Renewables Experience Explosive Growth in First Three Years of Obama Administration

Kenneth Bossong, SUN DAY Campaign
April 02, 2012 | 13 Comments

According to the most recent issue of the "Monthly Energy Review" by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), with data through December 31, 2011, renewable energy sources expanded rapidly during the first three years of the Obama Administration while substantially outpacing the growth rates of fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011, renewable energy sources (i.e., biofuels, biomass, geothermal, solar, water, wind) grew by 27.12 percent. By comparison, during the same three-year period, total domestic energy production increased by just 6.72 percent with natural gas and crude oil production growing by 13.66 percent and 14.27 percent respectively. Moreover, during the same period, nuclear power declined by 1.99 percent and coal dropped by 7.16 percent.

Looking at all energy sectors (e.g., electricity, transportation, thermal), renewable energy sources accounted for 11.74 percent of domestic energy production in 2011 — compared to 9.85 percent in 2008. In fact, renewable energy sources provided 10.90 percent more energy in 2011 than did nuclear power, although nuclear still provides a larger share of the nation’s electricity. (On the consumption side, which includes oil and other energy imports, renewable sources accounted for 9.29 percent of total U.S. energy use during 2011.)

During the first three years of the Obama Administration, geothermal grew by 15.63 percent, hydropower by 26.28 percent, solar by 28.09 percent, biofuels by 46.58 percent, and wind by 113.92 percent. Only biomass dipped - by 1.21 percent. Hydropower accounted for 34.62 percent of domestic energy production from renewable sources in 2011, followed by biomass (26.75 percent), biofuels (22.20 percent), wind (12.75 percent), geothermal (2.42 percent), and solar (1.24 percent).

Looking at just the electricity sector, according to EIA’s "Electric Power Monthly," with data through December 31, 2011, net electrical generation by non-hydro renewable energy sources (i.e., biomass, geothermal, solar, wind) grew by 54.6 percent during the first three years of the Obama Administration. During the same period, conventional hydropower expanded by 27.6 percent. Combined, electrical output from renewable energy sources was 36.5 percent greater for calendar year 2011 than it was for calendar year 2008. By comparison, between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011, natural gas used in electrical generation grew by 15.1 percent while nuclear and coal dropped by 2.0 percent and 12.7 percent respectively.

During 2011, hydro and non-hydro renewables combined accounted for 12.67 percent of net electrical generation compared to 9.25 percent in 2008. Comparing the 12-months of 2011 against the same time period in 2008, wind grew by 116.3 percent, solar by 110.0 percent, hydropower by 27.6 percent, geothermal by 12.5 percent, and biomass by 3.1 percent. For all of 2011, non-hydro renewables accounted for 4.75 percent of net electrical generation while conventional hydropower accounted for 7.91 percent. However, non-hydro renewables have been growing rapidly and for the last quarter of 2011, they accounted for 5.5 percent of net U.S. electrical generation. Among the non-hydro renewables contributing to net electrical generation in 2011, wind accounted for 61.4 percent, followed by biomass (29.1 percent), geothermal (8.6 percent), and solar (0.9 percent).

“The numbers speak for themselves — notwithstanding politically-inspired criticism, the pro-renewable energy policies pioneered by the Obama Administration have generated dramatic growth rates during the past three years, vastly outpacing those of all other energy sources,” said Ken Bossong, Executive Director of the SUN DAY Campaign. “The investments in sustainable energy made by the federal government as well as state and private funders have paid off handsomely underscoring the short-sightedness of emerging proposals to slash or discontinue such support.”

The U.S. Energy Information Administration released its most recent "Monthly Energy Review" on March 28, 2012. It can be found here. The relevant charts from which the data above are extrapolated are Tables 1.1, 1.2, and 10.1. EIA released its "Electric Power Monthly" with data for 2011 on February 29, 2012, which can be found here. The relevant charts are Tables 1.1, 1.1.A, ES1.A, and ES1.B.

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 power and fossil fuels.

Image: violetkaipa via Shutterstock

13 Comments

ANONYMOUS
April 5, 2012

I'm curious how the hydropower generation numbers have increased over the last 3 years. The number of hydroelectric plants has been slowly dropping in the US. Is this increase simply due to more efficient generators & turbines? Or is this increase due to more use of pumped hydro? If it's due to more pumped hydro, that would not qualify as "renewable".

It is also misleading to attribute these changes over the past 3 years entirely to the Obama administration. Even though Obama took office in late January of 2009, much of the new generation capacity that came on line that year was put in motion under the previous administration of GW Bush.

Lastly, using simple percentage change to quantify sector growth is a bit disingenuous. It tends to greatly exaggerate the situation in some circumstances.

Gerry Wootton
April 4, 2012

@anon: EIA: http://205.254.135.24/oiaf/aeo/pdf/2016levelized_costs_aeo2011.pdf

LBNL: http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/lbnl-1471e.pdf

Gerry Wootton
April 4, 2012

@mike: Actually, Berkley National Lab got different results noting how/why they differ. EIA presents blended averages based on disimilar models which are part of their assumptions. One is that all incremental power generation will require new, 100% dedicated transmission lines exactly equal to capacity - in the real world this never happens. The apparent assumption is that generators will have an average ~40 miles of dedicated wire to the grid. Another assumption is that average geographic distance is the same for all - the assumption that NG peakers and coal plants are equidistant from load is clearly at variance with real world where peakers are often budgeted closer to 0.02 $/MWh. Also, reference models assume small scale renewables versus large scale non-renewables - economy of scale to works in favor of the latter; for example, they assume hydro transmission capex at 260 $/kW versus wind at 313 $/kW. Also, the estimated transmission capex for NG is roughly comparable to coal but, practically, it is about 30% cheaper to transport natural gas to generators near load then to transport electricity to load from generators near NG supply. EIA estimates are compiled as cost of transmission capacity divided by capacity factor amortized over 30 years. That puts wind at 3.5 $/MWh versus coal at 1.2 $/MWh or nearly 3X. But numerous real project proposals put capex for wind at anywhere from 0 to 1500 $/kW with a median of 316 $/kW taking capacity factors into account which is roughly 1/3 of the EIA estimate. According to the head of FERC 'cost allocation is not an exact science' .. indeed. In fact, transmission technology is not a single thing: 500 kV / 150 MW line alternative routings in one study ranged from 0.875 $M/mi to 1.8 $M/mi. Somehow hydro is shown at 52% CF when the US average is 42% == 2.4 $/MWh. One proposal for bringing coal power from Montana to SoCal is 9.9 $/MWh(8.25X the EIA average).

ANONYMOUS
April 3, 2012

Mike: Could you post a link or give a citation to these studies you refer to in comment 9, etc.?
Steven

Mike Holly
April 3, 2012

GeraldR
Just like I didnt calculate the transmission costs, I also didn't calculate the capacity factors. It was the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and Energy Information Administration who both reported that transmission costs are proportional to capacity factors AND transmission costs for wind power are triple compared to other generation sources. Perhaps, you should dispute their studies and stop wasting my time and yours.

Gerry Wootton
April 3, 2012

@mike-holly: If you choose to make that assumption then at least do the math correctly. Wind in a good location might have a 30% capacity factor and hydro might have a 70% capacity factor, which would make transmission costs for the former only 2.3 times more expensive. Meanwhile comparing either to a nuclear reactor which is offline for an entire year would result in the conclusion that the cost of distributing power from that reactor is infinitely higher than either of the other two examples - I have yet to find an example of a transmission line that cost an infinite number of dollars to operate - empirical evidence of bad math. Following on, system operators typically use natural gas generators for peaking, which means they might operate at 22% of capacity - does that mean their transmission cost is 4 times that for a nuclear station that is online 90% of the time (because there's no other option). What about a frequency regulation station that operates perhaps 15 minutes per day ... it's transmission cost must apparently be 96 times that of that same nuke. The grid is a taxi service not a limo service - generators of all kinds come online and go offline all of the time during the day while the grid delivers (hopefully) all of the capacity needed to meet demand. Then consider sources that have seasonally variable capacity such as nuclear and hydro - should we consider their transmission costs to be higher when their capacity is low than when it is high? We might also consider that transmission lines themselves have seasonally variable line losses - therefore variable transmission costs - a factor that is totally unrelated to capacity factors of any source whatsoever. It's no secret that peakers are preferably located close to load in order to avoid congestion and line losses that peak when demand peaks. Again, distance from load is not in any way related to capacity factor.

stephen christy
April 3, 2012

Nice try Kenneth, but unfortunately for Obama it's Solyndra and the Chevy Volt we all notice.

Go! Solyndra 2012

Mike Holly
April 3, 2012

@GeraldR
Instead of you, I choose to believe the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and the Energy Information Administration of the Department of Energy who both report transmission costs are proportional to capacity factors (which are about 1/3 for wind power) and thus costs are triple compared to other generation sources.

ANONYMOUS
April 3, 2012

The author writes: ' During the same period, conventional hydropower expanded by 27.6 percent.'

This is untrue--power would refer to generating capacity not energy generated, and additions to hydropower have been very modest for the last decade. Hydroelectric generation was 255, 273, 260, and 325 TWh in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, respectively. The spike in generation in 2011 was due to weather related events rather than some marked change in national policy. There is considerable variability in yearly hydro generation--in 1997 356 TWh was generated. Unless the author believes, as some swooning Democrats often seem to, that Obama was responsible for favorable weather, he should distinguish ordinary variability from increases due to additional generation capacity. This article reads like propaganda rather than analysis.
Steven

ANONYMOUS
April 3, 2012

The author writes:
' 'The numbers speak for themselves — notwithstanding politically-inspired criticism, the pro-renewable energy policies pioneered by the Obama Administration have generated dramatic growth rates during the past three years, vastly outpacing those of all other energy sources,' said Ken Bossong, Executive Director of the SUN DAY Campaign.'

This would be a boilerplate quote in any other place than in an article written by Bossong himself. Here it would seem to be narcissism and/or sloth. I don't think I've ever seen an author report on one of his own statements as if it is was some sort of news. I wonder why the editors at REW consider this acceptable practice....
Steven

Gerry Wootton
April 3, 2012

@mike-holly. "full transmission costs imposed on ratepayers". This is a bit hyperbolic: transmission costs for every kind of power generation is imposed on ratepayers - renewables do not represent a special class. Since transmission and delivery are systems working over integrated networks, more than a blended price is extremely difficult to determine. Looking under the covers you find that a substantial portion of delivery costs is administration, another is congestion and curtailment charges and another is marketing mechanisms (profiteering). It's not unusual for a system operator to sell off firm capacity, typically coal and nuclear, at a loss when demand bottoms out - that loss is a cost of delivery. The other half is cost of infrastructure and transmission losses. If one were to attempt to calculate the cost of delivering electricity from a coal fired plant in Montana to southern California, the geographic distance would be the least of the issues with the power passing through several different management systems and utility operators. Of course, as everyone likes to point out, variable generators are variable - big whoop. Every generator is variable. The average availability of nuclear plants was 84% in 2011 with one at a capacity factor of 0% and several under 25% and that's based on a nameplate capacity already accounting for routine downtime. One could say that the transmission cost for the worst unit was infinite dollars per kWh last year but no one saw an infinte delivery charge on their bill. Firm capacity is as much or more of a problem for system operators who must somehow find a way to deliver power that local demand does not support, nevertheless, physical infrastructure is deployed at a loss. The grid is not a single function system and power doesn't even flow in the same direction at all times. In any case, the incremental cost of moving coal power from Montana to LA is much higher than wind power from Palm Springs.

Mike Holly
April 2, 2012

Kenneth writes "During the first three years of the Obama Administration, geothermal grew by 15.63 percent, hydropower by 26.28 percent, solar by 28.09 percent, biofuels by 46.58 percent, and wind by 113.92 percent. Only biomass dipped - by 1.21 percent."

The US is favoring wind power over biomass with subsidies. The utilities have been reporting that they can purchase power for only 4 cents per kWh from wind developers, even though the total costs are closer to 20 cents.

Cost projections from the Energy Information Administration indicate wind power costs are over 10 cents per kWh. The difference can be largely explained by tax shelters, including the PTC (2.2 cents), federal MACRS accelerated depreciation (2 cents) and state accelerated depreciation and other exemptions (1 cent). There are also benefits hidden in confidential utility contracts.

In addition, the EIA doesn't even include full transmission costs imposed on ratepayers. The Lawrence Berkeley National Lab reports transmission costs for wind power are triple those of other generation sources (because of the low capacity factor) and about 23% of the average cost of wind projects, which amounts to another 2 to 3 cents.

But the lack of any credible integration studies is likely the biggest problem. If backup from inefficient natural gas peaking is required total costs are increased by about 6 cents per kWh. Moreover, the combination will use as much natural gas and emit as much carbon dioxide as just using more efficient combined cycle natural gas generation without wind power.

Bhola panta
April 2, 2012

Hello Kenneth,
You have done wonderful job by making research in the growth of U.S. renewable. Your statistics heralds a significant changes in how renewable beats the conventional energy sources in USA. Also, it hints our energy and national security hopes for future. Yet, unless we take the oil's leverage away, we still have some odds to renewable energy road. This is the fight renewable advocates must combat. I hope you will make a comparative study and research of renewable among Germany, Spain, China, Brazil, and U.S.A.

Thanks.
Pantbn02@yahoo.com

Add Your Comments

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

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...