Pulling a few things over from the other place.
"209 out of 210 existing U.S. coal plants are now more expensive to run compared to replacement by new cheaper wind or solar energy in the same region."
🔌💡
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2023/01/30/99-of-us-coal-plants-are-more-expensive-than-new-renewables-a-coal-to-clean-transition-is-worth-589-billion-mostly-in-red-states/?sh=c2b19e225104
"209 out of 210 existing U.S. coal plants are now more expensive to run compared to replacement by new cheaper wind or solar energy in the same region."
🔌💡
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2023/01/30/99-of-us-coal-plants-are-more-expensive-than-new-renewables-a-coal-to-clean-transition-is-worth-589-billion-mostly-in-red-states/?sh=c2b19e225104
Comments
But if it is back to the beginning, let's try it this way:
Shop A is run by Robert Millikan, and he can make electrons out of dust bunnies, paperclips, and stray drops of oil.
But Prof Millikan's shop is only open 8 am-6pm, because he has to have time for eugenics.
Still, very low cost of goods.
Any particular generating unit will have some scheduled down time for maintenance and occasional unscheduled down time when something breaks. Neither is likely to be correlated with other units so coal can provide 100% of a region's electricity year-round if needed.
🔌💡
https://energyinnovation.org/report/the-coal-cost-crossover-3-0/
The capacity factor of coal-fired electricity generation in the US fell from 60% to 42% in the decade up to 2023. It will certainly be lower this year.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_a