Comments
SilverNicktail t1_j6k4szx wrote
Unfortunately, they only say that as a reflexive defence when it works in their favour, or abuses happen. When it works against them, they'll demand boycotts and protectionist laws. There's already laws going on the books in some states to make it harder to sell EVs, for example. The UK government wanted to bloody ban onshore wind and solar!
urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_j6kqte2 wrote
the tories had been restricting with a moratorium onshore wind since 2015 with Cameron, that stopped onshore development, rishi said in december that he could "ease" the restrictions, "pending public consultation"
that would be an U turn on his summer campaing to became leader where he promised to scrap plans to relax the ban on onshore wind
so i'd take it with a pinch of salt and won't expect nothing on a hurry
for example nothing stops him easing the ban in a greenbelt Tory stronhold as a greenwashing show, since he would know that wealthy NIMBYs will oppose them
sunflowerastronaut t1_j6ktzng wrote
>The plummeting cost of renewable energy, which has been supercharged by last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, means that it is cheaper to build an array of solar panels or a cluster of new wind turbines and connect them to the grid than it is to keep operating all of the 210 coal plants in the contiguous US, bar one, according to the study.
>The new analysis, conducted in the wake of the $370bn in tax credits and other support for clean energy passed by Democrats in last summer’s Inflation Reduction Act, compared the fuel, running and maintenance cost of America’s coal fleet with the building of new solar or wind from scratch in the same utility region.
>On average, the marginal cost for the coal plants is $36 each megawatt hour, while new solar is about $24 each megawatt hour, or about a third cheaper. Only one coal plant – Dry Fork in Wyoming – is cost competitive with the new renewables. “It was a bit surprising to find this,” said Solomon. “It shows that not only have renewables dropped in cost, the Inflation Reduction Act is accelerating this trend.”
>Coal, which is a heavily carbon-intensive fuel and responsible for 60% of planet-heating emissions from electricity generation, once formed the backbone of the American grid, generating enough power to light up 186m homes at its peak in 2007. However, by 2021 this output had dropped by 55%, while jobs in the coal mining sector have more than halved over the past decade, to less than 40,000.
Mayor__Defacto t1_j6lt9w9 wrote
Missing: the industrial capacity to actually construct all of the turbines and/or panels required.
sunflowerastronaut t1_j6lu836 wrote
Not for long. That's in the bill too
Mayor__Defacto t1_j6lvy9n wrote
And will take a decade to build up to the point that we can actually do this. My point though still stands. While in theory coal plants are not profitable to run compared to building wind and solar, realistically speaking it’s not possible to simple turn them off and replace them with wind and solar right now. You have to just build wind and solar while closing them gradually as capacity comes online.
The issue I have with the take in the article is that it’s only on paper. It’s currently cheaper, but if everyone tried to build it at once it would not be.
sunflowerastronaut t1_j6lw8oy wrote
Who is saying that they will replace them right now? Who's saying they will all be replaced at the same time?
This cynicism is fabricated and doesn't belong on the sub.
>While coal is in long-term decline it is unlikely to disappear in the immediate future –
That is what it says in the article
>The issue I have with the take in the article is that it’s only on paper.
The only issue you have with the article is that you didn't read the article. Your second issue is that you like to bring your negativity to the wrong sub, gtfoh
brokenelectricchair t1_j6p0vpj wrote
>This cynicism is fabricated
That's spot on.
BoomZhakaLaka t1_j6kmpol wrote
the second issue to overcome is variability - i.e., to keep the lights on you need to be able to turn generation up in real time to meet demand. Because that's not how solar and wind farms work, they pair with storage. Put them together for the needed flexibility.
Fortunately, around 2020, storage-integrated variable facilities became cost competitive with combined cycle natural gas. NREL - for the desert southwest and plains, at least.
So really all of the biggest economic barriers have been removed. Every major utility in the southwest is already pivoting, but not as fast as some people would like. A few lesser problems are on the horizon - first-order voltage modulation without synchronous machines is hard, and the vast majority of solar&wind equipment we've installed so far isn't designed to do it. the 2016 blue cut fire
I always get a very mixed response for talking about this stuff - I worked for the first US developer of utility scale solar. At the time; there were problems getting banks to lend on these projects. I frequently spoke with the leadership of Edison, PG&E, SDG&E, Pacificorp.... about these technical challenges, and how to meet them. Unfortunately CAISO chose to overbuild without requiring flexibility (SCADA curtailment); they lean on exports instead, which isn't scalable - the EIM will become less of a solution as more participants overbuild variable resources.
WandaMaximumoff t1_j6lon44 wrote
Solar panels made in America are rapidly increasing in popularity. In addition to the United State’s growing ability to manufacture the components of solar panels, policy incentives, such as those that result in financial benefit for solar customers and tariffs on imported solar panels, have contributed to the rise in companies manufacturing their solar panels in America and consumers seeking them.
The United States solar industry employs around 250,000 people as of 2022 and is expected to see continued job growth year over year. Additionally, those who prioritize clean energy adoption and supporting U.S. manufacturing are driving the industry. https://www.forbes.com/home-improvement/solar/american-solar-panel-manufacturers/
DueGuest665 t1_j6lt5uo wrote
This has always been about vested interest.
Even if you don’t believe in climate change there is good reason to invest in solar and wind based on health effects of particulates.
The best thing would be government schemes to get people to invest in there own power generation with supplemental energy from a central source when needed.
Problem is it doesn’t make for as profitable business model.
The Industrial Age worked on a paradigm of mass production and distributed consumption.
The technological age is more based on distributed production and consumption and business models are struggling to adapt.
chakabesh t1_j6mksdy wrote
Exactly. We can put the windmills where they are the most effective and least disturbing to the environment. And use the energy somewhere else where it is needed. I don't see why would be this policy a struggle.
rivboat t1_j6m9knh wrote
It was 2-3 years ago renewables like wind and solar became cheaper than coal where it’s windy or very sunny. But it took subsidies and a couple of decades to create this timeline. Today those areas where renewables work are growing with larger subsidies and better innovation. Most new electricity demand is going to renewables with smaller amounts going to nat gas. This is your woke response.
hanshooty t1_j6lgqt6 wrote
Nice, please define outstrip?
BrevityIsTheSoul t1_j6lxqhc wrote
exceed
AutoModerator t1_j6jzbdo wrote
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
AGassyGoomy t1_j6o9u59 wrote
Now is this 99 percent of US coal plants or 99 percent worldwide?
ChemsAndCutthroats t1_j6obusf wrote
Now if only government will stop subsidizing coal. I don't know why we should even need to burn coal in the 21st century.
SerendipitySue t1_j6kwwma wrote
Sustainability is important and right now solar is not sustainable in the usa. As life of solar panels is about 25 years. And generally speaking we rely on china for the panels and parts.
Putting the national power grid at the mercy of a country that is not officially an enemy yet certainly is not a friend...does not seem wise.
Glad to see it is more economically worth it, till the special credits expire. Would like to see more solar houses. That makes for a more robust power grid if international relations deteriorate. A few houses going off grid..accommodations can be made.
LostMyKarmaElSegundo t1_j6k3eqn wrote
Nice to see the financial incentives have started to flip. All those people who say "let the market decide", there you go!