2015's Electricity Retirements: 80 Percent Coal Plants (arstechnica.com)
AmiMoJo writes: In the US, electricity demand is growing very slowly, which means that capacity additions don't have to exceed retirements by much in order to keep the grid functioning. Tracking the comings and goings from the electric grid can help provide a picture of the country's changing energy mix. The Energy Information Administration, which provides data on the US' electric grid, says 18GW of capacity were retired this past year, more than 80 percent of it coal-fired. More than 27GW of utility-scale projects will replace that this year. Note that much of the new generating hardware is wind and solar, but the plants being replaced often had low capacity factors due to their age and high pollutant output.
Has never been higher. Additionally because my state (Colorado) has decided to replace the coal plants with natural gas, increasing the price to heat my home as well.
Hopefully they'll be smart and go for sustainable energy alternatives rather than turning their countryside upside-down in search of fossil fuels.
The latecomers to the modern energy economy have the advantage of other nation's experiences... Hopefully they also have the wisdom to exploit it.
=Smidge=
I agree, but trying to claim that solar or wind is more reliable is very suspect. Hydro could be called reliable, but even that has its reliability issues as Lake Mead's current state should show.
http://www.livescience.com/519...
But solar and wind, or even the two combined have nothing on nuclear for reliability.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I think it's more the fact that the current Republicans would rather see things go down in flames than cooperate with Obama
There is a large scale failure of solar every single day...it is called night. Wind is a bit better about this, but having to build out 2-3 times the needed capacity to handle times when parts are not running increases the cost considerably.
Nuclear goes offline for maintenance all the time without issues, even sudden shutdowns of nuke plants are handled without issue. However, powering everything when the wind is not blowing, or the sun is not shining would be kind of hard with just renewable.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
If you own your roof it will lower your bill no matter how you do it (pay cash, lease, solar installer becomes your power company).
It may lower your monthly bill but that doesn't mean it's cheaper to you. I've done the math and for what it would cost me to cover my roof in solar panels I would break even in somewhere between 8-12 years. That's presuming that the panels still work at the same efficiency and require zero maintenance and that I'm still living there a decade from now, none of which is certain.
Don't get me wrong I'm a big fan of solar but the ROI for solar is anything but simple and certainly isn't quick. Its a big up front cash outlay with a (hopefully) long term payback that isn't always realized by the person spending the cash.
The vast majority of new oil production added to the global market over the past 10 years is from the US. Saudi production is up 7%. US production is up 60%.