The US could Save $5.6B a year if it Switched from Coal to Solar – study

[abu afak]

The US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study​

Feb 7, 2022

Solar makes more financial sense than coal​

The authors of the peer-reviewed study from the University of Surrey in the UK point out that even if no other argument, such as fighting climate change, is accepted for the switch from fossil fuels to renewables, then economics should be reason enough to embrace clean energy....

In October the Int'l Energy Agency [IEA]...“In most markets, solar PV or wind now represents the Cheapest available source of new electricity generation.”... In some cases, it is even cheaper to build a new solar PV plant than to continue operating an existing coal or natural gas-fired plant. IRENA estimates that 61% of coal capacity in the USA costs more to operate than building new renewable plants. Retiring these coal plants and replacing them with renewables would save USD $5.6 billion in costs and 332 million tonnes of CO2 per year.
Note, this cost competitiveness is Not the result of government subsidy. IRENA notes that “offshore wind can now compete with price levels seen in the wholesale electricity market, without financial support.” Additionally, “74% of all new solar PV projects commissioned over the next two years that have been competitively procured through auctions and tenders will have an award price lower than new coal power.”

Ravi Silva, director of the Advanced Technology Institute at the University of Surrey and co-author of the study, said:

COP26 was big news ...solar is a crucial part of the solution and one which is more cost-effective than people believe. It’s crazy that installing new solar energy plants can cost less than continuing to operate coal-fired power stations, yet changes aren’t being made.
Retiring all the uneconomic coal plants around the world and replacing them with renewables would save US $32 billion and 3 gigatons of CO2 annually, 9% of the mankind’s energy-related emissions....

Electrek’s Take​

Of course, solar needs to be balanced with other sources of clean energy, such as wind and hydro, and battery storage is an essential part of the mix to regulate supply and demand. But what’s overwhelmingly clear is that coal – and indeed, fossil fuels in general – are not only bad for the environment, they’re also a terrible financial choice. That’s the main thrust of this study..

The US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study

Electricity sourced from solar is cheaper than sourcing it from coal-fired power plants on a global scale, according to a new study.

electrek.co

 

[candycorn]

Solar makes more financial sense than coal​

The authors of the peer-reviewed study from the University of Surrey in the UK point out that even if no other argument, such as fighting climate change, is accepted for the switch from fossil fuels to renewables, then economics should be reason enough to embrace clean energy. The editorial states:


Ravi Silva, director of the Advanced Technology Institute at the University of Surrey and co-author of the study, said:

Electrek’s Take​

Of course, solar needs to be balanced with other sources of clean energy, such as wind and hydro, and battery storage is an essential part of the mix to regulate supply and demand.

But what’s overwhelmingly clear is that coal – and indeed, fossil fuels in general – are not only bad for the environment, they’re also a terrible financial choice. That’s the main thrust of this study, and it’s a powerful argument. You can read the study’s editorial here.

The US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study

Electricity sourced from solar is cheaper than sourcing it from coal-fired power plants on a global scale, according to a new study.

electrek.co

Well, if you don't have to extract your energy resource, you're ahead of the game as far as generation goes. But there is a shit-ton of money to be made by workers in the extraction industries. What offsets that loss of income? No easy answers.

 

[TeeDub]

The US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study​

Feb 7, 2022

Solar makes more financial sense than coal​

The authors of the peer-reviewed study from the University of Surrey in the UK point out that even if no other argument, such as fighting climate change, is accepted for the switch from fossil fuels to renewables, then economics should be reason enough to embrace clean energy....


Ravi Silva, director of the Advanced Technology Institute at the University of Surrey and co-author of the study, said:

Electrek’s Take​

Of course, solar needs to be balanced with other sources of clean energy, such as wind and hydro, and battery storage is an essential part of the mix to regulate supply and demand.

But what’s overwhelmingly clear is that coal – and indeed, fossil fuels in general – are not only bad for the environment, they’re also a terrible financial choice. That’s the main thrust of this study, and it’s a powerful argument. You can read the study’s editorial here.

The US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study

Electricity sourced from solar is cheaper than sourcing it from coal-fired power plants on a global scale, according to a new study.

electrek.co

Who is the main source of the resources needed to build the solar panels and storage batteries? CHINA idiot. Just send them all our money.

 

[abu afak]

Well, if you don't have to extract your energy resource, you're ahead of the game as far as generation goes. But there is a shit-ton of money to be made by workers in the extraction industries. What offsets that loss of income? No easy answers.

Working in a clean solar panel plant vs a Coal mine/or coal burning plant?
Is that a supposed to be a tough one?

`

 

[candycorn]

Working in a clean solar panel plant vs a Coal mine?
Is that a supposed to be a tough one?

`

Yeah...and as soon as you put a panel on everyone's house, every business, every surface...what then? Extraction, be it oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, etc... has an open-endedness (if that is a word) to it--yeah I know at some point we will run out and renewables is the only way to go.

Are you arguing that the solar panel plant and the coal mines would employ the same number of people? I doubt you can honestly make that argument.

Clearly though, renewables are much better for the environment and health of communities. That really cannot be quantified.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study​

Feb 7, 2022

Solar makes more financial sense than coal​

The authors of the peer-reviewed study from the University of Surrey in the UK point out that even if no other argument, such as fighting climate change, is accepted for the switch from fossil fuels to renewables, then economics should be reason enough to embrace clean energy....


Ravi Silva, director of the Advanced Technology Institute at the University of Surrey and co-author of the study, said:

Electrek’s Take​

Of course, solar needs to be balanced with other sources of clean energy, such as wind and hydro, and battery storage is an essential part of the mix to regulate supply and demand.

But what’s overwhelmingly clear is that coal – and indeed, fossil fuels in general – are not only bad for the environment, they’re also a terrible financial choice. That’s the main thrust of this study, and it’s a powerful argument. You can read the study’s editorial here.

The US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study

Electricity sourced from solar is cheaper than sourcing it from coal-fired power plants on a global scale, according to a new study.

electrek.co

How the fuck does higher energy bills save me the consumer money?


A libtard will never know math.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Working in a clean solar panel plant vs a Coal mine/or coal burning plant?
Is that a supposed to be a tough one?

`

Working at a solar manufacturing plant in fucking China?


Yup I knew it all along you where a Chinese bot, comrade

 

[daveman]

Coal works at night.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Coal works at night.

Libtard logic 101, well we will just run an extension cord to Japan when it's daytime there.

 

[abu afak]

Yeah...and as soon as you put a panel on everyone's house, every business, every surface...what then? Extraction, be it oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, etc... has an open-endedness (if that is a word) to it--yeah I know at some point we will run out and renewables is the only way to go.

Are you arguing that the solar panel plant and the coal mines would employ the same number of people? I doubt you can honestly make that argument.

Clearly though, renewables are much better for the environment and health of communities. That really cannot be quantified.

If renewables employ less people they cost Everyone less.
Increased Productivity is a good thing.

If cleanest dream Nuclear fusion cost even less... great!

`

 

[daveman]

Libtard logic 101, well we will just run an extension cord to Japan when it's daytime there.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If renewables employ less people they cost Everyone less.
Increased Productivity is a good thing.

If cleanest dream Nuclear fusion cost even less... great!

`

How does people collecting welfare cost me less?


Good God you're retarded

 

[candycorn]

If renewables employ less people they cost Everyone less.

Agreed.... but would saving less on your light bill replace your income? Probably not. In the macro...you're correct. Its a win for the economy in terms of a savings. But the economic activity of thousands and thousands of miners, oil field workers, transportation, refining.... that isn't going to be offset through cheaper electricity.
I'm not trying to rain on your parade but you have to factor in the job losses into the equation.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, if you don't have to extract your energy resource, you're ahead of the game as far as generation goes. But there is a shit-ton of money to be made by workers in the extraction industries. What offsets that loss of income? No easy answers.

Really a dumb answer.

Global renewable energy jobs will grow fivefold from 4.4 million today to 22 million by 2050, with more than 85% of those gains in the wind and solar sectors, according to an international team of academics.

Jobs in the fossil-fuel sector will, at the same time, fall from 12.6 million to 3.1 million, with about 80% of the job losses related to oil, gas and coal extraction, the researchers write in a study published in the journal One Earth.



Ten million jobs and two trillion dollars: EY flags world's 'shovel ready' renewables bounty
Read more

Speed energy transition to boost global economy 2.5% on way to 'climate safety': Irena
Read more

Overall, the number of jobs in the energy industry will grow from 18 million today to 26 million in 2050 — with 84% of those in renewables, 11% in fossil fuels and 5% in nuclear — under the report's “well-below 2°C” (WB2C) scenario.

 

[theHawk]

The US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study​

Feb 7, 2022

Solar makes more financial sense than coal​

The authors of the peer-reviewed study from the University of Surrey in the UK point out that even if no other argument, such as fighting climate change, is accepted for the switch from fossil fuels to renewables, then economics should be reason enough to embrace clean energy....

Ravi Silva, director of the Advanced Technology Institute at the University of Surrey and co-author of the study, said:

Electrek’s Take​

Of course, solar needs to be balanced with other sources of clean energy, such as wind and hydro, and battery storage is an essential part of the mix to regulate supply and demand. But what’s overwhelmingly clear is that coal – and indeed, fossil fuels in general – are not only bad for the environment, they’re also a terrible financial choice. That’s the main thrust of this study..

The US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study

Electricity sourced from solar is cheaper than sourcing it from coal-fired power plants on a global scale, according to a new study.

electrek.co

What a joke. Solar barely makes 5.5% of the energy in Arizona, less than hydroelectric.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yeah...and as soon as you put a panel on everyone's house, every business, every surface...what then? Extraction, be it oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, etc... has an open-endedness (if that is a word) to it--yeah I know at some point we will run out and renewables is the only way to go.

Are you arguing that the solar panel plant and the coal mines would employ the same number of people? I doubt you can honestly make that argument.

Clearly though, renewables are much better for the environment and health of communities. That really cannot be quantified.

An area 100 miles by 100 miles would power the whole of the US with present efficiency of solar panels. That can be easily achieved with paneling every roof and building in the US with panels. You seem to forget that we have vast areas like parking lots that can easily be covered with panels that would serve double purpose. And then there is agrivoltaics that would be a vast boon for the farmers.

 

[candycorn]

Really a dumb answer.

Global renewable energy jobs will grow fivefold from 4.4 million today to 22 million by 2050, with more than 85% of those gains in the wind and solar sectors, according to an international team of academics.

Jobs in the fossil-fuel sector will, at the same time, fall from 12.6 million to 3.1 million, with about 80% of the job losses related to oil, gas and coal extraction, the researchers write in a study published in the journal One Earth.



Ten million jobs and two trillion dollars: EY flags world's 'shovel ready' renewables bounty
Read more

Speed energy transition to boost global economy 2.5% on way to 'climate safety': Irena
Read more

Overall, the number of jobs in the energy industry will grow from 18 million today to 26 million in 2050 — with 84% of those in renewables, 11% in fossil fuels and 5% in nuclear — under the report's “well-below 2°C” (WB2C) scenario.

I'm sure they are growing....

But, unlike petroleum for example, there is no exploration where you look for the oil, there is no drilling operation to extract the oil, there is no transport drivers to transport the crude OR pipeline crews to build pipelines to transport the crude, refining operations, etc...

The sun comes up, it shines on the panels, energy is generated and that is that.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that solar/wind/hydro is better in terms of costs and pollution. I don't know what happens to the seismologists, roughnecks, and truck drivers though. I doubt there is a 1:1 ratio of jobs in manufacturing panels, turbines, etc... let alone the re-training costs.

I hope I'm wrong...but I don't see it.

 

[Oddball]

An area 100 miles by 100 miles would power the whole of the US with present efficiency of solar panels. That can be easily achieved with paneling every roof and building in the US with panels. You seem to forget that we have vast areas like parking lots that can easily be covered with panels that would serve double purpose. And then there is agrivoltaics that would be a vast boon for the farmers.

How's Ivanpah going, Old Rockinthehead?

 

[Old Rocks]

What a joke. Solar barely makes 5.5% of the energy in Arizona, less than hydroelectric.

You are a joke. And how much was there in Arizona in 2000? The recent drop in the cost of solar panels has made it the least expensive form of new generation. And this graph shows the result;

 

[candycorn]

An area 100 miles by 100 miles would power the whole of the US with present efficiency of solar panels. That can be easily achieved with paneling every roof and building in the US with panels. You seem to forget that we have vast areas like parking lots that can easily be covered with panels that would serve double purpose. And then there is agrivoltaics that would be a vast boon for the farmers.

Well, if what you're saying is true, it would seem as though you could get 10,000 square feet with a fraction of roofs and buildings...