is in BOLD is very important since capacity means nothing if the wind does not blow and the Sun does not shine. "nameplate capacity" is not the same as "power actually contributed to the grid".
Perhaps a daily reporting of percentage comparison for each power generating source of [(power generated) / (nameplate capacity installed)] should be added to all grid operators charts. That could be very interesting and potentially revealing of the true cost/benefit ratio of the various power ge
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I pointed this out below as well. 67% installed capacity might be 30% of actual generation from renewable.
I don't have numbers fro California but I looked into France before. They have about 8,000MW installed solar capacity. The average generation over the year is about 1,500MW (so including winters, nights, etc). That's 20%. About 30% in the summer months which may be closer to what you get in California.
Re: Misleading headline (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wind generation is widely know for it's variable power generation output. After all it's source of energy is widely known for being incredibly variable.
So I agree with your comment and I would like to add the following:
I looked at the numbers for Texas simply because they have had issues that have received lots of news coverage and I have found the ERCOT website somewhat easy to use.
From what I can figure out from the ERCOT pages...wind generation in Texas contributes power to the Texas grid ranging from le
Re: Misleading headline (Score:1)
Actual generation, depending on where it is installed is between 15% (inland) to 45% (windmills in the ocean) of nameplate capacity.
Overall consumption from those sources is a big difference, look at Germany, actual domestic consumption hasnâ(TM)t increased linearly with the capacity added.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.eia.gov/todayinene... [eia.gov]
Or, for a shorter period of 1 month this year:
"The amount of electricity generated by renewable resources hit a record 28% in April, a breakthrough number that shows how important renewable energy has become in U.S. energy markets."
Re: (Score:2)
With the current ratings 1GW of nuclear would generate a lot more power than 1GW of solar / wind, but it seems equivalent...
I am not sure what you mean in that 1GW != 1GW.
Re: (Score:2)
Specific to the other sources listed of (small) hydro, oil, and natural gas, they are all actually likely to have similar capacity factors. Most gas power being put in is peaker plants running at 10-15%, and the hydro added in the US tends to have a capacity factor of around 20-25% maximum. I am not certain where they are adding oil-fired plants in the US, but I would be very surprised if the capacity factor is over 50%, and 40% is more likely.
Sure, nuclear has a capacity factor of around 83%, but if it i
Re: (Score:2)
The fuel burning types can run at higher capacity factors if needed though - solar and wind are limited by uncontrollable factors. (There are 100% limits for everything though)
Measuring the wrong metric (Score:3)
Measuring the PERCENTAGE of NEW capacity that is green is the wrong metric to look at. This number can be easily skewed by blocking/slowing coal/gas power plants. In extreme case, blocking all new coal/gas plants can give you 100% for a year, but it means nothing.
The correct metric is the number of green MW capacity added, because there is a target total amount of MW capacity the country needed to meet the carbon neutral target, and hence there need to be yearly target that can be met or missed.
Because the headline is using %, it is safe bet that the MW capacity target was missed, so this was reporting a loss as if it was a win to mislead readers.
Re: (Score:2)
5.7GW is wind is rather low considering the available untapped resources in the US. For a country that size you should be able to install a lot more.
Re: (Score:2)
I've advocated for decades that wind turbines be set up around the NoVA region around DC. There are literally thousands of untapped GWh in hot air that's generated in the region.
Re: (Score:2)
The correct metric is the number of green MW capacity added, because there is a target total amount of MW capacity the country needed to meet the carbon neutral target, and hence there need to be yearly target that can be met or missed.
That won't tell you much either unless you already know how many MWs are needed, how many old plants are taken offline, etc.
Also we should be rather looking at % of generated power and not installed capacity. 67% might sound great but I'd guess it's actually like 30% of actual output.
Re: (Score:2)
> The correct metric is the number of green MW capacity added
Those numbers are right here in the summary. Did you really stop reading at the headline so you could complain about it?
Re: Measuring the wrong metric (Score:2)
Step in the right direction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Is it perfect? No. But, it is a step in the right direction. I'll celebrate that. I look forward to the day when the extremely noisy cars and trucks are off the road and me and family are breathing air that has fewer toxic fumes from automobile exhausts.
Step in the right direction? We're at 67% now. By the time we reach 100%, the US will be powering the worlds "greatest" Great Depression.
But hey...you'll be breathing fresh toxic-free air while killing for your food.
Congratulations.
* golf clap *
Re:Step in the right direction (Score:5, Interesting)
Gas engines need tires, too.
Gas engines catch fire, too More so than EVs [google.com].
The fire department probably won't even get there in time in either case.
TLDR: Fuck off with your lies.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair gas and diesel vehicles still account for the majority of vehicles in operation. Hence there's a higher count of those involved in vehicle fires. You're also not taking into account how much plastic and other combustible materials make up a modern vehicle. With LiFEPO4 batteries, I think we'll see fewer EV total burn-downs as their adoption widens.
Net-Net, fires are bad all-around and usually result in the vehicle being totaled anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
That's why I commented on LIFePO4 batteries. They're less volatile.
I've also seen cars and trucks catastrophically burn to the ground too however most of the issue there was time for fire crews to respond. If you have an EV with older generation batteries, it's almost impossible to put them out.
As a comparison there was a recently publicized incident involving a gas-powered mini cooper running into a house. It took 53 firefighters to put out the blaze out. Needless to say, the house and car were a total los
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever seen a diesel vehicle burn?
I don't drive much but even so I've seen two separate gasoline cars burning at the side of the road.
The fire was intense and fire brigades would have been a long way away.
Re: (Score:2)
Another poster already covered this ground, but it repairs repeating. Both gasoline cars and EVs have tires. Now, the EVs do wear the tires a bit more because the electric motors have more torque, but the small percentage of extra particulates generated are negligible compared to all the particulates from burned gasoline or diesel. As for fires, the fumes from any car burning, or most household items, for that matter, are really toxic. Gasoline cars catch fire more often than EVs and houses catch fire too.
Re: Step in the right direction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Getting rid of leaded gas (for automobiles, at least) was a great thing for human health and pollution reduction. You clearly don't understand much about automotive pollution if you think that was the only thing that needed to be done, however. In your comment on this, you write: "When is the last time your city declared a smog day, warned people to stay in doors, and closed the schools?" Removing lead from gasoline was not what lead to the reduction of smog, it was the catalytic converter and laws and regu
Re: (Score:2)
You need to look at the entire picture. How do we get the electricity to charge those EVs? Coal? Diesel? How much fuel does it require to mine lithium and cobalt (hint: A LOT!) ? What are the other environmental effects of mining lithium and cobalt? What are the political implications of having China in charge of our energy supply (China controls almost all batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines). As it is, we are being told to turn down AC because the power grid is being over loaded, what happens when
Re: (Score:2)
You need to look at the entire picture. How do we get the electricity to charge those EVs? Coal? Diesel?
It looks like I need to remind you that the actual article in question is about transitioning away from fossil fuel power to renewables. It's fairly obvious that electric cars give you the opportunity to do that, while ICE cars do not. Aside from that, as I already said, centralizing the power generation gives you opportunities that you can't get in a whole lot of individual ICE vehicles. For one thing, they can potentially run more efficiently, requiring less fuel burned per mile travelled and therefore le
Re: (Score:2)
The day your family were able to breathe easier was when we switched from leaded to unleaded gasoline.
If you were alive when tetraethyllead was in use, then you have lead in your bones. It doesn't go away. Yes, it made it easier to breathe but it didn't solve the long-term health effects of airborne lead. You have to also couple that with how many people smoked when lead was in gasoline too but that's another subject.
When is the last time your city declared a smog day, warned people to stay in doors, and closed the schools?
