U.S. to shutter 14.9 GW of coal-fired & add 46.1 GW of utility scale solar PV in 2022

Guest “You can’t fix stupid” by David Middleton

JANUARY 11, 2022
Coal will account for 85% of U.S. electric generating capacity retirements in 2022

Operators have scheduled 14.9 gigawatts (GW) of electric generating capacity to retire in the United States during 2022, according to our latest inventory of electric generators. The majority of the scheduled retirements are coal-fired power plants (85%), followed by natural gas (8%) and nuclear (5%).

Coal. After substantial retirements of U.S. coal-fired electric generating capacity from 2015 to 2020 that averaged 11.0 GW a year, coal capacity retirements slowed to 4.6 GW in 2021. However, we expect retirement of coal-fired generators to increase again this year; 12.6 GW of coal capacity is scheduled to retire in 2022, or 6% of the coal-fired generating capacity that was operating at the end of 2021.

Most of the plants making up the operating U.S. coal fleet were built in the 1970s and 1980s. U.S. coal plants are retiring as the coal fleet ages and as coal-fired generators face increasing competition from natural gas and renewables.

The largest coal power plant planning to retire in 2022 is the 1,305-megawatt (MW) William H. Zimmer plant in Ohio. Morgantown Generating Station in Maryland plans to retire its two coal-fired units (1,205 MW combined) in June, followed by two of the plant’s six smaller petroleum-fired units in September.

[…]

EIA

JANUARY 10, 2022
Solar power will account for nearly half of new U.S. electric generating capacity in 2022

In 2022, we expect 46.1 gigawatts (GW) of new utility-scale electric generating capacity to be added to the U.S. power grid, according to our Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory. Almost half of the planned 2022 capacity additions are solar, followed by natural gas at 21% and wind at 17%.

Developers and power plant owners report planned additions to us in our annual and monthly electric generator surveys. In the annual survey, we ask respondents to provide planned online dates for generators coming online in the next five years. The monthly survey tracks the status of generators coming online based on reported in-service dates.

Solar. We expect U.S. utility-scale solar generating capacity to grow by 21.5 GW in 2022. This planned new capacity would surpass last year’s 15.5 GW of solar capacity additions, an estimate based on reported additions through October (8.7 GW) and additions scheduled for the last two months of 2021 (6.9 GW). Most planned solar additions in 2022 will be in Texas (6.1 GW, or 28% of the national total), followed by California (4.0 GW).

[…]

EIA

Not all generating capacities are created equal. No power plant can constantly operate at 100% of it’s nameplate capacity. All power plants require maintenance. The theoretical capacity factor is the percentage of the generating capacity a power plant can deliver at a 100% utilization rate. The realized capacity factor is driven by the utilization rate. Nuclear power plants generally have a 95% theoretical capacity factor and nearly 100% utilization rates. Therefore, their realized capacity factors are usually >90%. Solar and wind power plants also have nearly 100% utilization rates; however they have very low theoretical capacity factors because they are time of day and weather-dependent.

The theoretical capacity factor of coal-fired power plants is about 85%. The realized capacity factor is variable and tied to the price of natural gas. The higher natural gas prices go, the greater the utilization rate of coal-fired power plants.

Table 1. Installed net summer generating capacity in the U.S. by generation source. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Power Mag

The EIA forecasts that natural prices will average around $4/mmBTU in 2022.

The average capacity factor of coal-fired power plants will probably be in the range of 55-60% in 2022.

Utility scale solar PV power plants achieve an average capacity factor of 25%.

The theoretical output of 14.9 GW of coal-fired capacity is greater than the average achieved capacity factor of solar PV. And the actual output of solar PV is generally the maximum achievable output.

Capacity FactorGWGWh/yr
Coal85%14.9  110,945
Solar PV25%46.1    99,747

Bear in mind that the coal-fired power plants can run 24/7/365… including nights and cloudy days. Even using the anticipated capacity factors with a $4/mmBTU natural gas price, the soon to be retired 14.9 GW of coal-fired capacity would have generated 71-78% of the electricity as the 46.1 GW of solar PV will.

Capacity FactorGWGWh/yr
Coal60%14.9    78,31478%
Solar PV25%46.1  100,959
Capacity FactorGWGWh/yr
Coal55%14.9    71,78871%
Solar PV25%46.1  100,959

To make matters worse, solar power tends to deliver its maximum output when demand is at its lowest. The Southwest region includes Arizona, southern Nevada and most of New Mexico. Nuclear and coal-fired power plants provide about 2/3 of very steady baseload. Natural gas provides most of the rest of the baseload and ramps up during peak demand hours (8-9 AM and 7-9 PM). Solar power ramps up as demand falls off from mid-morning to mid-afternoon.

When you replace dependable, 24/7/365 base load with this:

You get a “duck curve“…

The moral to the story…

You can't fix stupid
5 20 votes
Article Rating
171 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ian Magness
January 12, 2022 6:18 am

I’ve been trying to work out who ranks as THE stupidest nation in the world with regards to green “net zero” (as we call such in the U.K.) governmental policies. Germany? The US? The U.K.? Or maybe the EU in general?
On the basis that at least you are “mining” your gas, and we refuse to, I think it must be the U.K. for now. It looks, however, as if the US is increasingly keen to dethrone us. Good luck!

Ron Long
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 12, 2022 6:42 am

Ian, who would have thought that France, with Liberal Macron presiding, would look the smartest because of 54 producing nuclear energy plants? Their wine is still the best also. Coincidence?

Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  Ron Long
January 12, 2022 7:02 am

France has also rejected the importation of American “woke-ism” and gender neutral language. When the French become the voice of political sanity it is time for the rest to re-think.

bonbon
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
January 12, 2022 7:39 am

Should have seen it coming :
Haute Cuisine, Haute Couture, Haute Police – already well known.
Now Houte Energie, L’Atom Vert !

French Fries anyone?

n.n
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
January 12, 2022 12:24 pm

No Diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry), Inequity, and Exclusion (DIE) for France? Progress… positive progress.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Ron Long
January 12, 2022 8:37 am

They must be having nightmares of those vineyards being torn up to install wind and solar “farms”.

Ron Long
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 12, 2022 12:48 pm

Maybe so, Joseph. I had the Chief Geologist of the French nuclear energy company AREVA visit our companies uranium exploration projects in Argentina. We told them the geology was fantastic but the permitting of projects was very complex. So, to help with community relations, AREVA sent us great photos of their nuclear plants in the middle of vineyards, showing co-existing wine grapes and nuclear energy.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Ron Long
January 12, 2022 5:41 pm

That gives new meaning to the term “alcohol glow”.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Ron Long
January 12, 2022 10:09 am

France is phasing out its nukes, not sure what Europe is going to do without them.

New installations are not welcomed.

Search
“manifestations contre les éoliennes en france”

Dan M
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
January 12, 2022 12:51 pm

Citatation requested.
France is watching what is happening as Germany closes its nuclear plants (giving them the highest consumer electric prices in the EU) and when people start freezing to death in Germany I guarantee you the French public will not let those nuclear plants close. France already has problems on cold winter days because most homes use electric heat and you can’t turn up production on nuclear plants. They have to buy the electricity on the EU spot market and that increases the average price that consumers pay. I would expect them to build more plants, not shut them down.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
January 12, 2022 3:23 pm

you are 3 months behind the curve: now France says it needs more nukes.

