Coal-Powered Energy Finally Overtaken by Wind and Solar in the US (electrek.co)
- Reference: 0176723699
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/25/03/15/0253253/coal-powered-energy-finally-overtaken-by-wind-and-solar-in-the-us
- Source link: https://electrek.co/2025/03/11/in-a-historic-first-wind-and-solar-combined-overtake-coal-in-the-us/
"The two renewable energy sources accounted for 17% of the country's power mix while coal fell to a low of 15%, it said."
> Solar was the fastest-growing energy source, [2]according to Ember's analysis of data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, increasing 27% from the year before, while wind rose 7%... Natural gas generation increased 3.3% in 2024, according to Ember, and remains by far the largest source of electricity in the U.S., accounting for 43% of the mix...
>
> California and Nevada both surpassed 30% annual share of solar in their electricity mix for the first time last year (32% and 30%, respectively). California's battery growth was key to its solar success. It installed 20% more battery capacity than it did solar capacity, which helped it transfer a significant share of its daytime solar to the evening. Texas installed more solar and battery capacity than even California.
>
> Yet the growth of solar was uneven — 28 states generated less than 5% of their electricity from solar in 2024, highlighting significant untapped potential — even before adding battery storage.
The article includes this observation from Dave Jones, chief analyst at Ember. "The fall in battery costs is a gamechanger for how much solar the U.S. electricity grid could integrate in the near future."
[3]Electrek notes that "After being stagnant for 14 years, electricity demand started rising in recent years and saw a 3% increase in 2024, marking the fifth-highest level of rise this century..."
> Natural gas grew three times more than the decline in coal, increasing power sector CO2 emissions slightly (0.7%). Coal fell by the second smallest amount since 2014, as gas and clean energy growth met rising electricity demand, whereas historically, they have replaced coal. Despite growing emissions, the carbon intensity of electricity continued to decline. The rise in power demand was much faster than the rise in power sector CO2 emissions, making each unit of electricity likely the cleanest it has ever been.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/wind-and-solar-overtake-coal-power-for-the-first-time-in-the-u-s-a52e9d8f
[2] https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/us-electricity-2025-special-report/
[3] https://electrek.co/2025/03/11/in-a-historic-first-wind-and-solar-combined-overtake-coal-in-the-us/
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem of turbine blades is a tiny one and greatly exaggerated. The typical weight of an entire wind turbine, blade, tower, etc. is around [200 tons](https://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/webproj/212_spring_2019/McKenna_Kimball/6559184095cb8282284d11/extra.html). Now, if you assume that a typical turbine has a life of around 10 years (which is much shorter than the norm) and that none of it is recyclable, that means that each turbine adds 200 tons of garbage every ten years, or on average about 20 tons a year.
Re: (Score:2)
> ...So this would at the very worst case scenario an increase of 1% to total waste. Since we assumed that no part of the turbine could be recycled or reused, and we assumed a very short lifespan for turbines, the true numbers are likely not remotely this high.
Even so, I'd say this is a situation where size matters. Turbine blades are huge, and probably don't stack very densely. Also, IIRC they're made of carbon-fiber, which [1]is apparently the new asbestos [newcivilengineer.com]. So we probably don't want to be cutting or breaking them into smaller pieces - at least not unless it's done under tightly controlled conditions.
De-commissioned wind turbines may end up being more of a problem than we're ready for.
[1] https://www.newcivilengineer.com/archive/carbon-fibre-dangers-compare-with-asbestos-20-07-2000/
Re: (Score:2)
If one makes a volume based estimate instead of a mass estimate, the numbers don't end up looking substantially worse. But yes, there are serious concerns about disposal, and carbon-fibers do present substantial issues in general. The argument is certainly not that the problem doesn't exist, but that it is proportionally small.
Re: (Score:3)
Still, it would be possible, surely, to simply put the wind turbine in a furnace that vaporized it at thousands of degrees C and just put the whole thing into the air as gas.
Because that's what the competition does, every day, with their fuel. So that's really a fair comparison.
It took some time to find the numbers and do conversions. At 7000 cf/MWh, a gas plant burns through 165 kg of methane for each MWh, so 827 kg/hour to displace a 5 MW wind turbine. About 20 tonnes of natural gas per day.
Every ten
Re: (Score:2)
I hate it when people cite YouTube as a source, as if it is somehow authoritative.
Re: (Score:2)
Even more fun, the video they linked to explicitly says that the problem is "overstated and overblown" so it looks like they didn't even watch their own link.
Re: (Score:2)
Good catch, there's no way I was going to watch the video either! Too much time wasted, you can't scan through a video.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is arguing that wind turbines don't involve some amount of garbage. But the amount is what matters. In that context, actually responding to that would be helpful, and maybe not trying to use as a source a link just showing that used wind turbine blades exist. For that matter, you might want to note that your own first source literally said this was an overblown problem, so I have to wonder if you are looking at your own sources at all.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, you are just repeating yourself, and aren't saying anything substantial. Nor have you addressed the explicit response to your first comment which gave actual numbers. Apparently you prefer looking at pretty pictures to actually making numerical estimates.
Re: (Score:2)
Microplastics are a real problem. They aren't from wind turbines, which are largely carbon-composites. Microplastics come from all sorts of plastic things, food containers, disposable plastic devices, children's toys, plastic packaging etc. That you want to somehow blame that on wind turbines just shows that you are more interested for some weird ideological or emotional reasons in finding problems with wind turbines then any serious attempt to understand the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Your attempted evidence is to "Wind Watch," which like you, is a dedicated and exists primarily to hate wind power, regardless of the actual evidence. Meanwhile, you are also confusing bisphenol A emissions with microplastics, which are different problems. You may be confused, because some microplastics can leach bisphenol A but that wasn't what the last link in your prior comment was about. [1]https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/sources-effect-microplastics-humans-animals-environment.php [conserve-e...future.com] has a good introdu
[1] https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/sources-effect-microplastics-humans-animals-environment.php
Re: (Score:2)
Depends what you consider more harmful: Used blades which can be controlled and accounted for as opposed to greenhouse gases, soot (particulates), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, etc. that disperse over an area that cannot be controlled.
Re:Only one issue still remains... (Score:4, Insightful)
> that needs to be addressed before we continue to deploy this technology
Nobody seems to give a shit about the environmental issues with coal, which are objectively worse in every way, so why start now?
Perfect is the enemy of better.
Also, did you actually watch the video that you linked? 1:50 "All that is to say; the problem is overstated, and it's overblown." She then spends the rest of the video explaining the problem (including how the reason they're hard to recycle is because they're built to last) and how it's being addressed. Not the damning indictment of wind power you seem to hope it is.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:1)
Cool. give these a shot... [1]https://www.texasmonthly.com/n... [texasmonthly.com] -- [2]https://www.lombardodier.com/c... [lombardodier.com] -- [3]https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com] -- [4]https://www.wind-watch.org/new... [wind-watch.org] -- [5]https://www.gettyimages.com/se... [gettyimages.com] (Continue to deny the reality that is staring you in the face... You'll be eating and breathing this shit for centuries. As you say its "Built to last" LOL!)
[1] https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/sweetwater-wind-turbine-blades-dump/
[2] https://www.lombardodier.com/contents/corporate-news/ft-rethink/2022/may/from-landfill-to-a-new-life-deal.html
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills
[4] https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2022/02/28/graveyard-of-the-green-giants/
[5] https://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?phrase=wind+turbine+blade+landfill
Re: (Score:2)
A solar panel is mostly glass, aluminium and sand. Just stockpile and eventually machines to delaminate them will be affordable. Same with turbines. The solutions are trivial, they just require scale to be economical. Yards of turbine blades and bases is a good thing, once a mobile grinder gets build you can cart it around the country and chop it all up. Problem solved.
Great but (Score:2)
Energy prices keep going up. We were told these renewable sources would be cheaper by now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> Energy prices keep going up. We were told these renewable sources would be cheaper by now.
They do lower energy prices for the simple reason that the cost of mining wind and sunlight remains rock steady at $0.0 per MWh. However, transmission and distribution costs have increased because operators have dragged their hells on grid upgrades and expansions, fossil fuel energy sources like natural gas are still in the mix meaning that whenever somebody in the Middle East celebrates a wedding by emptying an AK-47 mag into the air the cost of fossil fuels rockets up, Putin's little history revision proj
why is everyone ignoring natural gas? (Score:2)
I read this
> "The two renewable energy sources accounted for 17% of the country's power mix while coal fell to a low of 15%,
and thought "wait, 15+17 isn't even a THIRD of 100%, where's the rest of it?"
LNG makes up a huge chunk of the rest of that 100% of course. We still have a really long way to go before get hydrocarbons down to even 50% of what we use.
It's a finite resource taken from the ground just as coal or oil is. I don't understand how natural gas (usually "liquefied natural gas" or LNG) is flying
Impose tarrifs on "renewable energy". (Score:2)
Coming soon from a soot-coated White House : Trump will be imposing a 1,000,000% (ONE MILLOIN PERCENT) tariff on those freeloading Solarians exporting their energy to the US for use in US "solar" (a mis-spelling for "treasonable") or "wind" (a mis-spelling for "treacherous") power plants. In a move certain (?) to be welcomed by US coal producers (and Trump supporters), the tariff will only raise the costs of energy in the USA, but the money raised will go into tax cuts for those who have contributed $100 mi
Re: (Score:2)
No politician lives forever. Even Trump can't (permanently) stop the decline in prices for wind and solar, and even Trump can't prop up the economics of coal forever. Despite his best efforts in his first term, coal declined and green energy made gains. The economic reality is too much for a skeptical President and party to overcome.