Common Fantasy: “Red States Are Dumping Coal for Solar”

Guest bubble bursting by David Middleton

Juan Cole of Common Dreams (a socialist rage) is always good for a laugh.

Monday, July 22, 2019
It’s Just Good Business: Even Red States Are Dumping Coal for Solar
by Juan Cole

Arizona, despite being GOP-dominated, is number 3 in the US for residential solar power production. In the first quarter of 2019 alone, Arizona homeowners put in 52.83 megawatts of new solar installations. As for industrial-scale solar, Arizona utility APS generates 1.4 gigawatts worth of solar power, equivalent to a small nuclear plant. APS’s rival TEP is planning residential solar installations in 90,000 Arizona homes.

[Orange man bad, blah, blah, blah]

Common Fantasies

Solar power works better in Arizona than just about anywhere else in America. It’s a subset of “Nonhydroelectric Renewables”…

Figure 1. Arizona State Energy Profile, US EIA.

All five members of Georgia’s Public Service Commission are Republicans, and they just decided to double their order for new solar… power and to close a coal plant

Common Fantasies

Figure 2. Georgia State Energy Profile, US EIA.

New Orleans has decided to add 90 megawatts of solar power, nearly doubling Louisana’s current 99 MW.

Common Fantasies

Figure 3. Louisiana State Energy Profile, US EIA.

Texas has been, inexplicably, a laggard in the solar sector. It is a wind giant. But precisely for that reason, solar installations are increasing and the state has jumped to sixth in the country for solar production…

Common Fantasies

Almost all of Texas’ “renewables” come from wind power and April is the windiest month of the year.

Figure 4. Texas State Energy Profile, US EIA.

Texas “has jumped to sixth in the country for solar production”… which is clustered with biomass, hydroelectric and other just above the Dean Wormer line…

Figure 5. 2019 Demand and Energy Report (ERCOT)

Solar production in Texas is effectively…

Juan Cole’s amazingly stupid article never mentioned natural gas until the last paragraph…

So, to summarize: Republican decision-makers increasingly see solar as just a good business investment that produces electricity more cost-effectively than coal. One important consideration is that the fuel is free, so that municipalities that want 25-year bids favor renewables over fossil fuels. Who knows how expensive natural gas will be in 2044? But sun and wind will still be free. 

Common Fantasies

Who knows how expensive natural gas will be in 2044?

Common Fantasies
Figure 6. AEO2019 natural gas price projections.

Between $3.21 and $7.03 per mmBtu, most likely around $4.38/mmBtu. And the cost of natural gas-fired electricity in current dollars won’t be much higher than it is now according to the Energy Information Administration.

Figure 7. Natural gas advanced combined cycle LCOE (US EIA)

But sun and wind will still be free. 

Common Fantasies

Not even in your wildest Enviromarxist fantasies…

Figure 8. Solar PV LCOE (US EIA)
Figure 9. Wind, onshore LCOE (US EIA)
Figure 10. Wind, offshore LCOE (US EIA)

$110.40 per MWh???

Figure 11. You really can’t.

According to the US EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook, in 2050 we’ll be getting 48% of 31% of our electricity from solar PV. For the math-impaired, that’s 15%… While, we’ll be still getting 17% of our electricity from coal-fired power plants.

Of course, electricity generation is only one part of the energy puzzle. Primary energy includes transportation, electricity generation, industrial, commercial and residential consumption.

The green curve is “other renewables,” primarily wind (both onshore and offshore) and solar, the gray curve is “coal,” the blue curve is “natural gas.” Note that in 2050, “other renewables” will have barely overtaken “coal,” while “petroleum and other liquids” and “natural gas” will each be 3-4 times the Quad Btu as “other renewables.”

Are EIA projections always right? No. They’re “projections”. EIA totally missed the Shale Revolution. If frac’ing was a unicorn, then Juan Cole’s fantasy would be a projection.

Juan Cole earns a Distinguished Billy Madison Cross for his efforts.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 1, 2019 2:32 am

But all states are dumping coal, aren’t they?