France was importing UK coal powered electricity all day.

LdB
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
January 12, 2022 7:59 pm

Incorrect Ben go do some homework … Macron has changed his mind.

jeffery p
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 12, 2022 7:58 am

Right now, the US will give everyone a run for the money as which is the stoopidest woke nation. But hey, no more mean tweets.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 12, 2022 8:36 am

The energy policy stupidty in America is mostly the west coast and northeast. More common sense in the interior- what the coastal elites derogatorily call “the flyover states”. Having lived in the northeast all my life I was brainwashed- but now the scales are comming off- mostly due to WUWT and a few other web sites. In these coastal area- any AGW skepticism is essentially verboten.

starzmom
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 12, 2022 9:26 am

We have an awful lot of wind turbines in the midwest/plains states. Unfortunately on the best of days they can’t get above about 70% of capacity, and many days it is 5-10% of capacity. Coal and natural gas largely make up the difference, and you can see in how they dispatch whether they expect to need lots of power–the coal plants are on-line in rolling reserve.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 12, 2022 10:32 am

Occupied by the “deplorables”. But, as said above, no more mean tweets.

John
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 12, 2022 10:54 am

Perhaps, but those of us in flyover country (Wisconsin) are having to put up fierce fights against the wind and solar Mafia right now. It’s everywhere. And someone in the past paid off state politicians to rig state statute in favor of these scams.

glenn holdcroft
January 12, 2022 6:29 am

China and Russia must love Biden and his entourage .

MarkW
Reply to  glenn holdcroft
January 12, 2022 7:03 am

They should, they paid enough for him.

John Law
Reply to  glenn holdcroft
January 13, 2022 4:11 am

Ah yes comrade Brandon!

Duane
January 12, 2022 6:32 am

Coal plants are retired for two principal reasons:

1) the plants are getting old – obviously, plants built “a lifetime ago” were more likely to be coal fired than today, and all plants reach a lifetime limit and are retired because the cost of maintenance of old equipment is too high to be economically bearable.

2) Coal plants are naturally “dirty” – just in CO2, but in other air pollutants that are regulated for purposes of clean air. It costs a great deal to modify older coal plants to achieve new source limits, so the older plants get retired. This has been going on ever since the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

As for solar, it is true that they only produce power during daylight hours … but every utility operator also knows that daylight hours are the heaviest demand hours too. Providing the capacity to serve peak daytime demands with thermal power plants is inefficient because they have to be operated, fueled and maintained 24 hour a day, whereas solar power nearly perfectly matches peak daytime demands.

The proportion of new capacity that is natural gas powered may be temporarily reduced due to current high gas prices, but we all know that hydrocarbon fuels are wildly unstable much of the time, and that if we are in a current peak period, we KNOW that we are soon to enter the opposite part of the cycle where prices plunge. It’s always been that way, forever and ever.

griff
Reply to  Duane
January 12, 2022 6:43 am

and once you’ve put in your solar panels, you have a good idea of how much electricity annually you’ll get from them for next 25 years… you have then fixed that portion of your energy costs.

which is why so many car plants and other manufacturers put in large solar PV arrays.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
January 12, 2022 7:08 am

Once again, griff is using averages to try and make solar sound useful.
Yes, on average you will know approximately how much power will be produced in a year.
However demand is not averaged, demand is immediate, from moment to moment, if you aren’t generating enough power to meet demand, your grid is going to collapse.

When it comes to moment to moment generation of power, solar fails, because it fail because a cloud passes over the solar farm, a passing truck blows a cloud of dust over the same, or a flock of birds pass overhead and poop on everything.

Reply to  MarkW
January 12, 2022 9:33 pm

MarkW
Please, please don’t belittle Biden’s “good paying, solar, union jobs” cleaning those panels. To the Leftists this is one of the best features of the eco-theologists energy plan for our nation: full employment, even if it is a mundane job. /sarc
Duane
“…solar power nearly perfectly matches peak daytime demands.” Nope!
Peak demand in the summer is till 8pm or so, with solar output declining in most places after 4pm. Certainly so here in Arizona where it can be >100 deg F at 10pm on some nights. The Phoenix area has maxed-out its pumped-hydro storage capacity so there is no economical way to store any unused solar (or wind) energy (according to our local power company “SRP”).
So to me, reneables are just an expensive way to virtue signal while making our grid more fragile.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  griff
January 12, 2022 7:08 am

What becomes fixed is the cost payment side. The less certain factors are degradation from cheap panels and over-promised ideal performance also from less-than-ideal developers and suppliers. Most of these issues are overlooked though in the over-hype policy and virtue signaling exercises. Beyond that there is no auditing done to verify anything. Occasionally, you hear anecdotal stories of LEED-certified glass buildings causing sky high electric bills, but that’s about it.

fretslider
Reply to  griff
January 12, 2022 7:09 am

These plants operate in the dark griff, and they operate on a shift work basis.

How do they do that when the Sun has obviously gone down?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  fretslider
January 12, 2022 8:48 am

fly over NYC at night and wonder where the electricity is coming from – not from solar panels

bonbon
Reply to  griff
January 12, 2022 7:44 am

Car plants that I actually know, installed their own manufacturing gas generators because the States could not guarantee. Buildings covered in PV are good marketing, what? 5 or 6 EV charging stations look cool on tourist brochures, near bus stops.

Last edited 16 days ago by bonbon
jeffery p
Reply to  griff
January 12, 2022 8:00 am

griff, theywouldn’t put in large solar panels if the government didn’t pay them to do it via subsidies and incentizes.

Rich Lentz(@usurbrain)
Reply to  griff
January 12, 2022 8:50 am

@griff
Now provide the explanation for what happens when an unpredicted storm moves across your local utility district and solar unpredictably drops net-zero? Worse, the electric market has gone up to $2,0000 per MWHr, and you were already contracted to providing over 25% of your “Average” predicted load at two-GWHrs and not just the one-GWHrs you were using? Be sure to factor in the 100% penalty for not providing Contracted power.

Leo Smith
Reply to  griff
January 12, 2022 3:26 pm

On average an aeroplane is stressed to about 1.1 g

Please griff, allow me to give you a ticket on a plane that will fall apart at 1.2g.

philincalifornia
Reply to  griff
January 12, 2022 4:57 pm

Have your nitwit heroes stabilized the climate yet griff? Have they had any effect on the Keeling curve? How much have they spent so far (not in dipsh!t dinky England, but worldwide)? 5 trillion? You getting any of that?

I hope it pains you to know that I am.

LdB
Reply to  griff
January 12, 2022 8:00 pm

Griff fact check: False not supported by any available data.

Peter
Reply to  griff
January 12, 2022 8:51 pm

I strongly suspect Griff and Duane have no practical experience with Renewables. They just read marketing’s glossy brochures. Biden is nuts, easily led by industry. .

