[Steverino]

An analysis finds that all the coal plants in the U.S. but one are pricier to run than building new renewable energy facilities. The single plant that is cost-competitive with wind and solar is Wyoming’s Dry Forks Station, which the analysis determined is one of the newest and cleanest in the U.S. coal fleet. Overall, the median cost for coal-fired plants is $36 per megawatt-hour, compared to $24 per megawatt-hour for new solar.

Replacing coal power plants across the United States with renewable energy projects would reduce carbon emissions and require less water. It would also save money. Nearly all existing U.S. coal plants require more cash to operate than the cost of replacing them with new wind or solar projects, according to a report published Monday by climate think tank Energy Innovation.

The finding is in line with past research by BloombergNEF that determined building new solar and wind farms is cheaper than operating existing coal or gas power plants in much of the world.

The economics of coal have been getting worse over the years. Energy Innovation has tracked the costs of new renewable projects in three Coal Cost Crossover reports since 2019. The first report found that running 62% of existing coal capacity in the U.S. cost more than producing the same amount of energy from renewable sources. That increased to 72% in the 2021 edition.

Now, incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act mean the share of coal power that’s more expensive has risen to 99%. And a lot of these potential renewable plants would be a lot cheaper; new wind or solar facilities would be around 30% cheaper than some three-quarters of the existing coal plants.

Of course replacing the coal power plants would also mean jobs building and operating the replacement power plants plus battery or other storage facilities (hydro pumping, weight lifting, etc.). Like natural gas before it, the disruptive economics favor renewables over coal. Will utilities do what they did before and choose to replace coal with something less expensive? Will some states pass laws banning renewables as a coal replacement? Will they legislate that coal plants remain open no matter what?

99 percent of US coal plants are more expensive than new renewables would be: report

All of the nation’s coal-fired power plants but one are less cost-effective to operate than constructing new solar or wind facilities in the United States, according to a study published Mond…

thehill.com

Replacing U.S. coal plants with solar and wind is cheaper than running them

Replacing coal power plants across the United States with renewable energy projects would reduce carbon emissions and require less water. Add to the list: It would also save money. Nearly all existing U.S. coal plants require more cash to operate than the cost of replacing them with new wind or...

www.spokesman.com

Loading…

gizmodo.com

 

[Cloudnine]

If true, it is all because of the heavy thumbs of federal, state and local governments on the scale. Regulations, taxes, subsidies. Hopefully, voters are beginning to notice that their energy costs are skyrocketing, and take action at the polls. Not holding out a lot of hope, though. I have California relatives who had a $600 natural gas bill for heating a 1700' home last month. In Burbank. Along with $6+ gas and and massive electric costs. Big Dem supporters, mad as can be, but can't seem to connect the dots.

American prosperity depends on cheap, abundant energy. If we keep going in this direction, our living standard, the envy of the world, is at serous risk.

 

[obermd]

So I'm going to play devils advocate here.

Does the cost of renewables include the cost of the huge battery storage that will be needed when the sun isn't shining or the wind not blowing? I ask because this is one of the strong points for coal, oil, and gas generated power.

 

[MikeBCo]

I have not read the report and will not do so, I have read dozens of EIRPs (Electric Integrated Resource Plans) over the years. These plans, much like the "study" cited, have their outcome pre-ordained by the assumptions that go into the plan. Assume that fossil-fuel fired generation needs to have a "social cost of carbon" applied to it that increases the cost per MW-h from $25 to $75 for a coal plant, and then give renewables an investment tax credit and a production tax credit that amounts to $40/MW-h and you can make renewables look less costly than fossil fired generation.

In reality, renewables are less reliable and more costly than fossil fuel generation. I've seen the numbers, I've vetted the number, I've even created the numbers... it all depends on what the expected answer needs to be and voila!, so shall it be... Just look at the cost of power in California. The utility companies (investor owned) want to build new stuff. Once their fleet is fully depreciated, building new generation makes them a guaranteed ROI under the auspices of your local PUC. Now if the PUC would hold their feet to the fire and have them operate and maintain their fleets based solely on the cost of generation...

