Another Record for U.S. Renewable Electricity

August 19, 2009 | 6 Comments

The latest figures from the Energy Information Administration show that net U.S. electrical generation from renewable energy sources (biomass, geothermal, solar, water, wind) reached an all-time monthly high in May 2009. Combined, those sources accounted for 13 percent of total electrical generation in the U.S., according to recent analysis from the Washington, D.C.-based Sun Day Campaign.

More specifically, Sun Day reports that renewable sources generated 40,395,000 megawatt-hours (Mwh) of electricity in May 2009 (the latest month for which EIA has compiled and released data). That level is 7.7 percent higher than that produced in May 2008 (37,515,000 Mwh) and appears to be the highest monthly figure ever reported by EIA for renewably-generated electricity.

Total net electrical generation in May 2009 from all sources, including renewables, fossil fuels, and nuclear, was 311,411,000 Mwh – a drop of 4.1 percent from the 324,589,000 Mwh generated in May 2008.

The 13 percent share of U.S. net electrical generation provided by renewable sources in May 2009 consists of 9.4 percent from conventional hydropower and 3.6 percent from non-hydro renewables. The latter figure includes approximately 1.8 percent from wind, 1.3 percent from biomass, 0.4 percent from geothermal, and 0.3 from solar thermal and photovoltaics (totals do not exactly equal due to rounding).

Comparing the month of May 2009 to the month of May 2008, net electrical generation from wind sources increased by 12.5 percent; higher wind generation totals in the state of Iowa accounted for 52.2 percent of the national increase. This large increase occurred as 11 new Iowa wind farms began generating electricity at the end of 2008. Conventional hydropower increased by 10.2 percent, reflecting an increase in generation of 2,705,000 Mwh. Solar thermal and photovoltaics combined increased by 3.5 percent.

On the other hand, coal dropped by 14.8 percent, petroleum liquids by 8.3 percent and nuclear by 0.6 percent. Natural gas expanded by 10.6 percent.

“Month-after-month, the U.S. government’s own numbers refute those attempting to dismiss or belittle the rapidly expanding role being played by renewable energy sources in the nation’s electricity supply,” said Ken Bossong, Executive Director of the Sun Day Campaign. “Moreover, non-hydro renewables are already well beyond the levels of the Renewable Electricity Standard proposed in energy legislation now being considered by before the U.S. Senate, which calls for just 3 percent renewables by 2013.”

For the 12-month period ending May 31, 2009, all renewable energy sources combined accounted for 9.6 percent of net U.S. electrical generation with conventional hydropower accounting for 6.4 percent and non-hydro renewables accounting for the other 3.2 percent. By comparison, for the 12-month period ending May 31, 2008, the corresponding numbers were 8.4 percent, 5.7 percent, and 2.7 percent.

6 Comments

Roland D
September 8, 2009

Recent genetic research of people across the globe suggests that roughly 45,000 to 20,000 years ago, one of the most dramatic population booms after humanity dispersed from Africa occurred in southern Asia, leading to "the highest population densities in the world in prehistory," explains Michael Petraglia, an archaeologist at the University of Oxford in England. There are more than enough qualified children in the district to fill all the magnet openings and more. I have no idea what kind of test scores private schools are looking for, never having had the need of them, but the magnet schools don't require high test scores (except for the Gifted/Talented programs) because they don't want only high-scoring kids. They are PUBLIC schools, and they exist to serve average students as well as high-achievers. The Health Magnet needs to educate future dental assistants as well as future dentists; the Business Magnet needs to educate future clerical workers as well as future CEOs. There's a lot of value to be gained for students who go to school alongside kids with different ambitions and backgrounds but similar interests. If that's not a value you seek, then you probably should stick to private schools.

Read more:
http://personalmoneystore.com/personal-loans/money-loans/money-to-lend

Lois Ashton
September 4, 2009

I don't disagree that nuclear plants are more expensive to build and that nuclear waste is still a significant long term issue. However statistics show that they are less expensive to operate over time than say..wind farms and the associated power plants. The current proposed legislation provides research incentives to the nuclear industry for developing safe sequestering or use for the nuclear waste. If that could be addressed, what would your opinion of nuclear be? The commenters above were critical of the article for leaving out their favorite alternatives also siting the lack of motivation by existing power companies to push research into renewables as a huge problem as they would not be shifting away from producing carbon waste. (Don't disagree there either, but the majority of the logic presented was based on the emission of greenhouse gases, hence my comment.

Personally, I think we probably need multiple sources of power, but my personal favorite has been wind, with a close second by solar. However, until enough power can be generated effectively by these resources, nuclear power is better than power generated by coal and uses less natural resources than coal, oil or gas. Hydro power has intrigued me lately and I'm researching projects in that arena. But for the short term, if we want to get away from producing greenhouse gases on a larger scale, we may have to accept nuclear power as a significant source of electric power until we can transition completely to renewables. Not ideal, but perhaps realistic.

linda hambrick
September 2, 2009

Nuclear is not green! It is expensive to build and the problem of nuclear waste has no real solution, just a huge ecological danger for generations to come. That's why most of us are so adamantly opposed to it.

Lois Ashton
September 1, 2009

While each of the comments above obviously have their favorite non-renewable resource, it seems to me that they all are missing the bigger picture. The increase in utility grade power generated by renewable resources is not the result of the proposed legislation, but is probably the result of consumer demand and public opinion, plus the incentives provided in past legislation. The gain in electricity generated is nearly double the previous year. Rather than being offended by the author's omission of their favorite statistics, perhaps we should celebrate the trend and continue to foster strong public opinion which will incite the "will" of utility companies to shift to renewable resources. Since the current proposed legislation seems to be stalled in Congress, it is more important than ever to continue to promote the use of renewable energy sources, whether that effort is investing in "Green" companies or building more awareness of the possibilities for alternative sources. (And just a side note, while nuclear power may use small amounts of uranium in its production of power, nuclear plants do not produce greenhouse gasses. They heat output from the production process is steam, which last time I checked didn't contain any carbon.) If anyone thinks that we can ever get entirely away from using some level of non-renewable resources, I think you need to examine each process under discussion a little closer. Those turbines that would use the the hydro power of the Gulf Stream would be made of what.....steel, plastic, and how are those items produced? and what non-renewable resources would be consumed....So if it's all right for that approach to consume non-renewable resources to produce electricity from a renewable source....why are you so adamantly opposed to nuclear?

L. Ashton
www.streetwisegreen.com

Mike Holly
August 22, 2009

The author of this article should take responsibility for writing it. The author appears to be trying to hide the fact that, since 1994, US utility monopolies have been adding 97 percent windpower to meet state renewable energy mandates. (The author hides this fact by grouping all renewable energies together when talking about new capacity while, only when talking about existing capacity, splitting them out individually: wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and biomass.)

US preference for windpower has serious ramifications since the July 2009 issue of Power Engineering demonstrates that windpower increases generation costs by more than twice while reducing greenhouse gases by a mere 11 percent (because it must be inefficiently backed up by natural gas). Meanwhile, utility monopolies are blocking small-hydro, geothermal and biomass sources, which could reduce by nearly 100 precent the far greater greenhouse gases from base-load coal plants at very low cost. By adding only windpower, utility monopolies will likely force the nation to abandon renewable energy for coal and nuclear plants.

ANONYMOUS
August 21, 2009

I have no doubt that renewables can be the majority source of energy - when that happens depends on will and not on ability. If utilities were not so pig-headed in their determination to continue with fossil fuels and nuclear, renewables would be farther along even now. Those utilities that ignore renewables today will be out in the cold tomorrow - no longer viable, no longer needed by populations that will generate their own power because their utilities failed to supply them with clean, affordable energy.