Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   All but one coal-fired power plant in the US is more costly to operate than simply building a new solar or wind plant   (thehill.com) divider line
45
    More: Stupid, Renewable energy, United States, Electricity generation, Solar energy, Coal, Power station, Electricity, Greenhouse gas  
•       •       •

702 clicks; posted to STEM » on 30 Jan 2023 at 3:59 PM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



45 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
Diagonal [TotalFark]
2023-01-30 3:17:50 PM  
Please to excuse minor correction:

All but one (coal-fard paar plant in the US) are more costly...

are more
are more hot dogs
the kink you like to smoke
 
aleister_greynight [TotalFark]
2023-01-30 3:27:22 PM  
You don't have to dig wind or sunlight out of the ground and transport it to the power plant, in order to generate electricity.
 
Concrete Donkey
2023-01-30 4:02:44 PM  

aleister_greynight: You don't have to dig wind or sunlight out of the ground and transport it to the power plant, in order to generate electricity.


Yeah but you also would be laughed out of the industry if you were going to build a solar plant in portland
 
mongbiohazard
2023-01-30 4:03:19 PM  
FTFA: All of the nation's coal-fired power plants but one are less cost-effective to operate than constructing new solar or wind facilities in the United States, according to a study published Monday by the firm Energy Innovation.

That's cool and all, but that's not the metric that matters in America. What matters is WHO is getting the profits.

If switching to solar or wind facilities means different people would be reaping the benefits then it won't happen, or at least won't happen until decades later than it should and after countless, costly battles.

America isn't run for the benefit of the public. It's run for the benefit of a few - consistently.
 
mongbiohazard
2023-01-30 4:08:31 PM  

Concrete Donkey: aleister_greynight: You don't have to dig wind or sunlight out of the ground and transport it to the power plant, in order to generate electricity.

Yeah but you also would be laughed out of the industry if you were going to build a solar plant in portland


Portland, OR gets about 3/4 of the sunny days that the average American city gets. There's certainly something to be gained from solar in the state as well, but wave/tidal power are good candidates for electrical generation for OR as well as wind. It probably makes sense to skew new investment a bit towards the most viable technologies for a region's particular circumstances.

Plus we have a national grid (offer void in Texas), so it's not like the electricity needs to be generated exactly where it's needed - that's the whole point of having an electric grid in the first place.
 
madgonad [OhFark]
2023-01-30 4:09:37 PM  
The article is slightly misleading. When capital / financing costs are included essentially all coal plants (if they were built today for the exact same costs) would be inferior to solar. Continuing operations would of course be less, but that expense exists so it should be calculated. That is why nobody is building any more coal plants. Industry does know that upgrades and maintenance (more expenditures on capital) can push plants across the line. That means older plants will be shuttering once they can't continue without updates.

Counterpoint - most solar is made in China. Is it a great idea to turn 100% domestic energy generation into something that has to be repurchased every 20-35 years from outside of the US?

/the solution is more solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, and storage
 
SirDigbyChickenCaesar
2023-01-30 4:22:28 PM  
If a similar plant were built now, capital costs would keep it from being competitive with renewable energy.

Therein lies the rub.  These fossil fuel plants are already built and paid for.  It becomes a payback analysis based on the difference in efficiencies.  How long would it take to recoup the capital cost to build the new, more efficient plant?
 
aleister_greynight [TotalFark]
2023-01-30 4:23:04 PM  

Concrete Donkey: aleister_greynight: You don't have to dig wind or sunlight out of the ground and transport it to the power plant, in order to generate electricity.

Yeah but you also would be laughed out of the industry if you were going to build a solar plant in portland


That's why we get most of our power from hydro.
 
harleyquinnical
2023-01-30 4:36:12 PM  

Concrete Donkey: aleister_greynight: You don't have to dig wind or sunlight out of the ground and transport it to the power plant, in order to generate electricity.

Yeah but you also would be laughed out of the industry if you were going to build a solar plant in portland


You wouldn't build solar in Portland, OR.  You'd build wind farms and lots of them.  The Columbia River Gorge gets tons of wind blowing through it, to the point where signs on the various bridges reassure drivers of the winds said bridges were built to sustain.  Hell, PDX runs along the river because of the winds.
 