Yesterday. We have Ozone action days (this past Tuesday) and bad air quality days, they're not as severe as the old smog days but in the summer we get a couple of days a month around here. Schools don't close but kids are usually put on limited outdoor activity.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were alive when tetraethyllead was in use, then you have lead in your bones. It doesn't go away. Yes, it made it easier to breathe but it didn't solve the long-term health effects of airborne lead. You have to also couple that with how many people smoked when lead was in gasoline too but that's another subject.
Come to think of it, brain damage from lead poisoning might actually partially explain trolls like iAmWaySmarterThanYou (I still can't quite figure out of that handle is trying to be ironic or not).
Re: (Score:2)
kids eating lead paint chips, who knows?
Thats great but... (Score:2)
... how is battery storage coming on? The sun doesn't shine at night and the wind doesn't always blow so - despite a lot of clueless greenies claiming otherwise - baseload production is required whether that be nuclear or fossil fuels until (and after though hopefully less) decent power storage systems are rolled out. Yes hydro but thats not much use if you're nowhere near mountains.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, although deep cycles that reduced power output a lot cause stress and only a limited number should be performed during the life time. In the end, this is more an economic question than a technical one. Economically, it does not make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
"that one type of electricity production is rarely a good option"
I suggest you learn to read before knee jerking a reply. That was rather my point.
"because you can't ramp up & slow down production quickly enough"
Yes you can.
Re: (Score:1)
Not needing them in the day would already be a big improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
It really depends on where and how energy is used. Solar+battery is great for single-family residential and low-rise commercial in areas with good sun exposure, but does not serve cities very well or places that have a large electric heating need with cold winters. The "good case" can economically get ~95% of their daily energy from solar in the summer, and ~65% in the winter (while exporting enough in the summer to offset winter consumption; larger batteries are generally not economical to avoid some lev
One Third of New Capacity Still Fossil Fuel Based (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There are two general types of natural gas plants. The peaker plants only run a gas turbine. They are fast to spin up and shut down, but less efficient. The other kind is "Combined cycle", which uses a steam boiler after the turbine to capture the remaining heat. They take longer to spin up because a boiler tank with water has a lot of heat capacity and takes time to warm up.
The combined cycle plants are more efficient, around 55% in converting natural gas energy to electricity. They supply about 35% o
That's great, but meaningless... (Score:3)
It's great that green energy is being installed, but it's pretty meaningless. I mean: no one is currently building new coal power plants, or nuclear. Building new dams is nearly impossible. So about the only other kind of power plant that is being built is natural gas.
Now start building modular nuclear reactors, without absurd NIMBY and bureaucratic obstacles.
Re:That's great, but meaningless... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power plants can't replace gas because they can't ramp up & slow down to meet changes in demand quickly enough.
That's be where batteries com into it.
PS: Power demand peaks aren't a sudden surprise that needs to be reacted to. The companies know all the TV schedules and stuff, they're waiting for the spikes and can spool things up in advance.
Re: (Score:2)
> That's be where batteries com into it.
Adding batteries will lower the economic value of baseload generators, which will have the effect of making nuclear even less competitive. Batteries don't care where their electrons come from, and feeding them cheap PV electrons works just as well as expensive nuclear ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear can absolutely ramp up and down with demand. It's just better to run it at 100% since you mostly have fixed costs to deal with.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power plants can't replace gas because they can't ramp up & slow down to meet changes in demand quickly enough.
That is no longer correct [mit.edu].
Also, even if they were safe & didn't actually cost outrageous sums of money to build to completion, nukes take too long to build to meet the demand we need.
How long do you think it'll take to create a base load of green energy sources with the same capacity of standard (new) nuclear plants? There are some things we can do to speed up the process [mit.edu].
We're in a race to stop the planet from cooking. We haven't got 30-50 years to wait.
