Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

643

In 2019, 239 gigawatts (GW) of coal capacity were online in the US. In 2020, 166 GW (72% of 2019’s capacity) were either uneconomic compared to local wind or solar or due to retire within five years. Out of the total 235 US coal plants, 182 plants (80%) are uneconomic or already retiring.

In 2019, 239 gigawatts (GW) of coal capacity were online in the US. In 2020, 166 GW (72% of 2019’s capacity) were either uneconomic compared to local wind or solar or due to retire within five years. Out of the total 235 US coal plants, 182 plants (80%) are uneconomic or already retiring.

(post is archived)

[–] • 3 pts

Ask us here in Texas how well solar and wind power works when it get really, really cold. It may be great for SUPPLEMENTAL power but you can't depend on either.

[–] • 2 pts

Wind and solar must always be backed. Literally impossible to be cheaper.

True cost of wind or soloar is (wind or solor) + (backing nuclear, coal, or NG).

Anyone telling you otherwise is a liar.

It is literally impossible for grid scale wind or solar to ever be cheap than nuclear, coal, or NG as it is always built on top of these technologies.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

NoisySilence gets it. ^

The left is good at denying reality and actual science, aren't they? Soon they will try to force all internal combustion engines off the road. They literally want to turn back the clock to the 1400s, any guess why, serf?

[–] • 1 pt

And because of faggots in the white house who hate this country, no new permits get issued for new coal plants.

[–] • 1 pt

Yep. Coal and Nuclear should be a part of this well balanced energy plan, but both are NIMBY specials.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

I smell a large load of bullshit.

[–] • 0 pt

It's not that Wind and Solar are inherently cheaper, it's that coal plants are aging and it costs more to maintain something that's past the end of it's functional life.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Read through the methods section. They're basically making up numbers. They use a shit-ton of jargon to diguise it, but it's all just made up statistics weighted to show an outcome they favor. They even admit in the opening paragraphs that they take subsidies into account for the costs for solar and wind. Which is ridiculous because the subsidies themselves are a cost to the consumer just showing up on the tax bill instead of the utility bill.

[–] • 0 pt

Oh I know, that's one of the only ways that renewable will ever be cheaper than bulk fossil generation.

Where I live the local utility pushed some aggregation bullshit on the city to consolidate the city and suburban electric systems with "green" energy. It costs more, and you have to opt out to keep the old "dirty" rate. It's just a gibs to the utility.