Bye Bye Coal

[begreen]

It is now much more costly to run a coal-fired power plant than to replace it with renewables. In all of the US, there is now only one coal plant that is cost effective. Not only does renewable energy reduce carbon emissions and use less water, but it also saves money.

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

 

[GrumpyDad]

It is now much more costly to run a coal-fired power plant than to replace it with renewables. In all of the US, there is now only one coal plant that is cost effective. Not only does renewable energy reduce carbon emissions and use less water, but it also saves money.

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

I read this and had to laugh because I knew people would jump to that conclusion (bye coal) very quickly, post it on twitter etc.

Non profit think tank who's sole purpose is to push renewable energy sources, one study, states non partisan then goes on and mentions climate crisis endlessly - dont think many republicans would agree with that so, then partisan. Has many ties to other organizations that would profit handsomely if renewables were picked for a state/county....definitely not biased And that's where all of these people are from.
Imagine if the coal industry released a report saying Coal is still king and should remain so...would you trust that? The capital investments required would be insane. INSANE. That's not taken into account, what is - is operating costs and that's it. Well duh I would hope the operating costs of renewable plants would be less, I expected it to be far less but having worked on solar arrays before I can also see why the costs are high for solar plants. Oh, and they also included the inflation reduction act into their evaluation

Now dont get me wrong, Im a huge fan of renewables but let's not cut off our nose to spite our face here. I was in the solar industry and helped develop new manufacturing methods for the company that I worked for, and new encapsulates that provided higher overall efficiencies and better longevity. I think solar is very cool, and if not for my wife when I see an array out in someone's yard that looks unique I want to knock on their door and talk to them about it.

I think it is GREAT that we are working on our options. And hopefully in the areas it makes sense we will see more and more renewable resources in place, but let's not cut off our nose to spite our face - which it seems one group of people would love to do, (then blame the other group of people when it goes t*ts up)

 

[begreen]

Save the political opinions for another site. The data speaks for itself and is backed up by other financial surveys.

Renewable Power Costs Rise, Just Not as Much as Fossil Fuels

Costs to build and run new solar and wind facilities are still cheaper than gas or coal plants, BNEF survey finds.

www.bloomberg.com

Part of this is due to the effects of the IRA on new investments. So says the conservative Forbes.

99% Of U.S. Coal Plants Are More Expensive Than New Renewables. A Coal-To-Clean Transition Is Worth $589 Billion, Mostly In Red States

Building new wind and solar is less expensive than 99% of existing coal capacity. This Coal Cost Crossover is worth $589 billion in new investment for coal communities across the U.S.

www.forbes.com

As noted in another thread, the impact of China's developments in the solar industry and the cost per kW is huge.

 

[Shank]

Not opposed to renewable energy whatsoever, but how large of an area would you need to build solar panels or windmills to equate to the same level of output?

It is a nice sounding 3 paragraph article but I am quite skeptical.

Also, since the funding is coming from taxpayers to magically make it "less expensive" it truly is not. If the same incentives were offered to coal (which there is no reason to), it would be the complete opposite story.

 

[begreen]

There are many areas where the footprint is not that relevant, especially for wind power. But now, farming is starting to happen under solar. That said, for footprint and as a baseload power replacement for coal, nuclear is currently the best option. Factory-built, modular reactors should drive the cost down considerably.

The NRC has approved the first small nuke design for production

This is an important milestone. It means that NuScale can begin production of its small modular nuclear reactor (SMNR). Unlike mega plants, this design can be manufactured in factories and shipped to the site. This should greatly reduce cost of production. They can burn nuclear waste and in a...

www.hearth.com

 

[Shank]

There are many areas where the footprint is not that relevant, especially for wind power. But now, farming is starting to happen under solar. That said, for footprint and as a baseload power replacement for coal, nuclear is currently the best option. Factory-built, modular reactors should drive the cost down considerably.

The NRC has approved the first small nuke design for production

This is an important milestone. It means that NuScale can begin production of its small modular nuclear reactor (SMNR). Unlike mega plants, this design can be manufactured in factories and shipped to the site. This should greatly reduce cost of production. They can burn nuclear waste and in a...

www.hearth.com

I saw that when initially posted, that has a lot of potential as well. I also believe if we've seen anything over the past couple years that it is beneficial to have plenty of energy sources and perfect them before completely phasing something out.

 

[begreen]

Indeed, the phaseout is not going to happen overnight. Budgeting for these plants is long-term. Still, a lot of the current plants are old. The US went from 50% to 20% coal power production in two decades. This decline will accelerate with the passage of the IRA. The point of the article is that it does not make economic sense to build new coal plants at this juncture. The Forbes article illustrates how this trend is continuing. The EI report is the third of a series and the first to include the effects of the IRA. "The first Coal Cost Crossover report found 62% of U.S. coal capacity was more expensive to run than to replace with renewables, while the second iteration found 72% was more expensive than renewables.
This trend is unquestionably and irrevocably accelerating."

 

[woodgeek]

Also, since the funding is coming from taxpayers to magically make it "less expensive" it truly is not. If the same incentives were offered to coal (which there is no reason to), it would be the complete opposite story.

Coal causes ill effects on the environment and on the health of people breathing the emissions downwind. The government picks up nearly all of those costs. That is an effective subsidy, and it is not small.

 

[bholler]

Coal causes ill effects on the environment and on the health of people breathing the emissions downwind. The government picks up nearly all of those costs. That is an effective subsidy, and it is not small.

There is also a whole lot of money spent by the government to clean up the mess left behind by coal mining

 

[SpaceBus]

There is also a whole lot of money spent by the government to clean up the mess left behind by coal mining

Unbelievable that corporations get to just wreck the place we all live, and then we get the bill.

 

[bholler]

Unbelievable that corporations get to just wreck the place we all live, and then we get the bill.

Yup it's really sad

 

[begreen]

Unbelievable that corporations get to just wreck the place we all live, and then we get the bill.

Isn't that essentially how our consumer society works? We get tons of excess packaging, plastics, and disposables built into our economy and then we the taxpayers foot the bill for the excess trash instead of the producers owning what they make, cradle to grave.

 

[semipro]

Coal causes ill effects on the environment and on the health of people breathing the emissions downwind. The government picks up nearly all of those costs. That is an effective subsidy, and it is not small.

The adverse impacts of mercury from coal burning and related costs alone probably dwarf renewable incentives.

 

[Shank]

It is also interesting no data is presented in the articles (besides a couple figures with no explanation). I know most that have commented here have a very clear bias (and not saying it is bad). I am just assuming there is a lot more to this transformation than a 3 paragraph article with no data. Without seeing the true costs of both types I would not feel comfortable on drawing conclusions.

 

[SpaceBus]

It is also interesting no data is presented in the articles (besides a couple figures with no explanation). I know most that have commented here have a very clear bias (and not saying it is bad). I am just assuming there is a lot more to this transformation than a 3 paragraph article with no data. Without seeing the true costs of both types I would not feel comfortable on drawing conclusions.

And the fossil fuel industry wins another small victory. As was mentioned earlier, all they have to do is cast doubt on renewables and they get to maintain their fat profit margins at everyone else's expense.

 

[Shank]

And the fossil fuel industry wins another small victory. As was mentioned earlier, all they have to do is cast doubt on renewables and they get to maintain their fat profit margins at everyone else's expense.

Perhaps. Data would set this apart but no one considers it much anymore, it's more the emotional appeal. All things being even remotely similar in cost, output, outages, etc I would absolutely support renewables.

Most people are polarized to one side. I am not at all, but I also do not want to rush to a change that isn't proven.

 

[begreen]

The EI website provides datasets for their reports. This page has the 2019 report dataset.

The Coal Cost Crossover: Economic Viability Of Existing Coal Compared To New Local Wind And Solar Resources • Energy Innovation

America has entered the “coal cost crossover”: Today, local wind and solar could replace 74 percent of the U.S. coal fleet with immediate cost savings.

energyinnovation.org

You can download the full 2022 report here:

Coal Cost Crossover 3.0: Local Renewables Plus Storage Create New Opportunities For Customer Savings And Community Reinvestment

<p>New analysis finds 99 percent of existing U.S. coal plants are more expensive to run than replacement by local wind, solar, and energy storage resources. Transitioning to clean energy resources would save enough to finance nearly 150 gigawatts of four-hour battery storage, and would generate...

energyinnovation.org

 

[Ashhole]

Glad the U.S, is phasing out coal. With Russian oil embargo many countries are increasingly turning to coal for electricity.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/big-green-mess-germany-coal-stunning-31-electricity-production

 

[sloeffle]

I doubt my electric coop is going to turn the coal fired electric plant they poured billions of dollars into recently off anytime soon because of a few articles that are out on the internet.

