Slashdot Mirror
Solar Is Top Source of New Capacity On the US Grid In 2016 (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The U.S. electric grid continued to transform in 2016. No new coal plants were added, and solar became the top new source of generating capacity. Combined with wind, a small bit of hydro, and the first nuclear plant added to the grid in decades, sources that generate power without carbon emissions accounted for two-thirds of the new capacity added in 2016. These numbers come from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which asked utilities about what sources they expected to have online at the end of the year. These numbers typically show a burst of activity in December, as projects are raced to completion to take advantage of the tax benefits of reaching operational status in the current year. Overall, the EIA recorded 26 GW of new capacity added to the grid in 2016. This includes a small amount (0.3GW) of new hydropower and a smattering of projects collected under "other" that produce a similar magnitude. Notably absent from the list is coal. Also absent is distributed solar, meaning panels installed on homes and other small-scale projects. Distributed solar accounted for about 2GW of new capacity in 2015, and the EIA notes that the incentives for these projects haven't changed considerably in 2016. Even without that 2GW, solar comes out on top, with 9.5GW of new additions this year. At 8GW, natural gas comes in second place on the EIA's list, followed by wind at 6.8GW. Thanks to the opening of a new reactor at Watts Bar in Tennessee, nuclear also joins the list for the first time in years, adding 1.1GW of capacity. Combined, wind, nuclear, hydro, and solar account for 68 percent of the new additions, making 2016 a low-carbon year for the U.S. grid. Assuming distributed solar this year is similar to its 2015 levels, the percentage of new non-fossil generation goes up above 70.
Watts Bar 2 nuclear plant will probably produce more power than that solar "capacity".
And they will still Build Natural Gas plants not Coal.
Indeed. Even if Trump was able to relax environmental requirements for coal (highly unlikely) there is no reason to believe that even more stringent requirements won't be slapped back on in four or eight years. Only a fool would build a new coal plant today. In America, none are being built or even planned. Coal is dead.
Because one is subsidized and the other was successfully taxed and regulated out of existence.
Exactly. It is totally unfair that coal plants had to stop spewing soot and sulfuric acid into the atmosphere. We need to make America great again!
Not any more. Have you looked at who's going to head the Environmental Petroleum Agency starting next year? Coal may not be petroleum, but I'm sure the EPA will conclude that coal is no more environmentally unfriendly than petroleum.
This is complete bullshit. The reason is simpler: natural gas because cheaper. Coal was out-competed by fracking.
The free market killed coal, not regulations.
The only way coal will continue is if it is subsidized more than it is already (by not having to clean up the mess created by coal).
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
If I was one of the leaders in the coal industry, I most certainly would tell the angry workers with pitchforks that it was the government's fault that they were laid off. I certainly wouldn't want to tell them the truth that it was because they weren't making me enough money.
It does not really matter if you fall from the roof cleaning a solar panel or cleaning a chimney.
Both can be avoided by following safety standards.
Understood but historically speaking more people have died from solar than nuclear. We cannot expect solar to ever reach zero on deaths, just like we can't from nuclear either. What we can expect is that while solar power is improving its safety record that nuclear power will as well. Nuclear power has it's slip and fall accidents too, we can fix that just as well as with solar but nuclear already starts with a good lead. As of today, right now, solar is a more deadly than nuclear and by an order of magnitude. Claiming that solar will improve and nuclear will not is speculation.
The carbon footprint of solar panels approaches zero. The only carbon dioxide produced is basically the transportation of raw material and finalized products to the installation place! If you take that into account then the carbon footprint of nuclear plants are a nightmare. They produce over their life span nearly the same amount as a similar coal plant does.
What color is the sky in your world? I have to ask because claiming that nuclear power would ever get to the level of coal is insanity. If you had instead claimed that wind and/or solar had a lower carbon footprint than nuclear by something like an order of magnitude then we might have a sane discussion. I might not be disputing the carbon footprint but instead focus on things like the benefits of nuclear being able to operate in any weather, needing much less land/steel/resources, and improved capacity factor. Claiming that nuclear power could even get close to producing as much CO2 as coal is just beyond the pale.
All power plants, that includes nuclear plants, need a favorable place. The main reason why Germany did mot build more before the decision to abolish them is that Germany has no space left where we could build one. Except the option to upgrade an existing one with another reactor.
This is demonstrably false. Nuclear power reactors can be operated in very confined spaces safely. They are running right now in submarines and aircraft carriers without incident and in very close proximity to people for decades at a time. This fear of nuclear power over nonexistent safety problems is hurting the environment and therefore hurting real and actual living people.
Same for France btw. That is the main reason France is buying so much power from Germany and in parallel is investing in renewables. Climate change is hitting Germany and France noticeable already: less snow in winter means far less water in summer in the rivers. Which means: shut down nuclear plants due to environmental regulations regarding temperature of water in the rivers. Or simple lack of water.
If we are going to speculate on the future advances of solar power to include improvements on safety and carbon footprint then I am going to speculate on air cooled nuclear reactors. Air cooling requires no water source, therefore your claims of a lack of proper water cooling preventing nuclear power use is not relevant. Even if we limit this to current technology I get back to the use of nuclear reactors in naval vessels. Build the nuclear reactor on a floating platform off shore, where the reactor is literally sitting in coolant, and run wires to the shore to transmit the power. If we can run wires under water to connect the UK to France to spread out the benefits of wind and solar power then running wires to a nuclear reactor at sea should be trivial by comparison.
I've actually heard of people claiming we should cover large portions of the Sahara desert with solar panels, run wires from there to Europe so they can benefit from carbon free energy. If that makes any kind of sense in the realms of logic, economics, and physics, then so should putting nuclear reactors out in the sands of Africa and running
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.