By David Wojick
The subsidies that never die — for wind and solar power — are back. With Christmas coming on the Lame Duck Congress elected to throw untold additional billions at renewables.
What is amusing is that gas-fired power generation, a fossil fuel with no subsidy, is still growing faster than wind and solar. Far from taking over, wind and solar are actually losing ground to fossil fuels in the American power capacity mix.
The last year we have comprehensive construction data for is 2018, from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. This was a good year to use because there was a bit of a race on to build renewables before the subsidies stopped, which they were then scheduled to do. (Unfortunately, due to the Lame Ducks this is no longer true.)
First we will look at the basic numbers, followed by some interesting factors. We are talking about what is called electric power generating capacity, which is measured in megawatts or MW for short. This is the ability to generate a million watts of juice. A large power plant may run around 600 MW.
For starters, in 2018 we built about 19,000 MW of gas fired generators, 9,000 MW of wind powered and 7,000 MW of utility scale solar. (So-called “behind the meter” typically tiny solar is not included.)
So right away we built more gas, at 19,000 MW than the 16,000 MW of renewables. Thus wind and solar’s fraction of America’s generating capacity actually went down, not up. Renewables lost ground.
But this is just the tip of the difference. These numbers are just what the generators can produce under ideal conditions, which is called “nameplate capacity”.
For solar these ideal conditions are basically a clear sky, with the sun overhead and no snow or dirt, etc., on the collector. For wind they are typically a sustained air flow exceeding 30 miles per hour or so. Note that these crucial conditions do not occur all that often.
This is why wind and solar are called “intermittent”, because they frequently produce far less power than their nameplate capacity; often they produce none at all. In contrast, gas fired power runs most of the time, although it does need a certain amount of downtime for maintenance.
The difference between actual power generation and nameplate is called the “capacity factor” or CF for the generator. The typical capacity factors for different generating technologies are pretty well known, although they can vary from machine to machine.
To be generous to renewables, let’s say that solar has a CF of 15% and wind 40%. (The standard numbers are lower.) Gas easily has 80%. Applying these factors to our construction numbers gives the following actual generating capacities:
Gas: 19,000 x 0.8 = 15,200 MW
Wind: 9,000 x 0.4 = 3,600 MW
Solar: 7,000 x 0.15 = 1,050 MW
So our new gas capacity is around 15,200 MW while new renewables are just 4,650 MW, which is 31% or less than a third as much actual generating capacity.
Put another way, America increased its fossil fuel generating capacity by three times as much as it did for renewables. Clearly renewables are falling behind fossil fuels, and by a lot.
Nor is 2018 unique. Looking at the six years 2013 thru 2018, in every case the actual generating capacity (including CF) added for gas fired generation has exceeded that for wind plus solar. Renewables never gain ground over fossil fueled power, they always lose it.
Then there are grid scale battery systems, which are supposed to someday provide our juice when the intermittent renewables do not do so. Total capacity added in 2018 was around 200 MW, or basically nothing. Same for the prior years.
At this point batteries are just a specialized tiny contrivance used to maintain grid stability. Ironically this need has arisen because of the unpredictably erratic nature of wind and solar generation. As actual power supply systems, batteries do not yet exist, and may never exist because they are very expensive.
America is not moving toward wind and solar for power generation; we are actually moving away from renewables. You would never know this listening to the press and the politicians.
David Wojick,
It’s hard to argue with the clearly stated facts you illustrated. But I’m sure the usual suspects will try!
Growth in actual electricity produced in 2019 over 2018 was 7% for gas, 10% for wind, and 15% for solar. Solar and wind continue to increase their net share of total electricity produced, as they have done for the last 10 years. While starting from a very low base, at this point continued growth at a similar pace will make them the dominant sources of power by 2030’s.
While the alarmists will always let the perfect solution (in their eyes) get in the way of a good solution, reality will eventually prevail. It will be interesting to see what kind of alternate reality alamists can concoct to deal with it. The state of the UK power grid overlayed mandating EVs is another mess heading for the reality wall.
Common sense prevails.
To add more insight into how the low CF is problem, consider the fact that if they ever perfected the use of batteries, enough wind and solar systems would need to be installed well above the daily MW demand to charge those batteries. So a low CF will only mean an exceedingly high installed capacity is needed (at least around 300% if your combined CF is 31%) to meet the daily demand and charge the batteries. No. This blind pursuit of 100% dependence on alternative energy is beyond criminal behavior. People should be pulled into court and sent to jail for attempting to foist on the general public such an obvious unscientific scheme.
Not a complete summary. Was gas just replacing coal? Then the fossil fuel increase of these two is zero. You need to add in all the fossil fuel increase vs, all the renewable increase. for the last 6 years also.
Not being pugnacious. I would really like to know.
I don’t know about the this phrase, “unpredictably erratic nature of wind and solar generation” in light of their regularly becalmed output insufficiencies as well as certainly predictable nocturnal down times and the preposterous ‘renewable’ designation for such hulking, finely engineered, apparatus that doesn’t grow on trees, don’t you know.
The public is sold “nameplate” not reality. California is notorious for citing nameplate instead of actual generation. Then when California quotes actual they don’t cite dispatchable power. Nothing more than propaganda.
I think wind and solar are pushed to make gas indispensable
If coal goes that just means more gas generation
Probably a good thing
Can always switch back to coal in future as needed
And yet people think I am senile when I say that if Exxon knew anything, it was that irresepective of the validity of ‘climate science’, intermittent renewables were utter pants, and would increase their profits if deployed.
Which is why all the oil companies fully support renewables and climate change. Why not? Free subsidy cash, and the value of gas goes up!
The real competitors – coal and nuclear – are somehow demonized though. How odd. Almost as though Big Oil and Big Gas were behind it all…
This takes a 2018 cut off point: taking things thru to December 2020 shows a different picture.
and coal? What about coal? don’t we see coal losing to both gas and renewables??
“America is not moving toward wind and solar for power generation; we are actually moving away from renewables. You would never know this listening to the press and the politicians.“
There are a lot of things you would never know listening to the press and the politicians. Indeed, much of what the press tells us isn’t true.
Our media is no longer holding the enemies of truth and freedom to account. Instead, it’s acting as their mouthpiece. James Delingpole
I’m just glad David is not in charge of trade policy with this absolutist, winner take all protectionist slant. The decline and retirement of coal fired power by regulatory mandate is creating high growth in new investment for NG and renewables. And it’s true that the renewable space is littered with high cost players with lobbyists hyping green jobs etc. while mining tax credits. The ideal energy policy mix that we never seem to get to is one that rewards best-of-breed, lowest cost renewables alongside NG and coal. The Obama policy was basically a headlong rush to deploy an advocacy designed plan with sprinkles of political fraudsters in the group and taxpayers as the designated suckers. Lowest LCOE additions without subsidy should be the guiding policy design and NG will always carry some cost component for commodity price risk. Get over it.
From the article: “What is amusing is that gas-fired power generation, a fossil fuel with no subsidy, is still growing faster than wind and solar. Far from taking over, wind and solar are actually losing ground to fossil fuels in the American power capacity mix.”
I just read an opinion piece that claimed that solar and wind were now much cheaper than fossil fuels. I assumed the author of the opinion piece did not take into account the cost of federal and state subsidies to wind and solar.
If the subsidies are removed, then solar and wind cannot compete with fossil fuels.
Let’s try an experiment. Let’s stop all subsidies to solar and wind and see how long they last.
The State of Oklahoma stopped all subsidies for future “renewables” about a year ago because the legislators said, to continue to subsidze “renewables” would bankrupt the state.
Curious if anyone read and has comments on this article from the WSJ. To me, it looks like it could be a viable truly renewable source for methane, I just have no idea of what the costs would actually be, and how much much energy we could get if we were able to harvest a large percentage of it. Companies Seek to Green the Grid With Trash Gas – WSJ
Any thoughts?
“America is not moving toward wind and solar for power generation; we are actually moving away from renewables. You would never know this listening to the press and the politicians.”
You are underestimating the resolve of leftist enviro wacko ideologues (think AOC, Sanders, Biden, demokrats in general, etc. )
They mean to totally replace the use of all fossil fuels with wind and solar, come hell or high water. If this means electric and gas costs to consumers sky rocket, so be it. If this means brown outs in the summer and having your home thermostat at 55 F in the winter time, so be it.
Ideologues care only about one thing; imposing their agenda upon the “unwashed masses.” The do not care about the hardships or suffering their policies will cause.
It it absolutely astounding that reasonable thinking folks still are blind to the motives and truly evil intentions of leftists.
David wrote: about electricity generating facilities – – –
“<em> … need a certain amount of downtime for maintenance.</em>”
I learned this concept as a child because my father worked at a glass factory. Shutdowns are carefully planned for and arrangements are made for materials and workers to be ready for repair, replace, and upgrade activities. Coordination with others and pre-shutdown-production is stockpiled if needed.
This process unfolded last year at the (nuclear) Columbia Generating Station about 100 miles south of where we live.
“Refueling occurs every other year and is scheduled when springtime water conditions in the Columbia River Basin are typically high, allowing the federal hydropower dams to produce ample power.”
Unexpected shutdowns do occur, but that is the reason for building extra capacity or being part of a system with extra capacity. Note that the nuclear facility coordinates with the hydro folks. Elsewhere, that would have to be with non-hydro suppliers.
This was predictable in this post and comments. Hey, let’s do it again in 2021 with another 5-7% cost drop in renewables and more gas with declining coal. But over 2-3 years the cost drop will be 25% with much greater acceleration in projects with low cost of capital.