Wind, solar provide 67% of new US electrical generating capacity in first half of 2022...

[bruce bowser]

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 2:11:21 PM UTC-4, Unum wrote win alt.global-warming:

https://electrek.co/2022/08/15/wind-solar-provide-67-of-new-us-electrical-generating-capacity-in-first-half-of-2022/

Clean energy accounted for more than two-thirds of the new US electrical
generating capacity added during the first six months of 2022, according to
data recently released by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)..

Wind (5,722 megawatts) and solar (3,895 MW) provided 67.01% of the 14,352 MW
in utility-scale (that is, greater than 1 MW) capacity that came online during
the first half of 2022.

Additional capacity was provided by geothermal (26 MW), hydropower (7 MW), and
biomass (2 MW). The balance came from natural gas (4,695 MW) and oil (5 MW).
No new capacity was reported for 2022 from either nuclear power or coal.

This brings clean energy’s share of total US available installed generating
capacity up to 26.74%. To put that in perspective, five years ago, clean
energy’s share was 19.7%. Ten years ago, it was 14.76%.

FERC reports that there may be as much as 192,507 MW of new solar capacity on
the way, with 66,315 MW classified as “high-probability” additions and no
offsetting “retirements.”

The “high-probability” additions alone would nearly double utility-scale
solar’s current installed capacity of 74,530 MW, while successful completion
of all expected projects would nearly quadruple it.

Notably, FERC’s forecast predates President Joe Biden signing into law the
Inflation Reduction Act, and that will likely ramp up solar growth even more.

Aww, Joe Manchin Republicans sink deeper and deeper.

 

[Peter W.]

The problem remains that unsubsidized solar is a poor investment as compared to wind. And about on-par with nuclear. Nuclear, well-executed of course, is also very clean and has a much smaller footprint per megawatt than solar.

2.5 acres-per-MW for solar.
0.84 acres per MW for nuclear.
Wind turbines take up negligible land, but must be placed so far apart that the allowance is very roughly 16 acres-per-turbine. All of which may be farmed, or forested, or used for recreation. Or, even lived in.

As to disposing of nuclear waste, that is purely, only and entirely a matter of political will. There are over 1500 underground nuclear test sites in Nevada that will be dangerous for well over 500 years, and \'hot\' for much longer than that. Each one of which has a diameter somewhere at/greater than 75 meters. Consider how much volume even one such cavity will hold.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA