"Solar, according to the IPCC report, can deliver more emission cuts than any other technology by 2030, when the world needs to have cut its emissions by at least half if it is to have any chance of capping average global warming at 1.5°C. Solar and wind together offer nearly ten times the emission cut potential than nuclear, and 20 times that of carbon capture."

The following submission statement was provided by /u/DisasterousGiraffe:

"Solar, according to the IPCC report, can deliver more emission cuts than any other technology by 2030, when the world needs to have cut its emissions by at least half if it is to have any chance of capping average global warming at 1.5°C. Solar and wind together offer nearly ten times the emission cut potential than nuclear, and 20 times that of carbon capture."

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11ykjpy/ipcc_chart_says_solar_pv_and_wind_turbines_are/jd7z3sc/

Here is a direct link to the high resolution Figure SPM.7 chart in the AR6 Synthesis Report.

I used MIT's climate policy simulator to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results here.

no, its the flying thorium or mini or 4 generation plants that was proven safe by jesus all those years ago hitting it with stones and eating it, totally green and almost free because those grow wild everywere and the newer ones can be made of paper mache in a day

nuclears don't need safety regulations it's the fault of all those wind hippies, trust me

just give me 30 billion and i'll show you one.....hey don't rush me, i say i will....one of these days, til them there is petrol left to burn

List of all figures in AR6:

• There are multiple opportunities for scaling up climate action. SPM.7
• There is a rapidly narrowing window of opportunity to enable climate resilient development. SPM.6
• Limiting warming to 1.5°C and 2°C involves rapid, deep, and in most cases immediate greenhouse gas emission reductions. SPM.5
• Risks are increasing with every increment of warming. SPM.4
• Future climate change is projected to increase the severity of impacts across natural and human systems and will increase regional differences. SPM.3
• With every increment of global warming, regional changes in mean climate and extremes become more widespread and pronounced. SPM.2
• Adverse impacts from human-caused climate change will continue to intensify. SPM.1

Don't bother. The nuclear crowd has become a dogmatic cult by now. It is like discussing with religious nutjobs

The MIT graphs look plain wrong. For example, the left-hand graph for heavily subsidize renewables shows coal, oil and gas as primary energy sources effectively flat or slightly increasing out to 2100. The current growth of solar and wind is already reducing fossil fuels in major areas, for example in the US for electricity generation, this will accelerate as solar becomes cheaper.

The nuclear crowd are likely just part of the disinformation campaign: Investigating climate sceptics’ disinformation strategy on Twitter, by Sebastián Escalón

i call it the church of the fissiontology

[deleted]

You'd be surprised by the kind of backlash posting stuff like

https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

https://spectator.clingendael.org/en/publication/nuclear-energy-too-costly-and-too-late

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J

can incur every time somebody drags up nuclear as "the obvious solution".

The nuclear and the fossil fuel industry are often two sides of the same coin.

You still need a base load. Storage technology for wind and solar just isn't there yet in terms of cost feasibility, so that leaves natural gas or nuclear as base loads.

You're arguing with a free market fanatic. He'll just completely ignore what you say and continue to spam the same bullshit. He's been doing it for years on behalf of a libertarian lobby.

In his mind, anything other than a pure free market solution is communism. It's his holy war!

Almost had me.

There's so much misunderstanding of nuclear it's crazy.

I'm not opposed to nuclear in principal, but having read reports like these, and looking at the costs for design and construction, it just doesn't seem viable in the time frame we have.

There are plants started in the 70s that are still being constructed today.

They're definitely shills. They don't just attack renewables and energy storage (which even nuclea rpower will need), they also go after electric vehicles and even heat pumps.

Renewables 30% cheaper than over 75% of existing coal power plants. That's cheap enough to include storage.

>nuclear as base loads

You complain about cost and then promote the most expensive energy source of all!

[removed]

Perhaps, but even with a pure free market, and not imposing the external costs of coal (like health and climate change) on the industry, I can't see how the US electricity generation industry will continue using coal plants beyond the working life of the existing plants. Solar is just so cheap, and under free market theories it will get cheaper as volume manufacture of the panels increases. It seems to me therefore that the MIT graph of coal use out to 2100 cannot possibly be correct whether or not we like free markets.

We might reasonably argue that US electricity generation using coal plants is not representative of the global coal industry, but 92% of India's new electricity generation capacity was solar in 2022 and although they are building lots of coal plants China seems to be building solar at approximately the same rate as coal. The IEA says global coal increased 1.6% in 2022, mostly in Asia, but they also say renewables met 90% of last year’s global growth in electricity generation. So I guess we are at approximately global peak coal. After peak coal the MIT graph should go downwards. Exactly when and how fast it goes down is open to debate, for example the UK shut down 90% of its coal in 10 years, but MIT have drawn the graph going upwards to 2100. That's why I think the MIT graph is plain wrong.

Look I'm all in favor of getting rid of coal, but if you're going to replace it with anything due to cost increases, its going to be natural gas not solar/wind + storage.

The EIA LCOE 2022 report pins the LCOE of a combined cycle natural gas plant at $39.94, Wind at $40.23, Solar at $33.83, and battery storage at a whopping $128.55.

There is not a chance in hell a coal operator is going to look at those economics and convert to a solar/wind + battery storage setup vs. natural gas, especially with the ability to reuse the supercritical boiler for the steam turbine.

I mentioned nuclear as a base loads because moving forward, if the development of SMR's go well there is a possibility they could become economical for base load applications in the future. At the current time, best base solution is hydro if its available and if not natural gas.

couldn't even build/ refit the pipes twice at the nuclear plant in that time period

Not sure what reason is for the apparent contradiction, but the planned additions to US electricity generation seem to be mostly solar.

Are you kidding me? During a time of record high gas prices, you complain about the only alternative not becoming cheaper faster?

Storage will get cheaper and cheaper. LCOE are the unsubsidised costs. Governments can subsidise them for now, which will help them get cheaper still. The more we invest now, the faster this will happen. This is standard practise for all energy sources. No one complains when fossil fuels are heavily subsidised in so many different ways.

$1 billion invested in a storage system will lead to less gas for decades. $1 billion dumped into gas is temporary. Just look how none of those fracking investments saved us from record high gas prices!

You really do sound like a fossil fuel shill.

and that's a good thing! But as I said originally, base load electricity generation for renewables requires storage, of which in the EIA data is 17%. So 17% of all new possible base load generation is battery storage, and 14% is natural gas.

Right now, 39% of all electricity generation in the states is through natural gas, and I can guarantee they won't be replacing those plants with solar/wind+battery storage anytime soon, because its not economically feasible to do so.

Since 2011, 121 coal fired plants have converted to natural gas, because that's the most economical and logical thing to do. A replacement to solar/wind + battery storage would be more capitally intensive and have a longer payback period.

>You really do sound like a fossil fuel shill.

And you sound like you don't understand basic economics. What a shame. Let me know when they start replacing coal plants with solar/wind + battery storage instead of natural gas, and then we can relook at this discussion.

Also, FYI, those LCOE numbers were with tax credits applied.

Hey, just letting you know they're replacing coal plants with solar and wind like you asked.

Me too. I was gonna go off.

Can I just say that so many of you all finally getting it about nuclear makes me happy. Im an ex nuclear employee, EE.

Already existing nuke is fine enough; expensive power, but I'm not going to crusade against it either.

But I have been debunking building new nuke for a long time, often on this very sub, and getting downvoted to hell for it. I cite everything and the arguments are fucking watertight. Some layman will post one article about a SMR that's like 20 years out from commercialization as if it's a rebuttal to any of the 15 points I made prior.

As a professional engineer in power, these people make my blood fucking curdle.

Baseload is a term used by laypeople that don't understand the grid.

All it means is that you want to have your power system producing enough power to meet the minimum load over a unit of time.

You people act like it's a magical thing that has to come from a particular source.

What you want is dispatchable power. Then it doesn't fucking matter.

Wind and solar aren't dispatchable, but then, neither is nuke.

Instead, have geographically distributed renewables and the transmission assets to move that power to where the demand is. Make enough power that you are always overshooting demand. Take the excess power and do something useful with it, like desalinization, producing fertilizer, whatever useful shit you can. You only need a small amount of dispatchable power to make up any anomalous dips in production met by pumped water, hydropower, batteries, flywheels, geothermal, or other non-emitting dispatchable power sources. You can also do load shedding and many other operations that stabilize the grid.

Baseload is just a nonsense word that laypeople use because they heard it on a documentary somewhere and they think it makes them sound smart.

>solar just isn't there yet in terms of cost feasibility,

Literally every electric utility in the country disagrees with you, so there's that.

Conservative voters: nUh uH, tUrBiNeS pOLLutE oUr 'mEriCaN skylines aNd soLaR tAkEs pReCiOuS mEtALs! wE sHoULd fOrGeT aBoUt wiND aNd sOLaR tO fOcUs oN oiL aND gAS!

>Baseload is a term used by laypeople that don't understand the grid.
>
>All it means is that you want to have your power system producing enough power to meet the minimum load over a unit of time.

You clearly didn't read the literal definition of base load being the minimum level of demand. Its not a layman term, its a literal grid term. But nice try.

​

>You people act like it's a magical thing that has to come from a particular source.

No, it doesn't HAVE to come from a particular source, but if the minimum isn't met, we have a fucking problem. That's literally why I mentioned solar/wind + storage AS A BASE LOAD, because yes, its possible to use them as a base load, but its absolutely not economically feasible right now compared to a natural gas plant. Hopefully in the future that will change.

​

>What you want is dispatchable power. Then it doesn't fucking matter.
>
>Wind and solar aren't dispatchable, but then, neither is nuke.

Capacity factor of nuclear plants is literally the highest out of EVERY energy source. What are you smoking.

​

>Instead, have geographically distributed renewables and the transmission assets to move that power to where the demand is. Make enough power that you are always overshooting demand. Take the excess power and do something useful with it, like desalinization, producing fertilizer, whatever useful shit you can. You only need a small amount of dispatchable power to make up any anomalous dips in production met by pumped water, hydropower, batteries, flywheels, geothermal, or other non-emitting dispatchable power sources. You can also do load shedding and many other operations that stabilize the grid.

You're not wrong, and the US is absolutely improving its interconnects to move around energy to where demand is needed, but to build out ALL of your grid with renewables would require an absolutely stupid amount of storage and renewables overbuild, which is astronomically more expensive than a natural gas plant at the current time.

I'm a big proponent of hydrogen storage along with vanadium flow batteries, but at the current time they are too expensive as a base load option versus throwing up a natural gas plant. That most likely will change in the future, but for the next decade, its most likely not economically feasible. Hopefully that changes but I'm pessimistic.

​

>Baseload is just a nonsense word that laypeople use because they heard it on a documentary somewhere and they think it makes them sound smart.
>
>solar just isn't there yet in terms of cost feasibility,
>
>Literally every electric utility in the country disagrees with you, so there's that.

Solar + storage. Way to take something out of context.

Are you for new nuclear technology? It's really impressive tbh

[removed]

What I said:

>All it means is that you want to have your power system producing enough power to meet the minimum load over a unit of time.

What the first sentence of your link says:

>The base load[1] (also baseload) is the minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over a span of time, for example, one week

If that isn't a near perfect paraphrase, then I don't understand English.

>You clearly didn't read the literal definition of base load being the minimum level of demand. Its not a layman term, its a literal grid term. But nice try.

I literally design power systems for a living. I've been doing it for more than a decade. Nobody in the industry refers to "base load". What we concern ourselves with is meeting the loads at any given point in time. We have countless tools at our disposal to do this. Base load is antiquated. It was a much bigger concern before SCADA systems gave us control over power flow and instantaneous feedback about grid conditions on a station by station, line by line basis.

>Capacity factor of nuclear plants is literally the highest out of EVERY energy source

Wow. You are the literal definition of a layperson. Capacity factor is the ratio between nameplate capacity and actual power delivered.

Dispatchability is the ability of a generation asset to ramp up or down quickly to meet the real time variability of loads.

You ought to be embarrassed by how confidently wrong you are.

Capacity factor isn't a meaningful concern. At fucking all. You design your system for the power that will be delivered by any asset. Since this is a known quantity and renewables, even with their CF between .25-.35, still outperform every other generation type in cost.

