[eloff]

If by surpassed you mean cheaper than building new coal, or even operating smaller coal plants, then yes. Coal generation is still 2.5x wind+solar [1]. Claiming that the intermittent nature of wind and solar is a non issue is a joke. The system can absorb small amounts of intermittent power, but the problem gets progressively worse as the percentage share of the total goes up. We do need, modern, cost effective nuclear, and pumped hydro, and large improvements in grid scale battery storage as well as more long distance transmission to even out the supply.

[https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3]

[noad]

I guess if you want to only look back at 2019 data you will miss the fact that renewables passed coal this year. The rate at which the coal industry is dying is remarkable and is well covered in the media.

[anewdirection]

Lots of things are celebrated in the media that are not quite true. While in some areas, on some days, renewables are outpacing polluters, their power peaks and wanes at different rates than demand. Coal is still the baseload energy generator, and will be required until massive energy storage is achieved, or we build more fusion/fission plants. With the exception of hydro, most 'renewable' generation stratigies come with temporal issues (wind, sun, tide, etc).

But nobody wants to think about the fact their teslas are runnig on coal, and we assume some random article we saw on renewables outpacing coal are the truth. It is not.

[acidburnNSA]

The reason we haven't seen the intermittency issue too much is almost entirely because we are building cheap but very high carbon (~400 gCO2-eq/kWh) fracked natural gas plants. This is not a good or scalable low-carbon pathway.