Renewables – solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydropower – are now 30% of total US electrical generating capacity, according to analysis of FERC’s mid-year data.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)’s latest monthly “Energy Infrastructure Update” (with data through June 30, 2024), which was reviewed by the SUN DAY Campaign, also reported that June was the 10th month in a row in which solar was the largest source of new capacity. That puts solar on track to become the US’s second-largest source of capacity – behind only natural gas – within three years.
FERC says renewables were 99% of new generating capacity in June and 91% in H1 2024. 37 “units” of solar totaling 2,192 megawatts (MW) were placed into service in June along with one unit of hydropower (34 MW). Combined, they accounted for 98.9% of all new generating capacity added during the month. Natural gas and oil provided the balance: 20 MW and 5 MW, respectively. (Generating capacity is not the same as actual generation.)
During the first half of 2024, solar and wind added 13,072 MW and 2,129 MW, respectively. Combined with 212 MW of hydropower and 3 MW of biomass, renewables were 91.2% of capacity added. The balance consisted of the 1,100 Vogtle-4 nuclear reactor in Georgia plus 369 MW of gas, 11-MW of oil, and 3-MW of “other.”
Solar was 97% of new capacity in June and 77% during H1 2024. The new solar capacity added in the first half of 2024 was more than double the solar capacity (6,446 MW) added year-over-year. Solar accounted for 77.4% of all new generation placed into service in the first half of 2024.
New wind capacity in the same period accounted for most of the balance – 12.6% – which was slightly less than that added year-over-year (2,761 MW).
In June alone, solar comprised 97.4% of all new capacity added, followed by hydropower (1.5%). Solar has now been the largest source of new generating capacity for ten months straight: September 2023 – June 2024. For seven of those 10 months, wind took second place.
Solar plus wind are now more than a one-fifth of US generating capacity. The combined capacities of just solar and wind now constitute more than 20.7% of the US’s total available installed utility-scale generating capacity.
However, a third or more of US solar capacity is in the form of small-scale (e.g., rooftop) systems that isn’t reflected in FERC’s renewables data. Including that additional solar capacity would bring the share provided by solar + wind closer to a quarter of the US’s total.
Solar’s share of US generating capacity advances it to fourth place. The latest capacity additions have brought solar’s share of total available installed utility-scale (that is, >1 MW) generating capacity up to 9%, further expanding its lead over hydropower (7.8%). Wind is currently at 11.8%. With the inclusion of biomass (1.1%) and geothermal (0.3%), renewables now claim a 30% share of total US utility-scale generating capacity.
Installed utility-scale solar has now moved into fourth place – behind natural gas (43.3%), coal (15.8%), and wind – for its share of generating capacity after having recently surpassed that of nuclear power (8%).
Solar will soon become the second largest source of US generating capacity. FERC reports that net “high probability” additions of solar between July 2024 and June 2027 total 88,526 MW – an amount almost four times the forecast net “high probability” additions for wind (23,851 MW), the second fastest growing resource.
FERC also foresees growth for hydropower (1,240 MW), geothermal (400 MW), and biomass (90 MW). There’s no new nuclear capacity in FERC’s three-year forecast, and coal, natural gas, and oil are projected to contract by 20,542 MW, 3,106 MW, and 1,629 MW, respectively.
If FERC’s current “high probability” additions materialize, by July 1, 2027, solar will account for more than one-seventh (14.8%) of the nation’s installed utility-scale generating capacity. That would be greater than either coal (13.3%) or wind (12.7%), and substantially more than either nuclear power (7.5%) or hydropower (7.4%). That means the installed capacity of utility-scale solar would move into the No. 2 spot behind natural gas (40.3%).
Meanwhile, the mix of all renewables would account for 36.3% of total available installed utility-scale generating capacity – rapidly approaching that of natural gas – with solar and wind constituting more than three-quarters of the installed renewable energy capacity.
If small-scale solar systems are taken into account, within three years, total US solar capacity is likely to approach – and very possibly surpass – 300 GW. In turn, the mix of all renewables would then exceed 40% of total installed capacity, while the share of natural gas share would drop to about 37%.
Ken Bossong, the executive director of nonprofit research and educational organization SUN DAY Campaign, said:
With each passing month, renewables – led by solar – expand their contribution to the nation’s electrical capacity.
Growing from just a fraction of one percent a decade ago, solar is now nearly a tenth of US utility-scale generating capacity and poised to reach 15% within three years.
Read more: US power grid boosts capacity by 20.2 GW in the first half of 2024
To limit power outages and make your home more resilient, consider going solar with a battery storage system. In order to find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla has launched a new accessory enabling you to “Macgyver” a couple of power outlets from the Cybertruck’s charge port.
It appears to be designed for the new cheaper Cybertruck, which doesn’t have power outlets in its bed.
Earlier this week, Tesla launched the Cybertruck Long Range RWD: a new, cheaper, and badly nerfed version of the electric pickup truck.
The new version is extremely disappointing as it is $9,000 more expensive than the Cybertruck RWD was supposed to be, and while it has more range than originally planned, Tesla has removed a ton of features, including some important ones.
Here’s what you lose with the Cybertruck RWD:
- You get a single motor RWD instead of Dual Motor AWD
- You lose the adaptive air suspension
- No motorized tonneau, but you have an optional $750 soft tonneau
- Textile seats instead of vegan leather
- Fewer speakers
- No rear screen for the backseat
- No power outlets in the bed
The last one has been pretty disappointing, as it can’t be that expensive to include, and Tesla is basically removing $20,000 worth of features for only a $10,000 difference with the Dual Motor Cybertruck.
But the automaker appears to have come up with a partial solution.
Tesla has launched a $80 ‘Powershare Outlet Adapter’ on its online store:
When combined with Tesla’s Gen 3 Mobile Connector plugged into the Cybertruck’s charge port, it gives you two 120V 20A power outlets.
Tesla describes the product:
Powershare Outlet Adapter allows you to power electronic devices using Mobile Connector and your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s battery. To use this adapter, plug Mobile Connector’s handle into your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s charge port and connect the adapter to the other end of your Mobile Connector. You can then use this adapter to plug in any compatible electronic device you want to power.
For now, Tesla says that this only works for the Cybertruck and you have to buy the $300 mobile charging connector, which doesn’t come with the truck.
Electrek’s Take
I guess it’s better than nothing, but I’m still super disappointed in the new trim. It makes no sense right now.
Not only you lose the 2x 120V, 1x 240V outlets in the bed, but you also lose the 2x 120V outlets in the cabin. Now, you can can pay $380 to have a “Macgyver” solution for 2 120V outlets in the back.
I’m convinced that Tesla designed this trim simply to make the $80,000 Cybertruck AWD look better value-wise.
It looks like Tesla took out about $20,000 worth of features while giving buyers only a $10,000 discount.
It’s just the latest example of Tesla losing its edge.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
The International Maritime Organization, a UN agency which regulates maritime transport, has voted to implement a global cap on carbon emissions from ocean shipping and a penalty on entities that exceed that limit.
After a weeklong meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO and decades of talks, countries have voted to implement binding carbon reduction targets including a gradually-reducing cap on emissions and associated penalties for exceeding that cap.
Previously, the IMO made another significant environmental move when it transitioned the entire shipping industry to lower-sulfur fuels in 2020, moving towards improving a longstanding issue with large ships outputting extremely high levels of sulfur dioxide emissions, which harm human health and cause acid rain.
Today’s agreement makes the shipping industry the first sector to agree on an internationally mandated target to reduce emissions along with a global carbon price.
The agreement includes standards for greenhouse gas intensity from maritime shipping fuels, with those standards starting in 2028 and reducing through 2035. The end goal is to reach net-zero emissions in shipping by 2050.
Companies that exceed the carbon limits set by the standard will have to pay either $100 or $380 per excess ton of emissions, depending on how much they exceed limits by. These numbers are roughly in line with the commonly-accepted social cost of carbon, which is an attempt to set the equivalent cost borne by society by every ton of carbon pollution.
Money from these penalties will be put into a fund that will reward lower-emissions ships, research into cleaner fuels, and support nations that are vulnerable to climate change.
That means that this agreement represents a global “carbon price” – an attempt to make polluters pay the costs that they shift onto everyone else by polluting.
Why carbon prices matter
The necessity of a carbon price has long been acknowledged by virtually every economist. In economic terms, pollution is called a “negative externality,” where a certain action imposes costs on a party that isn’t responsible for the action itself. That action can be thought of as a subsidy – it’s a cost imposed by the polluter that isn’t being paid by the polluter, but rather by everyone else.
Externalities distort a market because they allow certain companies to get away with cheaper costs than they should otherwise have. And a carbon price is an attempt to properly price that externality, to internalize it to the polluter in question, so that they are no longer being subsidized by everyone else’s lungs. This also incentivizes carbon reductions, because if you can make something more cleanly, you can make it more cheaply.
Many people have suggested implementing a carbon price, including former republican leadership (before the party forgot literally everything about how economics works), but political leadership has been hesitant to do what’s needed because it fears the inevitable political backlash driven by well-funded propaganda entities in the oil industry.
For that reason, most carbon pricing schemes have focused on industrial processes, rather than consumer goods. This is currently happening in Canada, which recently (unwisely) retreated from its consumer carbon price but still maintains a price on the largest polluters in the oil industry.
But until today’s agreement by the IMO, there had been no global agreement of the same in any industry. There are single-country carbon prices, and international agreements between certain countries or subnational entities, often in the form of “cap-and-trade” agreements which implement penalties, and where companies that reduce emissions earn credits that they can then sell to companies that exceed limits (California has a similar program in partnership with with Quebec), but no previous global carbon price in any industry.
Carbon prices opposed by enemies of life on Earth
Unsurprisingly, entities that favor destruction of life on Earth, such as the oil industry and those representing it (Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the bought-and-paid oil stooge who is illegally squatting in the US Oval Office), opposed these measures, claiming they would be “unworkable.”
Meanwhile, island nations whose entire existence is threatened by climate change (along with the ~2 billion people who will have to relocate by the end of the century due to rising seas) correctly said that the move isn’t strong enough, and that even stronger action is needed to avoid the worse effects of climate change.
The island nations’ position is backed by science, the oil companies’ position is not.
While these new standards are historic and need to be lauded as the first agreement of their kind, there is still more work to be done and incentives that need to be offered to ensure that greener technologies are available to help fulfill the targets. Jesse Fahnestock, Director of Decarbonisation at the Global Maritime Forum, said:
While the targets are a step forward, they will need to be improved if they are to drive the rapid fuel shift that will enable the maritime sector to reach net zero by 2050. While we applaud the progress made, meeting the targets will require immediate and decisive investments in green fuel technology and infrastructure. The IMO will have opportunities to make these regulations more impactful over time, and national and regional policies also need to prioritise scalable e-fuels and the infrastructure needed for long-term decarbonisation.
One potential solution could be IMO’s “green corridors,” attempts to establish net-zero-emission shipping routes well in advance of the IMO’s 2050 net-zero target.
And, of course, this is only one industry, and one with a relatively low contribution to global emissions. While the vast majority of global goods are shipped over the ocean, it’s still responsible for only around 3% of global emissions. To see the large emissions reductions we need to avoid the worst effects of climate change, other more-polluting sectors – like automotive, agriculture (specifically animal agriculture), construction and heating – all could use their own carbon price to help add a forcing factor to drive down their emissions.
Lets hope that the IMO’s move sets that example, and we see more of these industries doing the right thing going forward (and ignoring those enemies of life on Earth listed above).
The agreement still has to go through a final step of approval on October, but this looks likely to happen.
Even without a carbon price, many homeowners can save money on their electricity bills today by going solar. And if you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here. – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
In the Electrek Podcast, we discuss the most popular news in the world of sustainable transport and energy. In this week’s episode, we discuss the new Tesla Cybertruck RWD, more tariff mayhem, Lucid buying Nikola, and more.
The show is live every Friday at 4 p.m. ET on Electrek’s YouTube channel.
As a reminder, we’ll have an accompanying post, like this one, on the site with an embedded link to the live stream. Head to the YouTube channel to get your questions and comments in.
After the show ends at around 5 p.m. ET, the video will be archived on YouTube and the audio on all your favorite podcast apps:
We now have a Patreon if you want to help us avoid more ads and invest more in our content. We have some awesome gifts for our Patreons and more coming.
Here are a few of the articles that we will discuss during the podcast:
Here’s the live stream for today’s episode starting at 4:00 p.m. ET (or the video after 5 p.m. ET):
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway