Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sunflowerastronaut t1_j6ktzng wrote

>The plummeting cost of renewable energy, which has been supercharged by last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, means that it is cheaper to build an array of solar panels or a cluster of new wind turbines and connect them to the grid than it is to keep operating all of the 210 coal plants in the contiguous US, bar one, according to the study.

>The new analysis, conducted in the wake of the $370bn in tax credits and other support for clean energy passed by Democrats in last summer’s Inflation Reduction Act, compared the fuel, running and maintenance cost of America’s coal fleet with the building of new solar or wind from scratch in the same utility region.

>On average, the marginal cost for the coal plants is $36 each megawatt hour, while new solar is about $24 each megawatt hour, or about a third cheaper. Only one coal plant – Dry Fork in Wyoming – is cost competitive with the new renewables. “It was a bit surprising to find this,” said Solomon. “It shows that not only have renewables dropped in cost, the Inflation Reduction Act is accelerating this trend.”

>Coal, which is a heavily carbon-intensive fuel and responsible for 60% of planet-heating emissions from electricity generation, once formed the backbone of the American grid, generating enough power to light up 186m homes at its peak in 2007. However, by 2021 this output had dropped by 55%, while jobs in the coal mining sector have more than halved over the past decade, to less than 40,000.

11

Mayor__Defacto t1_j6lt9w9 wrote

Missing: the industrial capacity to actually construct all of the turbines and/or panels required.

−4

sunflowerastronaut t1_j6lu836 wrote

Not for long. That's in the bill too

3

Mayor__Defacto t1_j6lvy9n wrote

And will take a decade to build up to the point that we can actually do this. My point though still stands. While in theory coal plants are not profitable to run compared to building wind and solar, realistically speaking it’s not possible to simple turn them off and replace them with wind and solar right now. You have to just build wind and solar while closing them gradually as capacity comes online.

The issue I have with the take in the article is that it’s only on paper. It’s currently cheaper, but if everyone tried to build it at once it would not be.

−4

sunflowerastronaut t1_j6lw8oy wrote

Who is saying that they will replace them right now? Who's saying they will all be replaced at the same time?

This cynicism is fabricated and doesn't belong on the sub.

>While coal is in long-term decline it is unlikely to disappear in the immediate future –

That is what it says in the article

>The issue I have with the take in the article is that it’s only on paper.

The only issue you have with the article is that you didn't read the article. Your second issue is that you like to bring your negativity to the wrong sub, gtfoh

6