Solar and battery to make up 81% of new US electric-generating capacity in 2024
Solar and battery projects are expected to make up the vast majority of new U.S. electric-generating capacity in 2024, prompting debate over how meaningful this is given that renewables still form a minority of total generation and nameplate capacity overstates their actual output. Commenters examine capacity factors, the growing role and business case for grid-scale batteries, and how storage, transmission, and demand management enable higher renewable penetration. There is sustained argument over nuclear power’s future versus rapidly falling costs for solar and wind, with many concluding that a diversified mix is needed but that large new nuclear builds look increasingly uneconomic compared with renewables plus storage.
Scope of the headline: “new” capacity vs existing mix
- Multiple commenters stress the 81% figure refers only to new US electric-generating capacity in 2024, not total capacity or generation.
- Renewables are still a minority of total US electric output; gas dominates, with wind and hydro larger than solar so far.
Solar, batteries, and how capacity is counted
- Batteries don’t generate electricity; they store it. Several people find it misleading to lump “battery MW” with “generation capacity.”
- Defenders argue batteries behave as both load and generator from a grid-operations perspective, so tracking their power rating alongside generators is useful.
- Confusion over units (MW vs MWh) is noted; many grid-scale batteries provide only 2–6 hours of storage.
Capacity factor, nameplate rating, and economics
- Repeated reminder that “nameplate” MW is not comparable across sources because capacity factors differ: nuclear ~80–90%, wind/hydro ~0.36, US utility PV ~0.24+ (higher in sunny areas).
- Some accuse articles of cherry-picking by focusing on nameplate capacity; others say capacity reporting is standard and not nefarious.
- Economics heavily favor new solar and wind over coal and, in many places, over new nuclear; coal is often uneconomic vs new renewables.
Land use, transmission, and siting
- One side claims solar can’t scale due to land constraints; others counter with calculations showing required land is manageable, especially vs biofuels like corn ethanol.
- Local generation with solar+batteries may beat long-distance transmission in cost; long lines are expensive and politically hard.
- Deserts and farmland use are debated, including ecological impacts on desert ecosystems.
Batteries: roles and profitability
- Main current roles: arbitrage between cheap and expensive hours and especially ancillary services (frequency regulation, ramping).
- In markets like Texas and Australia, grid batteries are reportedly profitable, though revenue from ancillary services may decline as more storage is built.
- Lifetime, degradation, and future recycling are discussed; many expect cheaper, more durable, and more diverse chemistries (lithium, sodium, flow, thermal, pumped hydro).
Nuclear vs renewables
- Large argument over Vogtle’s extreme cost and delay vs cheap, fast-built solar+storage.
- Some say nuclear cannot currently scale affordably in the US and often requires regulatory or political distortion.
- Others argue for nuclear as dispatchable, compact, low-carbon baseload, especially in high-latitude regions with weak winter solar.
Wind’s place and grid reliability
- Some are surprised wind is a small share of new US capacity compared to solar, given its night-time production.
- Others note wind’s cost trends and higher O&M, plus US-specific policy and permitting frictions.
- Grid reliability concerns appear on both sides: critics blame “too much renewables,” while others counter that diversified renewables plus storage and better transmission can maintain or improve reliability.