[kublikhan]

In 2021, the US will install over 4 times as much new solar and wind capacity compared to fossil fueled power plants:

developers and power plant owners plan for 39.7 gigawatts (GW) of new electricity generating capacity to start commercial operation in 2021. Solar will account for the largest share of new capacity at 39%, followed by wind at 31%,[ natural gas at 16%, and batteries at 11%.]

EIA expects the capacity of utility-scale battery storage to more than quadruple; 4.3 GW of battery power capacity additions are slated to come online by the end of 2021. The rapid growth of renewables, such as wind and solar, is a major driver in the expansion of battery capacity because battery storage systems are increasingly paired with renewables. The world's largest solar-powered battery (409 MW) is under construction at Manatee Solar Energy Center in Florida; the battery is scheduled to be operational by late 2021.

Renewables account for most new U.S. electricity generating capacity in 2021

This follows a similar pattern to last year where 2020 saw the US add over 7x as much capacity in wind and solar compared to fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, 3.8 GW of fossil fuel capacity is retiring in 2021. 6 GW of fossil fuel capacity retired in 2020 and 14 GW of fossil fuel capacity retired in 2019.

[kublikhan]

Despid COVID, renewable investments and installations continue to increase in 2020:

Despite the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, renewable energy set a record in new power capacity in 2020 and was the only source of electricity generation to register a net increase in total capacity. Investment in renewable power capacity rose, although slightly, for the third consecutive year, and corporations continued to break records for sourcing renewable electricity. More than 256 gigawatts (GW) of renewable power capacity was added globally during the year, surpassing the previous record by nearly 30%. While the renewables sector proved to be notably robust during this period, the fossil fuel industry largely struggled – especially the global coal and oil industries.

Although analysts widely expected the economic blow in 2020 to decrease renewable energy investment as much as 10%, the opposite ended up being true. Due to a combination of factors including policy support, low interest rates, fluctuating oil and gas prices, and longer-term investor perspectives, global investment in new renewable energy capacity (excluding large hydropower projects) increased 2% from the previous year, reaching USD 303.5 billion. In 2020, global investment in new renewable power and fuel capacity was estimated to be more than twice the investment in coal, gas and nuclear power generating plants combined. However, considering all types of energy investment, investment in fossil fuels far outweighed that of renewables.

Costs of producing electricity from wind and solar energy have dropped significantly in recent years. In 2020, the global weighted average levelised cost of electricity from utility-scale solar photovoltaics (PV) declined 85% since 2010, while onshore wind power costs fell 56% during the same period. These declines mean that for most of the world's population, electricity production from new renewables is more cost effective than from new coal fired power plants. In a growing number of regions, including parts of China, the European Union (EU), India and the United States, it has already become cheaper to build new wind or solar PV plants than to operate existing coal-fired power plants. Renewables also are outcompeting new natural gas-fired power plants on cost in many locations, and are the cheapest sources of new electricity generation in countries across all major continents.

As in past years, the highest share of renewable energy use was in the electricity sector (26% renewables). At least nine countries generated more than 20% of their electricity from solar PV and wind in 2020. The remaining thermal energy uses, which include space and water heating, renewables supplied some 11%. The transport sector had the lowest share of renewables (3.3%). Overall, the transport sector is not on track to meet global climate targets. Many countries still lack a holistic strategy for decarbonising transport.

Renewables 2021 Global Status Report

[Newfie]

Kub,

What I was seeing in North Carolina was the cutting of forest for solar installs.

It is not direct. A cuts forest to plant crops. B leases crop land to solar. But the NET effect is the same. More solar, fewer trees.

Not loving that solution.

Now if the left the trees alone and planted the solar over parking lots, yes.

[kublikhan]

Every power generation method despoils the environment in some way. Solar PV included. And it's not just in cutting down trees. Solar PV manufacture releases potent greenhouse gases:

US emissions of a greenhouse gas thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide have expanded tenfold over the past two-and-a-half decades, according to fresh government data. And one reason - wait for it - is America's increasing reliance on solar power.

The gas, nitrogen trifluoride, or NF3, is a key chemical agent used to manufacture certain types of photovoltaic cells for solar panels. researchers warn NF3 is dangerous due to its devilish efficiency in trapping energy, and long atmospheric lifespan of up to 740 years. NF3 is thought to be 17,200 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, according to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The 1,057 percent increase in US annual emissions of NF3 from 1990 to 2015 compares to an increase of 5.6 percent in carbon dioxide emissions, according to EPA data in a recently-published draft of a new report, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2015.

"The big question is: What's going on in Asia?" Almost half of NF3 demand now comes from Asian manufacturers.

A Potent Greenhouse Gas Used to Make Solar Panels Is on the Rise

Results in a large quantity of e-waste:

Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants. While nuclear waste is contained in heavy drums and regularly monitored, solar waste outside of Europe today ends up in the larger global stream of electronic waste.

Solar panels contain toxic metals like lead, which can damage the nervous system, as well as chromium and cadmium, known carcinogens. All three are known to leach out of existing e-waste dumps into drinking water supplies.

Are we headed for a solar waste crisis?

And many Chinese solar PV manufacturers just dump the resulting toxic waste from the manufacturing process straight into the ground:

A recent Washington Post article has revealed that China’s booming solar industry is not as green as one might expect. Many of the solar panels that now adorn European and American rooftops have left behind a legacy of toxic pollution in Chinese villages and farmlands.

The Post article describes how Luoyang Zhonggui, a major Chinese polysilicon manufacturer, is dumping toxic factory waste directly on to the lands of neighboring villages, killing crops and poisoning residents. Other polysilicon factories in the country have similar problems, either because they have not installed effective pollution control equipment or they are not operating these systems to full capacity.

So far, the environment has been the biggest loser in China’s rapid economic growth. The irony of the recent Post exposé is that the environment is not even being considered seriously by those Chinese industries that bear a “green” tag, and whose products support progress toward a better environment.

Yet overall, renewables due substantially less damage to the environment than fossil fueled sources of electricity such as coal. Of course, that doesn't mean we should just accept all of the environmental damage as inevitable. Solar PV recycling programs could be put in place to reduce e-waste, as is done in Europe. Bans on the dumping of toxic waste could be implemented and enforced. Etc.

[kublikhan]

China will, by the end of the year, have more renewable and low-carbon power generation capacity than fossil fuel capacity, the country’s Electricity Council has reported.

Reuters reports that China is expected to add 180 GW of new non-fossil fuel power capacity this year, boosting the total to 1,300 GW, running the gamut from nuclear and hydro to wind and solar. This would represent half of the China Electricity Council’s total planned capacity for this year, which stands at 2,600 GW. By the end of the current decade, China has plans to boost wind and solar power capacity alone to 1,600 GW to reduce its pollution levels.

Last year, China built more offshore wind farms than the rest of the world together, Forbes reported recently, connecting some 17 GW to the grid. Now, the country accounts for half of the global offshore wind power total, at 26 GW out of a global 54 GW. China’s total renewable power generation capacity additions for 2021 reached 101 GW.

China Non-Fossil Fuel Power Capacity To Hit Record This Year

Capacity is one thing, actual generation is another. Despite being only around 50% of China's generating capacity, Fossil fuels represent over 70% of China's electricity generation:

China remains as tied as ever to fossil fuels, even as it adds more renewable power than any other nation. Last year, the share of coal and gas in power generation was stuck at 71%, the same as 2020.

The world’s biggest polluter wants to peak its carbon emissions by the end of the decade, and hit net-zero by 2060. But for all of the country’s headway in expanding clean energy capacity, last year’s economic growth of 8.1% basically meant that more output across all of its power sources was required to keep the lights on.

China Remains as Reliant as Ever on Fossil Fuels

[Pops]

Cool, this is Murphy's Energy Trap in action.

Because you must leverage fossils to build out renewables you should expect fossil use to remain high even as renewable capacity grows.

China's advantage is they have a government that can mandate such action (along with other, less desirable policies) whereas our system not only avoids consumer pain at any cost but is actively influenced by vested interests who would rather fight than switch.

[kublikhan]

Actually I think it has more to do with the fact that renewables like solar and wind have a lower capacity factor compared to fossil fuels. IE, the sun doesn't shine at night and the wind doesn't blow all the time so the gaps must be filled with other power generation sources like fossil fuels or batteries. You can see this disparity most sharply with nuclear power. Nuclear represents only 9% of our capacity but 20% of our generation because nuclear is almost always generating. The other power generation sources, even fossil fuels, have a much larger amount of downtime.

And the US has also been aggressively revamping it's electric grid to include more renewables:

developers and power plant owners plan for 39.7 gigawatts (GW) of new electricity generating capacity to start commercial operation in 2021. Solar will account for the largest share of new capacity at 39%, followed by wind at 31%,[ natural gas at 16%, and batteries at 11%.]

Renewables account for most new U.S. electricity generating capacity in 2021

In 2022, we expect 46.1 gigawatts (GW) of new utility-scale electric generating capacity to be added to the U.S. power grid, according to our Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory. Almost half of the planned 2022 capacity additions are solar, followed by natural gas at 21% and wind at 17%.

Solar power will account for nearly half of new U.S. electric generating capacity in 2022

For decades, electricity production in the US was almost entirely generated by burning coal - the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. But now, the grid is much cleaner and getting cleaner every day as old plants are replaced with clean energy technology. Coal plants are shutting at a very rapid rate due to the lower costs of producing electricity with natural gas and renewable sources like wind and solar. As a result, the national electric grid has become cleaner over the last two decades.

This trend is continuing as the price of generation from wind and solar continues to decline and more coal plants are scheduled to retire. Over 80% of new capacity added to the grid in 2021 came from renewable sources.

Electricity generation will also get cleaner due to mandates by state and federal governments to achieve 100% clean energy. Oregon law for example, now dictates that electricity must be 100% clean by 2040 and 80% clean by 2030.

Fact - The electric grid is getting cleaner every day — Electrify Now

Our grid is cleaner than China's:

In 2020, about 60% of U.S. utility-scale electricity generation was produced from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), about 20% was from nuclear energy, and about 20% was from renewable energy sources.

Electricity explained

[kublikhan]

I should also mention that the problem of lower actual generation for renewables is worse in China than other countries. For example, in 2015 China had double the wind capacity as the US. And yet the US generated more electricity from wind than China did. This is because of various issues. One problem is the US subsidizes actual generation of renewable generation where as China subsidizes construction of renewables. This might not seem like a big deal at first but has lead to various problems. One problem is sometimes developers in China will rush to build wind turbines and then delay actually connecting them to the grid. So you have a bunch of built turbines sitting around not generating electricity. China also uses lower quality turbines than those used in the US.

Another problem is curtailments. In the US, when there is an overgeneration of electricity FFs get curtailed(cut) first. This is because when the utilities pay less for electricity generated, fossil fuel generators are quick to cut because of high fuel costs. But renewables not only have zero fuel costs, they also get a fat subsidy from the government for every KWh generated. So renewables can, and often do, continue to generate electricity even if the utilities push prices so low they turn negative. But the opposite happens in China. Coal gets preferential treatment and so wind gets curtailed first. this problem has improved in recent years, However China's wind capacity factor still substantially lags the US. China's 2019 wind capacity factor was 22%. With the COVID shutdowns in 2020 it fell even lower to 19%. The US's 2019 fleetwide average capacity factor was 35%. More recent turbines are even higher, 41%. To put that in perspective, China could nearly double it's electricity generation from wind if it's capacity factor hit the more recent US figure. Of course China's wind resources are not quite as good as the US so expecting that high of a value is a bit unrealistic. But China still could make substantial progress on this front.

[Plantagenet]

The bottom line is that China is continuing to build more coal-fired power plants and burn more fossil fuels and as a result China's CO2 emissions continue to rise rapidly

china-co2-emissions-9%-higher-than-pre-pandemic-levels

China is now by far the largest CO2 emitter on earth, and continuing increases in China's CO2 emissions continue to wipe out any reductions in CO2 here in the US or elsewhere, resulting in ever higher global CO2 emissions and ever greater global warming.

China is a long long long long way from going net zero in carbon emissions.


China is a long long long long way from going net zero in carbon emissions. And don't expect Joe Biden to confront them over it.....

Cheers!

[Pops]

IE, the sun doesn't shine at night and the wind doesn't blow all the time so the gaps must be filled with other power generation sources like fossil fuels or batteries.

Thanks for posting Kub, I defer to your better grasp of the situation on numbers, subsidies, etc. While I do get that renewables are intermittent and name plate capacity is not actual output, it makes perfect sense to me that fossils will continue to be used as fast as possible, to the point total energy use actually increases. Somewhere down the road when renewable and storage approach fossils I expect the later will be less of a factor—or I should say I hope things go that way.

Which by the way is why I've long derided the peak demand headlines. You must build massive renewable infrastructure before fossil demand can fall.

[kublikhan]

Fossil fuel demand in the US has been falling for more than a decade. Same for the EU. Of course globally it is still rising as developing economies continue to grow rapidly.

Something else to consider. Just as all countries are not blessed equally with fossil fuel resources, not all countries are equally blessed with renewable resources. The US just happened to be blessed with both. Here's a Global Wind Map that shows a country's wind resources. Translated into numbers, the contiguous United States has the potential for 10,459 GW of onshore wind power. In China, the number was only 2,380 GW. In India, 696 GW. That's another major reason for the US's high wind capacity factor, ample wind resources. India's wind resources and wind capacity factor are even less than China's.

[Tanada]

I should also mention that the problem of lower actual generation for renewables is worse in China than other countries. For example, in 2015 China had double the wind capacity as the US. And yet the US generated more electricity from wind than China did. This is because of various issues. One problem is the US subsidizes actual generation of renewable generation where as China subsidizes construction of renewables. This might not seem like a big deal at first but has lead to various problems. One problem is sometimes developers in China will rush to build wind turbines and then delay actually connecting them to the grid. So you have a bunch of built turbines sitting around not generating electricity. China also uses lower quality turbines than those used in the US.

Another problem is curtailments. In the US, when there is an overgeneration of electricity FFs get curtailed(cut) first. This is because when the utilities pay less for electricity generated, fossil fuel generators are quick to cut because of high fuel costs. But renewables not only have zero fuel costs, they also get a fat subsidy from the government for every KWh generated. So renewables can, and often do, continue to generate electricity even if the utilities push prices so low they turn negative. But the opposite happens in China. Coal gets preferential treatment and so wind gets curtailed first. this problem has improved in recent years, However China's wind capacity factor still substantially lags the US. China's 2019 wind capacity factor was 22%. With the COVID shutdowns in 2020 it fell even lower to 19%. The US's 2019 fleetwide average capacity factor was 35%. More recent turbines are even higher, 41%. To put that in perspective, China could nearly double it's electricity generation from wind if it's capacity factor hit the more recent US figure. Of course China's wind resources are not quite as good as the US so expecting that high of a value is a bit unrealistic. But China still could make substantial progress on this front.

I do not dispute anything you wrote above, however the fact that US policy requires utilities to purchase wind/solar as it is produced no matter if they actually need the power at that moment is also a huge problem. As you stated in an earlier message the Fission plants which are this point all cash machines because they paid off the construction cost years ago are kept operating as close to 24/7 as the owners can manage. In the complex situation that exists when you get a cloudless breezy day and both wind and solar are producing very well the utilities are required by law/regulation to purchase every available kW of renewable electricity at "market prices". This in effect means rapid cycle power sources which are basically the simple cycle gas turbines and the hydroelectricity which can be cycled up and down rapidly are the sources they cut out of the grid to maintain stability when renewable supply spikes upward. However Hydroelectric reservoirs are also the major water supply for the western states so cycling generation up can lead to water restriction if we get a dry season in California. This means almost all of the cycling takes place with gas turbine generation units burning natural gas. Here is a major rarely discussed problem, a Combined Cycle or Cheng Cycle gas turbine can convert fossil fuel to electricity with 55% to 65% efficiency. However in order to rapidly cycle on and off the steam portion of such a plant can not be used, it takes too long to heat up the water to make steam. This drops the plant back down to simple cycle pure burn the gas but do not recover the heat to make steam and you lose 25% of the efficiency right from the get go. This in effect means to absorb spikes of renewable power on breeze and clear days the utilities are more or less required to burn the natural gas in the low efficiency mode so they can switch on and off at need and this wastes a huge potential in the raw natural gas energy being consumed. Instead of 55% efficiency they are getting 35%-45% efficiency at the very best they can hope for. That wasted 25% of the methane energy being thrown away would easily replace most or all of the renewable energy spiking into the grid yet all that energy is being just thrown away to satisfy the renewable energy priority mandate.

[kublikhan]

This problem can be eased by adding more energy storage options. Don't start drawing on those rapid cycle natural gas plants right away. Draw the energy from storage initially. Only when the energy storage starts approaching low levels do you need to switch over to those natural gas plants. Not only can they take over feeding the grid when the energy storage runs dry, they can also perform double duty by recharging the energy storage. Pumped storage is one of the cheapest options and you don't even need to dam rivers to use it, you can use closed loop systems. And this is not just to compensate for the intermittent nature of renewables. Even before renewables started taking off, pumped storage already existed on the grid to provide reserves. But the US has long been lagging in it's grid storage capacity by international standards. Japan has more pumped storage than the US, despite the US grid being 4 times the size of Japan's. It's long past time this US grid deficiency be rectified.

[Pops]

Fossil fuel demand in the US has been falling for more than a decade.

Sure, coal is down. And "other petroleum" but not transportation fuels, especially diesel, which is required to build out RE.



The headline from your link is talking about the global pandemic that had possibly something to do with consumption in 2020, from that link:

“Economic responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, including a 15% decrease in energy consumption in the US transportation sector, drove much of the decline,” the EIA said.

Distillate and even gasoline are both pretty flat over the last 15 years, gasoline looked to be at a record in 18-19:


"Other" petroleum went out the window because the heaviest factions of what we were importing: asphalt, road tar and heavy feedstock —was replaced with LPG and ethylene from LTO (for life-sustaining plastic salad clamshell containers) etc

[Plantagenet]

Fossil fuel demand in the US has been falling for more than a decade.

Sure, coal is down.

Actually, coal consumption in the US has started going up again since the Biden administration came into office.

This seems counter-intuitive given all the rhetoric about climate change coming from Joe Biden and the Ds, but thats why you have to watch what people do....not what they say.

Same thing with oil leasing....the Biden administration just conducted the biggest offshore oil lease sale in US history......and to add insult to injury Biden did it right after he made all kinds of phony promises at the COP25 climate change meeting.

us-holds-record-oil-and-gas-lease-sale-in-gulf-of-mexico-after-cop26

The Biden administration is turning out to be a climate change nightmare....who ever dreamed we'd see MORE coal consumption and MORE oil leasing under Biden then under Trump.


Biden lied and claimed he is stopping oil leasing.....and then he turned around and immediately conducted the largest offshore oil lease sale in US history

SHEESH!

[kublikhan]

Sure, coal is down. And "other petroleum" but not transportation fuels, especially diesel, which is required to build out RE.

Fossil fuels overall are down. Fossil fuels overall were 86 quads in 2007. They were 80 quads in 2019.

The headline from your link is talking about the global pandemic that had possibly something to do with consumption in 2020, from that link:

Yes. But I wasn't talking about the 2020 figures nor the headline. That link has a graph that clearly shows fossil fuel consumption peaking in 2007 long before COVID became a thing:

Distillate and even gasoline are both pretty flat over the last 15 years, gasoline looked to be at a record in 18-19:

"Other" petroleum went out the window because the heaviest factions of what we were importing: asphalt, road tar and heavy feedstock —was replaced with LPG and ethylene from LTO (for life-sustaining plastic salad clamshell containers) etc

According to my data petroleum used for transportation peaked around 2006/2007. Petroleum used for transportation was 27.71 quads in 2007. It was 25.8 quads in 2019. The Bureau Of Transportation backs up this data. In 2007, petroleum consumed in US transportation was 27.46 quads. In 2019 it was 25.99 quads.

[Pops]

According to my data petroleum used for transportation peaked around 2006/2007. Petroleum used for transportation was 27.71 quads in 2007. It was 25.8 quads in 2019. The Bureau Of Transportation backs up this data. In 2007, petroleum consumed in US transportation was 27.46 quads. In 2019 it was 25.99 quads.

Alright, just to quible, per your DOE link transport fuel use in 2007 was 28.82 quads and 2019 shows 28.51 a difference but hardly huge. Considering 5 or 6 of the in between years were the Great Recession along with the highest oil prices for the longest period ever, it's no surprise consumption did drop... more surprising is it came right back.

Another source, the Hiway Admin, shows transport fuel use in 2007 was 177 billion gallons and in 2019 was 178 B gallons, and mileage increased by 1 from 17-18mpg. I'm not sure how to balance those different assessments but again, not a drop between those two periods and certainly not a trend. (well it might become a trend if we clear covid but can't grow production).


I'm actually surprised by the flatline in electricity generated. This is grid scale:


Obviously RE is not replacing fossils, at least enough to maintain the previous growth rate— and likewise fossils are not being made obsolete by EVs either. It will be interesting to see how things progress the next few years. I'll be happy if it is all a painless invisible transition—so far society doesn't think it is all that easy.

---
PS, Industrial use is interesting too

[ROCKMAN]

P: "Same thing with oil leasing....the Biden administration just conducted the biggest offshore oil lease sale in US history.." Rather meaningless. For many years and during multiple administrations this has been done. And the result every time: VERY FEW leases bid on. The Gulf of Mexico (the primary hunting ground) is very well developed. Which is why all the leases are typically offered every sale instead of the previous method: companies nominate the leases they want to bid on. The last lease sale offered 15,148 unleased blocks. Only 308 received high bids. Or just 2%. The Fed judge blocking the proposed new sale for "climate change danger" is truly a joke. The same judge did nothing to inhibit the 600 MILLION BBLS OF OIL and 700 BCF OF NG produced annually from the fed leases per year (2020). Compare those 308 to the currently 29,000 lease blocks producing from 159 MILLION ACRES.

Just more blah blah blah from DC to feed the sheep that don't bother to research the real numbers on Google.

[kublikhan]

Alright, just to quible, per your DOE link transport fuel use in 2007 was 28.82 quads and 2019 shows 28.51 a difference but hardly huge.

Your quoted values don't appear in that link. I assume you really meant to post a link here. The numbers I posted were for petroleum, since you were talking about petroleum in your previous post that I was responding to. The numbers you posted were for everything, including biomass, which is not a fossil fuel.

Another source, the Hiway Admin, shows transport fuel use in 2007 was 177 billion gallons and in 2019 was 178 B gallons, and mileage increased by 1 from 17-18mpg. I'm not sure how to balance those different assessments but again, not a drop between those two periods and certainly not a trend. (well it might become a trend if we clear covid but can't grow production).

Again, that's for all fuels. Don't forget that biomass use increased during that time period. Petroleum use during that period fell. And this link is only for highway use of motor fuels. It doesn't tell us what happened on local roads or total fuel use. It is entirely possible that highway fuel use increased a bit while total fuel use decreased.

Obviously RE is not replacing fossils, at least enough to maintain the previous growth rate— and likewise fossils are not being made obsolete by EVs either. It will be interesting to see how things progress the next few years. I'll be happy if it is all a painless invisible transition—so far society doesn't think it is all that easy.

Again, that graph is for all sources, including renewable generation. Electricity generation from fossil fuels alone fell. Or as you put it, was replaced with RE. Fossil fuel use in electricity generation went from 28.53 quads in 2007 to 22.09 quads in 2019. That's a fall over over 22%. The fall in total petroleum use was less steep, only around 8%. But then EVs are only just starting to pickup steam and it will still be years before they reach cost parity with an ICE. Wind & solar starting taking off over a decade ago. Obviously power generation fossil fuels are going to be the ones impacted more heavily when solar & wind are the ones growing first.

[Pops]

I stand corrected on the petroleum total, Kub, I should know better than to quibble with you!

So total trans consumption is about flat 2007-'19, down .3 quads.
NG is up .4 while "petroleum" is down 1.5, so say fossils down 1.1 quads.
Average milage is up a bit, from 17 to 18mpg.

Since electricity for transport is minuscule we're talking burning 1.1 more quads of food to replace oil?

I was wrong, we aren't in the energy trap, that would mean we're actually making progress.