In a First, Renewables Beat Coal In the US Power Sector In 2022 (electrek.co) 198
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Electrek: For the first time ever, renewable power generation -- that's wind, solar, hydro, biomass, and geothermal -- exceeded coal-fired generation in the US electric power sector in 2022, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Overall, the US electric power sector produced 4,090 million megawatt-hours (MWh) of power in 2022. Wind and solar's combined total generation increased from 12% in 2021 to 14% in 2022. Hydropower stayed the same last year at 6%, and biomass and geothermal also remained unchanged, at less than 1%. So that's a total of 21%. Utility-scale solar capacity in the US electric power sector -- the EIA doesn't include rooftop solar -- increased from 61 gigawatts (GW) in 2021 to 71 GW in 2022, according to EIA data. Wind capacity grew from 133 GW in 2021 to 141 GW in 2022. Coal-fired generation, on the other hand, dropped from 23% in 2021 to 20% in 2022 because a number of coal-fired power plants retired, and the plants still online were used less.
Renewables surpassed nuclear generation for the first time in 2021, and that trend continued last year. Nuclear dropped from 20% in 2021 to 19% in 2022 because Michigan's Palisades nuclear power plant was retired in May 2022. However, Palisades' new owner, Holtec, wants to restart it, and this idea is not proving particularly popular, with one environmental group saying that would risk a "Chernobyl-scale catastrophe." The Biden administration pledged $6 billion on March 2 to help extend the operating life of aging nuclear power plants in order to help the US combat climate change. However, natural gas is still the largest source of US electricity generation, and it grew from 37% in 2021 to 39% in 2022. This month, the EIA forecast that both wind and solar will each grow by 1% in 2023. Natural gas is forecast to remain unchanged, and coal is forecast to decline by 3% to 17% next year.
Renewables surpassed nuclear generation for the first time in 2021, and that trend continued last year. Nuclear dropped from 20% in 2021 to 19% in 2022 because Michigan's Palisades nuclear power plant was retired in May 2022. However, Palisades' new owner, Holtec, wants to restart it, and this idea is not proving particularly popular, with one environmental group saying that would risk a "Chernobyl-scale catastrophe." The Biden administration pledged $6 billion on March 2 to help extend the operating life of aging nuclear power plants in order to help the US combat climate change. However, natural gas is still the largest source of US electricity generation, and it grew from 37% in 2021 to 39% in 2022. This month, the EIA forecast that both wind and solar will each grow by 1% in 2023. Natural gas is forecast to remain unchanged, and coal is forecast to decline by 3% to 17% next year.
A powerful milestone. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason we have so many coal fired plants is that conservatives and progressives like Bernie Sanders really believe there is a future in coal mining jobs, so they try to pass laws to force us to use it. Like requiring a stockpile of fuel, which is only possible with coal and nuclear.
With government meddling, coal wou
Re: (Score:2)
It really isnÃ(TM)t. Coal is not viable in the US. We have too much natural gas. So all the coal fired plants are being converted to gas fired. It is not really less pollution.
It really IS. Converting a coal plant to natural gas cuts carbon emission per watthour by about half, even if you do no other upgrades while you're at it. (Converting it to oil would cut it by a third. But why do that? Oil is more expensive.)
Most of the energy in hydrocarbons comes from burning the hydrogen. (Burning the car
Biomass (Score:4, Insightful)
Should not be in the renewables category.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that biomass is tricky: it can only be labelled as "renewable" if it doesn't create a CO2 deficit through its exploitation. Which is not often the case, so generally speaking, biomass should be in a category of its own.
Re: (Score:2)
Should not be in the renewables category.
But it very much is renewable and a system which we can close the cycle. The fact that shitty companies act shitty and cut down forests doesn't make biomass non renewable. That's not how the definition works.
Or do you suggest we go outside and plant some oil?
Biased comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are we comparing renewables with coal only? If you want an actual meaningful comparison, compare renewables-based electricity generation with fossil fuels-based electricity generation.
You would see that the main reason for the decline in coal usage is actually an increase in natural gas usage (why don't we call "coal" by the term "natural coal" by the way?).
I mean, this is literally what you can see in the first diagram of the article.
This is a "let's make us a feel good while nothing changes" article.
Natural gas v town gas (Score:5, Informative)
Once upon a time the UK and no doubt elsewhere put a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide gas through the pipes which was generated from coal. This was known as town gas. With the arrival in the UK of plenteous amounts of 'natural gas' from various gas fields around the country, both in the North Sea and Irish Sea, the decision was made to shift to 'natural gas' - methane in those pipes. This required a massive conversion exercise, upgrading or replacing gas using devices to be able to use methane. And of course the name has stuck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Facepalm.(why don't we call "coal" by the term "natural coal" by the way?).
Perhaps you should figure why "Natural Gas" is called that way first?
Re: (Score:2)
Why are we comparing renewables with coal only? If you want an actual meaningful comparison, compare renewables-based electricity generation with fossil fuels-based electricity generation.
Because coal is literally the worst (aside from oil which is barely used in the USA) and because even though this story is supported by an increase in gas it's still a net win.
This is a "let's make us a feel good while nothing changes" article.
And yet it has changed. A lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Because coal is literally the worst (aside from oil which is barely used in the USA) and because even though this story is supported by an increase in gas it's still a net win.
By your logic, the story should be about coal being replaced by gas, which is a win for you.
And yet it has changed. A lot.
And yet we are still so far from what we need to achieve. I am all in if we are talking about giving achievements prizes to feel good and keep going, if that's what it takes. I just think it can have the oppositve effect, and make people think that we are already doing enough, and turn their attention to something else. That's what I meant by "nothing changed".
Re: (Score:2)
Why are we comparing renewables with coal only? If you want an actual meaningful comparison, compare renewables-based electricity generation with fossil fuels-based electricity generation.
You would see that the main reason for the decline in coal usage is actually an increase in natural gas usage (why don't we call "coal" by the term "natural coal" by the way?).
I mean, this is literally what you can see in the first diagram of the article.
This is a "let's make us a feel good while nothing changes" article.
And the reason for the decline in coal burned wasn't closing of facilities, but lack of fuel availability. There were logistical issues the world over, but the US freight rail network was especially snarled. It got bad enough that PJM (and maybe others, I didn't keep track) had utilities submit plans for how they were going to assure fuel availability in an emergency. Power prices were so elevated due to natural gas shortages that virtually every coal generator east of the Mississippi in the US would hav
Coal Fashion. (Score:3)
"For the first time ever, renewable power generation...exceeded coal-fired generation in the US"
Yeah, but vinyl hanging on walls with nary a player in sight is now outselling CDs these days, so don't count out a senseless need to stoke up a coal fire for fashion and fucks sake sometime around 2035.
That'll be the year when the Dirty Coal Miner look will be disrespectfully fashionable for all those who've never actually seen coal, and Apple will release the iPick that simulates hard labor.
Re: (Score:2)
don't count out a senseless need to stoke up a coal fire for fashion and fucks sake sometime around 2035.
That'll last about 10 seconds, until they smell the coal fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, what? Word salad vomit.
Wait, you actually understand Kamala Harris when she talks?
Wow. I feel like we should call Duolingo or something.
quick we need to bung more (Score:2)
Yeah (Score:5, Informative)
We needed the Green New Deal, but the left wing in America really sucks at messaging and instead of focusing on the jobs through a little bit of social justice crap in there and a whole bunch of right wingers who would have realized they shouldn't be right wingers and joined them on a massive jobs program instead dismissed the idea as being "woke".
That failure in messaging set us back 20 years.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
It's still good news, given how terrible coal is in general
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
It's still good news, given how terrible coal is in general
Indeed. Gas is a big improvement over coal. We should not make perfect the enemy of good.
Also, as we transition to more wind and solar, we will need gas-powered peakers to smooth supply until storage gets much cheaper.
Gas is good.
