
Renewables predicted to beat coal for the first time in US later this year - prostoalex
https://qz.com/1610977/solar-wind-plus-other-renewables-beat-coal-for-first-time-in-us/
======
cydonian_monk
Renewables continuing to grow in output is great news. Yet that's only part of
the story.

Coal, at least domestic steam coal, is still being actively displaced by
natural gas. That's also a significant factor in the downward trend this
projection shows. This is covered in more detail in the original source [1]
the linked QZ article draws from.

1: [http://ieefa.org/ieefa-u-s-april-is-shaping-up-to-be-
momento...](http://ieefa.org/ieefa-u-s-april-is-shaping-up-to-be-momentous-in-
transition-from-coal-to-renewables/)

~~~
vkou
And while switching from coal to natgas is an improvement in our emissions
profile, natural gas _cannot_ be a meaningful part of any long-term climate
strategy.

On a long-term, 50% of the emissions profile of coal is still 50% too much.

(Also - and this is a bit off-topic - in the EU, natgas comes from Russia,
which adds a political problem, on top of the climate problem.)

~~~
Retric
Natural Gas is a much better fit with renewables than coal. So, until cheap
grid storage or massive over supply of renewables shows up it’s still a great
short mid term solution.

Aiming for 20% from natural gas is 1/5th the green house emissions of 50%
coal. That’s a massive impact and meaningful change even without vast grid
storage.

~~~
ummonk
Nuclear would be the other long term solution as an alternative to cheap
storage.

~~~
scythe
Nuclear and gas fit into different niches. Nuclear makes sense up to the point
where installed nuclear capacity is sufficiently lower than the lowest demand
on the grid, eg. 4 AM demand. Gas fills in for renewables when available
solar/wind is less than demand at high-usage times, eg. 10 PM demand. If
energy storage is expensive, it makes sense to have both.

~~~
Retric
The issue is Wind is vastly cheaper than nuclear power, but makes demand less
predictable. As you add more wind power you get a random unmet demand and
oversupply, but are paying less than half as much per kWh.

Nuclear can fill in the gaps assuming you design for it, but at extreme cost.

------
tedsanders
The article doesn't even get the units right. Generation is megawatt-hours per
day, not megawatts per day. The source data from EIA shows this here:
[https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/data/browser/#/?v=22&f=M&s...](https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/data/browser/#/?v=22&f=M&s=&start=201112&end=202012&id=&linechart=CLTO_US~RTTO_US&ctype=linechart&maptype=0&map=)

Also, the unnamed strawman coal proponents are probably correct that short-
term variations are unimportant. What matters is the long-term trend. And the
long-term trend is more renewables and less coal.

~~~
reitzensteinm
Wow, I just assumed it was megawatts peak per day (which would be a much less
impressive win over coal).

Maybe that book should have been called Physics for Future Presidents (and
Current Journalists). Broaden the market a bit and do us all a favor in the
process.

------
umvi
I'm slightly confused, but I think "beat" in this context means "generated
more megawatts in a single day than coal did on the same day".

That's encouraging I guess, but looking at their chart it looks like coal will
still remain dominant for a few more years. Also, price isn't mentioned at
all.

~~~
SilasX
<insert snarky reply about how solar never beat coal for any timespan between
10pm and 6am that still contains a kernel of legit insight about the need for
better energy storage to solar/wind to ever completely replace non-renewables>

~~~
toomuchtodo
You only need cheap renewables to apply pain to coal long enough for the
economics to fall apart for coal (as occurred for nuclear, requiring subsidies
in Illinois and New York for continued operation), regardless of time of day
of peak generation for solar and wind. Natural gas and then batteries will
naturally fill the gap as the economics develop.

Natural gas generation stranded assets is another discussion entirely, but
those investment losses are someone else’s problem. Pick better energy assets
to invest in.

Too bad you can’t harness snark as a power source.

~~~
ThomPete
Renewables are subsidized no?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Yes. As they should be. Utility scale batteries should be subsidized, and
there are some efforts to implement policy to do so.

I take no issue with existing nuclear subsidized until renewables and storage
can bridge the gap. Just don’t waste money on new nuclear that’ll never be
cost effective, and will take decades to build. Also set funds aside for
nuclear decommissioning and ensure it isn’t misappropriated.

~~~
ThomPete
I take great issue and do not agree at all that energy should be subsidized.

Renewables are not going to provide us with the energy we need, not even by a
longshot. It's less than 1% of the worlds energy needs, will only be around 3%
in 2040.

Renewable energy is a linear solution to an exponential problem.

~~~
imtringued
I don't think your numbers make sense. As far as I now the world needs around
22000TWh a year and Germany produced around 220TWh just with renewables alone
which is enough to reach your 1% claim.

~~~
ThomPete
You are welcome to find better sources.

------
tpkj
Tony Seba has an interesting perspective on "Clean Disruption of Energy &
Transportation", with one of the main takeaways being as options like solar
become more viable, their takeoff could be exponential rather than moving up
gradually in a straight line.

[https://tonyseba.com/portfolio-item/clean-disruption-of-
ener...](https://tonyseba.com/portfolio-item/clean-disruption-of-energy-
transportation/)

Also, more immediately interesting is how first world reliance on the grid
could be changing. "Distributed Energy Poised for 'Explosive Growth' on the US
Grid"

[https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/distributed-
ene...](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/distributed-energy-
poised-for-explosive-growth-on-the-us-grid)

In third world countries, there could be a complete bypassing of the
traditional grid; e.g., consider Zola Electric.

[http://zolaelectric.com/blog/zola-electric-announces-
infinit...](http://zolaelectric.com/blog/zola-electric-announces-infinity-
autonomous-power-grid)

~~~
tpkj
P.S. One of the companies in the solar space I follow closely is Enphase
Energy.

[https://enphase.com/en-us](https://enphase.com/en-us)

There is a cool little demo a solar installer from Australia made to show
Enphase's upcoming off-grid microinverter in action.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/solar/comments/b3sgec/demo_clip_of_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/solar/comments/b3sgec/demo_clip_of_enphase_iq8_offgrid_solution/)

Also, an interesting talk from Sunnova Solar CEO dealing with future of the
grid.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2915&v=6Dx0U2y-Y...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2915&v=6Dx0U2y-YgU)

------
strommen
Coal is dying in the US. There hasn't been a new power plant built in years
__, and facilities are getting retired early because it 's cheaper to build
new solar/wind than to run on coal.

The bad news is that many of the coal plants are getting converted to natural
gas rather than being replaced by renewables. And when it comes to climate
change, gas is only marginally better than coal. (Though when it comes to air
pollution, gas is much better.)

 __A tiny coal plant recently opened in Fairbanks, Alaska.

~~~
webninja
Good to know about the natural gas. It now costs less to make a new solar or
wind plant than it does a coal plant for the equivalent energy. However it
costs less to maintain an old coal plant than it does to replace it with a new
solar or wind plant.

------
new4thaccount
If anyone wants to get a really good view for year to year changes in fuel mix
by region, just look for your RTO or ISO's website.

ISO-NE, PJM, MISO, SPP, ERCOT, & CAISO all track this in real-time and do
regular reports on it. These are the entities that watch over large sections
of transmission and generation and act as "air traffic controllers" for the
grid. They also run the optimization software that chooses which generation
runs each day based on minimizing production cost while maintaining
reliability.

You might have to Google a little bit. In the SPP region, they've seen massive
wind penetration and coal has decreased considerably in the last 4 years.

~~~
amacbride
For example, here’s the CAISO report for today (there are other reporting
options as well):

[http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.aspx](http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.aspx)

------
robertwiblin
Here's what it comprises:
[https://imgur.com/a/BZDJ4wT](https://imgur.com/a/BZDJ4wT)

43% wind, 38% hydro, 10% solar.

~~~
ncmncm
So, neglecting geothermal?

~~~
webninja
So, neglecting ocean wave power?

------
BearsAreCool
Does anyone have any links to good statistics on the comparison of costs of
different forms of energy generation before government interference? All I can
find is either after subsidies or about total generation and not cost.

~~~
jillesvangurp
The assumption buried in this question is that subsidies are only applicable
to clean energy. It's a wrong assumption.

The reality is that coal, oil, and gas sectors are heavily dependent on
subsidies, tax benefits, federal programs for building pipelines, and in some
cases very expensive military interventions (e.g. most conflicts with US
involvement in the middle east). Arguably the amount of money involved with
that is far more than anything dedicated to clean energy currently.

------
RenRav
Has anyone made predictions for what future decades of energy generation might
look like? Specifically any ideas for how big if any a return to nuclear will
affect everything else?

~~~
new4thaccount
This is what transmission planning engineers do for a living. Distribution
planning engineers do it on a smaller scale.

Back in the day, the utility would look at population growth which correlates
well with electrical demand growth and did 1,5,10, & 20 year projections which
told them if they needed to build new generators or transmission lines. They
looked at expected fuel costs and federal/state policy changes too. One common
simulation they run is called "contingency analysis" or "CA" for short. You
start with a model of your grid at peak winter and summer loading. You then
take each transmission line out of service in the model (1 at a time) and then
run a loadflow calculation for the modified model(basically solving a massive
set of nonlinear equations) to determine the amount of power flowing over all
equipment. Any overloads are logged in a master list and studied to see if
they can be fixed. There are also studies to look at voltage and many other
things.

Today, studying the grid is a lot more complex and time consuming due to
things like renewables and energy markets. For example, a long time ago before
optimization software was available for large models, you would probably most
likely have a list of which resources to run when and it didn't deviate much
throughout the year. You would simply call on a gas plant to help you get over
peak and that is about it. Now, things like probability are becoming very
deeply ingrained in planning in a way they never were before.

In essence, folks working for utilities, government entities, state
commissions...etc do this all the time.

~~~
snowwindwaves
sorry for the nitpick, but what part of a load flow study is non-linear?

~~~
jhayward
> _what part of a load flow study is non-linear?_

Sorry to give you a wiki reference, but I had literally just read the power
flow study page [1] earlier today:

"The problem is non-linear because the power flow into load impedances is a
function of the square of the applied voltages"

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-
flow_study#Model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-flow_study#Model)

~~~
new4thaccount
Yea...you have a V^2 term as well from the voltage magnitudes I
think...thought about adding that to my answer below afterwards, but didn't.

------
dmix
So it's still an "estimate" not hard data yet? Does that mean anything?

From the chart it looks like coal will still be cheaper for most of the next
two years, at least the majority of the time. But it looks like intermittently
renewable energy will be cheaper, which is good news. Which hopefully also
means renewables are getting cheaper, not just coal getting more expensive.

~~~
foota
That chart is generation, not cost.

------
misterprime
/ _edit /_ thanks for updating the headline.

The title seems misleading. I suggest changing it to:

"Solar, wind, plus other renewables predicted to beat coal for the first time
in US later this year."

It's clear from the chart that the trend of coal generated power decreases
later in the year before increasing again. The reverse is true of renewables.
It's during this time where renewables generation is at it's annual high while
coal is at it's annual low that this predicted event is expected.

The title is misleading even though it is welcome news.

~~~
dang
Ok! changed.

------
sunkenvicar
Very misleading headline and article. Wind and solar are hardly renewable.
Most of the time they produce zero energy and are backed by gas turbines.

~~~
imtringued
They generally produce power when it's needed most. Also the percentage of
energy renewables produce on a given day follows a nornmal distribution. There
will be a few extremely bad days and a few extremely good days in a year but
most of the time they produce exactly how much they should. So why does it
matter if they have to use gas as backup power if it is only needed for a few
days in the year?

------
ThomPete
Yet wind and solar is less than 1% of the worlds energy consumption and even
in 2040 its not going to be projected to more than 3%.

It's pretty important to understand the difference between electricity and
energy. Electricity is only a small part of the entire picture.

Poor countries can't afford the rich mans toys and they are the ones who will
be increasing their energy consumption dramatically.

So it's the classic of winning the battle but loosing the war.

~~~
maxerickson
We should hold war tight.

Which projection are you using? One of the ones that is wrong (on the low
side) every 3 years?

~~~
ThomPete
IEA

[https://www.iea.org/weo/?fbclid=IwAR0IEeDUoV-
VGjztxl5JKYaJWZ...](https://www.iea.org/weo/?fbclid=IwAR0IEeDUoV-
VGjztxl5JKYaJWZXnc5MKW-8ShEffCZUEd1xufwZpdiQDCCs)

Current energy usage is not projection and thats less than 1% globally.

~~~
ozborn
Given their electricity projections are so awful, why would we trust IEA for
energy or anything else? They consistently underpredict renewables each year.

[https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/06/iea-gets-hilariously-
sl...](https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/06/iea-gets-hilariously-slammed-
continuously-pessimistic-renewable-energy-forecasts/)

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/05/iea-
accu...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/05/iea-accused-of-
undermining-global-shift-from-fossil-fuels)

~~~
ThomPete
Awful compared to what? Whats your better data?

------
tomohawk
Was driving on a back country road. Those living in the area lived in a
beautiful place, but in poverty.

The beautiful mountain views were marred by the windmills put there at the
behest of elites living in far off cities. The quiet of the countryside was
broken by the constant thrum of the windmills. I really couldn't imagine
living there with that constant low frequency noise.

With the best of intentions, these poor people were robbed of one of the very
few perks in their lives - the beauty of the area they lived in, and the peace
and quiet they once had.

EDIT: given the area of the country, it is highly likely that a large number
of these people had formerly been employed in the coal industry.

~~~
ajross
All resource exploitation has externalities, and sure, those are real costs
and worth discussing. If you want to make a case that the externalities of
wind power are more expensive than those for coal extraction and power
generation, then you go ahead and make that case.

But cut the hyperbole and poetry, dude. I see your "marred views" and
"constant thrums" and raise you a bunch of fucking removed mountaintops, an
acid rain epidemic and generations of health problems we're still paying for.

"Marred views", sigh...