According to the article I just read in my coop magazine, nuclear and coal are the future of base load electric generation because the fuel can be stored. Please note who the author of that story was too. I’m sure he’s biased the other way because the coop was paying him to write that. 😉

Ohio Cooperative Living – February 2023 - Firelands

Read Ohio Cooperative Living – February 2023 - Firelands by Ohio Cooperative Living on Issuu and browse thousands of other publications on our plat...

issuu.com

I’m all for renewables, but I think it should be a phased in approach. Ask the Germans how there all in approach on renewables went.

 

[bholler]

The fact is coal has been on a steep decline here for decades now. It just doesn't make economic sense anymore plain and simple

 

[woodgeek]

Perhaps. Data would set this apart but no one considers it much anymore, it's more the emotional appeal. All things being even remotely similar in cost, output, outages, etc I would absolutely support renewables.

Most people are polarized to one side. I am not at all, but I also do not want to rush to a change that isn't proven.

There are so many plants and so many different markets the 'data' is quite large. You need to see a report prepared by a researcher, think tank, etc. @begreen already gave an example.

Another approach is just to look at the generation trend line... coal is down down down. Since I don't recall coal being made illegal, this is the result of economics aka market forces.

 

[Eman85]

The Lasting Damage of the Tennessee Coal Ash Spill

Six months later, scientists have a better idea the full impact of the December 2008 coal ash spill

www.scientificamerican.com

Here's a result of burning coal. I live very close to a TVA fossil fuel power plant that burned coal for decades. They finally converted it to natural gas. What people don't think about beside the air pollution is the coal ash that's left and what to do with it. Looking across the river from just down the road from me people see this beautiful hillside covered in grass. What few know is that hillside is actually a huge hill of coal ash covered in a layer of soil that they planted grass on. It's another disaster waiting to happen just like the one in the link. Of course the hill is being monitored but common sense tells you that the poisons are going to leach into the ground water and the river eventually.

 

[Highbeam]

At least the extra unused coal is just sitting there underground for future use if ever needed. Right now, there's "better" stuff.

 

[begreen]

The Lasting Damage of the Tennessee Coal Ash Spill

Six months later, scientists have a better idea the full impact of the December 2008 coal ash spill

www.scientificamerican.com

Here's a result of burning coal. I live very close to a TVA fossil fuel power plant that burned coal for decades. They finally converted it to natural gas. What people don't think about beside the air pollution is the coal ash that's left and what to do with it. Looking across the river from just down the road from me people see this beautiful hillside covered in grass. What few know is that hillside is actually a huge hill of coal ash covered in a layer of soil that they planted grass on. It's another disaster waiting to happen just like the one in the link. Of course the hill is being monitored but common sense tells you that the poisons are going to leach into the ground water and the river eventually.

Same thing with Duke Energy in North Carolina. The environmental hit of coal mining and coal-fired power is extensive. It's dinosaur technology that has been eclipsed by better solutions.

 

[Eman85]

Same thing with Duke Energy in North Carolina. The environmental hit of coal mining and coal-fired power is extensive. It's dinosaur technology that has been eclipsed by better solutions.

Couldn't agree more. People think you throw a piece of coal in and electricity comes out. They have no idea what it entails to run a power plant on coal. The trains would run day and night bringing in the coal. The coal has to constantly be moved with bulldozers to prevent any combustion. Then it's loaded to burn and then the ash has to be dealt with. They came up with the idea of having the concrete plants mix it in with the mix for state highway jobs as a way to dispose of some of it. The rest sits there like a ticking time bomb.
The problem of water is also a big problem in this country no one wants to address. Beside the coal ash dump near me threatening the river, which is also the drinking water source for the next town over, we can't drill wells as the groundwater has been contaminated by dumping of waste. We have to rely on municipal water which never completely passes the requirements and they are getting the water from wells drilled near the river and the contaminated dump.