Re: (Score:3)
Renewables are good. Gas is merely less shitty than coal or oil.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Informative)
Then why is Germany switching back to coal? https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
Have you just recovered from a 2 year coma and are asking someone to sumarise the key points in the article you refused to read that doesn't in any way negate any point mode by anyone else in this thread?
Hint: Germany isn't voluntarily switching back to coal.
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
It's still good news, given how terrible coal is in general
Indeed. Gas is a big improvement over coal. We should not make perfect the enemy of good.
Also, as we transition to more wind and solar, we will need gas-powered peakers to smooth supply until storage gets much cheaper.
Gas is good.
We should be looking for a solution to the de-sequestration of fossil carbon before we successfully re-create the Permian–Triassic extinction event. Nat-Gas ain't that solution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's still good news, given how terrible coal is in general
Indeed. Gas is a big improvement over coal. We should not make perfect the enemy of good.
Also, as we transition to more wind and solar, we will need gas-powered peakers to smooth supply until storage gets much cheaper.
Gas is good.
We should be looking for a solution to the de-sequestration of fossil carbon before we successfully re-create the Permian–Triassic extinction event. Nat-Gas ain't that solution.
We could allow the world to return to pre industrial revolution times - that would put a real dent in the emitted greenhouse gases.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
You go ahead, go live in Africa for a few weeks to see what that would look like.
Not even!
Time for my topic disclaimers: The energy retention characteristics of an atmosphere based on its composition are as debatable as the belief that the Earth is flat. As in sure, you can, but it makes a person look foolish.
There are a number of other factors that might make the global average temperature hight or lower, but taking that into account, we should be in a cooling period now. We ain't. Humans have released a lot of previously sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere, it has reached the point where previously sequestered methane is being released
We should probably hope that the changes in ocean chemistry do not release the methane clathrate in the oceans. Jury is out on that.
But what is done, is done.
We should stop digging while we are in this hole. So we need to cut down gaseous emissions that are a problem. Zero would be good, but won't happen until Beano is made mandatory for all life that releases methane in the form of farts.
The tipping point is long past. What happens now is a roller coaster ride. At best staying with the present instability until the average temps more or less stabilize. At worst, if the clathrates are released (sounds like "Release the Kraken!") all bets are off for a while.
There are horrifying stories of people wanting to release iron in the oceans, or place sulfur aerosols in the atmosphere. Wanna do that? nuke a big volcano Tambora perhaps - you'll have a quick reduction in Global temps. We might not like the outcome though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] .
So renewables are a great thing. These fossil fuels are not infinite, so we have to plan for their eventually becoming too expensive to support society. With the tipping point being long gone, we prepare for a renewable future, and weather the storms.
Eventually, the weather should stabilize as much as it might ever, and we move on.
Now interestingly enough, here in Central PA, the ground didn't freeze this winter. We had only a couple days that it hit single digits. It rained instead. For the past 6 years, I used less than a tank of gas in my snowblower. This year I decided to only put a half tank, and only used a little bit of that.
This is not at all what was once usual. And it has not been a one-off situation- heading toward a decade now. It is anecdotal, but I just put it out as personal experience
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
It's still good news, given how terrible coal is in general
Indeed. Gas is a big improvement over coal. We should not make perfect the enemy of good.
Also, as we transition to more wind and solar, we will need gas-powered peakers to smooth supply until storage gets much cheaper.
Gas is good.
This should really be at +5 insightful or informative.
NatGas is a real blessing, as we don't want society to collapse while we transition to other energy systems.
Coal is nasty dirty, from mining to burning to disposal of the fly ash. And it is pretty well mapped out how much there is as well. At this point, we just have to decide if we really want to lop off the top of the mountain and destroy the adjacent valleys beside them.
Nuclear still has it's problems, with adherents proclaiming anyone who isn't rabidly pro nuclear, is a damn idiot. I still say that nuclear power can be made really safe, just not by humans.
Fusion power - I give that about as much chance of practical use as harnessing Zero Point Energy.
So in the interim, we use gas.
Re: Yeah (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately in the political spectrum what determines an outcome is not how good the opposition's arguments are but how bad your own are.
I believe any failure in the political ring can be attributed to moderates on your own side doing a piss-poor job of handling the extremists... Again on your own side.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter who backs it. The right wing media will paint them as monsters, existential threats to your way of live and prosperity.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? They're both smart, principled, and trustworthy. Who would you put up instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Because the GND was an abysmal failure and that didn't need to happen.
Who would you put up instead?
Anyone. Not even center-left Democrats wanted to face re-election after standing with AOC and Bernie.
Re: (Score:2)
So you haven't thought it through then? That's fine, but then why post at all?
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah you will. The reason for the drop is mostly because natural gas is taken over so much of coal's market share. Meanwhile coal miners continue to be an effective prop used by the right wing to block serious efforts to switch to renewables. We needed the Green New Deal, but the left wing in America really sucks at messaging and instead of focusing on the jobs through a little bit of social justice crap in there and a whole bunch of right wingers who would have realized they shouldn't be right wingers and joined them on a massive jobs program instead dismissed the idea as being "woke". That failure in messaging set us back 20 years.
It all feels very premeditated. Every damned time the Democrats have a good idea for progress that, if framed correctly, EVERYBODY could get on board with, they botch they message so thoroughly as to make the entire concept toxic to at least half the population, some of which should be allies for the overall goals of the party.
Republicans will fight tooth and nail to take us kicking and screaming backwards. Democrats will come up with ideas to move us forward, then do everything in their power to make those ideas seem clumsy, stupid, aggravating, idiotic, and altogether negative. And while I know there are a lot of useful idiots in the entire process, that idiocy has been pervasive for so long that it feels intentional. Taking a view from further back, the two parties work congruently to dismantle the progress of the past, or use whatever progress that is made to shove money into the rich's pockets by stealing it from the middle class and down.
The other big move for Democrats is just flat out stopping themselves from doing anything while they have the power because, "We need to reach across the aisle," and "olive branches" and all that nonsense. Then the Republicans get power, thumb their nose at the Democrats, and shove through everything they can think of, including stacking the courts in their favor.
What would America look like if we had a real progressive party that didn't try to stop itself from implementing any changes and didn't just cave the second the Republicans throw up even the flimsiest of roadblocks? It certainly doesn't look like we'll ever find out.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sucks at messaging" = "We need better lies"
Re: (Score:2)
The stupidity of the environmental groups still continue even more since anyone who has looked at energy usage knows that most coal plants have been converted over to natural gas, so of course coal usage will be down. However global wise coal usage did increase last year.
Economically Obsolete (Score:2)
Nuclear is economically obsolete, costs 4-6x more per kWh than any renewable source.
I's dead.
Cost of storage (Score:2)
The persistent problem with renewables is that they are not 100% reliable. Whilst they cost per kwh is falling fast, the cost of providing a electricity at all times - even in the middle of calm night - is far higher. It is reasonable to hope that new storage methods will make the renewables' disadvantage fall away, we ain't there yet!
Re: (Score:3)
That's weird only if you have your head buried in the sand.
Your nuclear co-op externalizes its 1000+year waste storage commitment.
A good reminder that cost externalization makes lots of unpleasant things "cost" less.
If by "externalize" you mean "paid decades of fees explicitly to fund a long term waste repository or processing solution" then yes, that's true. If I remember right a judge finally just stopped the fees being charged because a giant pot of money had already accumulated and the real issue wasn't funding but US government infighting. There are solutions for waste management and the money is sitting there. And in the grand scheme of things its a relatively minor issue, talk of needing to sequester nuclear wa
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to hear the wails and teeth-gnashing of the deniers. Will I leave disappointed?
I'm not going to wail and gnash teeth, but I was pretty pissed off to have rolling blackouts for the first time pretty much ever this past December because TVA took 8GW of coal out of the grid over the last ten years and replaced it with 3GW of natgas and 1GW of renewables. Anybody keeping score at home can see that there is 4GW of capacity that was simply not replaced, and 1GW of what was replaced is intermittent.
If you want to replace coal, fine, but at least do so in a way that keeps the fucking lights
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to hear the wails and teeth-gnashing of the deniers. Will I leave disappointed?
I'm not going to wail and gnash teeth, but I was pretty pissed off to have rolling blackouts for the first time pretty much ever this past December because TVA took 8GW of coal out of the grid over the last ten years and replaced it with 3GW of natgas and 1GW of renewables.
Watts Bar unit 2 came online in 2016 at 1.15 GW. So that's almost a third of the shortfall by itself. And TVA isn't an island. It can buy power from other neighboring areas. So you can't necessarily say that the capacity wasn't replaced unless they didn't put in place agreements to obtain that power elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to hear the wails and teeth-gnashing of the deniers. Will I leave disappointed?
And some of them have mod points, and marked you as troll.
I'll use my clairvoyant powers now. A few will bemoan how the wind doesn't blow constantly, and that solar power can never work because it gets dark
When in fact, there are places that do have constant wind, and there are these things called batteries, as well as hydraulic energy storage, already in use at power plants.
Then they'll yap about how since nothing else could ever work, that we need to go all in on nuclear power, which is perfectly gr
Re:Well I'm Disappointed (Score:5, Insightful)
That sounds suspiciously like a half truth. Let's see here...
I knew it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Well I'm Disappointed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No idea about the US, but one can look at prices to understand this better. When surplus power is generated when not needed prices should be low and when there is not enough power prices should go up. Europe gives us some data to look at. For Germany, which now has a substantial amount of renewables on the grid (~ 50% of public generation in 2022 was from renewables), export and import prices are pretty balanced: (In 2022: 237 EUR / MWh import vs 223 EUR MWh /export, 2021: 94 vs 100, 2020: 42 vs 44, 2019: 4
Re: Well I'm Disappointed (Score:5, Interesting)
Data:
- Germany is emitting ~450g CO2eq/kWh, has extended lignite mining on its own soil just last year, and is building new gas plants as we speak (they also successfully petitionned the EU so that gas is labelled as green energy)
- on the other hand, France is emitting ~45g CO2eq/kWh since 40 years, and has been a net exporter of low carbon electricity since 40 years too, except in 2022 (and 2023 looks like a net export year son far)
This is the différence between someone who is just pro-renewables, no matter the facts, and someone who is actually pro-environment, based on actual science.
Re: (Score:2)
This has exactly nothing to do with my comment. But I notice, that just like other people believing in conspiracy theories or pseudoscience - when challenged with an argument - nuclear shills on slashdot just quickly move to an entirely different argument.
Re: (Score:2)
France is just an example of how it's much more expensive than people imagine it to be. It doesn't say it doesn't work, it says it doesn't deliver on its promises.
Re: (Score:2)
France is just an example of how it's much more expensive than people imagine it to be. It doesn't say it doesn't work, it says it doesn't deliver on its promises.
It delivered on the promise of independent and carbon-free energy 40 years ago.
It's cool that spot prices can go negative when the wind is blowing a lot in Germany but it's a pointless comparison when the grid still emits 10x more CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Residential price is completely irrelevant, because it is influenced by taxes and fees and largely influenced by regulatory issues. Especially in France, the price is also artificially kept low, e.g. see here:
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
In Germany, the price is artificially kept high (to promote conservation). The is by design by adding a surcharge to finance the feed-in-tariff for renewables to the price paid by consumers instead of using a traditional subsidy paid for by general taxes.
So no, the cost
Re: (Score:2)
It is certainly possible to reduce CO2 with nuclear as the France exampled showed. And I did not claim otherwise.
What this does not show is that this is a cost effective or quick solution today for anybody to follow. Or even for France looking into the future.
Re: (Score:2)
the only carbon-free sources that can do that is either hydro power or nuclear.
Depending on the country, nuclear has an availability factor of 70 to 90%. That is actually worse than offshore wind and desert solar.
The Mojave has 350 cloudless days each year. That is 96%.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on the country, nuclear has an availability factor of 70 to 90%. That is actually worse than offshore wind and desert solar.
No it's not. Offshore wind is like 40% and the sun doesn't shine at night.
Re: (Score:2)
He is talking about "availability".
No idea what your 40% is supposed to mean ... 60% of the time is none, not enough, or to much wind "off shore" ??? On which planet?
and the sun doesn't shine at night. ... you knew that, right?
And a heat based solar plant does not need sun at night
Re: (Score:2)
The OP seems to be using "availability factor" interchangeably with "capacity factor", which is average generation / nameplate capacity.
The capacity factor for offshore wind is around 40%: https://energynumbers.info/uk-... [energynumbers.info]
And a heat based solar plant does not need sun at night ... you knew that, right?
Yes? I'm not advocating for thermal solar plants so I'm not sure what this is about.
Re: (Score:3)
Average availability factor for nuclear in Europe is about 70%, but some countries go as low as 50%.
For comparison, offshore wind is already at 50%, and the next generation ones will be even better. That 50% is more reliable and predictable too. Wind we can predict in the short term with great accuracy, but a nuclear plant scan scram and take a gigawatt or more off the grid with no warning.
Another danger is you get a situation like Japan, where nuclear availability goes to 0% for years. It's pretty unlikely
Re: (Score:2)
Average availability factor for nuclear in Europe is about 70%, but some countries go as low as 50%.
"Some countries" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there
Re: (Score:2)
Wind we can predict in the short term with great accuracy, but a nuclear plant scan scram and take a gigawatt or more off the grid with no warning.
How often has that happened?
Serially producing Small Modular Reactors just heightens that risk, because at the moment the industry can at least argue that all the plants are different.
So kind of like how modern airliners are much more risky than old ones because there's a very small number of types serially produced?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have stats on nuclear emergency shutdowns for the UK, but the National Grid has to help reserve spinning in case it happens.
As for airlines, yes that happenes from time to time. Recently all the 737 MAX aircraft were grounded.
SMR is just statup hype (Score:2)
SMR is just statup hype. it's not economically viable.
Pure Vaporware.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting from 70% to 90% just requires adding dry coolers to the cooling system though.
Re: (Score:2)
Even France, which uses its nuclear plants in a load-following mode, is at ~77% capacity factor [wikipedia.org].
Last time I checked, the term "about 70%" is completely in line with your 77% quote.
Or did the meaning of "about" change recent years?
CFs are pretty irrelevant, so no idea why people bring them up constantly. Obviously a load following plant has a lower CF than a fire and forget base load plant that runs 365/24 as close as possible to 100% output. So the same power plant type, has a different CF d
Re: (Score:2)
30 years? In they don't started going fully in on it around 2010.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that modern high capacity, low cost wind turbines didn't even exist in 1991, right?
Many countries started to do stuff in the 90s. I'm saying that Germany only went all in and started massively ramping up capacity more recently. Here's a graph, and please note the log Y axis scale:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I am saying that the ramp up we've seen "recently" is because of investments dating back from way earlier.
Interestingly enough, we are arguing about the 30 years detail, and not about the fact that Germany is still building new gas-plants, keeps mining lignite for its coal-plants, and is still today emitting ~450g CO2eq/kWh vs France ~45g CO2eq/kWh (since ~1970).
If you feel like doing the maths, you could:
- find out the investment in renewables from Germany
- find out the approximate number of premature deat
Re: (Score:2)
Of course France had to rely on other countries, including Germany, to keep the lights on during the summer.
Germany has built new coal stations, but closed more old ones. Overall the number they have is going down, and the new ones are both cleaner (with capture tech) and better able to support renewables with variable output.
Germany will get there in due course. Emissions are on a downward trend. France is trying to build up new renewable capacity fast, because they realized that nuclear is a bottomless pi
Re: (Score:2)
Germany will get there in due course.
It is kinda sad that your only answer when confronted with facts and data is only to say "we'll get there", whereas every indicators shows you are not.
For the rest of your assertions, they are just random lies you like throwing around. Wishing and hoping will only take you so far.
Re: (Score:2)
Every indicator says they are getting there. Germany's emissions have been going down consistently. As you can see from the graph, the rate of installation of wind capacity is accelerating. Do you imagine they are all just going to topple over one day or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Yet strangely they offer the cheapest form of electricity generation. Cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, ridiculously cheaper than nuclear. Offshore wind is not only being built subsidy free now, they are bidding DOWN to compete for the lowest price.
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually a pretty interesting question.
If the batteries are made to be easily recycled, then yes, but many are made to be disposable.
I imagine that there is no reason whatsoever to make batteries used on the power grid not recyclable other than being evil on purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about the ones that go in devices made out mostly of glass and glue like phones.
Re: (Score:2)
but many are made to be disposable.
Citation needed. What grid-scale batteries are not recyclable?
It is plausible that in the future, sodium batteries might not be recyclable since sodium is so cheap it isn't worth it, but sodium batteries are not currently used for grid-scale storage.
Re: (Score:2)
There's actually no reason for grid storage batteries to have the same energy density of EV batteries. You could probably even just use lead acid batteries, if you have enough space for them.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea then, is that every renewable generator needs to have a battery to supply to the grid constantly. But say I have ten solar farms, maybe it would make more sense to have a single battery. But each farm needs to supply the grid constantly. So, I have to connect these ten farms up to one battery then connect that to the grid. In essence I have to great a second grid behind the first. Nuclear plants would also face a massive problem because they would either need to run permanently a reduced capacity o
Re: (Score:2)
So, I have to connect these ten farms up to one battery then connect that to the grid.
Perhaps you should read up what a grid is.
Hint: the battery can be where ever ....
Re: (Score:3)
"if we add batteries to even this out then we are only adding more to the cost" - yes but its a one off cost and its not a fuel you need to dig up 24/7.
Learn how a transition works and how long it takes to implement
Re: We will need more nuclear fission power plants (Score:2, Informative)
It is definitely on the higher range of costs if you compare LCOE by technology: https://www.iea.org/reports/pr... [iea.org]
Especially if you compare it to nuclear LTO, which has the lowest cost of low carbon energy generation.
While talking about transitions, I am still eating my popcorn while watching Germany transitionning since now 30 years, and still emitting roughly 10 times more CO2eq/kWh than France, while still actively building new gas plants...
Re: We will need more nuclear fission power plants (Score:5, Informative)
The report you link to shows Solar as being lower average price than Nuclear.
There is a kind of Solar that looks higher - rooftop. But the report is only looking at cost at point of generation, not the cost including delivery, which is what rooftop Solar competes with. I know you still need some kind of grid to support Solar, rainy days, etc - which is why they report in the way they do, but, as Solar rooftop are the only items there with local generation function it doesn’t give the whole picture.
Also, Solar cost per unit has dropped quite a bit since this report was published e years ago
Re: (Score:3)
The report you link to shows Solar as being lower average price than Nuclear.
No, it does not. Download and open the full report (download button on the top left if I remember correctly), and look at the diagram page 14 for instance. Nuclear LTO is the lowest. As the report says: "Electricity produced from nuclear long-term operation (LTO) by lifetime extension is highly competitive and remains not only the least cost option for low-carbon generation but for all power generation across the board.".
But anyway, this is not the fight to tackle. The (small) difference in price does not m
Re: (Score:2)
"Electricity produced from nuclear long-term operation (LTO) by lifetime extension is highly competitive and remains not only the least cost option for low-carbon generation but for all power generation across the board.". ... did I mention: perhaps?
If you compare a 40 year old nuclear plant with a brand new solar plant: perhaps.
Perhaps
If you build 2 new plants now, one solar and one nuke ... you are kidding, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't give a damn where my electricity comes from....just keep it un-interrupted, and cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and still emitting roughly 10 times more CO2eq/kWh than France,
Lol. Ho would that be physical possible?
while still actively building new gas plants... ... perhaps there are few under construction, which got started years ago. No idea, though.
Lol
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. Ho would that be physical possible?
By burning coal and gas, like they do for the rest of their electricity in Germany. If you are too lazy to just look at the official numbers they themselves provide, I don't know what I can do for you.
Lol ... perhaps there are few under construction, which got started years ago. No idea, though.
They got announced 3 weeks ago [cleanenergywire.org] by their government. If you have no idea about what you are talking about, maybe you should refrain from participating?
Re: (Score:2)
They got announced 3 weeks ago [cleanenergywire.org] by their government. If you have no idea about what you are talking about, maybe you should refrain from participating?
Holy shit, 25GW!? But yeah that's basically what they'd need to replace the coal capacity, I do wonder where they're planning to get that much gas from.
Re: (Score:2)
With the high heat from nuclear fission we can run any of a number of fuel synthesis processes for even more energy storage, energy stored as jet fuel, rocket fuel, heating fuel oil, natural gas substitutes, gasoline, and kerosene.
Steam turbines are already 80%-90% efficient, so there isn't as much "waste heat" from fission as you're assuming. You'd be pulling heat that could otherwise go towards generating electricity, which is already more profitable to sell at retail than automotive fuels. Why bother producing a gallon of gasoline which contains 33.7 kilowatts of energy, when your steam turbine generator is already producing a more valuable product?
In order for this idea you keep proposing to work, petroleum fuel costs would hav
Re: (Score:3)
Where are you getting this kind of efficiency numbers? As far as I know the best efficiency you can normally get from a steam turbine is around 50%-60%. Anything above is a domain of cogeneration power plant where the waste heat is used in a productive way instead of venting it into the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Steam turbines are already 80%-90% efficient, so there isn't as much "waste heat" from fission as you're assuming.
Hogwash. The best steam turbines are about 50% efficient, and 40% is more typical.
Re: (Score:2)
"Multistage (moderate to high pressure ratio) steam turbines have thermodynamic efficiencies that vary from 65 percent for very small (under 1,000 kW) units to over 90 percent for large industrial and utility sized units. Small, single stage steam turbines can have efficiencies as low as 40 percent."
https://www.epa.gov/sites/defa... [epa.gov]
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Steam turbines are around 42% - 45% efficient.
You know, the dreaded "Laws of Thermodynamics" - you can read that up under https://www.ohio.edu/mechanica... [ohio.edu]
You might find a better link, though.
Re: (Score:2)
So how does this work? Do you spend all day refreshing Slashdot so you can get first post on any vaguely energy related story, with one of your pre-prepared copy/paste posts? Or is it some kind of script doing the work for you?
I hope the pay is good, at least.
Anyway, perhaps we should start calling you Cnut, because it's pretty obvious the way things are headed. Renewables will continue to expand and replace fossil fuel and nuclear with cheaper alternatives. Storage will help. In the end there will be a few
Re: (Score:2)
15 roubles per comment is the usual price.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't much care how well solar power is doing because solar power is an energy source that produces high cost electricity, at times we don't need it
Strange. Solar should produce most energy around noon. Or pick your time, by pointing the solar plant to that direction. This is actually when most people on the planet need most energy. You must be a kind of exception.
fails to produce electricity when needed,
As far as I know, solar PV plants only produce no energy when it is dark.
Most people on the planet do
Economically obsolete. (Score:2)
Nuclear is economically obsolete, costs 4-6x more per kWh than any renewable source.
Not viable any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is economically obsolete, costs 4-6x more per kWh than any renewable source.
Not viable any more.
Only if you don't understand the numbers.
The only way to come up with nuclear costing 6 times as much as solar is by using LCOE, a metric explicitly not meant to be used in that kind of direct comparison. You'd get a "more fair" comparison by using solar paired with extremely large batteries as an aggregate cost, but even that falls extremely flat. For one, there is no agreed upon definition of how long such a system needs to supply power to provide a meaningful comparison: through an evening peak? A day?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)