Fossil Fuels Compete for Generation

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Today, power plants in the United States rely primarily on fossil fuels. In 2011, more than 2/3 of the electricity generated domestically came from coal and natural gas. But, the ratio of electricity production from coal to natural gas to petroleum has shifted over time. This month, the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) published a report that explores this "elasticity of substitution."

In the report, the authors discuss coal's dominant role in power generation over the past 60 years and the impacts of 1970s oil price shocks on coal use. They go on to state that:

"By 1990, changes in the regulatory structure and legislation affecting the electricity industry started providing more opportunities for substitution between petroleum and natural gas as a fuel for peaking generation. During the 1990s and 2000s, the generation costs for plants fueled by natural gas fell dramatically as a result of lower natural gas fuel prices and the increased use of combined cycle technology for power generation. Natural gas production from domestic shale gas formations began to rapidly increase starting in 2005, which has led to a relatively sustained period of low natural gas prices. All of these factors have led to a continuing electric power industry trend of substituting coal-fired generation with natural gas-fired generation."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Included in this report was an interesting graphic that overlays changes in the price of coal, natural gas, and petroleum with their annual share of fossil fuel-fired electric power generation.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe