It’s important to note that there has been a huge push in the oil&gas industry to repurpose old rigs because it’s cheaper than building new ones. I don’t know if this data takes that into account.

My main source is me. At work, a majority of the jobs we are getting are updating old rigs and starting up abandoned ones.

Here’s an article talking about an increase in rig utilization globally. https://www.rigzone.com/news/offshore_rigs_set_for_very_busy_year_in_2023-26-jan-2023-171875-article/?amp

I know almost nothing about this field, is restarting and repurposing old rigs any better than building new ones? Intuition would say yes but like I said I have no idea

Ya, there is a huge upfront cost to building a rig (engineering hours alone are insane lol) Especially offshore rigs. Also, building a new rigs takes a long time, like several years, and these contractors want to churn out profits ASAP.

Also, most rigs are mobile. Once they are built, they can be moved to new wells. The ones that are not mobile are left there, and when new tech comes out to suck more oil out of a well, they are updated and reused.

You're talking about oil/gas extraction though, whereas the article is talking about power production, two different (though related) things.

I hardly believe it. It’s very difficult that clean energy can non renewable sources as the available data shows

I believe it, this is new stuff being built, not the entire energy grid. We’re a long way off from completely renewable/clean, but we’ve definitely been building a ton of it recently

Huh, that's really good to know. I had heard from a geopolitical analyst (my field) that oil rigs take 7 years to build and offshore takes 10 and I thought he must be exaggerating but I guess not lol.

You need to remember this is by capacity. Renewable energy has about half the capacity factor than fossil fuels in usa, so in reality it's more like 65-70%

I really wish someone would do this kind of analysis looking at expected total generation rather than name plate capacity. The capacity factor is going to vary a lot for the renewables based on specific project and be much higher otherwise (though some natural gas will be peaker plants). The nuclear plants are likely going to be running at 95+% of capacity, the solar much less.

Also, I can't decide if I'm annoyed that this labeled 'generating capacity' when including battery installations that technically speaking don't generate anything, just time shift supply/demand. I can see the point (both ways), but still...

There should be far more nuclear on that chart than there is and batteries shouldn't be included, they only shift capacity not generate more - unless somehow they are calculating the efficiency gain for solar which brings me to that question.. is this just total peak generation capacity? That is not a particularly accurate way to measure solar and wind... this feels like a nearly useless chart.

>I really wish someone would do this kind of analysis looking at expected total generation rather than name plate capacity.

• Solar energy generation vs. installed capacity
• Wind energy generation vs. installed capacity
• Change in electricity production by source, United States

Since people keep mentioning that nameplate capacity is not the same as generation:

• Solar energy generation vs. installed capacity
• Wind energy generation vs. installed capacity

So we can sort of predict from the new capacity coming online how much new generation we'll get. Why is there not more nuclear? Cost and build times. Here's just one decade of generation changes in the US. Solar and wind are ramping at very high rates around the world.

This is just nameplate capacity best I can tell, so it's just the maximum output rate that the installed batteries will be able to do.

Solar and batteries will definitely occupy a much smaller portion of real-world energy.

Yeah I'm no fan of the labeling either.

I'd rather at least a predicted amount of annual energy produced. If batteries are to be included, it should be the amount by which they improve solar and other intermittent sources' efficiency.

The chart has this caption right above it:

>Solar, wind, battery storage and nuclear make up 84% of utility-scale generating capacity planned to come online this year

So IMHO batteries should not be included.