Caligula Jones
Reply to  David Middleton
August 1, 2019 6:27 am

Here in Ontario, Canada, we dumped coal a few years ago, and the Liberal government of the day went large into “renewables”. Where are we now, you ask?:

Hourly Output by Fuel Type at 7:00 a.m. EST
Nuclear 11,520 MW
Hydro 3,282 MW
Gas 1,262 MW
Wind 334 MW
Solar 40 MW
Biofuel 48 MW

Yeah, thank Gaia for nukes…

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Caligula Jones
August 1, 2019 9:31 am

And on top of that, Ontario’s nuclear power stations use natural uranium!

Green Party, put that in your green pipe and smoke it…

There is nothing more natural than harnessing natural forces like fission of heavy elements to the service and benefit of humankind. It can be done intermittently using a remote source like the Sun, or under the control of experts in a CANDU reactor.

Now that Americans are allowed to source their pharmaceuticals from Canada, they may recognise how much of their electricity comes from here as well. AOC, did they tell you about that? How much of NYC’s electricity is imported from the James Bay Hydro Scheme? Keep banning new gas connections, We have lots more energy to sell. Can’t guarantee the price, however.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
August 1, 2019 2:24 pm

The Sun’s energy is not via “fission of heavy elements”, but by fusion of light ones (hydrogen). Big difference.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
August 2, 2019 4:27 pm

Donb, the “big difference” is that the nuclear reactors are on Earth and that the “natural” rotation of the Earth (you know, Day an Night) or a cloudy day don’t shut them down.

Matthew K
Reply to  Caligula Jones
August 2, 2019 1:11 am

I don’t think there are any coal fired power stations left operational in Ontario. The last one to go I think was either Nanticoke or Lambton. Lakeveiw was dismantled around 2009 and the site remains empty. Dismantling work at Nanticoke is currently underway, and a solar farm of all things is planned to be built on the site of the old coal plant. Dismantling work is only starting at Lambton.

Meanwhile the four coal fired power stations at Point Aconi, Lingan, Trenton, and Point Tupper in Nova Scotia remain in operation.

Bryan A
Reply to  David Middleton
August 1, 2019 10:22 am

Griff may have a point…
Ther are “Dumping Coal”
Dunping it right into hoppers to burn in power generation plants and Steel Manufacturing

Reply to  griff
August 1, 2019 4:34 am

Replacing it with natural gas in many cases. Not the useless wind and solar. So it’s still FOSSIL FUELS all the way. It’s also purely for economics. Has zip to do with CO2 and climate change garbage.

Reply to  Sheri
August 1, 2019 6:25 am

What’s usually ignored in these articles about wind generation in Texas is that every wind farm built has backup nat gas generators that kick in and keep the power flowing to the grid whenever the wind dies down. Which is a lot of time.

Reply to  David Middleton
August 1, 2019 7:57 am

… fails to include “delivery charge” in graphed data …

Can you plot for us the all-in cost, which includes the delivery charge?

Reply to  David Middleton
August 1, 2019 10:14 am

David–I fail to see how using two plants to generate electricity is a bargain. If you had low auto insurance rates but twice as many accidents as every other state, would that be great?

Bryan A
Reply to  David Middleton
August 1, 2019 10:26 am

Wouldn’t the “Delivery Charge” be the same regardless of who was dumping the electrons into the wires?

Snarling Dolphin
Reply to  griff
August 1, 2019 7:49 am

Sort of. All states are being politically coerced to dump coal.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  griff
August 1, 2019 8:26 am

griff – August 1, 2019 at 2:32 am

But all states are dumping coal, aren’t they?

Shur nuff, griff, …… you are absolutely right.

Pretty much every person or company that produces, buys, sells or uses coal is guilty of “dumping it”.

Loading, ….. transporting …. and then dumping ….. is how coal is moved from “source” to ”user”.

Reply to  griff
August 1, 2019 4:28 pm

And some day in the future when nat gas gets more expensive then coal, the trend will reverse.
So what?

August 1, 2019 2:42 am

Leftards gotta leftard.

Michael Ozanne
Reply to  chaswarnertoo
August 1, 2019 4:53 am

“Never go full Leftard…”

comment image

August 1, 2019 2:46 am

Take away the backup power generation, and wind and solar will fail.

To think that all of this very experience “”Free”” power is all because the so called Climate Scientists are unable to understand the prosperities of a single gas.

Finally is CO2 subject to the logarithmic law, that the so called heating effect becomes less mad less as the small amount in the vast atmosphere increases.


Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Michael
August 2, 2019 4:17 am

Michael – August 1, 2019 at 2:46 am

Finally is CO2 subject to the logarithmic law, that the so called heating effect becomes less mad less as the small amount in the vast atmosphere increases.

Shur it tis, …… shur it tis.

It gets less n’ less until things start freezing up.

Just like NaCl is subject to the logarithmic law, …… which causes its “taste” to decrease with each additional applied “shake”.

Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
August 1, 2019 2:57 am

“The fuel is free” LOL!! … all fuel is free, we only pay for the means to harvest it.

Coal is free – you just have to pay to mine it
Oil is free – you just have to pay to drill it
Wind is free – you have have to pay the politicians to give you subsidies and then bribe the local politicians to give you planning consent and pay the Chinese to built the bird-mincers for you …

Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
August 1, 2019 3:38 am

And water from your tap is free – it just falls from the sky.
Oh, and then there is the collection, storage, filtration, and distribution.
But it is FREE I tell you – FREE……!!


Gunga Din
Reply to  ralfellis
August 2, 2019 4:37 pm

And I’m one of those that treat the water supplied to your tap. I don’t work for FREE!!! 😎
(Hmm…do I have a “green” job or a “blue” job?)

Ron Long
Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
August 1, 2019 3:42 am

“bird-mincers-2 us correct, Mike et al. Sooner or later this slicing and dicing of our feathered friends is going to need correcting, and, as per mining company studies, only physical barriers work.

Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
August 1, 2019 4:46 am

Excellent comment, Mike.

I tell people I will give them free fuel for life for a car I sell them. The car costs 3 times what other cars cost, the insurance is twice normal, the government will subsidize part of the cost until it doesn’t, and the car will only run for random lengths of time on random days of the month (yes, that means it will stop 200 miles from your destination when the time runs out for that day). But the fuel is FREE. There don’t seem to be any takers.

Another Paul
Reply to  Sheri
August 1, 2019 5:12 am

” There don’t seem to be any takers.” Maybe an ad during that US Democratic debate last night, your phone would be ringing off the hook. Where did they find enough trained seals for that audience.

Reply to  Another Paul
August 1, 2019 10:15 am

Good point!!! I had not considered that option!

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
August 1, 2019 9:40 am

Mike H

I was going to point out the same thing: coal is free. It is just lying there, sometimes a little under the surface. It is odd that J Cole says wind is free and intimates that other natural resources are not. That is very strange, actually, and is a misunderstanding of what a “natural resource” is.

Uranium is a natural resource too. It is free for your taking, unless someone sells it to a company controlled by a foreign power intent on your destruction. In that case you might have to pay a lot to get access to your own natural (free) resources.

I like the claim about “dumping coal”. It sounds like “dumping steel” or some other high value export. At present Hydro Quebec is “dumping” electricity on the US well below the cost of generating it near the point of use. I hear it is something like $0.01 per KWH bulk price, long term contract. Anyone have a firm figure? Natural gas and wind can’t touch that kind of price.

August 1, 2019 3:36 am

The thing you can’t lose sight of is the cost of money. Either you borrow money and have to pay interest, or you have money and have to choose the best way to use it.

If I’m thinking of investing my money in a windmill, I have to compare the income from that with what I could get just by letting my money sit in the bank. opportunity cost

Even if the wind and sun are free, windmills and solar panels are still capital intensive. Not only that but, the infrastructure they require is expensive. Even if solar PV panels were free, the required infrastructure, including real estate, is far from free. I don’t know how much an acre of Arizona desert costs, but I’m darn sure a solar PV farm in New York State isn’t viable because the land is expensive (even ignoring the fact that NY isn’t as sunny as AZ).

