The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Friday, May 24, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Latest Report: Renewable Energy Surpasses Nuclear Power by 18%

Ken Bossong, SUN DAY Campaign
October 04, 2011  |  15 Comments

According to the most recent issue of the "Monthly Energy Review" by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), with data through June 30, 2011, renewable energy has passed another milestone as domestic production is now significantly greater than that of nuclear power and continues to close in on oil.

During the first half of 2011, renewable energy sources (biomass & biofuels, geothermal, solar, water, wind) provided 4.687 quadrillion Btus of energy or 12.25 percent of U.S. energy production. By comparison, renewables accounted for 11.05 percent of domestic production during the first half of 2010 and 10.50 percent during the first half of 2009. (On the consumption side, which includes oil and other energy imports, renewable sources accounted for 9.45 percent of total U.S. energy use.)

More significantly, energy production from renewable energy sources in 2011 was 17.91 percent more than that from nuclear power, which provided 3.975 quadrillion Btus and has been declining in recent years. Energy from renewable sources is now equal to 79.83 percent of that from domestic crude oil production, with the gap closing rapidly.

Looking at all energy sectors (e.g., electricity, transportation, thermal), production of renewable energy, including hydropower, has increased by 15.02 percent compared to the first half of 2010, and by 22.79 percent when compared to the first half of 2009. Among the renewable energy sources, biomass and biofuels accounted for 46.04 percent in 2011 (54 percent from biomass and 46 percent from biofuels), followed by hydropower (37.00 percent), wind (13.40 percent), geothermal (2.33 percent), and solar (1.22 percent).

Looking at just the electricity sector, according to the latest issue of EIA’s "Electric Power Monthly," with data through June 30, 2011,for the first half of 2011, renewable energy sources (biomass, geothermal, solar, water, wind) accounted for 13.97 percent of net U.S. electrical generation — up 26.14 percent from the same period in 2010.

Hydropower accounted for 8.94 percent of U.S. electrical generation, followed by wind at 3.24 percent, biomass at 1.33 percent, geothermal at 0.41 percent, and solar at 0.04 percent. Thus, non-hydro renewables accounted for 5.02 percent of net U.S. electrical generation. Comparing the first six months of 2011 to the first six months of 2010, solar-generated electricity expanded by 43.6 percent, wind by 35.1 percent, hydropower by 30.3 percent, and geothermal by 4.9 percent; only biomass dropped — by 4.4 percent. 

By comparison, nuclear power's contribution to net U.S. electrical generation totaled 19.12 percent representing a decline of 3.8 percent compared to the first half of 2010 and a drop of over five percent compared to the first half of 2009. Similarly, coal-generated electricity also dipped by 4.8 percent from its mid-year 2010 level while natural gas increased by 2.4 percent. 

The U.S. Energy Information Administration released its most recent "Monthly Energy Review" on September 28, 2011. The relevant charts from which the data above are extrapolated are Tables 1.1, 1.2, and 10.1.  EIA released its most recent "Electric Power Monthly" on September 15, 2011. The relevant charts are Tables 1.1, ES1.B, and 1.1.A.

15 Comments

Register To Comment
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
October 28, 2011
Bad news John, when the sun stops shining we are all toast. John, you are an idiot. Prove this is a hoax, come up with a better solution, or shut up. Now does that mean you still think some of the nations best scientists are dopes? Your intelligence is quite a measuring stick there dude ... Try fishing, that way you will be dealing with a creature of equal intelligence ...
John Bronson
John Bronson
October 27, 2011
Is solar energy unlimited? Should we all be worried that the sun will run out of hydrogen in a billion years? Not you of course, because you will still have your water power tower hoax machine. Don't you find it odd that you have all the answers, and everyone else is in the world is so daft? That's the problem with paranoid delusion.
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
October 27, 2011
Boy that whole science thing gets right by you doesn't it John. Hubberts point was not date oriented you dolt, it was directed at the limitation of oil. Are you telling me oil is unlimited? And its price is a direct result only of US political actions? This seems to be your claim. Just because politicians pump out that bull puckey does not mean I will buy it from the likes of you ... or them.

Your spectrum of view is harshly limited with tunnel vision. Maybe that fishing suggestion might be a bit too dangerous for you if the water is over 4 inches.

Battery storage systems are used all over the world, that hardly improves their ability to store energy cheaply now does it. What a damn dumb thing to say.

Come on John, cavemen lived in caves where they commonly froze to death, dummy. And there are billions more cavemen like you on the planet now. Do you make this crap up or do you have help??
John Bronson
John Bronson
October 27, 2011
As to the price of oil, perhaps if your doomer Democrat buddies would let the oil companies drill, and stop printing trillions for their free money "buy the vote" programs, the price would not be so high. Hubberts predictions were clearly wrong. Campbell has been predicting peak oil every year for the past 20 years! I think you will find all liquids will set a new peak this year.

And battery storage systems are in use all over the world. They have proven reiliable and economic. However, they do contain a positive and negative terminal. That concept may be too difficult for you to work with.

Come on Tim, even cavemen were able to heat and light their homes without fossil fuels. Are you really dumber than a caveman?
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
October 27, 2011
Really. Well, I guess the price of oil has no impact on your tiny brain so, yup there are goobs of oil out there John. And yes Bell Curves have been around for years, so they certainly should have burned out by now.

Batteries are very expensive, the chemicals are very dangerous, and the amount of energy your big arss consumes would require your weight in batteries every day, because after time you would have to start replacing them in your own body weight every day.

Do you have any science background at all? You claim to be more intelligent then engineers and scientists like Duncan, Youngquist, and Hubbert, how exactly did you come to that conclusion, your Mama?

John, did you ever think of doing something a bit less challenging matematically? Like fishing? Only in shallow water though ... so you do not hurt yourself.

Its no wonder the wind turbine industry moves so damned slow.
John Bronson
John Bronson
October 27, 2011
"Detailed reports" and "bell curves" have been around for some time. I recall seeing this most famous one about 38 years ago:

http://www.oilcrisis.com/hubbert/natgeog.htm

Looks like it didn't happen quite they way he said it would eh?

Batteries - 1 for lights, 20 for heat. Another 20 to drive to work, except IIRC, you had said you were unemployed, which is not surprising with your attitude.
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
October 27, 2011
John said ...'We are not "running out" of fossil fuels anytime soon.'

Really. Check out the research done by Drs Duncan and Youngquist at the University of California at Berkley. This is a very detailed report by geologists and other scientists from within and outside of the fossil fuel industry. (They use real complex things like 'Bell Curves' in their research so maybe it would be best if you didn't.) The other clue is the rapidly rising price of gasoline. This fact alone says that even if we are not consuming all fossil fuels at a horrendous rate, the price does not reflect that.
'Despite the "peak oil" hype ' ... I rarely hype anything. If I tell you something and you refuse to research it then you are the one doing the hype John. Da. Do the research like we have, and if you are not blind you will see what I speak of.

By the way, just how many 27DC- 6's an I going to need to heat my house? how about light my house? How about drive my car to work? How about manufacture all that stuff? How about ship all that stuff? That statement alone reveals your lack of thought on this matter. I suggest you spend more time in the books and less time showing how little you know on the net ... We have way too many clowns involved in this very serious problem and you could best serve by doing something else somewhere else.
John Bronson
John Bronson
October 26, 2011
Hi Tim,

We are not "running out" of fossil fuels anytime soon. This is not something your children, or grandchildren, or great grandchildren have to worry about. Despite the "peak oil" hype that's been around for the past 100 years. Also, we are not going to destroy the atmosphere, despite the "global warming" hype. What people in developed countries should be worried about is the concept of voting yourself a check in the mail. This will end very badly, e.g. Greece.

As for "cheap" energy storage - go down to your local Wal-Mart and pick up a 27DC-6. You will be amazed at how many different things you can power with it. Cheap storage was here before PV.
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
October 26, 2011
Careful analysis of data? Wacky triads? Crabby mood? Are you serious Steven? I am loosing my patience with idiots, and you read that as a 'crabby mood'? What a clown you are! How about hugely concerned and passionate? We're running out of time, and your noncense will not help. I have 7 children and I do not want them to freeze in the dark after I am gone because people like you have your heads where the sun don't shine. Wether its lack of intelligence or greed, the outcome is the same.

You guys push this windmill crap with the full support of the notariously infamous US Government and you scream how wonderful and smart you are?? If you lay with dogs you smell of dogs Stephen, and this whole Solundra issue is as plain as the wart on your nose. You are going to have to stop this noncense about how wonderful wind turbines and solar panels are ... its an outright bald faced lie. You can't store it, you can not depend on it, it can hardy replace a fraction of the electricity we will need when fossil fuels are gone, you can not even justify the cost with smart investors, so you must go to government entities who will pay you to make big noises for their elections. And without government subsidies there would be no wind farms in the country. Their science is bogus just like the people who scream about how wonderful they are. And hopefully people will wake up to this nonsence before its too late. We are running out of time people, we better come up with real answers soon or there will be hell to pay.
ANONYMOUS
October 26, 2011
Tim, you seem to be in a crabby mood today. This is, of course, no excuse for erroneous assumptions. For instance, you ramble on with "And as long as people like you 'pretend' to deal with the problem so you can make money, real solutions will struggle." I am not in the energy business and thus make no money whatever no matter what decisions are made. This thread involves the narrow issue of how to interpret the data on recent renewable and nuclear energy production levels. Calling me dense because I pointed out some of the spin in the presentation of the data in the main article (as well as an outright error regarding nuclear energy production in the US) suggests that you have some sort of problem with the careful interpretation of data. Your precise beef is too inarticulately expressed for most readers to intuit. If you are annoyed at the world because your notions of using untapped hydropower to compress air for later power generation are not being financed, do you really think that wacky rambling tirades are going to help?
Steven
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
October 26, 2011
Steven, what is my point? How dense is gold Steve, you seem to be in a position to not be impressed with golds density. The renewable systems portrayed here are an outright scam. And we are running out of fossil fuels. And as long as people like you 'pretend' to deal with the problem so you can make money, real solutions will struggle. Unfortunately bad things will happen because of these stupid actions. You should all be real proud of yourselves.
Spin? Ya Steve a single company pockets several billion tax dollars then goes belly up in 2 years and they must be 'crystal clean'. I am not stupid, I can see a crime when it is that obvious. Its people like you that make it possible for criminals to rip off the American people, either through criminal actions, or pure stupidity. Not ignorence, stupidity.
Your solar and wind sciences are outright lame, and as long as you try to pretend to have the assets that fossil fuels bring, you will forever continue to chase shadows. There is no spin to math ... do the math damn it! If you can anyway, I suppose if you had a real understanding of math you would not be here. If you all continue to ignore the storability of fossil fuels mankind is destined to freeze to death in the dark. You clowns better wake up before the rich and powerful find a way to 'deal with' the 'less valueable' humans like you and I!! Get your heads screwed on straight and help find a real solution that deals with storability in an inexpensive way. We learned a long time ago to store food over the winter, we had better do the same damned thing with energy ... renewable energy, not some other form of fossil fuels, or nuclear radioactive isotope crap. But in the meantime lets burn the rest of our fossil fuels and see if the global warming people are correct. But what the hell, you should be able to get governments all around the world to pitch in tax dollars for your dog and pony shows before we starve in the dark ... Right Steven?
ANONYMOUS
October 26, 2011
What exactly is your point Tim? Do you think it is appropriate to employ spin and outright errors to leave a false impression about how much progress has been made in renewables simply because you don't like nuclear power? The degree of support nuclear power does or does not enjoy has no effect on the amount of electricity it has generated in a given year in the US. To say that that US nuclear power has been declining when in fact its 4 best years ever were the last 4 years is simply wrong.
Steven
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
October 26, 2011
Really. Is that because renewable energy is so good, or because nuclear energy just killed another ship load of people, injured scores more, destroyed an entire city, and ruined a thousand businesses while the entities in control baldfaced lied about the potential for damage? Your scientific reasoning leaves your ability to observe and detect truth a bit short of stupidity. Just maybe, has nuclear energy lost worldwide support? Da.
ANONYMOUS
October 4, 2011
Re Comment 1, the author of the article does not call it a "major" milestone either. As the EIA reports regularly, it is just another monthly milestone in the overall growth of renewable energy and the much needed evolution of power production from renewable energy technology. The major milestones that really count are the data points for escalating nuclear power plant costs (that include huge subsidies) versus time compared with declining renewable energy costs versus time.
ANONYMOUS
October 4, 2011
There is a lot of spin in this article. Compared to the first 6 months of 2010 renewables produced 0.612 quads (quadrillion BTU) more energy. However, 0.403 quads of that (66% of the total) came from increased hydroelectricity production, which is mainly weather related fluctuation (hydro generation capacity has not changed significantly). The increase from wind was 0.163 quads (27% of the total increase) and much of this increase was also due to above average winds in the period, although wind capacity did have a significant increase. Geothermal, solar, and biomass only saw year-over-year production increases of 2.8%, 5.6%, and 1.8%, respectively.

The author also states that nuclear power "has been declining in recent years." It is worth noting that the best 4 years for energy production from nuclear power in the US were (in descending order): 2007, 2010, 2008, 2009--i.e., the last 4 years. In each of these years production was 8.405 +/- 0.050 quads; it is incorrect to attribute trivial fluctuations of about 0.1 quads as some sort of trend, indeed nuclear generation in the last 4 years has been steadier than in any other 4-year period.

The story for renewable generation in the last year has been one of good weather and modest capacity growth; I would not call this a major milestone.
Steven

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Kenneth Bossong

Kenneth Bossong

Ken Bossong is the Executive Director of the SUN DAY Campaign. The SUN DAY Campaign is a non-profit research and educational organization founded in 1993 to promote sustainable energy technologies as cost-effective alternatives to nuclear...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 8
    San Antonio Solar Fans Delay Introduction of SunCredit Program
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    Texas Legislature Passes Commercial and Industrial PACE Bill
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Associated Renewable
  • Greenpower Capital
  • Affordable Solar Group, LLC
  • Canadian Clean Energy Conferences
  • Prudent Living, Inc.
  • Solar Wholesalers
  • Schletter Inc.
  • Martifer Solar USA, Inc.
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information