To gain a good appreciation of the benefits or otherwise of Renewables, go off-grid. I live in a small off-grid community where people have a variety of energy sources. It’s coastal sub tropical. It’s a lifestyle choice.
Most people use solar + batteries. It’s quiet. It’s expensive, and not cost efficient. It limits the use of appliances. The batteries last 10 to 15 years. Most are lead acid, people started putting in LiPO4, but all recent battery instellations have swung back to lead acid. It’s due to expense, reliability and battery life. Lead is readily recycled, lithium can’t be recycled in this nation.
Solar panels don’t last much beyond 10-15 years without significant degradation in performance. I just bought a new set.
Ten years ago there were a lot of wind turbines, but there are only two left. Too expensive, maintenance issues and unreliable. This is a coastal community with good wind. National Parks just pulled down there 2 year old VAT.
I read with interest Biden’s push for off shore wind. He’s dreaming, or something. 😉
The cheapest option is little petrol or diesel electric generators. A lot of infrequent visitors use them. They are cheap to buy and run, they are simple plug and play. For a while I ran the house on a 2Kva petrol.
ALL of us use bottled LPG gas for cooking. Cooking via solar/battery is simply way too expensive.
Global cooling is real, though mild here. I got sick of the cool winters. I use a wood stove, some use kerosene heaters, one uses gas, and there are a lot of outside fire pits. With solar, electric heaters are not viable, kills the battery.
There are NO EV’s of any type. Charging is not viable. I calculated I’d need two house blocks of panels to charge one. Electric bikes are OK.

Now just extend that to grid scale. A “green” manufacturer is coming to town. He will clear a huge amount of native forest to build solar farms to power the factory. It will require an entire industrial park plus a number of cattle farms plus State forest. Environmental vandalism at its worst.

This ramble is me saying Renewables are not practical for household power at the moment. Griff and Duane should both go off grid, just to experience the shortfalls. At the moment, from there comments, they are clueless.

joe
Reply to  Duane
January 12, 2022 7:04 am

1)maintenance and upgrade cost would be a fraction of what we have and will spend on this net zero pipe dream.

2)the cost to apply technology to make coal cleaner that it already is would be fraction of what we have and will spend on this net zero pipe dream.

3)you said “As for solar, it is true that they only produce power during daylight hours … but every utility operator also knows that daylight hours are the heaviest demand hours too. Providing the capacity to serve peak daytime demands with thermal power plants is inefficient because they have to be operated, fueled and maintained 24 hour a day, whereas solar power nearly perfectly matches peak daytime demands.”

so why did my utility company raise my rates 50% last summer, 2pm-7pm, June 1st thru September 30?

jeffery p
Reply to  joe
January 12, 2022 8:01 am

What costs? Don’t you know solar power is free?

MarkW
Reply to  Duane
January 12, 2022 7:05 am

As I’ve said many times before, you can hide a lot of evil in averages.
Yes, solar does produced more during the day than it does at night. However it does not produce the most power when the most power is needed.
If you had actually read David’s post you would know that.

Another sin of averages. Max load varies tremendously depending on the season and where in the world you live. As you move away from the equator, the amount of night time demand during the winter goes up.

Last edited 16 days ago by MarkW
DonM
Reply to  MarkW
January 12, 2022 11:58 am

“If you had actually read David’s post you would know that.”

He does know that … he is a liar and a shill.


Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  Duane
January 12, 2022 7:07 am

Sorry, but the last round of emission reduction installed less than ten years ago resulted in effectively clean coal. Closing plants in the near future means closing them before the control equipment costs are recovered by operation. So rate payers will still be paying for the cost after the plants are closed while paying the high cost of unreliable wind & solar. This is uneconomic & provides no benefit to anyone.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
January 12, 2022 8:52 am

In Northampton, Massachusetts- about a decade ago- a coal power plant spend $50 million to get its emissions up to standards- a few years later, the state pressured the company to close as part of its policy to terminate all coal power.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 12, 2022 10:02 am

Same thing at Merrimack Station, in Bow NH. Huge, expensive upgrades in 2011. This was, of course, before the big ramp-up in the War on Coal.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 13, 2022 2:37 pm

That station is still a co-generation plant, fortunately. Unfortunately, protestors still try to block the coal trains, requiring state/town police to remove them. I believe NH has gone from 5 of these plants to 2 on the Merrimack river. At present, Eversource is broadcasting Seabrook nuclear, hydro and biomass plants as producing most of the state’s power, but talks up solar and wind. For example, a new windfarm along route 9 south of Concord, NH, has been added in the past year.

InterestedBystander
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
January 12, 2022 9:57 am

It pays a benefit to the solar contractors and the Chinese manufacturers of solar panels. Utilities make their money by building the plants, taking millions in government incentives then selling the plants to contractors who manage them. The rate payer takes it in the rear without even a reach around as a thank you.

Philo
Reply to  InterestedBystander
January 13, 2022 6:28 am

Fortunately for me I bought our solar cells from a US manufacturer. Their life cycle has almost exactly followed the output promised. They were expensive, relatively- we could have bought cheap Chinese stuff, but these cells have survived with NO maintanence. Paying double for cheap stuff is NO bargain. Electric scooter- sure! Try using a cheap one to commute.
Anyway, the solar cells were paid off in 5 years and started paying a $100/month dividend, thanks to stupid 5 state power arrangement. The dumb politicos sure did me a favor. They still are producing something like 76-80% of nameplate capacity.
Unfortunately, that sort of a deal is long gone.

John the Econ
Reply to  Duane
January 12, 2022 7:15 am

But I was told we’d all be charging our EVs at night when electricity would be cheap and plentiful. Was I lied to?

jeffery p
Reply to  John the Econ
January 12, 2022 8:02 am

Yes, you were lied to. There’s an awful lot of wishful thinking and willfull blindness to reality, but enough people know it’s bullshit. They lie to you while drinking from the teat of green subsidies.

gringojay
Reply to  John the Econ
January 12, 2022 9:50 am

How magic tricks work:

02F3487B-0AC2-4695-94A5-FB931EF3DC48.png
oeman 50
Reply to  Duane
January 12, 2022 8:35 am

Coal plants with the full suite of air controls are being retired before they are paid off, leaving stranded investments. Oh, and in the winter, morning peaks occur while the sun is barely over the horizon. That is also the time you get the least generation from solar panels all day long.

starzmom
Reply to  oeman 50
January 12, 2022 9:29 am

It is also the coldest time of the day.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Duane
January 12, 2022 9:12 am

“[W]hereas solar power nearly perfectly matches peak daytime demands.”

*************

Duane,

That is NOT my understanding about solar Duane. It is my understanding that California utilities need to pay to get rid of excess solar energy during the day. Their dependency on solar has made California increasingly dependent on juice from neighboring states to keep the lights on at night when the sun isn’t shining.

Besides the issues with intermittency and the need for fossil fuel backup, there are other issues with wind turbines and solar panels which you and Griff never seem to be interested in addressing.

1) Solar panels require coal and sand for the manufacture of the silicon in the panels. The steel in wind turbine towers require coal for their manufacture as well. If the two of you want coal to stay in the ground, how are you going to produce wind turbines and solar panels without it?

2) Solar panel production leaves toxic waste behind after the raw material mining and the manufacture of the panels. Solar panels themselves also contain toxic waste at the end of their useful lives (I’ve read that it is about 10%). At least Mother Nature has a use for CO2, but she does not have any use for toxic waste. Toxic waste is not green. Solar panels and wind turbines are not green.

3) The majority of solar panels (not sure if about all of them) are manufactured outside the United States and Britain in countries like China. Higher labor costs and the problem with the toxic waste preclude them from being made in the U.S. or Britain. Being dependent on a potential adversary for something as important as energy is in my mind not a good thing. If the two of you and your ilk were to succeed in getting fossil fuels and nuclear largely displaced by solar panels, we would have a national security issue from our heavy dependency on China for them. And a reminder here that even President Brandon, er…I mean President Biden even admitted that slave labor is probably being used to produce solar panels in China.

4) Solar and wind energy are diffuse and low density meaning that solar and wind farms require a far larger land area footprint than a comparable fossil fuel or nuclear plant that is rated to put out the same amount of electricity. Are solar and wind farms green when they require a significantly larger footprint on the Earth than fossil fuel and nuclear plants require?

5) A reminder here that wind turbines also kill our avian friends. The estimates of how many are killed each year seem to be all over the board, so my guess is that no one knows for sure what the actual number is. As a wildlife lover myself, it does not take much to get me upset when I watch a You Tube video of a bird being killed by one of these contraptions. More and more turbines means more and more bird deaths. Unlike other industries, wind turbine operators are granted an exemption from fines when they kill a protected bird species like the bald eagle. The double standard involved there suggests that wind turbines are probably more about politics than anything else. It’s an example of pandering to the environmental movement.

Get this through your head Duane: NUCLEAR is the only technological alternative that can displace fossil fuel power plants on a large scale. It is base-load and dependable. and R&D is continuing as I write this on 4th generation nuclear technologies in an effort to address the safety, cost and waste issues. It will be many years before 4th gen nuclear finds its way to commercial viability, if it does at all.

When it comes to the environmental movement, the problem with them is the MEANS to their ends more than it is their ends.

MarkW
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
January 12, 2022 9:26 am

The post that Duane is responding to showed that Duane’s claim is not true.

Dave Fair
Reply to  David Middleton
January 12, 2022 12:21 pm

Easy solution: Move (load management) all the purchased (consumed) energy to the period covered by solar. As a bonus, whenever a cloud comes by we all get an unscheduled break from work. Storms give us more vacation days.

InterestedBystander
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
January 12, 2022 10:04 am

I’m afraid we’ll have to endure years of energy shortages during the summer and winter until the lesson is learned the hard way. Building nuclear plants is the only clean way to meeting our needs if we stop using oil gas and coal. Eventually we will run short of those things and will be forced by necessity to go nuclear. Better to get started now and build some nuke powered desalination plants along the west coast while
were at it.

AndyHce
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
January 12, 2022 1:34 pm

Toxic waste is not green. Solar panels and wind turbines are not green.

You are wrong. Green is defined by political ideology.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
January 13, 2022 7:28 am

As regards solar panels

“Study of the economics of solar in Harvard Business Review (HBR) finds the waste produced by solar panels will make electricity from solar panels four times more expensive than the words leading energy analysts thought”

https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/why-everything-they-said-about-solar

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Duane
January 12, 2022 9:18 am

You have listed potential reasons, but haven’t established that the conditions are met for those being retired. The plants were already modified to meet the 1990s environmental requirements almost 30 years ago. There is no need to do it again.

but every utility operator also knows that daylight hours are the heaviest demand hours too.

They don’t know that because it is only industrial demand that is high during the day. Consumer demand is highest at night when people get home from work and cook, watch TV, use computers, and illuminate the house.

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 12, 2022 9:29 am

For large factories, day or night doesn’t matter because they are run 24/7.

For commercial buildings, day or night makes little difference, and they don’t shut down until well into the evening, long after the sun has gone down.

For office buildings, assuming they only have one shift (which is far from being universally true), then there will be a drop in demand as people go home and computers and some lights are turned off. However heat or AC will only go down a little, if at all.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
January 13, 2022 5:50 am

I didn’t read your reply before responding myself. You are absolutely correct.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
January 13, 2022 9:21 am

The computers I was talking about here are the desktops and laptops. As Jim mentions below, the big computers and the servers are kept on 24/7.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 13, 2022 5:49 am

Actually, most industrial “assembly lines” are 24 hour operations running three shifts which means there energy use is fairly constant. That means residential use is added to the industrial use during evening and night. That is the reason for the peak at night. Office buildings may turn out the lights at 5 o’clock but most don’t “turn off” heating/cooling, big computers, etc so that energy use remains also.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Duane
January 12, 2022 10:36 am

“… whereas solar power nearly perfectly matches peak daytime demands.”

Duane, did you see the “duck curve” at the end of the article above? Did you understand it? Or did you post your comment without reading the article?

Dean
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
January 12, 2022 9:54 pm

He posted his comment without understanding the article.

Philo
Reply to  Dean
January 13, 2022 6:38 am

Just without understanding. Duane it’s time to use your education and learn what is going on. It is NOT pretty!

David Blenkinsop
Reply to  Duane
January 12, 2022 12:59 pm

You say daytime hours are the heaviest demand hours, but whether you get heavier demand when the Sun is highest and the available solar power is a good match for that, *that* seems quite unlikely! Late afternoon, early evening, being highest demand, the sun either low in the sky, or not there.

And, don’t forget, the Sun is lowest, with shortest daily hours, in that inconveniently cold and dark season, you know the one, *winter”?

Leo Smith
Reply to  Duane
January 12, 2022 3:29 pm

Every utility operator knows that the heaviest demand for electricity in colder countries is just after dark.
Its one thing to puff renewables, but outright lies are really a bit …stupid?

Walter Horsting
Reply to  Duane
January 12, 2022 6:37 pm

Wind is unstable

AE30181F-4A5E-437A-8497-9CDF6AE23C71.jpeg
Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  Duane
January 14, 2022 9:21 am

Duane: “As for solar, it is true that they only produce power during daylight hours … but every utility operator also knows that daylight hours are the heaviest demand hours too.”

Did you read the article? There is no peak daytime demand for solar power. That was a major point in the piece. You could wish there was a peak demand to feed with solar PV power, but it is not there. Perhaps if there were enough electric vehicles demanding to be fed, that could be done during the day. But not yet, by far. The only reason the solar PV installations have a market for their power is the government forces the grid operators to take it.

vboring
January 12, 2022 6:40 am

The bright side of this is that every time a coal plant shuts down, the rest of them become more valuable.

The firm capacity has to come from somewhere. If you are the only supplier in your region, you can name your price

Ron Long
January 12, 2022 6:40 am

Good posting of reality check data, David. If a rational person, a geologist for example, viewed Table 1, they would be all in for Nuclear. Sure, have some of this or that around to fill in the gaps, but the main grid should be charged by Nuclear Energy generation. The real developing crisis is that permitting/protesting issues prevent the construction of more modern Nuclear Energy facilities, with fail-safe and efficiency advances. The Greenies still think “The China Syndrome” was a documentary. I had a “dangers of radiation” discussion with a golfing Doctor friend, and told him I wore a personal dosimeter when around radiation, and I wondered what he wore to detect Covid or Aids?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Ron Long
January 12, 2022 7:30 am

The Greenies still think “The China Syndrome” was a documentary.