I live in the vicinity of Toronto. Suppose I buy cheap solar PV panels, put them on my roof, do all the work myself because I can, and already have an inverter. So, basically everything but the panels for free. Electricity would just about have to double in price for the exercise to be worthwhile. I can do much better with a few efficiency upgrades to reduce my energy usage. That’s significant because I’ve already picked all the low hanging fruit.

Reply to  commieBob
August 1, 2019 4:52 am

You hit the nail on the head. To make solar work, you only need to raise prices on power. Don’t give them any great ideas. Amazing that the public in places like Europe are happy when they save a few cents off of their 25-30 cents/kWh. They don’t realize they should be paying 10-12 cents/kwh when you don’t waste money on unreliable power sources.

Reply to  Collin
August 1, 2019 5:55 am

Don’t give them any great ideas.

They’re not dumb. That’s the idea behind carbon taxes.

There’s a difference between stupid and insane. The left, with its love of abstraction, is removed from reality in a manner that mimics schizophrenia.

Mark Broderick
August 1, 2019 3:42 am


“Juan Cole of Common Dreams (s (a?) socialist rage) is always good for a laugh.”

Mark Broderick
Reply to  David Middleton
August 1, 2019 8:30 am

Yes, and you typed “(s socialist rage) …Should be “a socialist rag”, no s, no e ?

Mark Broderick
August 1, 2019 3:50 am


“Are EIA projections always right? No. They’re “projections”. EIA totally missed the Shale Revolution. If frac’ing was a unicorn, then Juan Cole’s fantasy woukd (would?) be a projection.”

You should be able to see this in about 6 hours…(10:00 et) LOL

August 1, 2019 4:02 am

Mike Hassler, very good.


August 1, 2019 4:20 am

Solar and wind are free?
a) Not when governments decide to tax them to replace declining revenues from fossil fuels.
b) Not when governments introduce a recycling fee to cover the cost of disposing of end of life solar panels and wind turbines.

Reply to  joe
August 1, 2019 10:50 am

Our harlot of a town is now disposing of turbine blades because “we have millions of cubic feet of space available at the landfill”. Why then they are building a baler to compact the trash no one seems to know. Except the usual crony capitalism or something like that. Of course the landfill makes a few bucks (reportedly $675,000) using up landfill space that citizens of the county own. Which means someone (no information on where the blades are coming from) pays that $675,000 per year. I have no idea where the turbine blades are coming from and no one is saying. So, yeah, you have to find a patsy to take the blades and then pay for burying them somewhere with huge amounts of landfill space.

The landfill is cutting the blades into smaller pieces for storing until burying. Looking at the pieces, one wonders why the blades are not taken to LA, painted and spruced up a bit, and used for housing the homeless. At least then one thing good would come out of the mess.

Willem Post
August 1, 2019 4:26 am

Your article, with facts and figures to debunk outrageous lies by Socialist coddling Democrats, is excellent.
However, the government statistics lump variable, intermittent wind and solar together with steady, dispatchable other sources of electricity, as if they are equivalent. The government is making a very serious misrepresentation.

Wind and solar are cripples. They cannot be on the grid without the support of the other generators and batteries.
The more wind and solar, the more such support and the more batteries.
That support and batteries and grid extensions to connect all that wind and solar does not come for free. It is about 3 to 3.5 c/kWh
The more wind and solar the higher that cost becomes.
Wind and solar cmpetitive? Sure, when the moon turns to cheese.

willem post
Reply to  David Middleton
August 1, 2019 9:37 am


Texas wind benefitted from $7 billion of transmission from Panhandle to population centers in the east

Add that cost to wind instead of household electric bills, wind would not look so good, plus the cost of having other generators inefficiently perform at part load, ramping up and down, and making more start stops, all while producing less!!

