
More than 94% of net new electricity capacity in the USA from renewables in 2017 - jasoncartwright
https://electrek.co/2018/01/12/94-percent-new-electricity-capacity-usa-from-renewables/
======
velodrome
No money going towards nuclear....

If people were serious about ACTUALLY reducing carbon emissions, then baseload
power production would be nuclear.

Please look at France as an example.

France: 5.0 metric tons per capita (2013)

US: 16.4 metric tons per capita (2013)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita)

 _Nuclear power is the largest source of electricity in the country, with a
generation of 416.8 TWh, or 76.3%[2] of the country 's total production of 546
TWh, the highest percentage in the world._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France)

~~~
jdcarr
With the staggering drop in the cost of renewables and grid-battery storage I
just don't see how nuclear has a bright future in any regard.

They're unbelievably capital intensive and have a mean construction time of
7.5 years [0]. I'm from the UK so it's easy to point to Hinkley Point C as an
example of this. It's been in planning for a decade and certainly won't be in
operation for a similar amount of time, and the currently proposed strike
price is around £90/MWh, compared to the ~£60/MWh we've seen from offshore
wind projects. Let alone mentioning those have the advantage of being
independently deployable with how developers can generate income on a per-
turbine basis rather than waiting for the entire farm to be constructed.

And while nuclear is certainly much less CO2 intensive than any fossil-fuel
source even a pro-nuclear body's publication shows that wind produces
approximately as much CO2/GWh over an installations lifetime as nuclear does
[1].

[0] [http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-
nucle...](http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-
power-plant/) [1] [http://www.world-
nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publicati...](http://www.world-
nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf)
section 4

~~~
velodrome
_> I just don't see how nuclear has a bright future in any regard._

How about in space or on other planets?

 _> And while nuclear is certainly much less CO2 intensive than any fossil-
fuel source even a pro-nuclear body's publication shows that wind produces
approximately as much CO2/GWh over an installations lifetime as nuclear does._

And what if it's not windy?

\---

Keep in mind, almost ALL the nuclear power plants built are based on
1950-1960s technology (designed for naval applications). That would be like
comparing solar panels from that era with the panels designed/produced today.
There is no comparison.

~~~
EngineerBetter
The seas around the British Isles, which the poster is talking about, are
_always_ windy. Plus this can be mitigated with the battery storage the post
you replied to mentioned and solar - it's unlikely to be both still and
overcast.

~~~
gns24
Offshore wind farms around the UK have capacity factors around 40%; the seas
are certainly not always windy.

Solar struggles to provide a significant amount of energy in winter. Wind
tends to blow or not for a few days or more at a time - meaning you need much
more storage than just to carry you from one day to the next as you might in
places with consistent solar.

I can't find any good source of UK historical generation data, but from
looking at gridwatch the UK patterns tend to be similar to those in Germany,
the data for which are available here: [https://www.energy-
charts.de/power.htm?source=solar-wind&mon...](https://www.energy-
charts.de/power.htm?source=solar-wind&month=1&year=2017)

There's a slight inverse correlation between solar and wind, but not that
much.

I'd love to see a lot more renewable capacity installed as soon as possible,
but I don't see how we can move away from needing a lot of backup conventional
capacity in the near future. This is okay by me; let's halve our emissions and
then see what we can do next.

------
yongjik
If I understood it correctly, the title is _very_ misleading. It's trying to
compute percentage of values where the total sum can be either negative or
positive.

Imagine a hypothetical scenario: California added 90 GW worth of new power
plants, Texas added another 360 GW, and New York decommissioned old power
plants totaling 350 GW. Assuming all other states remained the same, the
national power capacity increased by 90+360-350=100 GW.

But if I say "California added 90% of net new electricity capacity," it gives
a very misleading impression. The fact that this is silly is clear when we
consider Texas: it added 360% of net new electricity capacity!

More fun happens if Iowa decommissioned additional 110 GW of power plants. Now
the national net increase is -10 GW, and California contributed -900% of that.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not an electricity expert. Please correct me if I
misunderstood anything.

------
ZenoArrow
The article is misleading.

Here's the EIA article it references:

[https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34472](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34472)

Here's another EIA article that suggests that electricity derived from natural
gas is on the rise in the US:

[https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29732](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29732)

I'm all for renewables, but twisting the facts does not help skeptics take
renewables more seriously.

~~~
gipp
Disagree...

Your second link cites 11.2 GW of new NG capacity for 2017, which is less than
the 11.8 GW of retired fossil-fuel capacity over the same time (per the
original article).

Besides which, saying that the vast majority of net capacity increase is in
renewables doesn't mean that fossil sources aren't also going up. In fact,
unless it's 100% of new capacity, fossil fuel sources are _definitely_ going
up, by definition. There's no real conflict or twisting the facts there.

------
dennisdamenace
Keep in mind capacity does not equal generation.

A solar facility with 1MW of capacity will generate 1MW at it it’s peak
moment, maybe, on a good day. Given the lat, weather and season, maybe you
will get 8MW hours total for the day. Whereas a 1MW gas plant could produce
24MW hours for the day.

In other words you could have 100MW of renewable capacity and have 0
generation if it is too cold, dark or calm.

~~~
the8472
Other plants don't operate at 100% capacity either due to variable demand, the
cost of spinning them up and down, river water being too warm for cooling,
cost of fuels, being displaced by renewables etc.

Sure, nighttime imposes a hard cap on the capacity factor of solar, but solar
is not the only renewable power source. Natural gas plants may have a much
higher theoretical limit, but in practice they are limited by more expensive
fuel.

------
ghouse
Because it's less expensive. And it isn't exposed to forward price volatility
of fuel.

~~~
simooooo
Less expensive to some. But heavily subsidised by the taxpayer

~~~
wklauss
no more than coal or oil.

~~~
ecpottinger
Probably, far less than coal or oil.

For coal we should look at all the health costs cause by mining and burning
coal.

For oil we should not only look at the tax breaks the companies get but also
how much of the military (percentage wise) exists to protect oil interests.

The health costs of the renewables are a lot less.

~~~
kgilpin
> military

Although, the USA is about 90% energy independent

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_energy_independe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_energy_independence)

~~~
api
It's not about where the oil physically comes from so much as managing the
global oil market. We might not get much oil physically from the middle East
anymore but volatility there affects the price here. Oil is a global market.

------
yodsanklai
Does it come as a replacement of old coal plants or does it add to existing
plants?

------
fineng123
This headline is such clickbait. Netting out all fossil fuels is silly.
Natural gas is alive and well and growing quite quickly, while coal is
suffering.

~~~
NickM
Why would you call it silly? The headline basically implies "total fossil fuel
generation has stopped growing, while renewables have grown substantially,"
which is both accurate and interesting. The fact that the coal/gas mix has
shifted toward gas doesn't change the fact that total fossil-based generation
capacity has basically leveled off.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "The headline basically implies "total fossil fuel generation has stopped
> growing, while renewables have grown substantially," which is both accurate
> and interesting."

It's not accurate, it's bullshit. Look at the graph here, which is based on
the official US government figures:

[https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31892](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31892)

Does it look like fossil fuel usage is slowing down to you?

~~~
philipkglass
According to your own link, "In 2016, fossil fuels accounted for 81% of total
U.S. energy consumption, the lowest fossil fuel share in the past century." Of
course you'd need additional data to show that the _absolute amount_ of
electricity generated from fossils, and not just its share of the pie, had
declined.

Here is that additional data:

[https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_1)

The sums of the fossil fueled columns (1-5), by yearly GWh, are:

2007 2992238

2008 2926731

2009 2726451

2010 2883361

2011 2788867

2012 2775025

2013 2745968

2014 2750572

2015 2727246

2016 2654468

Total fossil fueled generation is well below where it was a decade ago. The
rapid rise of natural gas generation has been more than offset by an even
faster decline in generation from other fossil fuels, coal in particular.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "Total fossil fueled generation is well below where it was a decade ago. The
> rapid rise of natural gas generation has been more than offset by an even
> faster decline in generation from other fossil fuels, coal in particular."

That's the problem I'm trying to highlight. The decline of coal is the ideal
opportunity for renewables to rise to become a greater portion of the energy
mix. Instead, we see natural gas taking its place. Natural gas is abundant and
cheap, and causes less pollution than coal, but is still a polluting source of
energy. Renewables now have to fight against a new, stronger incumbent, rather
than taking the place of a dying one.

~~~
philipkglass
You originally said that the claim "total fossil fuel generation has stopped
growing" was bullshit. Those numbers show it's not bullshit.

Renewables _have_ been rising. See the same table I linked before. Maybe you'd
prefer if all that declining coal generation had been replaced by non-
combustion sources instead of mostly gas. So would I, but global solar
manufacturing capacity in particular has grown so rapidly and recently that it
wasn't even theoretically feasible until just a few years ago.

Gas plants are cheap to build and currently have low fuel costs too. But even
at today's low fuel costs, most of their operating expenses come from fuel. As
renewable and storage construction costs continue to decline, their _very_ low
marginal costs provide ample opportunity to steal more share from gas, even if
gas prices stay low. It's already happening in California.

[http://beta.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-puente-
gas-...](http://beta.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-puente-gas-power-
plant-20171024-story.html)

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-11/a-new-
era...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-11/a-new-era-of-
batteries-spells-trouble-for-natural-gas-in-america)

[https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/battery-
storage...](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/battery-storage-is-
threatening-natural-gas-peaker-plants)

~~~
ZenoArrow
Fossil fuels and renewables are just categories. If you take away those
categories you'll see that the growth in solar, wind and other sources that
are classed as "renewables" are not significantly outpacing the growth of
natural gas. The reason this is significant is because the growth of natural
gas is as a result of those who see it as a long term investment. The new
natural gas power plants/generators were almost certainly built to return a
multi-year profit to their investors. Don't let the drop in coal distract you
from the growth in natural gas, it represents a long term shift in the energy
mix of the US, and will be almost certainly harder to shift than the coal
industry.

What you should be asking is, why are individuals investing more in natural
gas rather than renewables? If we were being honest with ourselves, the
problem is still battery technology. Investment in electricity storage is
costly, and the batteries we have today become less effective the more they
get used, resulting in regular replacements being required to maintain storage
capacity. There are groups working on the grid storage problem, but it's far
from resolved. Without it being resolved, there's a ceiling beyond which solar
and wind are not likely to grow, as the most important factor in grid
electricity is reliability, and storage is the only way to make a grid with
the majority of energy coming from wind and solar to be reliable.

------
jtbayly
This is a misleading headline. The article speaks of "net new," which is not
the same as "new."

In point of fact, as the article says, slightly less than half of new utility
scale power production came from renewables (12321 out of 25041 MW).

~~~
jtbayly
Here is a better article, which is referenced in the original article:
[https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34472#](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34472#)

It is titled "Nearly half of utility-scale capacity installed in 2017 came
from renewables"

~~~
jtbayly
Also of interest, total renewable additions are down in 2017, compared to 2016
(dropped from 17 to 12 GW), as is the percent of the additions (dropped from
62% to 49%).