The real irony being that, at the end of the movie, the safety systems operated as intended and no disaster occurred. And even in real word disaster where significant “meltdown” occurred, like Chernobyl, we have yet to see that theoretical “meltdown” hole that goes all the way to China (or whatever is opposite the plant in question on the other side of the Earth).

griff
January 12, 2022 6:41 am

and how much wind power and other renewables? And what’s the state of play on natural gas?

Because just comparing coal going against solar is NOT a full picture.

(and coal is definitely on the way out)

MarkW
Reply to  griff
January 12, 2022 7:09 am

That must be why most of the world is building coal as fast as they can. Because it’s on the way out.

fretslider
Reply to  griff
January 12, 2022 7:14 am

” And what’s the state of play on natural gas?”

We could have it relatively cheaply if we fracked it. But you want exorbitant prices to hit the poorest hardest

Last edited 16 days ago by fretslider
ResourceGuy
Reply to  griff
January 12, 2022 7:40 am

Goods production is definitely on the way out.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  griff
January 12, 2022 8:19 am

(and coal is definitely on the way out)

https://joannenova.com.au/2022/01/coal-power-to-hit-all-time-high-in-2022-says-iea-weeping/

Pardon , your slip is showing !
😉

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  griff
January 12, 2022 10:10 am

Wind and solar are a stupid, expensive fad. In 20 years they will be mostly gone, while coal will become even more important. Coal will dance on the grave of “Renewables”.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 12, 2022 3:37 pm

a friends wife said she rather thiught windmills were perrty, in coastal Cornwall. I said they ruined the landscape. “well where do you think they should go, then?”
my unthinking response was instant.
“In a bloody museum”

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
January 12, 2022 12:26 pm

Griff, you must not have checked with your ChiCom overseer before posting that. Beware: Your social credit score is dropping fast. Oh … Right … You can’t post in China. My bad.

LdB
Reply to  griff
January 12, 2022 8:01 pm

Yeah coal is on the way out which is why sales are increasing … Griff logic 🙂

Dean
Reply to  griff
January 12, 2022 10:01 pm

Yep, its on the way out. Its why those crazy Indians are planning to increase production to 1 billion tonnes per annum so that they flood the market, drive down prices, and finally trigger the demise of coal as predicted by the renewables grifters and charlatans every year for the last 30.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
January 13, 2022 8:36 am

Re coal griff –

Between 2000 and 2020 the world doubled its coal fired power capacity. (Carbon Brief)

All the facts and figures given below are from the recently published International Energy Agency Report on Coal 2021

https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2021

Global coal power generation is on course to increase 9% in 2021

China (53%) and India (12%) account for roughly two thirds of world coal use

Coal demand is expected to surpass the record of 2013 in 2022 and rise to an all time high of 8031Million tonnes in 2024 driven by China (+ 135 Mt) and India (+129Mt) and SE Asia (+ 50Mt).

estimate coal fired power generation 2021 – 2024 to increase 4.1% in China, 11% in India, 12% in SE Asia

China is increasing its coal fired generation by ~3.9% pa at a pace of ~30GW pa

expect coal generation to make up 74% of the power mix in 2021 and consumption to increase to 1,185Mt in 2024 in India

Indonesia and Vietnam plan additional coal fired power stations. PNL, Indonesia’s state owned electricity utility expects an additional 14 – 16GW coal based generation by 2030

In Bangladesh around 5GW coal projects are under construction, all based on imported coal, and coal consumption is expected to rise by ~65% by 2024.

So your statement about coal is definitely “NOT a full picture”

Last edited 15 days ago by Dave Andrews
ResourceGuy
January 12, 2022 6:55 am

It’s a race with bitcoin mining.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 12, 2022 7:19 am

And therefore bitcoin mining is in a race with cobalt mining and lithium mining.

jeffery p
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 12, 2022 8:07 am

I think we should demand separate metering for crypto mining. Those machines take a lot of juice.

Derg
Reply to  jeffery p
January 12, 2022 6:36 pm

We should meter people’s cell phones 😉

fretslider
January 12, 2022 7:06 am

solar power tends to deliver its maximum output when demand is at its lowest.”

And in the higher latitudes of the Northern hemisphere (England) solar power delivers naff all. The maximum of naff all is… naff all.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  fretslider
January 12, 2022 8:50 am

Yes, here in Alberta we are lucky to get 10% of nameplate at noon of a sunny day.
All that land covered up for nothing

Bob Hunter
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
January 12, 2022 10:42 am

And Alberta has more sunshine than any province in Canada. As well, 90+% of Canada’s thermal coal reserves (also with very little sulphur content) are on the CDN prairies but Central Canada is shutting down Canada’s 25 million thermal coal tones production (& stopping future oilsands expansion). Yet India plans to add 260 million tones / yr on top of their 740 million tones.

MAK
Reply to  Bob Hunter
January 12, 2022 12:42 pm

Here in Alberta coal is on the way out and natural gas is replacing it. The solar and wind save natural gas reserves when they actually contribute to the grid. In our recent cold snap where it was as low as -45, gas kept us alive. There was almost zero power from renewables. Today wind is generating more than coal. Solar almost nothing. Nobody (sane) will replace coal without a reliable base load power if they want power all the time. http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market/Reports/CSDReportServlet

stewartpid
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
January 12, 2022 1:59 pm

Pat & others … my wife’s Audi dealer put in solar … it serves a dual purpose as it lowered their insurance bill hugely for hail damage (new cars park under the panels) and so it wasn’t all madness.
However the performance is terrible, especially at this time of year when often covered in snow ….. a link to the website Solar Panel Live feed | Audi Royal Oak

Generating at 2 % of capacity as I type at 3 PM Wednesday … the Grifftard would call 2% a success 😉

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  fretslider
January 12, 2022 8:56 am

What most greens don’t understand is that England is at the latitude of Labrador!

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 13, 2022 8:49 am

As a Brit I regret to say it but most people here probably think Labrador is a dog

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  fretslider
January 12, 2022 9:48 am

Is that a metric naff, or imperial?

fretslider
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 12, 2022 10:01 am

Er, global…

Nothing is nothing in any system of numbers

Leo Smith
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 12, 2022 3:43 pm

Naff is Polari, in gay circles it means a straight male. Not Available For F…..g..
Later no use for anything, Then it jumped out of Polari into the Mainstream and is now misused to mean nothing as well as no bloody use.

John Endicott
Reply to  Leo Smith
January 13, 2022 6:02 am

That’s just one possible origin.

Another refers back to the end of WWII, during which large amounts of equipment were scrapped as part of the rundown of the military effort. Inspectors would chalk various designations on pieces of machinery, one of which was NAF, or ‘no apparent function’. Machinery thus designated would be scrapped.

And according to The Dictionary of Obscenity, Taboo and Euphemism states ‘naff’ was ‘one of the many terms for the vagina … its Anglo-Saxon precursor, nafala, having meant “navel

The bottom line is that it’s origins, as is the case with many common words and phrases, isn’t clear or even known. There are several possibilities, but no definitive answer.