Wind sucks in Texas as well, if all direct and indirect costs are included.

Anyway Texas and Arizona are about 10% of the US.

If wind and solar sort of marginally suck in those states, then they suck major elsewhere, especially in New England and the US northwest.

Kaiser Derden
August 1, 2019 4:45 am

anyone who says that something (besides air) is free is conning you … period …

Len Weerner
August 1, 2019 5:03 am

I gazed at the right hand half of Figure 12, projecting the glorious future increase in solar, thinking–there is increasing talk of a coming extended solar minimum, of ‘cosmic rays’, and the potential for increased cloudiness which could make folly of projections like that, ones that nobody is qualified to make.

Reality has a way of encroaching on glorious projections into the future, just as surely with the viability of solar-generated electricity is it did with Hubbert’s Peak Oil. For example, Medicine Hat is one of the sunniest places in Canada.

OTOH, some projections are always end up being true; note in the Medicine Hat example of another grand idea of politicians, just who took the bath when it failed.

August 1, 2019 5:36 am

Still raging against the dying of the light, I see.

You can rant and rave all you like, but the cost of PV has plummeted in the last decade, it is much cheaper than coal. PV works great during daytime, requires no storage, and daytime just happens to be the peak demand portion of the 24 hour day. Wind too tends to peak in the daylight hours, though it also continues all night long. Storage is no big deal – either use battery banks, or use renewables to store energy in hydrogen, which is a fantastic vehicle fuel.

Renewables will never replace all other power sources .. and does not need to. The silly dreamers who think it can are certainly worth mocking. But you mock yourselves when you rant and rave against reality.

In my state of Florida, our largest electric utility, Florida Power and Light, is also the world’s largest producer of renewable energy, the majority of that being PV. And our electric rates are among the lowest in the nation, 9 point something cents per KW-hr. FPL is a very well managed utility, and they deliver the goods at an attractive price point. They also use nuclear and a lot of combined cycle natural gas, and are now virtually devoid of coal-fueled power.

Coal is going down, there is no doubt about it. Coal will not completely disappear, but the source that used to account for well over half of all US electrical power generation is now headed down to less than 20%. You cannot deny that, no matter how much you rant and rave and mock as “stupid” all those people who are living in the real world and do not attempt to deny reality.

Stick to the science of climate change – that is where this site and its writers and editors are on firm ground. But every time you guys go off on one of your silly anti-renewables rants, you simply discredit yourselves as raving deniers of reality.

Joe Campbell
Reply to  David Middleton
August 2, 2019 7:13 am

David and Duane: A bit late, but had to dig up the data. I am serviced by both FPL and JEA in NE Florida (Duval and Putnam counties). My last FPL bill was at 14.5 cents per kWh, while JEA was 12 cents per kWh, both for “residential” service and both include all charges.

David: Thanks for the “Duck Curve” presentation. I had struggled to understand the curves, but finally I “saw the problem”. But, I now remain confused as how anyone can effectively supply to that load variation…

Joseph Campbell
Reply to  David Middleton
August 3, 2019 6:54 am

Lordy mercy, do I ever know the Pomona Park “Middletons”. Great people; particularly Bob Middleton, who helped me out a number of times over the years…
And, thanks for the response. For some reason (?) I had forgotten the battery “solution”…

Joseph Campbell
Reply to  Joe Campbell
August 3, 2019 5:08 pm

David: “Uncle Gator” lives directly across the southern pool of Lake Broward from my cabin; “Cousin Bobby” and “Cousin Rick” live at the north end of the lake. Uncle Gator helped me recover from a downed tree that threatened my J3Cub on floats, but Bob helped me in a number of ways while I owned the cabin property on Lake Broward in Pomona Park…

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Duane
August 1, 2019 6:23 am

FPL has upgraded both it’s nuclear plants and is in the process of licensing and operating 2 more. That will produce enough energy to supply almost 4 million homes. But since nuclear is not considered a renewable power source it doesn’t count. Nuclear programs like FPL’s are clearly the proper way to go to create long term, reliable and low cost energy. Wasting time, effort and resources chasing the wind and solar options should be the subject of critical examination.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 1, 2019 5:50 pm

There are two plants with four reactors operating in Florida, since Duke Energy closed down Crystal River.
They are the two at Turkey Point and the two at St Lucie.
Currently, there are only two units under construction in the US, and they are the only two to have been built in several decades. They are the two units at Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia.
The original price tag for these had, at last report, doubled from $13 billion to over $27 billion, and at least one company dropped the plans when Westinghouse went belly up.