Claims like this make climate activists sound like snake oil salesmen. The facts related to clean air and water are enough to convince most folks that we need to make some changes. Predicting the end of the world over and over won't convince many people. You might as well be standing on a str
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with load-following is that it economically makes no sense for nuclear power plants.
One can add renewables quickly, Germany ramped up production per year (not capacity) from 2010 with 105 TWh to 2015 189 TWh to 2020 251 TWh which was 45% of consumption and this is still considered relatively slow to what is possible. France announced to build 6 nuclear power plants with the first one to be expected online in 2035.
Re: (Score:2)
NuScale just got permission to build their reactor, so now they get to actually build them and we get to see if this attempt at SMRs will be the same as all prior attempts at SMRs; i.e. a senseless failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And when they succeed in building them you will find another reason to oppose nuclear energy.
If they cause more problems than they solve, then yes, I will. If not, maybe not. It remains to be seen, but frankly I'm not too concerned that I'm going to have to change my opinion... based on all of the recorded history of nuclear power.
There is always an excuse to continue burning fossil fuels.
You nuclear fanboys always tell lies. The one you're telling now is that there is a dichotomy between nuclear and fossil fuels. That's false, and you know it, so you know you're a liar. Tell someone dumber your lies. I'm not having any.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on all of the recorded history of nuclear, a rational person would be unequivocally in favor of nuclear.
And you are the biggest liar on here. Which is why you always project and call us liars.
And it is not a false dichotomy between nuclear and fossil fuels. Historically opposition to nuclear means increased fossil fuels. That is still true today. See Indian Point and Germany.
Capacity (Score:3)
"67% of New ... Capacity"
I'd rather see absolute than relative values. How much is that in Farads ?
Is "behind the meter" solar included? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
No. This is for "utility scale" projects, i.e. 1 MW or greater.
Re: (Score:3)
The EIA "Electric Power Monthly" tabulates all the sources of US electricity. They have a column for "small scale generation" that covers rooftop solar, among other things. Utility power (over 1 MW) are required to report their data. Smaller installations are not, and if they use the power internally, it never makes it to a transmission line where it can be measured.
So that column is an estimate, based on sales, installations and other data sources. If a user has "net metering" with their utility (gets
Capacity factors (Score:2)
mean that 1GW of solar and wind generate about a third as much energy as 1GW of coal and nuclear. Because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow, but coal and nuclear can run close to their rated output for long periods of time.
Renewables are great, but fudging the numbers as this headline does---in multiple ways---just gives ammunition to its opponents.
Re: (Score:2)
Since no coal or nuclear was added, I don't think they fudged anything. The capacity factors for coal and nuclear don't matter. Anything times zero is still zero.
In any case, the average capacity factor of coal [statista.com] is only about 50%. That makes it slightly higher than wind, but only slightly. Nuclear does have a much higher factor.
The other important number is the capacity factor for gas, since that was most of the rest. It depends on the type of plant. Peaker plants usually have capacity factors of 10% o
how to read the numbers cynically (Score:2)
We're not building as many new gas and coal plants, but we should not be building any. And no new nuclear reactors this year.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm old enough to remember the building of the mid-scale gas plants because coal "bad."
According to the EIA in 2020 [eia.gov] CNG accounts for 37.2% of generation, Nuclear 19.7% and Coal 10.1%. Hydro is 7.1% That's 74.1% of US energy production.
Wind and PV account for 10.5%
For me, the numbers don't add up because that would mean we've added 16% more PV and Wind in the past two years and if it does represent 26% of the production how much did it supplant coal or is this net-new generation?
Cynically speaking, it would
Re: (Score:2)
Once you cover your base load power with either gas or nuclear, you can turn off any of the coal plants you have. And if your peak power is covered by wind and solar, you can turn off some but not all coal plants. Removing coal plants is more effective at reducing that 10% than adding lots of a specific type.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the report covers government FY22 and not actual 2022. (October to September, not January to December)