 

[voltreg]

Since batteries are mentioned, this is one of the items with batteries that concerns me. People need employment however I fear they are risking their long term health with the lack of regulations. What is especially concerning is the use of child labor. Each country can set their own regulations and it does not appear the workers are being forced to work in the pits.

We get to benefit from the pain and suffering of others...including children.

Harrowing images of cobalt mines in Congo where kids dig for $2-a-day

 

[obermd]

Since batteries are mentioned, this is one of the items with batteries that concerns me. People need employment however I fear they are risking their long term health with the lack of regulations. What is especially concerning is the use of child labor. Each country can set their own regulations and it does not appear the workers are being forced to work in the pits.

We get to benefit from the pain and suffering of others...including children.

Harrowing images of cobalt mines in Congo where kids dig for $2-a-day

Did that story/report tell you that these mines provide the oil industry and the users of oil with cobalt? Colbalt isn't just used in EVs. Yes, child labor is an issue, unsafe mines are an issue, etc., but this is not the result of EVs and renewables.

 

[Danno]

Two points: (1) the solar "cost" relies on subsidies and neglects the actual costs; (2) solar "plants" don't produce nearly the megawatts of a coal plant and can't take up the load; (3) solar doesn't produce any power at night, while coal does; and (4) inverter powered sources (solar/wind) are more prone to voltage sag under load than turbine powered sources. With regard to point 2, the Dry Forks coal plant mentioned in the article produces 405 MW. I was recently in Las Vegas and saw the new MGM solar field - 100 MW on 640 acres with 323,000 individual panels. In other words, it would take roughly 2400 acres of solar and 1.2 million panels to replace that one coal plant.

I'm all for developing new technologies, but switching our base load generation to renewables too quickly is a recipe for disaster. Personally, I support other states like California moving to renewables because I don't live there and I'm kind of curious how it's going to work out.

 

[fhteagle]

I recently discovered electricitymaps.com. Great for seeing estimations of what is going on in various grids in various places in the world. Some slop in their data I'm sure (I've found a few days where what they are reporting is physically impossible), but good food for thought nonetheless.

I was aware of what was going on with my local power Co-op, and their 2 wholesale energy suppliers, but definitely not within the larger Balancing Authority area (WAPA) that we are grouped in with. Still a ton of coal in our BA's mix, and this January has been absolutely abysmal for wind and solar production. Couple that with the decades long drought in the west and all three major renewables are pretty sluggish all at once. But that doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and say renewables can't work. AFAIK, the ban on offshore wind development in the coastal waters of the US has not been lifted long enough for any actual projects to be online, for example.

We're in an era where renewables can displace, but not replace fossils just yet. Storage has to be accounted for in the renewables cost to get an apples to apples comparison of similar reliabilities. But, fossils are far far far from 100% reliable (ask ERCOT about what happens when you don't enforce winterization protocols on gas burning plants, for example). And it doesn't take nearly as many "hours" of storage to get to very high 90% renewable self sufficiency as most people think. A really good analysis I found has a 1-2-5-7 ratio between storage, solar, wind, and dispatchable hydro capacity serving 97-98% of capacity needs in eastern Australia.

But no we're not at a point where we can tear down all the gas burning peaker and backup plants yet. Coal needs scrapped as fast as practical, but not as fast as possible, for a hundred different reasons. Gen IV nuclear, geothermal, combined cycle gas are all a better cost to environmental damage ratio than coal in my opinion and I believe practical intermediate steps off of the black stuff. Best of all worlds will be powerplants that can efficiently shuttle between various power sources to run as cleanly as renewables allow but as reliably as fossil and nuclear do.

 

[hellsop]

The plan in the 1960s was that nuclear plants would be supplying the enduring electric load by now and other types of generation would be used for peak loads. Like during the hours when aircon runs most heavily is when sun shines, and the wind blows most vigorously. But popular sentiment was that nuclear power was "too dangerous" and not that we'd have 60 years of design refinements to make the plants designed a decade ago reliable and safe starting up today.