US electrical generation future

US environmentalists are starting to reconsider their nuclear negativism. If they say fossil fuels are instant death to society, which they do, then that suggests we need to re- embrace nuclear, to the extent wind/solar is not the total answer.

In the East Coast, we are not being told off-shore wind is expensive, or about rare earth metals issues or anything like that. We are told wind energy is 100% green and is far cheaper than fossil fuels and getting cheaper every day. We are told offshsore wind energy costs a few pennies extra per month on the bill. There is huge interest in pursuing off-shore wind because the states view electric generation as a state-owned business that they run, and want to take the lead, and they feel he who hesitates will lose the economic windfall. Also it is a win-win for utilities because of the state-run monopoly system we have in most states, the utilities are guaranteed to recover all construction costs as well as a huge profit margin.

In short, get out your pocketbooks for ultra-expensive future nuclear and/or offshore wind, and @Salamander_King has questionable long term fuel cost savings for his Prime, which is already not working out. But I would like to be the king of the salamanders, I must admit.

 

What are those bar graph in negative territories indicating? It seems to be "Retirement" categories, but what does that mean? Do you need to use that amount of gigawatt energy to decommission the facility or what?

 

Water.
There are a lot more potential sites for pumped water energy storage out there than previously believed, and the DOE is funding new research and projects for it. One project involves pumping water until under pressure into rock formations. So pumped water energy storage may even work in flat areas, and there is more than the 530k potential sites the Australian survey found.
Pumped Hydro Energy Storage Poised For Global Domination | CleanTechnica
US Energy Storage Solution: Giant Coal-Killing Water Batteries | CleanTechnica

As for the predicted decline for wind and rise of solar, well, wind is expanding fast now, and there are a limit of suitable sites. plus, it isn't as easy for individual home owners to do as solar, which is probably the main reason for its growth.

The graph is a measure of energy production amounts being retired and brought online. So 10 GW of coal in the negative side means that the coal plants closed that year had a total production capacity of 10 GW

It isn't showing the total generation capacity, which is about 1,200 gigawatts. This is the total amount the US could make at any given moment. We used 4.178 million GWh in 2018.
What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

 

the future of energy production is going to be expensive. vs the end of the world as we know it, or, fixing the problems after they occur.

how does all that compare to the cost of current energy, if you took fossil fuel subsidies away?

 

Thanks for the explanation. I was confused with negative bars, but those are retired (or will be retiring) during that year but production is still positive numbers then.

 

Yeah, the chart is just showing what plant types are being brought on line and which off; note some have both happening in some years. It is shifts of 40 to -25 GW among a total of about 1,200.