Solar and wind outpacing coal

[Volunteer]

Those who belittle the contributions of renewables in America's energy portfolio should not overlook the fact that solar and wind now generate more electricity than burning coal. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be accomplished if we want to.

“From a coal perspective, it has been a disaster,” said Andy Blumenfeld, an analyst who tracks the industry at McCloskey by OPIS. “The decline is happening faster than anyone anticipated.”

 

[Loulit01]

Those who belittle the contributions of renewables in America's energy portfolio should not overlook the fact that solar and wind now generate more electricity than burning coal. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be accomplished if we want to.

“From a coal perspective, it has been a disaster,” said Andy Blumenfeld, an analyst who tracks the industry at McCloskey by OPIS. “The decline is happening faster than anyone anticipated.”

Excellent.

 

[Geoist]

Aside from the environmental impact, coal is not an economically stable source of energy

 

[longview]

The important thing to remember is that Solar and Wind require some form of backup power plants.
Even when combined they cannot meet 100% of the demand in the daily cycle without some type of energy storage.
Solar actually tracks the load better than wind, but only works when the sun is out.
Coal as an energy supply has some logistics problems. Having lived near a large coal power plant,
300 rail cars of coal a day is a logistics problem, not to diminish that coal ash is radioactive and coal powered electricity
produces much more actual pollution than natural gas or nuclear power.

 

[NatMorton]

Doesn't look like the data supports the OP's assertion, though it's close.




Source: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

 

[Port & Starboard]

Those who belittle the contributions of renewables

Who exactly is belittling renewable energy?

 

[Peacenik]

Those who belittle the contributions of renewables in America's energy portfolio should not overlook the fact that solar and wind now generate more electricity than burning coal. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be accomplished if we want to.

“From a coal perspective, it has been a disaster,” said Andy Blumenfeld, an analyst who tracks the industry at McCloskey by OPIS. “The decline is happening faster than anyone anticipated.”

Maybe put some panels and turbines on some of those mountain tops destroyed by coal mining?

 

[Peacenik]

Who exactly is belittling renewable energy?

Big fossil fuel corporations, Koch industries and the like.

 

[longview]

Big fossil fuel corporations, Koch industries and the like.

The oil companies do not care about coal, or are concerned about AGW being a threat to their business.
They already have a map to a sustainable energy future, that includes sources like Solar and Wind.

 

[Volunteer]

Who exactly is belittling renewable energy?

Firstly, thank you for your service to our country.

Citizen posters on the numerous opinion boards, like this one, voice skepticism. You are not new to this board so I'm a little surprised, respectfully, that you ask.

 

[j brown's body]

Who exactly is belittling renewable energy?

Donald Trump Bashes Solar Power and 'Windmills'

Speaking to workers at a tank factory in Lima, Ohio, on Wednesday afternoon, Trump appeared to confuse wind turbines with windmills, and told the audience: "Hillary [Clinton] wanted to put windmills all over the place."

www.newsweek.com

 

[longview]

Donald Trump Bashes Solar Power and 'Windmills'

Speaking to workers at a tank factory in Lima, Ohio, on Wednesday afternoon, Trump appeared to confuse wind turbines with windmills, and told the audience: "Hillary [Clinton] wanted to put windmills all over the place."

www.newsweek.com

I would not put much credit into Trumps understanding of the problems of wind and solar, but as weak as his point from 2019
is, it is valid. We use electricity on a 100% duty cycle basis, when our refrigerator cycles on, the electricity is expected to be there,
when we turn on the TV, again the electricity is expected to be available.
Wind and solar alone cannot meet that requirement. They are what is called a non dispatchable electricity source.
It is good when it is available, but it is not available all the time. To get 100% coverage from wind and solar requires
backup power plants waiting to pick up the slack, or massive energy storage.
One of the reasons we see coal use falling, is because it's need as a backup is needed less and less often.
The downside is that such plants need to be kept ready to go, so the plants has to be manned and up to steam
at all times, and this costs money. Natural gas power plants are MUCH better at this, but is mostly used to cover base load
power.

 

[zincwarrior]

The downside is that such plants need to be kept ready to go, so the plants has to be manned and up to steam
at all times, and this costs money. Natural gas power plants are MUCH better at this, but is mostly used to cover base load
power.

Sounds like a job for small nuclear reactors.

 

[PoS]

Those who belittle the contributions of renewables in America's energy portfolio should not overlook the fact that solar and wind now generate more electricity than burning coal. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be accomplished if we want to.

“From a coal perspective, it has been a disaster,” said Andy Blumenfeld, an analyst who tracks the industry at McCloskey by OPIS. “The decline is happening faster than anyone anticipated.”

"Outpacing" doesnt means green has surpassed coal. It seems you dont understand that.

 

[longview]

Sounds like a job for small nuclear reactors.

Ideally the heat from burning coal could be replaced with the heat from SMR modules.
The coal power plants are already located in places where the electricity is in demand, and already have the heavy
lift capacity required to bring in the SMR reactors.

 

[Mach]

The oil companies do not care about coal, or are concerned about AGW being a threat to their business.
They already have a map to a sustainable energy future, that includes sources like Solar and Wind.

Always defending big oil, do you get paid or just volunteer?

The reality:

Industrial, political and ideological interests organize activity to undermine public trust in climate science.[13][14][15][8]: 691–698  Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates, ultraconservative think tanks, and ultraconservative alternative media, often in the U.S.[10]: 351 [16][8] More than 90% of papers that are skeptical of climate change originate from right-wing think tanks.[17] Climate change denial is undermining efforts to act on or adapt to climate change, and exerts a powerful influence on the politics of climate change.[15][8]: 691–698 

Climate change denial - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Just like project2025.

An organized, well funded, effort to undermine facts and reality, and the public welfare, all so insanely profitable big oils can squeak out a few more billion while polluting everyone's climate.

They are not idiots, of course they hedge their bets and try to get in on green energy too, while stalling the transfer as much as possible. If they could, they'd buy up the green energy patents and sue anyone who worked around them on false pretense, and then choke out green energy to a trickle to keep their big oil cash cow going.

Everyone knows it.

 

[longview]

Always defending big oil, do you get paid or just volunteer?

The reality:

Industrial, political and ideological interests organize activity to undermine public trust in climate science.[13][14][15][8]: 691–698  Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates, ultraconservative think tanks, and ultraconservative alternative media, often in the U.S.[10]: 351 [16][8] More than 90% of papers that are skeptical of climate change originate from right-wing think tanks.[17] Climate change denial is undermining efforts to act on or adapt to climate change, and exerts a powerful influence on the politics of climate change.[15][8]: 691–698 

Climate change denial - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Just like project2025.

An organized, well funded, effort to undermine facts and reality, and the public welfare, all so insanely profitable big oils can squeak out a few more billion while polluting everyone's climate.

They are not idiots, of course they hedge their bets and try to get in on green energy too, while stalling the transfer as much as possible. If they could, they'd buy up the green energy patents and sue anyone who worked around them on false pretense, and then choke out green energy to a trickle to keep their big oil cash cow going.

Everyone knows it.

Perhaps you should look again?
Why oil majors Shell and BP are combining solar energy and agricultural production
Oil companies are purchasing wind and solar farms, they are doing this because they will need the electricity
to make the carbon neutral fuels we will still require in the future.
Oil as a source for fuel will price itself out of the market.

 

[Steve Case]

Always defending big oil, do you get paid or just volunteer?

The reality:

Industrial, political and ideological interests organize activity to undermine public trust in climate science.[13][14][15][8]: 691–698  Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates, ultraconservative think tanks, and ultraconservative alternative media, often in the U.S.[10]: 351 [16][8] More than 90% of papers that are skeptical of climate change originate from right-wing think tanks.[17] Climate change denial is undermining efforts to act on or adapt to climate change, and exerts a powerful influence on the politics of climate change.[15][8]: 691–698 

Climate change denial - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Just like project2025.

An organized, well funded, effort to undermine facts and reality, and the public welfare, all so insanely profitable big oils can squeak out a few more billion while polluting everyone's climate.

They are not idiots, of course they hedge their bets and try to get in on green energy too, while stalling the transfer as much as possible. If they could, they'd buy up the green energy patents and sue anyone who worked around them on false pretense, and then choke out green energy to a trickle to keep their big oil cash cow going.

Everyone knows it.

"Always defending big oil, do you get paid or just volunteer?"

Big oil is only one class of corporations that make your life better than
your great great grand mothers and grand fathers enjoyed Yes those
corporations make a profit for their share holders.

Do you have a retirement account? Do you drive or ride in automobiles?
Fly the commercial airlines? Use any plastic products? Do you enjoy the
products of modern agriculture that supplies the bounty of food that we
all enjoy? I could go on.

Liberals are in lockstep with the obvious climate change dogma and think
that everybody else agrees whether they say so or not. Makes me think of
a popular tune from a few decades ago that could be rewritten.

With respect to The Kinks and "A Well Respected Man"

And he's oh, so good,
And he's oh, so fine,
And he's oh, so healthy,
And he spouts the party line
He's a well respected climatologist,
Writing science papers so progressively.

 

[Mach]

"Always defending big oil, do you get paid or just volunteer?"
Big oil is only one class of corporations that make your life better

Defend them for free, they love it.

Liberals are in lockstep with the obvious climate change dogma and think

Science. Climate change is science.
Well established, a near 100% consensus across the board.

Educate yourself:

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Consensus point #1:
It is "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible" that the greenhouse gas emissions from human activities have caused warming on land, in oceans and in the troposphere. There are no natural processes which can provide an alternate explanation.[1]: 4 [2]: 4 

Notice all the footnotes, those are links to other papers and aggregations of papers, etc.
Contrast this with getting your beliefs from Fox news, a lying institute that has insisted it has a right to lie to the public.

that everybody else agrees whether they say so or not.

They are correct, there is little to no disagreement by credible scientists and institutions.
This is a fact, whether you agree or not.

Why do you oppose science?

 

[Steve Case]

Defend them for free, they love it.


Science. Climate change is science.
Well established, a near 100% consensus across the board.

Educate yourself:

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Consensus point #1:
It is "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible" that the greenhouse gas emissions from human activities have caused warming on land, in oceans and in the troposphere. There are no natural processes which can provide an alternate explanation.[1]: 4 [2]: 4 

Notice all the footnotes, those are links to other papers and aggregations of papers, etc.
Contrast this with getting your beliefs from Fox news, a lying institute that has insisted it has a right to lie to the public.


They are correct, there is little to no disagreement by credible scientists and institutions.
This is a fact, whether you agree or not.

Why do you oppose science?I oppose the science

I'd accept Climate Science:

If climate science wasn't pushed as an absolute in schools.
If the predictions from climate science seemed to be true.
If climate science didn't confuse accuracy and precision.
If climate scientists didn't rig the peer review process.
If climate scientists didn’t sabotage scientific careers.
If climate scientists didn't hide their historical data.
If climate scientists didn't appear to cherry pick data.
If IPCC reports weren't re-written after final approval.
If climate scientists didn't try to sue the opposition.
If climate scientists didn't appear to fudge the data.
If climate scientists didn't resort to name-calling.
If climate scientists complied with FOI requests.
If climate scientists agreed to debate the issue.
If climate scientists didn’t exaggerate findings.

That to be sure is a Gish Gallop gathered from various posts articles
and TV Documentaries that I've run across for the over the 17 years
that I have been obsessed with what used to be called "Global Warming"

 

[Mach]

I'd accept Climate Science:

You're far more educated on science than..basically all relevant (to climate studies) scientists in the world.

Sure Steve, whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[Steve Case]

You're far more educated on science than..basically all relevant (to climate studies) scientists in the world.

Sure Steve, whatever helps you sleep at night.

I can read what they said then and what they say today. Internet Archives WayBack Machine

I can look at their findings that they show has having 4 place accuracy (precision) CU Sea Level

I can look up the "Dust Bowl Era" and see that it's generally ignored by hottest ever claims.

I notice that changes in polar bear populations isn't a daily story in the news these days.

I keep track of GISTEMP's monthly changes to their Land Ocean Temperature Index

I could go on, there's way to much too much stuff that doesn't add up

 

[Lord of Planar]

"Outpacing" doesnt means green has surpassed coal. It seems you dont understand that.

Anybody supporting the wind and solar push this much do not understand how they are still inadequate means of power.

 

[Volunteer]

"Outpacing" doesnt means green has surpassed coal. It seems you dont understand that.

I should have said solar and wind are "out-producing" coal. My bad.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I should have said solar and wind are "out-producing" coal. My bad.

They are not doing that either. You state that without a source link. The data in post 5 shows you are wrong.