Renewables Pass Nuclear
Share of energy production still growing
Has renewable energy passed a threshold it has been seeking for years? It has surpassed nuclear in energy production and inching up on domestic oil production.
That’s a According to the most recent issue of the Monthly Energy Review by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), as reported by the SUN DAY Campaign.
During the first quarter of 2011, renewable energy sources (biomass/biofuels, geothermal, solar, water, wind) provided 2.245 quadrillion BTUs of energy or 11.73 percent of U.S. energy production. More significantly, energy production from renewable energy sources in 2011 was 5.65 percent more than that from nuclear power, which provided 2.125 quadrillion BTUs and has remained largely unchanged in recent years. Energy from renewable sources is now 77.15 percent of that from domestic crude oil production, with the gap closing rapidly, the Campaign says.
A recent trend seems to be accelerting.
Looking at all energy sectors (e.g., electricity, transportation, thermal), production of renewable energy, including hydropower, has increased by 15.07 percent compared to the first quarter of 2010, and by 25.07 percent when compared to the first quarter of 2009. Among the renewable energy sources, biomass/biofuels accounted for 48.06 percent, hydropower for 35.41 percent, wind for 12.87 percent, geothermal for 2.45 percent, and solar for 1.16 percent.
Looking at just the electricity sector, according to the latest issue of EIA’s Electric Power Monthly, for the first quarter of 2011, renewable energy sources (biomass, geothermal, solar, water, wind) accounted for 12.94 percent of net U.S. electrical generation - up from 10.31percent during the same period in 2010. Non-hydro renewables accounted for 4.74 percent of net U.S. electrical generation.
In terms of actual production, renewable electrical output increased by 25.82 percent in the first three months of 2011 compared to the first quarter of 2010. Solar-generated electricity increased by 104.8 percent, wind-generated electricity rose by 40.3 percent, hydropower output expanded by 28.7 percent, and geothermal electrical generation rose by 5.8 percent.
Only electricity from biomass sources dropped - by 4.8 percent. By comparison, natural gas electrical output rose by 1.8 percent and nuclear-generated electricity increased by only 0.4 percent while coal-generated electricity dropped by 5.7 percent.
“Notwithstanding the recent nuclear accident in Japan, among many others, and the rapid growth in energy and electricity from renewable sources, congressional Republicans continue to press for more nuclear energy funding while seeking deep cuts in renewable energy investments,” said Ken Bossong, Executive Director of the SUN DAY Campaign. “One has to wonder ‘what are these people thinking?’”
In any case, the debates over the nation’s power sources will continue.
The editorial staff at RenewablesBiz.com is passionate about exchanging ideas and dedicated to promoting ongoing conversation about renewables and sustainable energy issues. We invite you to join and contribute to our online community. If you have an idea for an article or editorial contribution, please contact me via email, bopalka@energycentral.com, or phone, 860.633.0090.
Comments
Renewable energy CAN provide base load power.
I have to take issue with the point made by a couple of comments on this article. Namely, that renewable energy can "never" provide base load power.
This simply isn't true!
While it will take some effort and money on the part of society, renewable, sustainable energy can provide base load electricity. Specifically, the nation's grid will have to be rebuilt iin an organized, systematic fashion and expanded to compensate for the intermittent nature of renewable energy.
In addition, large scale storage schemes and better grid management techniques can also contribute to renewable energy's base load capacity.
It might not be tomorrow, but EVENTUALLY (barring some unlikely major technological advances in breeder reactors and the like) renewable energy will have to be able to provide base load energy because finite resources such as coal, natural gas and uranium are just that, finite.
Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Nuclear vs Renewables
These facts are very interesting, but the tone of the article leads one to believe that nuclear is in competititon with renewables. Not true. Nuclear power does one thing - produces base load electricity. Neither solar, wind or biomass does this. Hydro does provide base load but there is no market for new large hydro dams. I say more power to renewables, but for base load electricity today it is nuclear, coal or natural gas. Take your pick.
At what cost?
What was the cost to consumers and to the economies of the developed countries to achieve this? What was the true impact on the environment of this?
In the USA, taxpayers are footing the bill for enormous incentives through grants, production tax credits, long distance transmission lines going into the rate base that consumers end up paying for.
Do the energy calculation, look at the milage impact of ethanol, then do the chemical balance for combustion and you find that ethanol does diddly-squat to help the economy or the environment for all the billions of taxpayer dollars poured into subsidies, particularly when one considers as well the energy which goes into growing crops and processing the fuel. Throw in the impact on corn and other food prices and you find the chase after an as-yet-not-fully developed technology has cost money and done nothing for the environment.
The subsidies for wind and solar have skewed the energy markets in areas where it has been deployed. Combine the lack of certainty of return on investment with the costs and uncertainty surrounding pending and under-consideration rules from EPA and you get an electricity market in which investors are scared to put money. The result is that old plants stay on-line or developers build simple cycle peaking plants rather than high efficiency combined cycle plants or newer technology coal plants that are more efficient. Net result, more expensive, less reliable power production with no environmentally beneficial impacts.
What happens to the long distance transmission lines passing through wilderness areas when there is a wild-fire such as those occuring in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas? What is the impact of maintaining transmission rights-of-way through these wilderness areas? What is the impact on reliability of the energy supply during a winter storm when ice starts collecting on the transmission lines? What will be the impact of a hurricane on the wind farms along the Texas cost or a tornado on the wind farms in northwest Texas?
Ask Spain about the impact of extensive investment in so-called green energy. It is not economical because the technologies are not adequately developed.
Renewables Vs Nuclear
Good to know that Renewables have overtaken Nuclear. Yes. Renewables can only act as supplementary to conventional power but can never replace the latter. There are many uses of Nuclear Energy in Medicine, Agriculture etc.,
Renewable energy collectively provides only about seven percent (7%) of the world's energy needs (Source: Energy Information Agency). Nuclear energy, which is primarily generated by splitting atoms, only provides six percent (6%) of the world's energy supplies. And it is not likely to be a major source of world energy consumption because of public pressure and the relative dangers associated with unleashing the power of the atom.
The total world energy demand is for about 400 quadrillion British Thermal Units -- or BTUs -- each year (Source: US Department of Energy). That's 400,000,000,000,000,000 BTUs! A BTU is roughly equal to the energy and heat generated by a match. Oil, coal and natural gas supply nearly 88 % of the world's energy needs, or about 350 quadrillion BTUs. Of this amount, oil is king, providing about 41 percent of the world's total energy supplies, or about 164 quadrillion BTUs. Coal provides 24% of the world's energy, or 96 quadrillion BTUs, and natural gas provides the remaining 22%, or 88 quadrillion BTUs.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore (AP), India
Wind Energy Expert
E-mail: Anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com