U.S. Renewable Energy Production Now Tops Nuclear Power
Source: National Journal
... New data released yesterday from the U.S. Energy Information Administration offers a snapshot of the energy landscape in Obamas first term.
Energy production from natural gas grew 16% while coal-fired power fell more than 4%, thanks to a glut of cheap natural gas from the fracking boom. Its a trend likely to continue as shale gas reserves are tapped and new emissions regulations effectively bar the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
Renewable energy production jumped nearly 24% but remains only 11% of the US total energy production. But the trend lines tell the story: Wind energy, for instance, grew 89% while electricity production from nuclear power plants fell 4%.
And this factoid should warm the hearts of anti-nuke activists: The US now gets more energy from renewable sources - wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and biomassthan it does from nuclear power plants.
<snip>
Read more: http://mobile.nationaljournal.com/energy/u-s-renewable-energy-production-now-tops-nuclear-power-20130401
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)From that graph, however, it looks like fossil fuels are still firmly in the driver's seat. And where is petroleum on that graph?
elleng
(130,126 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Coal utilization is going down and being replaced with natural gas and renewables (primarily wind).
We're exporting the coal (and once the ports are ready, we'll be exporting a lot of it).
So our contribution to global warming as a factor of our economy is not changing at all.
It's just being exported, just as our technology imports are really contributing to pollution elsewhere.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)caraher
(6,276 posts)Wind and solar combined are less than a quarter of the "renewable" total. So the quip in the linked article about Monty Burns becoming a wind farm magnate notwithstanding, these numbers are close only because half the "renewable" total comes from using petroleum-intensive agricultural techniques to produce fuel instead of food.
Their data all comes from the EIA's latest monthly report, if you'd like to dig deeper.
Response to bananas (Original post)
tom2255 Message auto-removed
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Remember, these homeowners you want to have solar cells on their roofs hire folks to clean their pools and mow their lawns. They don't want the hassle for the marginal cost savings they would experience. Heck, look at what people drive instead of more fuel efficient cars. And the electric companies don't have much interest in a system of cells highly distributed that they would either have to maintain, or rely upon the homeowner to maintain. And I'm not sure who is carrying the capital costs of these things, probably a mixture of the homeowner and the utility company.
I suspect if there is a market for this it will be among "light industry". Companies with moderate power consumption and large facilities that would benefit from the cost savings of both the electricity and the added insulative benefit. Cells are now becoming cheap enough, and durable enough, that we may see someone package such a concept. (Woulda been nice if something along these lines had been incorporated into the "freedom towers".)