AGW is Not Science
January 12, 2022 7:19 am

” Solar and wind power plants also have nearly 100% utilization rates”

Sounds like bullshit to me. De-icing of turbine blades and mechanical breakdowns for wind turbines and cleaning of dust, dirt, snow and ice, and repair of breakage from wind-blown objects with respect to solar panels seem to be conveniently ignored by this “factoid” statement.

Another elephant in the room that is missing from such “appraisals” is this – in the aftermath of a hurricane, ice storm, tornado, etc., any wind or solar “production” infrastructure in the area of such WEATHER events is likely to be completely destroyed. I’ve yet to see a coal fired power plant flattened by the weather. So after a weather-related disaster, the “renewable” power production infrastructure ITSELF is likely to be devastated, and the time it takes to restore power thereby much longer than when the only issue is repair of transmission and distribution lines.

Another MASSIVE benefit to coal-fired generation is that you can STOCKPILE coal. Try that with a gas-fired plant “supplied” by pipeline. Any interruption of the “piped” supply means the plant goes off line.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 12, 2022 7:34 am

One more thing (Columbo mode on)…

Another reason the notion of “utilization rates” for solar and wind being anywhere near 100% is bullshit is the power isn’t produced based on demand. How can “utilization” be 100% when you’re making electricity when it isn’t needed?!

Leo Smith
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 12, 2022 4:12 pm

Utilization is strictly the amount a plant produces compared to its availability.
What 100% utilization means is that when there us wind and the turbines are working, they are never throttled back or deliberately switched off.
So availability is when a plant is in working order and has an energy supply available.

Utilization is how much of the available plant is in fact used for generation.

Capacity factor is a measure of economic performance, and is how much in practice the plant produces compared to what it could produce in ideal circumstances if the wind was always blowing and it was never down for maintenance or refueling.

Capacity factor tells you what it will earn. Its the product of availabiity and utilization

So windmills have low availability due to maintenance and lack of wind, and that leads to a low capacity factor, that equals the availability, because utilization is 100%. Utilization times availability is capacity factor.

Nuclear power has a high availability also equal to its capacity factor, because fuel is dirt cheap so there is no reaosn to throttle it back or shut it down if prices are low. Like wind and solar it runs at 100% utilization. Unlike wind and solar, its availability is very high and constant.

Gas and coal have very high and constant availability, but much lower utilisation. Why? Becase their fuel is expensive, and so if prices for electricity are below their fuel cost they will lose money if they don’t shut down or throttle back..

Hydro has very, low cost fuel, but its availabilty is limited to the rainfall so it has to maximize its profit by selling into the highest priced market period it can find…

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 12, 2022 8:58 am

“repair of breakage from wind-blown objects with respect to solar panels seem to be conveniently ignored by this “factoid” statement”

An 18 acre solar “farm” built next to my ‘hood in north central Massachusetts- a decade ago- just had a significant % of the panels replaced. I went out and asked the technicians doing this and asked why- they said lighting did the damage.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 12, 2022 9:41 am

Lightning?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 12, 2022 9:46 am

yuh, that’s what they said- probably an excuse- I have no clue
here’s my rank amateur video of the construction of the “farm” about a decade ago

Paul
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 12, 2022 2:35 pm

pray for a big hail storm to cone thru

MAL
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 12, 2022 9:44 am

There is not a solar or wind project that will last forty years. Most won’t return a ROI of more that 1 and at best 1.1 That with subsidies. Funny the coal plants that do not need subsidies.

Leo Smith
Reply to  MAL
January 12, 2022 4:15 pm

wind and solar are probably beyond economic operation after 15 years, whereas modern thermal plant and nuclear is looking at 60 years, and hydro lasts almost indefinitely

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Leo Smith
January 12, 2022 6:36 pm

hydro lasts almost indefinitely”

Or until Thanos comes along.

John Endicott
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 13, 2022 6:20 am

Or Lex nukes the nearest fault line.

Dean
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 12, 2022 10:07 pm

You totally misunderstand utilisation.

Utilisation is how much it is used when it is able to be used. Maintenance down time is not included.

Renewables get such high utilisations because they are invariably given priority supplier status. The only downside is those times when they are constrained by insufficient demand, and they are paid to stop producing. This will become more of an issue as penetration increases.

John Endicott
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 13, 2022 6:18 am

Another elephant in the room that is missing from such “appraisals” is this – in the aftermath of a hurricane, ice storm, tornado, etc., any wind or solar “production” infrastructure in the area of such WEATHER events is likely to be completely destroyed. I’ve yet to see a coal fired power plant flattened by the weather. So after a weather-related disaster, the “renewable” power production infrastructure ITSELF is likely to be devastated”

That’s a very good point. By their very nature, wind and solar are exposed to the elements to a much greater degree than traditional energy generation infrastructure. A minor storm that directly hits a solar fam (large hail stones smashing into panels, for just one of many examples) could seriously delay and/or curtail generation until damaged panels could be repaired/replaced, whereas that same storm wouldn’t even be a speed bump in power generation had it directly hit a traditional power generation plant (coal, gas, nuclear, etc.)

MarkW
Reply to  John Endicott
January 13, 2022 9:25 am

Wind storms can knock down distribution lines.
However wind and solar will still be relying on those same distribution lines.

2hotel9
January 12, 2022 7:32 am

The stupid, it burns!!!!! Solar is not going to supply jack sh*t. It can’t produce enough electricity to sustain its own operation. What a bunch of horsesh*t.

Curious George(@moudryj)
Reply to  2hotel9
January 12, 2022 8:00 am

The headline is misleading. New solar capacity will be only 21.5 GW. 46.1 is a total new addition.

Steve Case
January 12, 2022 7:56 am

Solar power will account for nearly half of new U.S. electric generating capacity in 2022
___________________________________________________________________________

At night solar power will account for exactly none of the U.S. generating capacity.

John Endicott
Reply to  Steve Case
January 13, 2022 6:23 am

“At night solar power will account for exactly none of the U.S. generating capacity.”

Well, we can always turn on and point flood lights at them to get the solar panels generating at night /sarc

bonbon
January 12, 2022 7:56 am

A harrowing report here :
The Double Helix of Entwined Pandemic and Economic Strategy

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2022/01/10/the-double-helix-of-entwined-pandemic-and-economic-strategy/
by Alistair Crooke. See what he says about American blue-collar jobs policy!

So, if there is no intention to return manufacturing to the USA, it sure looks like an energy take-down is actively underway. Those coal stations date from a completely different economy! Solyndra should have made it clear that finance is looting the remains of a real economy!

meab
Reply to  bonbon
January 12, 2022 8:43 am

The Strategic Culture Foundation is a Russian disinformation organization run by the Russian Intelligence Service. You’re not fooling anyone with your Marxist garbage, Bonobo. Most people know that Solyndra was a failure of Obama’s Dept. of Energy, not a failure of finance – your claim is a ridiculous clown story invented by your comrades.

Figure it out, Bonobo. Russian disinformation is obsolete – it doesn’t work now that any interested person can look up information from multiple sources and make up their own mind.

MarkW
Reply to  meab
January 12, 2022 9:33 am

Solyndra wasn’t being run by the government, therefore it’s failure is the fault of capitalism. If only everything were run by government, then everything would perfectly. Marx guaranteed it. /sarc

bonbon
Reply to  MarkW
January 13, 2022 2:39 am

Government gets to bail-out, fill in budget craters, with tax-dollars, while the scamers move on to the next free lunch, sorry, market.

MarkW
Reply to  bonbon
January 13, 2022 9:27 am

Once again, bonbon confuses acts of government with acts of the free market. Every problem you have listed to date, was caused by government ineptitude or outright corruption.

bonbon
Reply to  bonbon
January 13, 2022 2:38 am

Mope, have a look again. Alistair Crooke, British as far as I know, got it right. Get over the Cold War, and read and learn.
The interview there is with Americans, letting the cat out of the bag.
Now look at what has happened to the US economy, ruined by radical free-market outsourcing, looted to the bone, with 1% owning the wealth of 99%.
Just to wind up bots, for fun :

xinhuastats.jpg
Meab
Reply to  bonbon
January 13, 2022 1:17 pm

I doubt that you can ever be credible, bonobo, but a necessary condition is for you to stop lying. That might be hard for you as you’re so steeped in propaganda you obviously don’t know what’s true and what isn’t.

MarkW
Reply to  Meab
January 13, 2022 5:59 pm

Awhile back, bonobo was claiming that MacArthur believed that a mere three weeks of blockade would have caused the Japanese to surrender.
Despite the fact that the US Navy had been blockading the Japanese mainland for months.

jeffery p
January 12, 2022 7:57 am

In theory, we can replace that 14.9 GW of coal-fired capacity with 60 GW of solar. Except when the sun isn’t shining, it’s not shining over large swaths of land. Like at you know, night.

MarkW
Reply to  jeffery p
January 12, 2022 9:34 am

Since everyone is asleep, nobody needs electricity at night, for things like heat pumps.

Robert Hanson
Reply to  MarkW
January 12, 2022 2:33 pm

Or charging up EVs for that matter…..

Dean
Reply to  MarkW
January 12, 2022 10:09 pm

Everybody knows that industry pretty much always shuts down when the sun goes down.

MarkW
Reply to  Dean
January 13, 2022 9:28 am

It used to, and if the alarmists have their way, it will do so again.

John Garrett
January 12, 2022 8:00 am

Not a damn one of ’em has any experience or knowledge of electricity generation or distribution:

https://www.allianceforsustainableenergy.org/leadership.html

MarkW
Reply to  John Garrett
January 12, 2022 9:35 am

They view themselves as being the leaders. It’s their job to come up with big ideas.
Making those big ideas work is a job for the peons.
And if this group of peons can’t make the ideas work, we’ll get rid of them and get better peons.

Last edited 16 days ago by MarkW
Joseph Zorzin
January 12, 2022 8:16 am

U.S. coal plants are retiring as the coal fleet ages and as coal-fired generators face increasing competition from natural gas and renewables.

I don’t know what the relative costs are- but I see that in New Jersey, they’re going to be paying $116/MWh. How does that compare with coal?

I see that figure in https://www.4coffshore.com/news/njbpu-approves-2.7-gw-of-new-offshore-wind-capacity-nid23786.html

Pat from Kerbob
January 12, 2022 8:16 am

Here in alberta they have almost completed the coal shut down, only a few plants still running. 1.26GW left
However they weren’t decommissioned or blown up they were just converted to gas, still the same thermal plant.
So in worst case scenario the coal is still there, could just convert back i suppose if something happens with gas supply
At least we aren’t blowing them up and hoping something else comes along.

Last edited 16 days ago by Pat from Kerbob
Joseph Zorzin
January 12, 2022 8:29 am

Solar power will account for nearly half of new U.S. electric generating capacity in 2022

Not in Massachusetts, it won’t. There now is a huge resistance to solar in the state on the landscape- fields and forests- by the greens- who a decade ago, when an 18 acre solar “farm” was built next to my ‘hood in low income central Mass., one of the first big ones in the state- they loved it- I bitched, nobody listened- I suggested to the enviro groups to come take a look- no luck- but now that solar “farms” are popping up like mushrooms after a warm summer rain, in THEIR communities- mostly resulting in deforestation, now they’re the ones bitching because they want the forests all locked up to have no other function but carbon sequestration, certainly to NOT continue with forestry which has been common here for centuries. The same people some years ago turned against wind turbines on land- few are being built now. Now the big push is to build them at sea. So, somehow, this state is going to be net free by ’50 and all thanks to wind turbines at sea- not just for power but for also for all heat, transportation, industry, etc. I can only wonder how many thousand wind turbines they can install at sea and what that cost will be- especially after adding the cost for all the industrial scale batteries that will be needed. And who will want those in their neighborhood? Sure, just float them at sea. We will probably have the most expensive energy on the planet in a few decades. It’s a very small state with over 6 million people- and with a small coastline. No place to put all the renewable energy that will be needed- even assuming it was a good idea, which it ain’t.

Mr.
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 12, 2022 9:34 am

The founder of The Greens in Australia, Dr. Bob Brown, recently led a public complaint about a new wind farm development that would be seen from Bob’s country retirement eyrie.

So during his working years, Bob was all for despoiling the who countryside with wind & solar farms, but when it came time for him to have to stare at one –

OUTRAGE!

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 12, 2022 9:42 am

So, now that the greens hate solar on the landscape- they’re ignorantly saying all we need to do is put it on buildings and parking lots. Except, even the state energy czar a year ago said that wouldn’t come close to being enough- even with many turbines at sea- that we’d HAVE to have many thousands of acres built in forests. For one thing, many buildings in the state don’t have south facing roofs or have trees shading the roof. As for parking lots- I just saw a new one- it was held up by huge steel beams like you see on skyscrapers- not sure why- next time I go there I’ll bring my camera. Some politicians are saying “well, we’ll just put them in nearby Vermont and New Hampshire- they won’t mind”. Ironically, some of the strongest supporters of solar in the forests is some large forest holders – sawmill and logging firms- who have thousands of acres- because the subsidies and tax breaks is going to make destroying their forests very lucrative, far more than managing trees for the long term production of wood products.

Olen
January 12, 2022 8:42 am

There is no push in the population for this! The deep state is on it’s own agenda.

michael hart
January 12, 2022 8:51 am

“Solar power will account for nearly half of new U.S. electric generating capacity in 2022”

Not at night it won’t.

MarkW
Reply to  michael hart
January 12, 2022 9:38 am

We’ll just cross the Atlantic and Pacific with HVDC lines so that wind and solar from Asia and Europe can keep us going at night. I’d say this is sarcasm, but I’ve actually heard AGW enthusiasts make this kind of claim.

Plebney
January 12, 2022 10:04 am

“Shutter” is not a verb and “closed” is shorter, accurate and real English.
Nothing screams “internet hack” more than trying to turn nouns into fake verbs.

PaulID
Reply to  Plebney
January 12, 2022 12:28 pm

Shuttered is used extensively when referring to closing places down you might want to make sure of your understanding before you spout garbage

TonyG
Reply to  PaulID
January 12, 2022 12:39 pm

shutter
transitive verb
1 : to close by or as if by shutters corporations shuttering their production plants

John Endicott
Reply to  Plebney
January 13, 2022 6:30 am

“Shutter” is not a verb 

Tell that to the Dictionary

Shutter Definition & Meaning – Merriam-Webster

shutter verb

shutteredshutteringshutters

Definition of shutter (Entry 2 of 2)

transitive verb

1

to close by or as if by shutters

corporations shuttering their production plants

Bruce Cobb
January 12, 2022 10:43 am

The coal-haters are of course being disingenuous as to why coal plants are being “retired”. It is primarily because of the War on Coal, and because of “carbon”. But just as importantly, no new coal plants are being built, again because of the WOC. Sad, because the supply is plentiful, and it provides relatively cheap, extremely reliable power. NG and Coal are great together – like peas and carrots.

John Garrett
January 12, 2022 11:17 am

“…Europe is grappling with an energy crunch that’s more than tripled gas prices within the last year and more than doubled electricity costs as demand remains strong as coal and nuclear power plants close..”

-Bloomberg

January 12, 2022 11:41 am

The much maligned “ageing” brown coal plants in Victoria (Australia) have got up to 100% capacity lately during wind droughts when South Australia (the wind leader) imports from Victoria.

https://newcatallaxy.wpcomstaging.com/2021/09/05/wind-power-fails-in-sa-vic/

January 12, 2022 11:44 am

See if you can beat Australia for stupid, being an island (and no nuclear power) we can’t run out extension cords to neighbours with a mix of energy sources.
And we have a third of the known uranium in the world!
Gold to Australia again!!

AndyHce
Reply to  Rafe Champion
January 12, 2022 1:54 pm

But there was, not long ago, a report about running such a cord between northern Australia and Singapore.

griff
Reply to  AndyHce
January 13, 2022 1:32 am

seems to be still on the cards…

Australia-Asia Power Link – Wikipedia

John Endicott
Reply to  griff
January 13, 2022 6:37 am

1) it’s “proposed” which means it doesn’t currently exist and possibly never will (financing hasn’t even been fully secured yet). Construction is still a couple of years away from starting (assuming no delays, good luck with that).
2) the proposal is mainly for exporting “green” energy from Australia, not importing “dirty” energy from Asia.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  John Endicott
January 13, 2022 9:30 am

There’s only 2715 miles (4370kms) of ocean between Australia and Singapore. What could possibly go wrong?

MarkW
Reply to  John Endicott
January 13, 2022 9:33 am

griff has long displayed a tendency to equate press releases with something actually happening.

James Bull
January 12, 2022 12:11 pm

I know for definite who won’t be having power cuts and no heating as a result of this foolishness and will be telling those that do that they are blessed to die for the cause.

James Bull

n.n
January 12, 2022 12:22 pm

Spread the Green Blight: intermittent energy, and renewable profits. I’m surprised the environmentalists are not up in arms, protesting for a green solution.

Robber
January 12, 2022 12:31 pm

Solar is literally eating coal and nuclear’s lunch.
With solar peaking in the middle of the day, it eats into the economics of base load generators that most efficiently run 24×7. The optimum generator mix then uses gas and hydro to ramp up and down to meet periods of peak demand.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Robber
January 12, 2022 12:43 pm

I don’t know who you have been robbing, but it doesn’t work that way. You still need nuclear and coal for nighttime baseloads.

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 12, 2022 1:26 pm

He did say that coal and nuclear need to run 24/7, gas and hydro being used to load follow.

Leo Smith
Reply to  MarkW
January 12, 2022 4:23 pm

Coal is pretty OK at load following. Steam trains do not run at full throttle all the time.

Even nuclear can load follow. Submarines can run slow as well.

Its the economics of so doing that dictate the usage, not the technology. Gas is expensive, and hydro is rain limited, that’s why they are the plants that shut down when demand and price is low.

Dean
Reply to  Robber
January 12, 2022 10:14 pm

Its only eating coal and nuclear’s lunch when the considerable external costs of renewables can be shuftied off onto coal and nuclear generators due to political meddling with the market.

January 12, 2022 2:07 pm

“Solar power will account for nearly half of new U.S. electric generating capacity in 2022” except at night when there will be no generation and demand will peak.

Gunga Din
January 12, 2022 2:15 pm

Forget “the grid”.
I live where “winter” means it gets cold at night.
The heat in my home is gas.
If I lived in a home with electric heat, the Green threat of depending on a wind and solar powered electric grid to provide heat for my home would send chills up my spine.

MarkW
Reply to  Gunga Din
January 13, 2022 9:35 am

In Britain they are considering laws that will require everyone to replace their gas furnaces with heat pumps.

Gunga Din
January 12, 2022 2:29 pm

Solar power will account for nearly half of new U.S. electric generating capacity in 2022

Capacity sounds nice. How will actuality measure up?
Let me guess. A computer model says everything will be fine.

ResourceGuy
January 12, 2022 2:45 pm

And this….

WSJ
The Interior Department said Monday that it plans to block oil and gas leasing on about 11 million acres on Alaska’s North Slope, or roughly half of a 23-million acre reserve set aside for energy development decades ago.
The action, announced in connection with a federal lawsuit brought by environmentalists, would reverse a Trump administration effort to expand oil production in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
The reserve had been set aside for oil and gas development in the 1920s. Under former President Barack Obama, the federal government restricted oil and gas development to 11.8 million acres of the reserve.

SteveB
January 12, 2022 4:15 pm

Don’t forget, considering capacity factors, that 46GW (capacity) solar/wind is about 12GW of energy supplied through the year replacing 14GW of coal energy. Seems to me that this is going well,

roaddog
Reply to  SteveB
January 12, 2022 6:14 pm

Math is hard.

Dean
Reply to  SteveB
January 12, 2022 10:17 pm

You do realise that for solar it is maybe 46GW of capacity for a 6 hours a day, then 0GW for maybe 18 hours a day? If the sun can shine fully on the panels for that day.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Dean
January 13, 2022 12:02 pm

But, but, but, but averages you know they don’t lie!

Dean
January 12, 2022 9:49 pm

Bring it on I say.

These dolts will only realise the futility of their renewables fantasy when presented with clear evidence from the country unlucky enough to have drunk the most cool-aid.

John
January 13, 2022 4:15 am

The closure of the Zimmer plant is interesting. Originally planned as a nuclear plant, the reactors were abandoned and the plant was a kluged monstrosity. Keeping turbines designed for a reactor ensured a low efficiency coal plant.

Kit P
Reply to  John
January 14, 2022 11:25 am

Not only planned but built.

After getting out of the navy, I went to work for GE. After getting my SRO certification for supervising power assention testing on BWR, Zimmer was one of three choices of
GE nuke plants where construction was complete except for testing.lack of documentation

I choose a different plant but was latter joined by engineers who had gone to Zimmer. According to them, the utility blamed union corruption for cost over runs. They got the the Ohio state police to go under cover as union workers. While they found no corruption, the union guys were complaining about the lack of QC that that they had seen at other plants.

Fuel was never loaded into a perfectly good reactor because of the lack of documentation.

%d bloggers like this: