Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
0 comments 
With 116,000 MW connected to new gas plants in the United States, cost comparison reveals why solar, wind, and batteries have started to pressure utilities that previously switched from coal to gas in search of efficiency, cheaper transport, and lower maintenance
With 116,000 MW associated with new gas plants in the United States, the technology that replaced coal for efficiency and lower cost now faces pressure from solar, wind, and batteries, which are cheaper in generation.
The competition matters because it involves billion-dollar decisions by utilities, expansion of electricity supply, and the risk of assets losing competitiveness. The winner is whoever produces at the lowest cost.
Gas technology gained ground by reducing coal losses
The switch from coal to gas did not arise solely from environmental or regulatory preference. For energy companies, gas presented operational advantages. The main one is the heat rate, an indicator of the thermal energy needed to produce 1 kWh.
-
RedMagic 11S Pro arrives on the global market to compete with Asus ROG Phone and Lenovo Legion with Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Steam, 144 Hz AMOLED display, and 24,000 RPM turbo fan.
-
International report reignites concern in Brazil by linking extreme temperatures, the spread of mosquito-borne diseases, severe rainfall, and increasing risk for the elderly, children, and workers.
-
Archaeologists open a 1600-year-old Roman lead coffin ornamented with shells and encounter the remains of a young Roman elite and rare funerary objects inside.
-
New era of free-to-air TV: Brazil releases 1,100 free digital TV channels in a new national expansion and increases access to movies, series, and open programming without a subscription fee, creating a popular alternative to the price increase of Netflix and other streaming services in 2026.
A coal boiler requires about 10,000 BTUs per kWh. Meanwhile, a combined cycle gas plant needs approximately 7,500 BTUs per kWh. This difference makes gas more efficient in converting fuel into electricity.
Transport also played a role. Gas can travel through pipelines, while coal relies on railways. In some situations, the railway cost can represent half the price of a delivered ton.
There are also residues and maintenance. Coal plants generate toxic ash that requires treatment. The aging fleet also demands more frequent shutdowns, while gas facilities operate with less demanding schedules.
Coal loses new projects but hasn’t left the system
The transition did not immediately eliminate coal. The US EIA records an average age of 45 years for the current coal plant in the country, with an expected lifespan close to 50 years.
With the rapid increase in electricity demand, retirements have been postponed. In 2022, more than 12 GW of shutdowns were announced. Last year, this volume dropped to 2.6 GW.
Even so, the signal for new constructions is clear: no coal power plant has been announced in the United States. Coal remains in operation but does not appear as a bet to expand generation.
In gas, the movement is the opposite. There are about 18,000 MW of new plants under construction and approximately 98,000 MW in site selection and planning stages. Combined, the projects reach 116,000 MW.
This number shows why the discussion is not just technical. The electrical system needs additional capacity, and utilities continue to choose gas as a replacement for coal.
Renewables repeat against gas the logic that brought down coal
The central point of the dispute is that solar, wind, and batteries can do to gas what gas did to coal: offer electricity at a lower cost. The advantage of these sources lies in zero fuel.
The comparison by LCOE, levelized cost of energy, allows observing different technologies considering investment, operation, and costs over their useful life. The cited numbers place coal at $73 per MWh, a value attributed to Lazard.
For combined cycle gas, the reported cost is $64.55 per MWh. Photovoltaic solar with batteries appears at $53.44 per MWh, while onshore wind reaches $29.58 per MWh.
Offshore wind emerges at $88.16 per MWh, a level close to that of new nuclear plants in the cited EIA data. The material does not present numbers for small modular reactors.
These values do not mean that all regions, projects, and times will have the same result. However, they indicate that some renewables are already appearing competitive against gas by the levelized cost.
Risk is building expensive assets today for tomorrow’s market
The risk for utilities lies in time. Gas plants can be planned to meet demand but face increasing competition from renewable sources and batteries.
This risk of prematurely stranded assets is no longer zero. This occurs when a functional infrastructure loses economic value because another technology delivers the same service at a lower cost.
California appears as an example of practical change. Batteries discharged during peak periods are being deployed instead of gas-powered peaker units. They would be about 10% cheaper by LCOE.
The transition does not tend to occur all at once. Older and more expensive technologies can operate for years alongside new solutions. It was the same with coal, which still remains active.
The practical conclusion is that the technology chosen today influences costs, investments, and reliability of the electrical system for decades. Gas defeated coal by the economic account; now, renewables and batteries are trying to defeat gas by the same path.
Be the first to react!