Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Solar generates more energy in US than coal for first time

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 260 posts

Re: Solar generates more energy in US than coal for first time

#31

Post by usefulcat »

dnautics wrote: post #26

The US currently is at per capita GHG emissions approximately at the the same level as it was in 1910. https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/united-states Despite not being in the paris treaty, the us needs only a 10-12% reduction to meet the paris accord requirements on schedule (43% decrease by 2030).

Yes, but it was most recently at the same level between 1939 and 1940, according to that graph.

And total US GHG emissions are currently at about the same level as they were in 1988.

Re: Solar generates more energy in US than coal for first time

#33

Post by jillesvangurp »

SoftTalker wrote: post #6
toomuchtodo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world is, roughly, deploying 1TW/solar PV a year at current rates. It took a while to get here, it won’t take as long to get to 100%. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capaci...

Storage is the issue. You still need to supply base load (well, all load) at night.

The whole point about modern gas/coal plants is that it's relatively cheap to shut them down and start them up again. They are backup power, not for providing inflexible base load. Batteries + renewables are taking a lot of market share and flexible backup power is much more important than baseload (inflexible power like nuclear)

Re: Solar generates more energy in US than coal for first time

#34

Post by jltsiren »

dnautics wrote: post #26

The US currently is at per capita GHG emissions approximately at the the same level as it was in 1910. https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/united-states Despite not being in the paris treaty, the us needs only a 10-12% reduction to meet the paris accord requirements on schedule (43% decrease by 2030).

The Paris Agreement deals with total emissions. Unlike previous climate treaties, it doesn't specify a baseline year. If you use 2005, as the US was supposed to use, the 2030 target is ~3.5 billion tonnes. 2024 emissions were ~4.9 billion tonnes. If you use a 1990 baseline, as in earlier treaties, the US target becomes ~2.9 billion tonnes.

Re: Solar generates more energy in US than coal for first time

#36

Post by rtkwe »

Retric wrote: post #8
SoftTalker wrote: post #4

This is more from a lot of coal power plants being converted to gas over the past 20 years than solar overtaking the outputs of those power plants. Coal output shrinking, solar output rising, the lines have crossed. Coal is unpopular in all but a few areas where coal mining is still a part of the local econonmy. I used to work near a coal plant and every day I'd go out to my car and it would have little black particl…

Total electricity produced by coal + gas is down over the last 20 years. Total electricity production is up, the difference is from wind and solar. This administration swapped to actively suppressing Wind and Solar via tariffs etc, and yet the trends continued because the underlying economic reality heavily favors battery backed solar.

I think that's part of what's notable about this. The administration hasn't been able to reverse the trend despite putting a massive thumb on the scale against projects like offshore wind and tariffs on solar panel imports.

There's probably a delay in the effects though since projects started before they took office are probably starting to thin out and finish up. We'd have to look into the permitting of new projects or wait for to see how big the decline in new capacity turns out to be in a couple years.

Re: Solar generates more energy in US than coal for first time

#37

Post by tencentshill »

trial3 wrote: post #28
harmmonica wrote: post #22

Question for those in the know... See lots of press about balcony solar in Germany, and California recently introduced a bill to allow it (I'm guessing other states already allow it; not sure if the CA bill has a chance of becoming law). But how far are we from a more plug and play home solar system that becomes a primary energy source as opposed to a limited secondary source? And what are the issues with it actually…

i think it’s kind of the opposite: balcony solar is good for power companies in the same way that them asking you to turn off your lights is good for power companies: if each customer is using less overall power they can serve more customers with existing infra. that obviously depends on time of use and the sun etc, but balcony solar in the USA can’t come fast enough. my electricity in NYC is almost $.40/kWh, a limit…

Have you seen this? Free battery in NYC if you charge it with off-peak power

https://everyelectric.com/

Re: Solar generates more energy in US than coal for first time

#38

Post by thelastgallon »

dnautics wrote: post #26

The US currently is at per capita GHG emissions approximately at the the same level as it was in 1910. https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/united-states Despite not being in the paris treaty, the us needs only a 10-12% reduction to meet the paris accord requirements on schedule (43% decrease by 2030).

US consumers and businesses buy almost all their stuff from China. China's massive footprint of Coal should be added to US emissions.

Re: Solar generates more energy in US than coal for first time

#40

Post by michaelbuckbee »

horsawlarway wrote: post #20
SoftTalker wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Storage is the issue. You still need to supply base load (well, all load) at night.

LFPs are cheap and safe, with very good cycle counts. Sodium seems to be actually hitting real commercial production volumes (ex - GM just announced a sodium ramp up days ago, CATL has been producing them for a while). I expect we'll see sodium mature a good bit over the next decade (right now - it's just not quite as good as LFP, but it has a lot of promise in temperature extremes and cheap input materials) So sure…

I think it's your last point that's actually the strongest.

There's always gaps between theoretical and practical, but to see China investing so hard in the future while the US digs in it's heels is infuriating.

Post reply on HN