Chagrin
2023-01-30 4:36:48 PM  
lazard.comView Full Size
 
cabbyman
2023-01-30 4:37:36 PM  
Even their website says we only have 10 years to act!!!

We gotta get moving people otherwise they'll have to reset the clock again!
 
E_Henry_Thripshaws_Disease
2023-01-30 4:41:50 PM  
yeah, that's just what Big Solar wants you to believe, sheeple
 
Pants full of macaroni!! [BareFark]
2023-01-30 4:47:50 PM  
But, communism.
 
grokca [TotalFark]
2023-01-30 4:54:21 PM  

Concrete Donkey: aleister_greynight: You don't have to dig wind or sunlight out of the ground and transport it to the power plant, in order to generate electricity.

Yeah but you also would be laughed out of the industry if you were going to build a solar plant in portland


I have 3 solar plants around me, I am 1 degree north of Portland and only get 11 more days of direct sunshine.
These are producing 60MW.
 
raygundan
2023-01-30 5:21:58 PM  

Chagrin: [lazard.com image 850x517]


And just in case it gets overlooked, the little yellow diamond in the "coal" section is what it costs to operate and fuel an already-built coal plant.

That number is $42 per MWh for coal.  Look up a few rows... and the most expensive utility-scale PV projects are $41 per MWh... including the cost of building and maintaining it.

Even keeping an already-built-and-paid-for coal plant running is more expensive than all utility-scale PV and most utility-scale wind projects.  Which is what the article is saying, but this point gets skimmed over and misread as "building solar is cheaper than building coal."  Which is also true, but not as important as "building solar is cheaper than just keeping existing coal running."
 
boozehat
2023-01-30 5:49:25 PM  
Wave Energy from the ocean is also fairly cheap, and doesn't require buying land, and there are multiple ways to harvest it (currents, tides, and well... waves.)
 
jake3988 [OhFark]
2023-01-30 5:57:00 PM  
The rub with solar/wind though is you don't necessarily need to build a 'plant' for it.

Coal (and especially nuclear) need giant plants to be able to do their thing and that's a SIGNIFICANT amount of their overall cost.

Solar, you could throw onto roofs and convenience store parking lots in sunny states.  Requires zero extra space.

Plus, coal constantly needs MORE COAL.  You have to dig it out of the ground and ship it, constantly.  Not cheap.  Solar and wind there is basic maintenance but otherwise, once you build it... it's good for 20 to 30 years (and newer ones are rated for 50 years I think).  No need to dig more crap out of the ground to keep it going... other than to replace old ones.
 
emtwo
2023-01-30 6:19:32 PM  

madgonad: The article is slightly misleading. When capital / financing costs are included essentially all coal plants (if they were built today for the exact same costs) would be inferior to solar. Continuing operations would of course be less, but that expense exists so it should be calculated. That is why nobody is building any more coal plants. Industry does know that upgrades and maintenance (more expenditures on capital) can push plants across the line. That means older plants will be shuttering once they can't continue without updates.

Counterpoint - most solar is made in China. Is it a great idea to turn 100% domestic energy generation into something that has to be repurchased every 20-35 years from outside of the US?

/the solution is more solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, and storage


The article is slightly misleading, because it explicitly says the opposite of what you're saying and you refuse to accept it, or more likely simply didn't read it?
 
Sub Human [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-30 6:38:39 PM  
Can't some of the coal power plant infrastructure be used to support solar or wind? That might offset some of the cost of new renewable power generation sources
 
iaazathot
2023-01-30 7:04:30 PM  

cabbyman: Even their website says we only have 10 years to act!!!

We gotta get moving people otherwise they'll have to reset the clock again!


Just remember, deniers can be used as food in the coming dark days.
 
Hinged
2023-01-30 7:04:47 PM  
There are two big problems with large-scale green energy projects (including EV manufacture).

1)  China (BIG polluter) has pretty much cornered the market on the components.

2)  Destruction of wildlife - birds, primarily, but also whales.


/probably nothing can be done about the birds
 
Obscene_CNN
2023-01-30 7:19:29 PM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: If a similar plant were built now, capital costs would keep it from being competitive with renewable energy.

Therein lies the rub.  These fossil fuel plants are already built and paid for.  It becomes a payback analysis based on the difference in efficiencies.  How long would it take to recoup the capital cost to build the new, more efficient plant?


It is more the coal plants run 24/7 and can adjusted to meet demands.
 
adamatari
2023-01-30 8:08:18 PM  
Okay, so now that we know this, we'll build a solar replacement plant for each one and shut them down, systematically, as fast as we possibly can, right? Right?

Shouldn't take more than a couple years, 5 at most. Man, people keep saying renewables are hard, this seems really easy. And it's an obvious solution! Damn, a major world problem, fixed in one of the biggest countries on earth, in a couple years. Probably also true in China and Japan and Europe, though I guess they'll have to put the solar in Spain and Italy and so on.
 
DON.MAC [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-30 10:07:23 PM  
I question the numbers since long term contracts two years ago here for coal power was $25 per megawatt hour.  That was in a coal plant in the middle of a coal mine but things haven't changed that much in two years.
 
dericwater
2023-01-30 10:38:14 PM  

madgonad: The article is slightly misleading. When capital / financing costs are included essentially all coal plants (if they were built today for the exact same costs) would be inferior to solar. Continuing operations would of course be less, but that expense exists so it should be calculated. That is why nobody is building any more coal plants. Industry does know that upgrades and maintenance (more expenditures on capital) can push plants across the line. That means older plants will be shuttering once they can't continue without updates.

Counterpoint - most solar is made in China. Is it a great idea to turn 100% domestic energy generation into something that has to be repurchased every 20-35 years from outside of the US?

/the solution is more solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, and storage


What the article is saying is that just existing coal-fired power plants' operating expenses (that is, excluding the capital expense that it incurred to build the plant) is already more expensive than the capital and operating costs of solar or wind. It's more expensive to run existing coal plants than to shut them down, build brand new solar or wind and let they generate away. The OpEx for solar or wind is minimal since they don't need to extract and transport the fuel. There is the cleaning and other maintenance (keeping the grass trimmed around the solar panels, probably can be done with goats grazing around the area) efforts, but they don't have to transport buttloads of fuel.
 
dericwater
2023-01-30 10:39:45 PM  

Hinged: There are two big problems with large-scale green energy projects (including EV manufacture).

1)  China (BIG polluter) has pretty much cornered the market on the components.

2)  Destruction of wildlife - birds, primarily, but also whales.


/probably nothing can be done about the birds


Coal fired power plants are far worse for birds and whales than solar or wind power.
 
dericwater
2023-01-30 10:42:49 PM  

Chagrin: [lazard.com image 850x517]


What is the year for this analysis?
 
paulleah
2023-01-30 11:12:47 PM  

Concrete Donkey: aleister_greynight: You don't have to dig wind or sunlight out of the ground and transport it to the power plant, in order to generate electricity.

Yeah but you also would be laughed out of the industry if you were going to build a solar plant in portland


Too bad you can't power your car on smug.
 
Fursecution [BareFark]
2023-01-30 11:13:04 PM  
A company I do work for has gone all-in on wind, and getting more all-in on solar.

/Those North Dakota pols and their coal mine can suck it.
 
paulleah
2023-01-30 11:14:05 PM  

harleyquinnical: Concrete Donkey: aleister_greynight: You don't have to dig wind or sunlight out of the ground and transport it to the power plant, in order to generate electricity.

Yeah but you also would be laughed out of the industry if you were going to build a solar plant in portland

You wouldn't build solar in Portland, OR.  You'd build wind farms and lots of them.  The Columbia River Gorge gets tons of wind blowing through it, to the point where signs on the various bridges reassure drivers of the winds said bridges were built to sustain.  Hell, PDX runs along the river because of the winds.


Goldendale has a ton.
 
Chagrin
2023-01-30 11:15:14 PM  

dericwater: Chagrin: [lazard.com image 850x517]

What is the year for this analysis?


Released Oct, 2021. eia.gov has a similar report dated March, 2022 but the numbers are quite similar.
 
dailygrinds
2023-01-31 12:00:21 AM  

DON.MAC: I question the numbers since long term contracts two years ago here for coal power was $25 per megawatt hour.  That was in a coal plant in the middle of a coal mine but things haven't changed that much in two years.


Seems like they might have a little cost advantage there. What with not transporting or paying someone else a profit on that coal.
 
Concrete Donkey
2023-01-31 4:26:01 AM  

harleyquinnical: Concrete Donkey: aleister_greynight: You don't have to dig wind or sunlight out of the ground and transport it to the power plant, in order to generate electricity.

Yeah but you also would be laughed out of the industry if you were going to build a solar plant in portland

You wouldn't build solar in Portland, OR.  You'd build wind farms and lots of them.  The Columbia River Gorge gets tons of wind blowing through it, to the point where signs on the various bridges reassure drivers of the winds said bridges were built to sustain.  Hell, PDX runs along the river because of the winds.


Yes but there is a zone of usefulness for wind, and at the south end of that zone is "not enough to produce a fart" whilehe north end is "so much wind the turbine gets destroyed by it". Its a pretty wide zone to be sure, but you have to keep the top end in mind or you might have one bad day that completely destroys a farm.

Wave power has the same issue, but a much narrower range of usefulness because people forget that water is heavy as fark and there are places that would be perfect, but they have destroyed everything we put there so far
 
YixilTesiphon
2023-01-31 5:54:09 AM  

Hinged: There are two big problems with large-scale green energy projects (including EV manufacture).

1)  China (BIG polluter) has pretty much cornered the market on the components.

2)  Destruction of wildlife - birds, primarily, but also whales.


/probably nothing can be done about the birds


There are two big problems with your post.

1. is false. Solar panels, batteries, EVs, are all being manufactured in the United States. China produces a lot, but there's no inability to make them domestically.
2. is made up nonsense.
 
dryknife
2023-01-31 7:31:09 AM  
Is there such a s thing as a solar or wind "plant" per se?
They typically are arrays that can take up quite a lot of acreage. Often referred to as "farms."
Not opposed to alternative energy, just saying.
 
raygundan
2023-01-31 9:36:41 AM  

dericwater: Chagrin: [lazard.com image 850x517]

What is the year for this analysis?


I didn't post it, but I've seen Lazard's LCoE analyses before.  I think this is the one from 2021. Which is also the most recent one I can find accessible for free... not sure if there's a newer one behind a paywall somewhere.
 
raygundan
2023-01-31 9:37:43 AM  

paulleah: Concrete Donkey: aleister_greynight: You don't have to dig wind or sunlight out of the ground and transport it to the power plant, in order to generate electricity.

Yeah but you also would be laughed out of the industry if you were going to build a solar plant in portland

Too bad you can't power your car on smug.


It's true... I had to build a bicycle for that.
 
raygundan
2023-01-31 10:10:41 AM  

YixilTesiphon: 2. is made up nonsense.


To be fair, it's generally bad for whales when they collide with the spinning blades of a wind turbine.  It's just really unusual for them to get that high in the air-- they're notoriously afraid of heights.
 
dkimball
2023-01-31 11:16:42 AM  
Me wants a $24/MW solar for my house
 
SirDigbyChickenCaesar
2023-01-31 12:27:02 PM  

Obscene_CNN: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: If a similar plant were built now, capital costs would keep it from being competitive with renewable energy.

Therein lies the rub.  These fossil fuel plants are already built and paid for.  It becomes a payback analysis based on the difference in efficiencies.  How long would it take to recoup the capital cost to build the new, more efficient plant?

It is more the coal plants run 24/7 and can adjusted to meet demands.


That's a whole different issue that sustainable energy needs to overcome to decarbonize the whole grid.
 
raygundan
2023-01-31 1:54:29 PM  

Obscene_CNN: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: If a similar plant were built now, capital costs would keep it from being competitive with renewable energy.

Therein lies the rub.  These fossil fuel plants are already built and paid for.  It becomes a payback analysis based on the difference in efficiencies.  How long would it take to recoup the capital cost to build the new, more efficient plant?

It is more the coal plants run 24/7 and can adjusted to meet demands.


Coal plants can be adjusted a little bit, but in general they're not great at adjusting to meet demand.  They can drop down to ~75% of nameplate capacity, but that's about the extent of it before they start to really drop in efficiency.

And that's a real kick in the nuts for the operators, because as the article points out, they're not cost-competitive anymore even when they're running efficiently.  Because they're no longer cost-effective as baseload, they do get used more and more as load-following plants... but the more load-following they have to do, the less cost-effective they get.  This is coal circling the drain.  It's not cost-effective as baseload, so they run them less and less... which makes them even less cost-effective than before, which makes operators find even more ways to avoid running them in favor of other options, which further reduces their cost-effectiveness and so on.
 
Obscene_CNN
2023-01-31 2:26:16 PM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Obscene_CNN: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: If a similar plant were built now, capital costs would keep it from being competitive with renewable energy.

Therein lies the rub.  These fossil fuel plants are already built and paid for.  It becomes a payback analysis based on the difference in efficiencies.  How long would it take to recoup the capital cost to build the new, more efficient plant?

It is more the coal plants run 24/7 and can adjusted to meet demands.

That's a whole different issue that sustainable energy needs to overcome to decarbonize the whole grid.


That is the core issue. Without it solar and wind isn't viable.
 
dericwater
2023-01-31 4:57:54 PM  

Obscene_CNN: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Obscene_CNN: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: If a similar plant were built now, capital costs would keep it from being competitive with renewable energy.

Therein lies the rub.  These fossil fuel plants are already built and paid for.  It becomes a payback analysis based on the difference in efficiencies.  How long would it take to recoup the capital cost to build the new, more efficient plant?

It is more the coal plants run 24/7 and can adjusted to meet demands.

That's a whole different issue that sustainable energy needs to overcome to decarbonize the whole grid.

That is the core issue. Without it solar and wind isn't viable.


That's not at all a core issue. Humanity did very well for a very long time without 24/7 access to power. It's a cultural thing.
 
Obscene_CNN
2023-01-31 8:52:02 PM  

dericwater: Obscene_CNN: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Obscene_CNN: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: If a similar plant were built now, capital costs would keep it from being competitive with renewable energy.

Therein lies the rub.  These fossil fuel plants are already built and paid for.  It becomes a payback analysis based on the difference in efficiencies.  How long would it take to recoup the capital cost to build the new, more efficient plant?

It is more the coal plants run 24/7 and can adjusted to meet demands.

That's a whole different issue that sustainable energy needs to overcome to decarbonize the whole grid.

That is the core issue. Without it solar and wind isn't viable.

That's not at all a core issue. Humanity did very well for a very long time without 24/7 access to power. It's a cultural thing.


If you are suggesting hospitals, food refrigeration, data networks, etc... just shut off when wind and solar can't cut it you're nuts. I can just see the angry EV drivers mad they have to stay home during the day to charge their car.
 
dericwater
2023-01-31 8:57:53 PM  

Obscene_CNN: dericwater: Obscene_CNN: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Obscene_CNN: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: If a similar plant were built now, capital costs would keep it from being competitive with renewable energy.

Therein lies the rub.  These fossil fuel plants are already built and paid for.  It becomes a payback analysis based on the difference in efficiencies.  How long would it take to recoup the capital cost to build the new, more efficient plant?

It is more the coal plants run 24/7 and can adjusted to meet demands.

That's a whole different issue that sustainable energy needs to overcome to decarbonize the whole grid.

That is the core issue. Without it solar and wind isn't viable.

That's not at all a core issue. Humanity did very well for a very long time without 24/7 access to power. It's a cultural thing.

If you are suggesting hospitals, food refrigeration, data networks, etc... just shut off when wind and solar can't cut it you're nuts. I can just see the angry EV drivers mad they have to stay home during the day to charge their car.


It's not as if when the sun doesn't shine or the wind isn't blowing that there is ZERO power available. There is storage and other methods to deal with the ups and downs of solar and wind. I'm suggesting that not everything has to be on 24/7. Hospitals and many other systems can be on 24/7, but the rest of the world can power down (as it already does) and the stress to the grid is minimized.

It's not all or nothing. There are solutions to deal with night times and tranquil days.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

More funny for your money.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.