Many others had been proposed, but the Japan tsunami scuttled all but the Alvin Vogtle ones.
Various sites list others, but I think they must be retrofits, because numerous sources state there are none under construction except those, and they are the first built in over 30 years.

FPL is currently still seeking permits to begin construction of Turkey Point # 6 and 7.

Permits have been delayed, and are past the original deadline for the permits to be approved.
No ground has been broken it seems.–-combined-construction-and-operating-license-4

Reply to  Duane
August 1, 2019 9:13 am

Lol…..I don’t know where you get your information on the size, scale and cost of Florida’s power generation but this site contradicts your implying that PV and other “renewables” make up the largest share power generation…..your electric rates are low because Natural Gas, Coal and Nuclear power up the vast sources of power……..….Wind and solar will continue to be niche sources of energy. The bottom line is what your electric bill residential or commercial says at the end of the billing cycle…… mine is 8.6 cent per KWH here in Kentucky.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Jeff
August 1, 2019 5:15 pm

He just makes it up out of thin air, because not one word of it is factual.
He writes that crap without bothering to even glance at a single reference.
Literally not one word of what he wrote is truthful or factual…and he says that crap while being gratuitously insulting.
Simply stated…Duane is a f$%#ing asshole.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Duane
August 1, 2019 9:42 am

Duane, when PG&E in California decided to bow to intense political pressure and announce the closure of Diablo Canyon by 2025, the CEO claimed that reaching a target of 70% renewable electricity for California by 2030 was easily achieved, with little adverse impact on the cost of electricity.

Would you make a similar claim for the state of Florida; i.e., that a target of 70% renewable electricity for Florida by 2030 is easily achieved, with little adverse impact on the cost of electricity?

Reply to  Beta Blocker
August 1, 2019 3:28 pm

the CEO claimed that reaching a target of 70% renewable electricity for California by 2030 was easily achieved, with little adverse impact on the cost of electricity.

Of course, it will require more extensive rolling brown and black outs. It may be possible to reach 70%, but that doesn’t mean that electricity generation will keep up with demand, it just means that other sources aren’t as plentiful.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  AWG
August 1, 2019 5:05 pm

Florida has zero chance of meeting anything like 1% of our demand with in state produced wind or solar.
Florida has officially zero megawatts of wind potential in the whole huge 53,000+ square mile state.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Duane
August 1, 2019 5:01 pm

Duane, you are laughably wrong, as you often are, regarding many of your comments here.
You just make crap up, and when you do, it is gallingly commonplace for you to mix in a liberal dose of insulting invective when you do so.
You claim FPL is the worlds largest producer of renewable energy.
That is so far from being true it is astounding anyone could think it.
FPL is the largest producer of solar power in FLORIDA!
Their installed capacity is 635 megawatts.
There are dozens of single solar power plants that exceed this amount, and that was in 2017.
Some of have as much as 3 times the nameplate rating as FPL.
Florida has almost no wind capacity compared to the places that make a lot of it. Thank God.
Their web site does not even have it listed as one of the ways they make power.
FPL at 635 MW of name plate solar installed (according to their website), is not even a pimple on the gnat on the buffaloes ass of the large producers in the world. Siemens produces 240,958 Megawatts.
GE about half that amount.
There are dozens of companies in the US alone, and hundreds on the world, that make more renewable power than FPL.

