Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday September 11 2019, @07:31AM   Printer-friendly
from the things-prior-to-2038 dept.

Gas Plants Will Get Crushed by Wind, Solar by 2035, Study Says

By 2035, it will be more expensive to run 90% of gas plants being proposed in the U.S. than it will be to build new wind and solar farms equipped with storage systems, according to the report Monday from the Rocky Mountain Institute. It will happen so quickly that gas plants now on the drawing boards will become uneconomical before their owners finish paying for them, the study said.

The authors of the study say they analyzed the costs of construction, fuel and anticipated operations for 68 gigawatts of gas plants proposed across the U.S. They compared those costs to building a combination of solar farms, wind plants and battery systems that, together with conservation efforts, could supply the same amount of electricity and keep the grid stable.

As gas plants lose their edge in power markets, the economics of pipelines will suffer, too, RMI said in a separate study Monday. Even lines now in the planning stages could soon be out of the money, the report found.

Hopefully our electrical distribution grid will still work.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 11 2019, @11:35PM (1 child)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 11 2019, @11:35PM (#892964) Journal

    Your 2 billion panels would produce around 5.5 million GW/h...

    (...cringe... even as a typo, GW/h is horrendous)
    PV is the best solution for small producers - like put them on your roof, couple that to a battery bank and, in certain geographies (large enough to count), chances are you can live without the grid for most of the time (over 95%). Incidentally, that's the very factor that makes PV attractive to me - I can produce my own energy and limit my dependence on the power utilities; I reckon there are heaps of other people on the same mind-set.

    For large setups, the concentrated solar solution offers better energy efficiency.

    Solar and wind will NEVER fill the gap of fossil fuels.

    Look mate, I'm not saying nuke-plants don't have value, I'm saying:
    1. the renewables don't lose their advantages because of nuke-plants and...
    2. ... there are reasons for which one can prefer PV over all/any other way of obtain energy and this choice doesn't make the environment worse.

    ---

    in your rush to rubbish renewables, you tend to move your goal post the way it suits you. I never said "PV is the sole solution to humanity's energy needs", all that I objected to was your position "it's impossible to add generating capacity within those x-number limits" - turns out that it is possible and others have done it.

    May I remind you posting on S/N is actually a waste of time and, you if you only look/consider at alternative PoVs for the sole purpose to rubbish them, the single point you may gain in the process comes from "entertainment purposes" angle?
    'Cause I guarantee you, no business in the energy sector is gonna look over your rants on S/N and change course because of them.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Pav on Wednesday September 11 2019, @11:54PM

    by Pav (114) on Wednesday September 11 2019, @11:54PM (#892979)

    The government was going to build a gas or coal fired powerplant for my home region (North Queensland, Australia), but given fuel transport costs etc... solar + hydroelectric [youtube.com] is the more economically safe option, even in the driest and flattest continent on earth.