Senior decision-makers come together to connect around strategies and business trends affecting utilities.

Post

New Solar, Wind Now Cheaper than 80% of U.S. Coal Plants

The Energy  Mix's picture
Blog posts The Energy Mix

The Energy Mix is a Canadian non-profit that promotes community awareness of, engagement in, and action on climate change, energy, and post-carbon solutions. Each week, we scan up to 1,000 news...

  • Member since 2018
  • 680 items added with 674,881 views

Renewable energy prices have fallen so far in the United States that it’s usually now cheaper for operators to replace existing coal capacity with new solar and wind investments, rather than continuing to run the coal plants, according to new analysis released last week.

“About 80% of U.S. coal plants are now more expensive to keep running than to swap out for new wind and solar capacity,” Bloomberg Green reports, citing the study by the non-partisan Energy Innovation think tank. “Prices for new wind and solar have dropped so quickly in recent years that they were already cheaper than new coal,” but “this report shows that the price differential holds true for a growing amount of existing coal, as well.”

Your access to Member Features is limited.

Coal is already in a steep, downward spiral in the U.S., with the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign estimating that 339 plants have been shut down or slated for closure by 2010, Bloomberg writes. That leaves 191 facilities whose owners and operators still haven’t got the memo—and now, it looks like a large proportion of them are taking a financial hit as a result.

“The think tank’s numbers differ slightly from the Sierra Club’s,” Bloomberg writes. “Researchers there looked at 235 existing coal plants in 2019, minus seven that were already slated for retirement, and calculated costs for fuel, operations, and ongoing capital expenses. Then they compared those figures against weighted regional averages of the cost to build wind and solar from scratch and found that 182 plants, representing 72% of existing coal generating capacity, were no longer justifiable based on the economics.”

Unlike the Sierra Club analysis, the Energy Innovation analysis “focuses narrowly on operation and construction”, leaving out the cost of decommissioning coal facilities or installing battery backup for solar and wind. But even if that makes the cost comparisons over-optimistic in some cases, they’re still a “barometer” of where the economics of coal-fired electricity are headed, said Energy Innovation Senior Fellow Eric Gimon.

Read More

The Energy  Mix's picture
Thank The Energy for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member

Discussions

Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.

No discussions yet. Start a discussion below.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »