Power Generation from Coal Soaring in 2021

**cancel2 2022** · 10-20-2021, 11:43 AM

.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration recently released their latest Monthly Energy Review which provides data on the energy situation of the United States for the first six months of 2021. One interesting piece of data in the report is that electricity generation in the United States from coal production is way up this year. Besides coal, wind and solar continue to rapidly increase in percentage terms.

Overall, electricity generation is up 4 percent comparing January through June of 2020 to 2021. The biggest factor has been the increase in electricity generation from coal. Coal is up an impressive 35 percent while the higher price of natural gas has led to less natural gas production. Hydro is down 13 because of drought in the West. Solar and wind continue substantial increases in percentage terms.

The increase for coal is even more impressive when seen in terms of million kWh generated:

Here’s one more chart showing the electricity generation by sources. So far this year, coal is producing over 22 percent of the electricity generation on the grid with natural gas contributing an additional 36 percent. These carbon dioxide-emitting sources have powered over 58 percent of the electricity so far in 2021. It is important to note that President Biden wants an electric grid that with net-zero carbon dioxide emission by 2035. This chart shows the incredible difficulty in achieving that goal.

Wind and solar generation are indeed growing and will continue to do so. For the first six months of 2021, solar accounted for 2.9 percent of electricity generation and wind contributed 9.7 percent.

While coal generation is up compared to 2020, coal generation was higher in 2019. However, given even higher natural gas prices and continuing drought in the West, it is possible that total coal generation in 2021 will surpass generation in 2019.

Conclusion

While renewables get all the hype, it’s important to note that over 1/5 of total electricity generation still comes from coal and coal will likely play a very important part of keeping the lights on for years to come.

https://www.instituteforenergyresear...aring-in-2021/

**anatta** · 10-20-2021, 11:54 AM

I think I heard we are about 85% dependent on fossil fuels for energy
no way renewables can replace that

**cancel2 2022** · 10-20-2021, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by anatta

I think I heard we are about 85% dependent on fossil fuels for energy
no way renewables can replace that

California could go a long way down that road if they implemented this, sadly there are way too many arseholes deciding policy.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...97#post4461097

**cancel2 2022** · 10-22-2021, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by Primavera

California could go a long way down that road if they implemented this, sadly there are way too many arseholes deciding policy.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...97#post4461097

.

**T. A. Gardner** · 10-22-2021, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by anatta

I think I heard we are about 85% dependent on fossil fuels for energy
no way renewables can replace that

That's pretty much the case. "Renewables" are not sufficiently reliable and stable enough to use for base loading of the grid. You need a stable and continuous output for that. Base loading consists of about 70 to 80% of the load on a system, the other 20 to 30% is variable.

The problem with solar (in particular) and wind is neither can be relied on to always pump out a certain amount of power. Solar is the worst as it can only generate power for about 12 hours or less a day. That means that capacity has to be matched by some other system like natural gas the other half (or more) of the time. This in turn means you are constructing twice the necessary capacity, duplicating generation and having half that capacity idle half or more of the time.

That whole scenario is just idiotic.

**T. A. Gardner** · 10-22-2021, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by Primavera

California could go a long way down that road if they implemented this, sadly there are way too many arseholes deciding policy.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...97#post4461097

Pumped hydro is not a good way to go.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/

**cancel2 2022** · 10-23-2021, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

Pumped hydro is not a good way to go.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/

It is in this case, if you read the report prepared by the late genius that was Roger Andrews you'd agree as well.

The white spot on the Figure that depicts the dam does, however, give a false impression of size. The dam looks tiny but would actually be about 500m long and 110m high. Its cost, which scaled from the $450 million cost of the 910m x 170m Seven Oaks Dam in California should be around $300 million, would nevertheless be more than justified by the 33 TWh of energy storage capacity it adds. Certainly Tesla batteries aren’t being installed for one cent per kilowatt-hour. (Note that another ~50 TWh could be added to Baja California’s pumped hydro potential by constructing dams in drainages elsewhere. This would significantly increase project capital costs but would still be orders of magnitude cheaper than installing an equivalent amount of battery storage.)

The narrow neck of land in the center of the area also conveniently divides the reservoir into two, with the northern portion containing 33 TWh and the southern 14 TWh. Operating them as separate entities would increase flexibility and also limit the risk of supply interruptions resulting from unplanned outages.

And how much would all this cost? The reservoir is free apart from pond liner and miscellaneous site preparation costs, which are likely to be on the order of a few billions. The pumped hydro plant(s) would have to be capable of handling California’s ~50GW anticipated maximum peak load, and factoring this by the $2,000/installed kilowatt I used in the Chile post gives ~$100 billion. But these are not big bucks by California standards, particularly when spread over a number of years (California’s economy is about the same size as the UK’s).

In summary, here we have an option that in theory at least will allow California’s electricity sector to go 100% renewable at tolerable cost – in fact the only one that offers any realistic chance of doing so. It’s clearly worth consideration, so why hasn’t California already considered it, or something like it?

Because California’s legislators, regulatory agencies and utilities still have no concept of how much energy storage will be needed to support a renewables-heavy grid. The “huge” Energy Storage Mandate California passed in 2013 in an attempt to get energy storage on track demonstrates this. Not only did it call for the installation of only 1.3 GW of storage – a negligible amount – it gave the target in gigawatts, not gigawatt-hours. How does one comply with an energy storage mandate that doesn’t specify how much energy storage is required? In all the consultations that followed the passage of the Mandate this key point never came up. Either no one considered it important or the consultation participants simply did not understand what energy storage is. And for as long as this situation persists the chances that California will do anything meaningful about its energy storage problem are zero.