Wind and solar are booming, but emissions aren't falling
By: Benjamin Storrow (EE News)
Tell us again what the transition to wind and solar generation is supposed to accomplish. Wind and solar now accounts for 14 pct of electricity generation in the United States. There's been a lot of money thrown around. But CO² emissions aren't falling.
Is green energy supposed to be about money or the environment? Politicians pat themselves on the back for the money being spent. The news media hypes the money being spent. There's been a lot of reporting about new gadgets and gizmos people can buy. But no one has been talking about progress in reducing emissions. The only environmental news we get consists of dire predictions and demands that we do more.
So, tell us again, what's the point?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Wind and solar generation surged 22 percent through the first nine months of the year, building on a period of record-breaking renewable energy installations last year.
The growth has helped fill a gap in electricity production created by the falling use of coal, which is down 8 percent through September.
But emissions impact of the renewable boom has been blunted by the growth of natural gas generation, which is up 7 percent, and falling output from nuclear facilities.
EPA figures show power sector emissions were down 1 percent through the first half of the year.
A big question is whether the United States can sustain the growth in renewable generation. The climate and health bill passed by Congress in August will direct nearly $370 billion to low emission projects over the next decade. But renewable energy developers face growing headwinds from the economic downturn, supply chain bottlenecks and transmission constraints.
"I think the question going forward is are we going to have the transmission capacity to really continue to make gains in solar and wind," said Harrison Fell, a researcher at Columbia University's Center for Global Energy Policy. "We're seeing the interconnect queues grow and grow and grow. That's not slowing down. Having a roadblock thrown in permitting reform is not helping."
A recent report from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory underlined that point. It found that 674 gigawatts of utility-scale solar was waiting to connect to the grid in transmission queues around the country. That is roughly ten times the amount of solar installed in the United States to date.
For now, renewable energy growth continues. Utility-scale solar installations produced 104 terawatt-hours of electricity through September, a 30 percent increase over the same time last year, according to an E&E News analysis of U.S. Energy Information Administration data. Solar generation has more than doubled since 2019, when the industry generated 51 TWh through the first nine months of the year.
Wind generation was nearly 325 TWh through the first three quarters of this year, a 19 percent increase over that time period in 2021 and a 53 percent rise since 2019. Wind and solar now account for roughly 14 percent of U.S. power generation.
The growth follows a year in which the United States installed record amounts of renewable capacity — about 17 GW of wind capacity and 15.5 GW of solar, according to EIA data. That pace has slowed in 2022, as developers contend with supply chain bottlenecks.
Over the first six months of this year, the United States installed 5.2 GW of wind capacity and 4.2 GW of solar, EIA said. The agency is still predicting a boom in installments for the second half of the year, with 13.6 GW of solar and 6 GW of wind.
But many power industry analysts are skeptical of those numbers. Inflation, supply chain bottlenecks and policy decisions, like the Commerce Department solar tariff investigation, could push 2022 installations below 2021 levels, said Marcelo Ortega, an analyst who tracks the sector at Rystad Energy. He projected 8 GW of new wind capacity and 10 to 15 GW of solar for 2022.
The longer-term picture also remains challenging. While federal tax credits are a boost to new installations, grid operators are struggling to keep up with the wave of renewable energy applications for connecting to the grid. That represents a sea change from the past, when grid operators normally only needed to evaluate a handful of large fossil fuel interconnection requests, Ortega said.
"This is not currently a major threat in the short term but in 2024 and 2025 backlogs of interconnection studies will start choking incoming capacity," Ortega wrote in an email.
Total power demand in the United States is up 4 percent through the first three quarters of the year. Gas generation has grown the most in real terms, rising from almost 1,098 TWh last year to 1,186 TWh this year.
The growth in gas demand has coincided with dropping coal generation, which fell from 720 TWh last year to 660 TWh this year. Mining output has remained depressed despite an uptick in gas prices (Climatewire, Sept. 20).
Nuclear, meanwhile, continues its gradual decline, as production fell from 590 TWh last year to 585 TWh this year. The Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan ceased operations in May, though the plant was recently sold and Michigan officials have expressed hope it could be reopened (Energywire, Sept. 12).
Some 4.7 GW of nuclear capacity has been retired since 2017, according to EIA.
The net result is slightly falling greenhouse gases. Power plant carbon dioxide emissions through the first half of the year were 794 million tons, compared to 801 million tons during the first six months of 2021, according to EPA figures.
Tags
Who is online
89 visitors
Does the government really need another excuse to spend money? Does the stock market really need another excuse to float a scam? Do we really need another excuse to buy the latest technical marvel?
Tell us again what we're supposed to accomplish with solar and wind power.
Once again you are being disingenuous.
Your pretzel logic on this subject is well documented.
Just more of the same fossil fuel industry propaganda.
So, EPA is lying about emission reductions? The reality-impaired will throw anybody under the bus, it seems.
I wonder if people said the same thing about automobiles and airplanes when they were first introduced?
Supplement energy sources to other primary sources, a decrease on the demand for primary energy sources and the pollution associated with them, and increasing the longevity of primary fuel sources.
Gee, I thought wind and solar was supposed to reduce carbon emissions. Who knew they were only intended to increase consumption. Of course, everyone to should understand how wind and solar allow politicians to score political points.
They do not generate carbon emissions. They help reduce the need/consumption of fuels which do create carbon emissions. Less need/use of fuels means less emissions. If people think alt energy sources magically decreases emissions on their own, they are woefully ignorant and/or misinformed.
Maybe everyone should understand how wind/solar actually works and how it affects overall energy production and pollutants in the long term!
Of course, everyone to should understand how wind and solar allow politicians to score political points.
That is true about every issue in politics. In politics, it does not matter if the validity of an existing issue has been overcome by events. All that matters is playing the game safely enough to prevent an opponent from gaining a hot sound bite at your expense. As a perfect example I point to the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). This horribly outdated and poorly written legislation is no where near being relevant to the current state of disabilities and tools to aid them, but what politician has the balls to modernize this federal legislation? It only opens the door to an opponent airing a 20 second ad that ends with “why does my opponent want to take away the rights of the disabled?” The ADA design flaws are far too complicated for a layman conversation, and far too easy to use as a political weapon - and for that reason they will never change.
Except the data doesn't support that contention. We've converted 14 pct of electricity generation to wind and solar but carbon emissions from electricity generation has fallen 1 pct. The data really does show that electricity consumption is increasing as wind and solar is being installed.
If wind and solar don't magically decrease emissions on their own then what's the point? We've been told that wind and solar are needed because they don't emit carbon. We've been told that replacing fossil fuel generation with wind and solar would reduce emissions. What we've been told has not been nuanced.
According to your own source, there is still a lot of solar utilities that is not connected to the grid. That means it's not being fully utilized to have an effect. Your source also affirms a small decline in emissions too. So yes, that actually does support my statement. The problem here is not the renewables themselves, but rather the bureaucratic red tape surrounding them and the insufficiency of the power grid to utilize them most effectively. As these issues are resolved, then the benefits of alt energy sources will become more prominent.
Who's been telling you that? Yes, wind/solar does not emit pollution. But Wind and solar do not magically remove pollutants from the environment nor cause regular fuel sources from polluting either. If that 14% of power generation was not from wind/solar, the power demand would likely be met from regular sources. Increased demand, consumption, and generation from regular sources will produce increased pollution. That's just common sense. Wind and solar is still a small % of total power generation and usage in this country. So it's effect is also going to be small. I'm not sure what you are expecting to happen? Especially in the short term.
I hate those windmills. They are so damn ugly. All they do is pollute the beautiful Michigan scenery.
And kill thousands of birds. Wind and solar will NEVER be RELIABLE sources of energy.
They will ALWAYS require ONLINE and ready to go backup , especially during our long Northern winters.
Most people find smokestacks belching smoke to be ugly and polluting of the scenery.
Only folk bought and sold by the fossil fuel industry think differently.
I don't like them either. How many do you see driving across the nation? Those ugly windmills are everywhere and don't produce enough energy to make toast.
Natural gas burning doesn't generate smoke
From cradle to grave natural gas pollutes just as much as coal and oil.
No, it does not.
Wind and solar will never meet the demand.
Coal, fuel oil, and NG for heating will always be with us. As will as oil for lubrication, and.....the petroleum products to fuel millions and millions of cars, trucks, farm and other heavy equipment, rail locomotives, airplanes of all sorts, and ships of all sizes....for the foreseeable future
Given a choice, the government seems to always back the wrong one. A vertical axis turbine would be more efficient and easier to maintain and operate. And a vertical turbine addresses the issues with birds. IMO vertical turbines would be more aesthetically acceptable than the horizontal pinwheel turbines being installed.
Why do wind turbines have to be white? Seems like a little color would make them less obtrusive.
I agree on the superiority of vertical axis windmills.
In Europe the bases of many windmills are painted to match the surrounding terrain.
White or gray turbines, however, tend to match the sky better.
Maybe paint them to match the surrounding scenery? Perhaps some colored lights attached to the tips of the blades so it looks a little more dazzling, especially at night?
Yeah, why aren't wind turbines painted to match the surrounding scenery? Does adding color cost too much?
Turbines are already lighted. That's a requirement for warning air traffic. Anyone living around wind turbines know that. (Note the date on the article.)
I would not be surprised if cost was a factor.
I'm not talking about lights on top of the turbines. I said lights on the tips of the fan blades. It would be like waving a sparkler around.
Increasing consumption as a solution? And light pollution isn't a concern?
It was an idea for aesthetics, like painting the turbine. I didn't say it was going to be feasible or practical.
God, if only we could replace them with coal fire plants and that lovely black smoke...
Be better just not replace them.
The green lie:
That renewable energy sources can completely replace fossil/nuclear power.
Never happen
It has already happened in many places.
Bullshit, few if any major urban areas can say that
You obviously need to do a little more research.
No, I don’t but you do.
Who said that? Of course it can't replace other primary fuel sources, possibly depending on location. But it does supplement them so primary fuels are not used as much, thereby increasing their long term supply and decreasing long term pollution.
See 3.1 above.