As for being the cheapest power in the nation: FPL is one of the cheapest suppliers in FLORIDA!
My rate is lower than FPL, being that I am in a co-op.
I think maybe you read something in 2003, when FPL made 40% of the wind power in the US, and think that means jack shit today.

The fact is, Florida is not a very good place to make solar power…because it is very often cloudy on Summer days, when demand is highest, and land prices are very high, especially in the sunniest parts of the state.
This may be surprising, but it is true.
Most states west of the Mississippi are far drier, and hence have less cloudy days, and this more than compensates for Florida being further south, but also land is far cheaper and more plentiful.

And it is a terrible place to make wind power. Land is too expensive. And it isn’t that windy, except in Winter behind cold fronts.
Florida most of the year is the least windy state in the US.
We have, rounded the closest MW, zero megawatts of wind potential in Florida.
Less than Delaware. Which is the smaller than some counties here.
We have, simply stated, zero places where the 30% capacity factor cut-off point can be reached, except for offshore.
You should stop making crap up Duane, because people will call you out on your BS.
I could include links that prove every word of your rant is false, but I am not going to let you skip doing some homework.

But I will add one more stat from FPLs website, regarding the coal generation capacity you say they do not use, vs the solar you laughably claim they make more of than anyone in the world: FPL makes nearly 1000 times more power from coal than they do from solar, and solar is the only appreciable source of renewable capacity they have.
In fact, FPL is co-owner of the single largest coal fired power plant in the whole country!
Ha ha…you sure know how to be wrong, Duane!

Get a clue: When renewable producers crow about how much money they saved everyone by installing renewables, they are using accounting BS and subsidies to avoid being sued for fraud by saying so.

David Irons
August 1, 2019 8:20 am

Tell me load peaks in late afternoon here in Maine in January when the temperatures drops to minus 20 F between 11 PM and 5 AM. That’s why we heat mostly with oil.

August 1, 2019 8:40 am

Problem is Obama forced many utilities to shutdown Coal power plants.

Also, statistics can be misleading when you consider that some of these shut down coal plants were in states with Democratic Governors that imposed Renewable Energy Requirements that NOW have republican governors and/or voted for Trump because they lost their jobs.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Uzurbrain
August 2, 2019 7:03 am

Iffen that was a “trick” question you were asking ……

The answer is, ….. the State of West Virginia.

August 1, 2019 11:35 am

Remember Red state-Blue state and up-down arrows are now Pulitzer class reporting methods in journalism. They have joined “97 percent of dentists/doctors agree” survey result marketing as preferred tools of the trade.

Hitler was bad.
August 1, 2019 12:35 pm

Hey, hydrogen is free fuel and you don’t even have to dig for it. Thorium is just about free too.

Not that it makes me special or anything, but I lived in Scottsdale AZ for 4 years, and statistically speaking, it never rains and there are never any clouds. It is ideal, yet only a few houses in my neighborhood had solar panels and those were heavily subsidized and still would take many years to “pay for themselves.” Why does free stuff have to be subsidized?

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Hitler was bad.
August 2, 2019 2:22 am

Where do you find hydrogen?

Nicholas McGinley
August 1, 2019 3:55 pm

The problem, Dave, with incorrigible idjuts like this Juan Cole person, is that they think it is meaningful to say things like “the majority of all new power generation in 2018 was wind and solar”.
It is impossible for them to realize this means nothing in terms of total usage, let alone that electricity is only a fraction of all energy used.
They simply have no background in critical thinking, or logical deduction, etc.
Their brain translates that sentence into “Most energy used is now wind and solar”.
And so they just go around repeating it.
Unless he is one of the people who knows exactly how meaningless the first sentence is in relation to the second.
It is sometimes impossible to tell the liars from the stupids.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  David Middleton
August 2, 2019 2:31 pm

The onshore wind turbine figure of 27,531 is nameplate, is it not? The figure has not been reduced by a realistic capacity factor, say 0.3?

Robert of Texas
August 1, 2019 5:48 pm

What we OUGHT to be dumping is subsidies. Then all this nonsense can end.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights