America's Renewable Energy Sources Have Produced More Electricity Than Coal Every Day for 40 Days

[packman]

Source: Newsweek

Renewable sources including solar, wind and hydropower generated more electricity than coal-based plants every single day in April, a new report says.

Analysis shared by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEFA), based on data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), said the finding marks a major "milestone" in an energy transition that is now underway.

The move away from coal for electricity generation in the U.S. accelerated in 2020 due to lower gas prices, warmer weather and a "significant amount" of new renewable capacity being connected to the grid late last year, the report suggested.

It acknowledged that lower power demands resulting from economic slowdown sparked by the COVID-19 pandemic has also played a role in coal's decline.

Preliminary data from the EIA's Hourly Electric Grid Monitor found that utility-scale solar, wind and hydro had collectively produced more electricity than coal-based plants for roughly 40 days straight, based on statistics between March 25 and May 3.

Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/america-renewable-energy-electricity-generation-tops-coal-plants-april-2020-40-days-1501967

---

Some good news

[captain queeg]

1. its good to see

Leave the coal for the civilization that comes after mankind’s collapse. I just kidding, sort of.

[ffr]

2. Don't let a republican see this. tRump will have them dismattled.

Anything and everything to keep the fossil fuel subsidies going.

[warmfeet]

3. Excellent!

Let's get rid of fossil fuels. Wind and solar, that's what we need.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

4. There was a thread at DU a few days ago. In it, someone noted the daily energy consumption of

the US in exajoules. The information had been provided by DUer NNadir, though he wasn't the one who made the post. Then the poster noted how many exajoules could be provided by wind and solar.

It wasn't even close.

Would someone please find that thread?

{edited, on Wednesday, after reading one of NNadir's posts: exajoules, not exojoules. Spellcheck doesn't like either one.}

[DAMANgoldberg]

6. It looks like I was beaten to it by the original author

What this Covid-19 pandemic show is the spirit of humanity will ultimately win, and this is yet another example of this.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

7. I think there was one more recent than that, but that one will work just fine, especially since

NNadir has found this thread.

[DAMANgoldberg]

8. They did, and I'm glad.

I changed my OP accordingly. Alas, good and honest news are always welcome here at DU, and that's why we all love this community. 😊

[progree]

17. For the U.S., for 2019, wind and solar combined for a total of 3.8% of primary energy consumption

so is making just a small dent so far.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2487545

NNadir posts global statistics -- other renewables (which includes solar and wind as well as geothermal and tidal) : "2.27 exajoules is slightly over 2% of the world energy demand." https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2486973

I've never known him to post U.S. energy or emissions statistics, since it's just a small part of the picture. But narrow-view provincialists, such as myself, still find it interesting to look at individual countries, such as our own (thought crime). When I do so, sometimes I'm accused of confusing the U.S. with the world ... I don't know how I managed to make it through life so far in such a fog.

On the subject of coal, globally (trying to put my big-picture hat back on, despite my innate peasant-like narrow-mindedness), coal consumption peaked in 2013, though there's been an uptick in 2017 and 2018 after a little local bottoming out in 2016. (In case you might have read something in this thread that would make you think global coal consumption is growing by leaps and bounds).
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2487119

[NNadir]

5. That people take this horseshit from scientifically illiterate journalists seriously...

...represents the reason that we have seen, this week, despite half a century of mindless cheering for so called "renewable energy," readings at the of 418 ppm of carbon dioxide at the Mauna Loa carbon dioxide observatory.

All of the cheering for so called "renewable energy" consists of selective attention, isolating short periods of time and pretending they are all the time.

In fact, in my studied opinion, cheering for so called "renewable energy" is equivalent to cheering for the entrenchment of the use of dangerous fossil fuels.

Coal, and not so called "renewable energy," has been the fastest growing source of primary energy on this planet in this century,

I repeat this fact - facts matter - all the time:

In this century, world gas demand grew by 50.33 exajoules to 137.03 exajoules.

In this century, the use of petroleum grew by 34.79 exajoules to 188.45 exajoules.

In this century, the use of coal grew by 63.22 exajoules to 159.98 exajoules.

In this century, the solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal energy on which people so cheerfully have bet the entire planetary atmosphere, stealing the future from all future generations, grew by 9.76 exajoules to 12.27 exajoules.

12.27 exajoules is slightly over 2% of the world energy demand.

2019 Edition of the World Energy Outlook Table 1.1 Page 38] (I have converted MTOE in the original table to the SI unit exajoules in this text.)

Here is a table of sources of energy taken from the International Energy Agency’s 2017, 2018, and 2019 Editions of the World Energy Outlook:

[NNadir]

13. My source is the International Energy Agency. They've been hyping this failed renewable energy...

...scheme for as long as I've been reading their internationally sanctioned reports, going back almost 30 years.

It's kind of amazing that you can characterize that as a "fossil fuel advocacy group." Really?

International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook.

Let me guess...

It's um fake news?

Let's go full Trump why don't we?

I have a better idea; let's support Mark Z. Jacobson, asshole, in his effort to sue other scientists and the prestigious journal that degraded itself for publishing his nonsense in the first place for saying he's full of shit, which he is.

Listen, I'm not a kid. I've been hearing this bullshit about how so called "renewable energy" would save the world for the 30 years I've been studying energy in the primary scientific literature.

The problem is that it hasn't worked, isn't working and won't work. The reason is physics, specifically it's unsustainable energy to mass ratio, which is exceeding low. There is a reason that so called "renewable energy" was abandoned in the 19th century, and all the reactionary bull in the world will not change that reason.

My journal here is filled with many hundreds, if not thousands, of references to the primary scientific literature, which I have spent roughly 10 hours a week reading for 30 years. I'm unimpressed by cherry picking, OK, particularly when it involves a fully discredited "scientist" like Jacobson.

If you think I can have spent all this time studying energy and the environment at my own expense and at on my own time without hearing of this asshole Jacboson, well, you don't know me very well.

You may not know how much money has been thrown down the "renewable energy" rabbit hole for no result, but I do, this on a planet where 2 billion people lack access to basic sanitation.

The results are crystalline clear and they're written in the planetary atmosphere. Maybe you think that the Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Observatory is a "fossil fuel front" but I, um, think they're, um, scientists:

We hit 418 ppm this week, twice, May 1 and May 3: Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2.

I covered that here: We've had daily readings at the Mauna Loa CO2 observatory of over 418 ppm

(I routinely comment on carbon dioxide data from Mauna Loa in the Science section here.)

When I started writing here, in 2002, I was a member of the "renewable energy" cheering squad, but I also supported the only truly sustainable form of energy, nuclear energy. Over the years, confronted by badly educated anti-nukes with zero critical thinking skills who were interested (as Jacobson is) in attacking nuclear energy rather than fossil fuels, I changed my mind. I did so because of extensive reading.

For the record though, there was a person here, a real moron now on my ignore list, used to cut and paste pablum from Jacobson all the time. It was dumb then, and it's dumb now.

Let's be clear: I don't favor converting pristine wildernesses into industrial parks for wind farms and solar farms that will be landfill in 20 years. I'm an environmentalist, not a cultist.

To me, the trillions of dollars useless squandered on a cult affectation was an experiment whose results are written, unambiguously and clearly written, in the planetary atmosphere. The rate of accumulation of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere is now 2.4 ppm/year, almost double what it was before the world started squandering trillions of dollars on solar and wind. This week - early May - in the year 2000 - the concentration of carbon dioxide was 371.7 ppm. Today it's almost 50 ppm higher. For that entire time, there's been endless chanting about so called "renewable energy."

If maybe we had thought critically for the last 20 years rather than chanting mantras, we might have done something to save the world.

We didn't though, did we?

History will not forgive us, nor should it.

[not_the_one]

18. I get it. YOUR pet solution (nuclear energy) has been by-passed.

I don't want to pin my hopes on anything that would give us more Chernobyls and Fukushimas.

But that is just me.

I'm sure if they invent a nuclear option that is risk free, we'll hear about it. Then we'll all jump on THAT bandwagon.

Meanwhile, if I can make my home run on solar, I will. And I'll be proud of doing it. If I can get a car that can be powered by the same solar panels, I will, and I will be proud of THAT.

I will do what I can. Unfortunately I am not the one running the show, so that is about all I can do.


edit to add bold

[NNadir]

19. You know, it never ceases to amaze me that the people who prattle on the subject of Fukushima...

...and Chernobyl apparently don't give a shit about the six to seven million people who are killed each year by air pollution.

About 19,000 people died yesterday from air pollution, 19,000 will die today, 19,000 will die tomorrow, and what do we hear?

Fukushima!!!????

Do you know what killed the most people in the earthquake that destroyed the reactors? Was it radiation? No, it wasn't. It was seawater and collapsed buildings. How come the same morons who think that Fukushima is the only energy matter that counts, aren't advocating for banning buildings and coastal cities? In terms of direct causes of death, buildings and seawater were far more deadly in the Sendai Earthquake than the reactors. True or false? Trumpian answers, aka "lies," will not be accepted here.

Speaking of seawater, how about giving a shit about, um, climate change?

No? No fucking interest in the "Fukushima!!!!! Chernobyl!!!!!" crowd?

The climate scientist James Hanson famously cares a great deal about climate change, even if people muttering silly slogans about Fukushima don't. He has calculated how much carbon dioxide has been prevented by historical nuclear power, and has come up with a figure of 64 billion tons. Right now, because of the mindlessness of people muttering about Fukushima and Chernobyl who don't give a rats ass about the 19,000 people who will die today from air pollution, we are dumping about 35 billion tons, untreated and deadly, dangerous fossil fuel waste directly into the atmosphere, dominated by the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide concentrations are now increasing in the atmosphere at the rate of 2.4 ppm per year. This means that without the roughly two years worth of dumping the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide we would now be pushing, in 2020, 420-422 ppm.

Here, in something called a scientific journal is the paper written by Dr. Hansen, which has continuously been on the most read list of this high impact environmental journal since 2013:

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

Why are we disinterested in the lives saved (from air pollution) by nuclear power? Could it be that these people who think radiation is worse than climate change and tens of millions of air pollution deaths can't think clearly? Superstition? Selective attenion? Ignorance?

If ten thousand people died from radiation at Fukushima - and it's not clear that fve people have, at least for people called um, "scientists," that would amount to a few hours worth of the people who will die from air pollution because of the mindless mentality of screaming Fukushima! Chernobyl! and other head up the ass selective attention.

Here is the most recent full report from the Global Burden of Disease Report, a survey of all causes of death and disability from environmental and lifestyle risks: Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 (Lancet 2016; 388: 1659–724) One can easily locate in this open sourced document compiled by an international consortium of medical and scientific professionals how many people die from causes related to air pollution, particulates, ozone, etc.

I always ask intellectually and morally Lilliputians who want to whine about Chernobyl and Fukushima to let me know how the number of radiation related deaths in the tables therein compare to the deaths from air pollution, which total between 6 and 7 million people per year. This means, that in the last 34 years since Chernobyl, about 200 million people have died from air pollution, and still...and still...and still...we hear this crap.

We might have saved more lives with nuclear power were it not for the fear and ignorance of people who clearly can't think.

As it happens, the highly trained nuclear engineers who are working hard to save the world are spectacularly disinterested in the concerns of the ignorant.

Have a nice evening.

[progree]

9. Hmm, globally, coal peaked in 2013 at about 7,906 Mt. 2018 : 7,678 Mt.

But up-ticking since 2016. 2018 is the last year given in the below link (Worldometers only goes to 2016).
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/coal-lignite/coal-world-consumption-data.html

Oil and natural gas continue to increase.
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/oil-products/world-oil-domestic-consumption-statistics.html
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/natural-gas/gas-consumption-data.html

[SpankMe]

10. This is not just good news

It's a good "fuck you" to the anti-enviro's.

It shows that energy efficiency (reduced use) is good for the environment as it allows renewable to take over more of the load and emit less pollutants.

Fuck the cons, not the Earth.

[JudyM]

15. Ooh, nice slogan.

[truthisfreedom]

12. This is gonna drive 45 nuts.

Stark hysterical mad.

[JudyM]

14. K&R for sustainability strengthening!

Thanks for posting this! Woot!

[progree]

16. In U.S. in 2019: wind and solar combined for a total of 3.8% of primary energy consumption

https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy

which uses EIA.gov data (U.S. Energy Information Administration)



In quads: Solar: 1.04, Wind: 2.74, and total energy consumption: 100.2, all in quads (quadrillion BTUs).

So solar + wind = 3.78/100.2 = 3.77% of primary energy consumption.

Note: solar and wind is a considerably larger portion of electricity generation, but the U.S. electric power sector accounts for only part ( 37.8%) of U.S. primary energy use in 2018:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/