>ALL of your grid with renewables would require an absolutely stupid amount of storage

No, storage is not a major requirement. It is only necessary if you don't want to overbuild. But having too much energy at any point in time allows for all sorts of technological solutions that can be turned on or off by grid operators. On when we are over producing. Off when demand is approaching production. Things like making fertilizer, desalinating water, using carbon capture technologies, pumping water, recycling and many many other things. It would have huge consequences for reducing production costs of nearly everything and lead to a post scarcity in energy. Overbuild should be the GOAL, not something to be feared. It also ensures that you are ready for future demand increases.

>I'm a big proponent of hydrogen storage

Of course you are. Sigh. You are demonstrating that you haven't really thought about and lack the engineering background to separate the wheat from the chaff. You are literally a walking popular mechanics magazine. Hydrogen will never be a solution to anything but coking steel.

>too expensive as a base load option versus throwing up a natural gas plant.

This is the second time you have brought up the cost of gas plants. The only energy in the world more expensive than nuclear is gas peaker plants.

>most likely not economically feasible

You clearly haven't done the math on any of this stuff. The cost to completely decarbonize the entire US energy and transportation system is in the neighborhood of 7 trillion. That's electricity, gas heating, and meeting the grid needs of a national fleet of only EVs (something that absolutely shouldn't be done, but that's the math). $7 trillion is less than a decade of military spending, less than 3 years of what Americans spend on their personal cars, less than a decade of projected annual climate change costs, and about 2 years of federal spending.

We aren't talking about an insurmountable task here. The only part of it that's insurmountable is the political will to do it, which is no doubt stunted by laypeople throwing their erroneous opinions into the political ring and shouting over the people who actually do this shit for a living.

>Solar + storage. Way to take something out of context.

K. When you show your own math on this, we'll talk. For now, 82% of the new generation coming down the pike is renewables.

Doesn’t make Charles Koch richer, so we can’t do it. Sorry.

I'd give you a response but based on your asshole of an attitude it's not worth it.

Next time you want to have a civil discussion, try not being a dick - a fellow engineer.

In theory, if it was commercially available and could be built out in less than 2 decades, sure

Neither of those things are true though.

New Nuclear should be confined to the laboratory until we have decarbonized, then we can build a nice shiny new reactor that has all the bugs worked out and uses some super common fuel like thorium once the existing renewables start to reach their end of life.

It probably has a place in that future, but going after it now doesn't make any sense. We have serious problems that require immediate solutions and nuke just ain't it.

It's the ultimate armchair environmentalism.

>Some layman will post one article about a SMR that's like 20 years out from commercialization

Out of curiosity, what do you think of Rolls Royce's efforts? Their first commercial SMR is supposed to power up 6 years from now. I imagine I will probably be disappointed with that timeline, but their previous experience with nuclear submarines, and that they are going the generic and not reinvent everything route makes me think it may be possible.

[deleted]

Real intelligent. Making fun of the people you want to get on board with you usually works like a charm. Then, politicize it so right away that anyone on that side you're demonizing who may have listened isn't going to listen

Here's what some of us who can think critically see.

From an environmental standpoint, the end products do what they're advertised to do. What is not widely covered is that the manufacturing process isn't the most environmentally friendly, nor is the disposal of them when they reach the end of their service life.

Turbines are made of non-renewable resources, fiberglass to be specific. When they reach the end of their service life, they are buried on site. On average, a 5-MW (megawatt) turbine holds 700 gallons of oil and hydraulic fluid; like car oil, these need replacing every nine to 16 months. Let's not forget that like anything with moving parts and seals, those seals leak and usually aren't replaced until they're leaking bad. It's not something great for marine life near those offshore sites.

Solar panels are hard to recycle because they're made up of the same stuff all electronics are made of. The batteries typically needed to store the excess energy in a residential system are made of lithium ion, not that environmentally friendly, nor is the slave labor used to mine the materials for the batteries. Lithium ion batteries can become unstable and catch fire rather easily as well.

It's JUST conservatives who are questioning whether or not these things are really that environmentally conscious. It just so happens that anyone with any thinking skills is on the conservative side. 😁

Nuclear is not it, good to know

So, if we're keeping track, you came out swinging with a pretty aggressive response to an industry professional who was explaining things in very calm and simple terms, and then when they rightly took you to task for the very basic errors you made, all of a sudden they're being a dick and the discussion isn't civil? Maybe you should try a civil response to begin with and maybe the conversation might head to sunnier pastures, friend?

