- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
Good news as natural gas, coal, and solar see the biggest changes.
Just before the holiday break, the US Energy Information Agency released data on the country’s electrical generation. Because of delays in reporting, the monthly data runs through October, so it doesn’t provide a complete picture of the changes we’ve seen in 2023.
But some of the trends now seem locked in for the year: wind and solar are likely to be in a dead heat with coal, and all carbon-emissions-free sources combined will account for roughly 40 percent of US electricity production.
You must log in or register to comment.
wow-- it’s that much? that’s awesome!
It is great to see, but it’s not a big shift year over year. Hopefully with declining solar costs and advancements in SMRs we see more removal of coal and gas.
Good job nuclear at beating out coal for 2nd place. Hopefully modular reactors increase on popularity to combat coal and other fossil fuels, with help from the other green energy sources.
“Nuclear itself is largely unchanged, allowing it to pass coal thanks to the latter’s decline. Its output has been boosted by a new, 1.1 Gigawatt reactor that come online this year (a second at the same site, Vogtle in Georgia, is set to start commercial production at any moment). But that’s likely to be the end of new nuclear capacity for this decade; the challenge will be keeping existing plants open despite their age and high costs.”
With its very high cost, still unresolved waste issues and government-required support, it’s hard to believe that nuclear has any real future. At the same time the costs for renewables is trending downward.
very high cost, still unresolved waste issue
The whole point of modular plants is their lower entry cost. And nuclear waste has been being recycled in France for decades.
Nuclear has an important role in a zero emission world along the other green energies.
You are absolutely correct about the eulogy for nuclear but will get many downvotes online from the idealistic yet unrealistic youth.
From what I understand on nuclear, it’s expensive because few people have experience planning or building them.
Hydroelectric production has dropped by about six percent since last year, causing it to slip from 6.1 percent to 5.8 percent of the total production. Depending on the next couple of months, that may allow solar to pass hydro on the list of renewables.
That’s a little disappointing. Hydro seems to always be forgotten amongst renewable sources. Granted, it’s the most location specific of the renewables, but still.
Hydro is often environmentally destructive in its own way, though. Building dams may be controversial when it upsets river and lake ecosystems, and may even deprive some folks of what could be a primary food source.
It might also be environmentally precarious but I’m interested in seeing some of the ocean current and heat differential and other non river hydro solutions being proposed.
I just saw an interesting video about a turbine-less hydro generator that also doesn’t require a lot of head: https://youtu.be/ArQE3SB0kyM?si=9a6DvG5g3D4bJiQl
As water sources dry up, I can’t imagine production won’t drop. And building any more dams would be politically controversial.