You certainly aren't a power systems engineer, so why mention your qualifications at all? They aren't meaningful here.

Sadly, this was an informative response to a recalcitrant who is not interested in learning or listening.

The emissions and environmental footprint of lubricant oil in a wind turbine is insignificant compared to the footprint of directly burning fossil fuels for the same amount of energy. It's like thinking the motor oil you put in your car is anywhere near as much of a problem as the gasoline you burn every time you touch the pedal. You even make this connection yourself and then don't follow the thought anywhere.

Fiberglass is a durable composite material that's been used in homes and vehicles and elsewhere and then landfilled for decades. The importance you attach to "thing end up in hole" doesn't seem tied to any particular concern regarding the environment or human health or sustainability substantiated by research.

>It's JUST conservatives who are questioning whether or not these things are really that environmentally conscious.

Total nonsense. Environmental scientists publish life cycle assessments of renewable and conventional technologies all the time. It's a well established field of study. There are many comprehensive reports that highlight real concerns e.g. dirty production of turbine steel, they're literally just a google scholar search of "wind power LCA" away.

You're not a critical thinker if you just pick a twitter pundit/similar who appeals to your preconceived notions and uncritically regurgitate their disingenuous bullshit.

> Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

love the continuation of the parody of the bad faith concern trolling

you forgot the spongebob caps though.

[removed]

There's a name for that? I figured that's how teenage girls type when they're upset.

Just as bad at understanding internet memes as relative scale of waste I see.

What the facts are:

1. Wind and solar can not be 100% of the grid.

2. wind and solar are heading for even more dirt cheap prices.

3. Most places haven't hit hard problems with increasing wind and solar to take a larger chunk of the energy market

4. batteries are a booming sector

5. we have some level of 0 carbon baseload power, some estimates say we could reach 80% wind/solar with hydro, nuclear etc which we are not far off 20%.

More speculation but these debates usually don't think enough about geothermal but advanced mining leading to increased viability of geothermal locations is likely.

MUh sUbSiDizEd oiL cOmpAniEs

[removed]

Subsidies get handed out to everyone. Not just oil companies. Again. You're not proving a point by typing like a mental defect.

But nuclear is way cheaper and 99.99% risk free now

Just imagine how much solar, power line infrastructure and wind turbines Canada could have invested in if you we used the 12 billion spent on the pipe line.

They are delusional and will likely contribute more to emissions than anyone else.

Nuclear was the way. Green idiots killed it in 90s and we're now reaping results

Here, take my downvote. Your arguments stand on water. New nuke is expensive NOW, after west killed the industry for 3 decades and made it a niche, low numbers "homemade" enterprise. If it was deployed in economies of scale, the economics would look completely different.

Just look at chinese nuclear

Look at Chinese anything. We build light rail in the US for 202 million per mile. The Chinese build HSR for 14.7 million per mile. What's your point?

Comparing the US to China on building costs is apples and oranges. For one, steel, concrete, banking, and construction are all state enterprises in China. They don't contract out the construction of infrastructure or the materials to for-profit companies.

Consider the following inequality:

If A(>)0 and B(>)0 then,

A+B (>) A

Where A is cost and B is profit.

And yet china can afford to build it at this pace and price point for 2+ decades now, so I guess my point is western inefficiency?

But of course that would be not true. West is plenty efficient where real "free market" is in place, i.e. supply of office furniture, toilet paper, mass produced meat etc are all very efficient and affordable

But the west became disgustingly inefficient where politics or local power interests are involved - so construction became ridiculously expensive. Housing became expensive. Transit became expensive. Energy is next to become expensive if people won't push back.

green idiots did not kill nuclear. They were a convenient whipping boy to blame for the poor economics of nuclear power.

There has never been a profitable commercial nuclear plant. not one.

Nuclear plants were constructed to build nuclear weapons with a side benefit of making power to subsidize the production of plutonium.

Also nuclear plants can not be built fast enough to satisfy demand.

> once the existing renewables start to reach their end of life.

renewables don't reach an end of life. That's the point.

Are you telling me not a single french nuclear site ever made profit? I mean, come on

yes, never. They have all been heavily subsidized by the French government.

Just recent.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-06/french-premier-says-state-wants-to-own-100-of-edf?leadSource=uverify%20wall

>2+ decades

7+ decades.

>supply of office furniture, toilet paper, mass produced meat etc are all very efficient and affordable

All of that stuff is significantly cheaper in China. Whatever perceived efficiency the US has is due primarily to unequal exchange.

The US is a failed state. See the TikTok debacle from today for all you need to know about how useless our regulators are.

Solar panels have a lifespan. Anything with moving parts has a lifespan. That includes wind turbines.

so do nuclear plants so to there is no net gain from building those over priced messes.

I agree. I would only consider nuclear in the event that there was some new reactor that could burn spent waste, reducing the half life of it, used no water for cooling and had minimal or no meltdown risk. We have solutions now to these problems that don't involve nuclear

>after west killed the industry for 3 decades and made it a niche, low numbers "homemade" enterprise.

The nuclear industry has been the most well funded and subsidized energy industry in history, and this was still the case up to ~2005

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/energy-subsidies.aspx

"The west" didn't kill the nuclear industry. The inherent limitations and problems, along with eternal stagnation as far as results are concerned is what "killed" the nuclear industry. And citing "but China" isn't going to change that. Even the chinese have been scaling back their nuclear efforts:

https://www.colorado.edu/cas/2022/04/12/even-china-cannot-rescue-nuclear-power-its-woes

while pretty much every project involving renewables over there overdelivers. Nuclear is a dead end, simply because it's too slow, too expensive and it can't be scaled the way renewables can. Nuclear wouldn'T even be able to provide global base load capacity without running into massive issues.

Nuclear is so "cheap" that is outperformed by every other option on the market:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity

https://www.lazard.com/media/sptlfats/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-150-vf.pdf

It is also so "risk free" that the industry wouldn't be able to survive without special legal constructs that absolve it from any actual liability for these "non-existent" risks:

https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/the-us-government-insurance-scheme-for-nuclear-power-plant-accidents-no-longer-makes-sense/

https://thebulletin.org/2011/10/nuclear-liability-the-market-based-post-fukushima-case-for-ending-price-anderson/

>The Price-Anderson Act, which limits utility liability in the event of nuclear accidents, is totally out of sync with US energy goals because it places a heavy thumb on the scale of resource acquisition, favoring the wrong type of assets (high risk, high cost) in the current economic environment. In an uncertain environment, financial risk analysis teaches that the investor should preserve options and value flexibility by keeping decisions small and preferring investments with low, more predictable risks and short lead times. With their high risks, large sunk costs, long lead times, and extremely long asset lives, nuclear reactors are the worst type of assets to acquire at present.

Nuclear is pretty much the worst option and an active hinderance.

They prob can't even complete building a nuclear plant by 2030 if they started today so article still holds true

Nuclear takes decades to build

> The EIA LCOE 2022

EIA's projections have changed substantially since 2022.

Compare their projections to 2050 from 2022 (p.15) and 2023 (p.10) (reference case):

• Solar: up 50% (1,200-1,800TWh)
• Wind: up 50% (700-1,100TWh)
• Gas: down 40% (1,800-1,200TWh)
• Coal: down 40% (500-300TWh)

EIA projections for renewable energy have been consistently revised way up, year after year:

• 2018 AEO: 1,600TWh renewables, 3,100TWh gas+coal
• 2020 AEO: 2,100TWh renewables, 2,700TWh gas+coal
• 2022 AEO: 2,300TWh renewables, 2,300TWh gas+coal
• 2023 AEO: ~3,300TWh renewables, 1,500TWh gas+coal

5 years ago, the EIA was projecting fossil fuels would out-generate renewables 2:1 in 2050; now, that ratio is reversed in their projections. How likely is it they've finally caught up with changes in power generation and won't revise that again?

For reference, wind+solar+battery are 140% of net new capacity over the last 5 years, and are a similar fraction of net new kWh generated. New gas is indeed being added, but coal is being retired even faster, so net fossil capacity in the US has been declining for a decade.