Renewable Energy Production Surpasses Nuclear In the US

mdsolar writes "Renewable energy production has surpassed nuclear energy production in the U.S. according to the latest issue of Monthly Energy Review (PDF) published by the Energy Information Administration. ... During the first three months of 2011, energy produced from renewable energy sources (biomass/biofuels, geothermal, solar, hydro, wind) generated 2.245 quadrillion Btus of energy equating to 11.73 percent of U.S. energy production. During this same time period, renewable energy production surpassed nuclear energy power by 5.65 percent. In total, energy produced from renewables is 77.15 percent of that from domestic crude oil production."

Re:Cost?

[maxume]

It just includes installed hydroelectric.

There ain't more big rivers.

Hydro?

[93 Escort Wagon]

Hydroelectric has been a big part of the US electric grid for the better part of a century now (Roll on, Columbia roll on). I realize it's "renewable", but lumping it in with the newer renewables (biodiesel, wind, et. al.) - the electric production of which is miniscule compared to that of hydro - and then pretending it's us making strides towards a great green future is a tad misleading.

Of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't take a Genius Bar attendant to figure out mdsolar is spewing shit as usual, but that's never stopped him before.

Way to grind that axe, buddy

[Dachannien]

"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?'"

I have to wonder what he's thinking, because the best solution to US energy needs looking forward involves expansion of nuclear power as well as renewables. We still haven't really made a dent in the roughly half of US electricity production that comes from coal. And that huge base load need isn't going to be solved by intermittent power sources like solar or wind. Underfunding nuclear power development will only result in delays in bringing up safer newer plant designs.

Re:So then.

[bill_mcgonigle]

We can basically say renewable energy fsckin works, now ?

Of course it works. The open question is, "can it scale?"

Good luck tripling the amount of hydro or getting woodstoves into cities.

Old versus Mandatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Not much of a milestone since new reactors have been banned in the US for several decades while "green" power is being shoved down our throats regardless of the costs involved.

Re:So then.

[MichaelSmith]

Admittedly more effort would need to be put into load and supply management with a large proportion of renewable power. Hydro power is a good candidate for filling gaps in supply. It can operate around the clock and it can be brought on line quickly. It can also be used to store energy with reasonable efficiency.

Re:Hydro?

[ildon]

Not to mention that no new nuclear power plants have been allowed for like 4 years, so nearly all our increased demand since then has been met by non-renewable natural gas and coal. This milestone is fucking meaningless. Wake me up when it surpasses coal.

Re:Way to grind that axe, buddy

[Lanteran]

Nuclear is going nowhere thanks to people spewing FUD like, hm, you? If it weren't for people opposing every little thing, we would have thorium reactors putting out tiny amounts of waste that degrades in decades or centuries, not tens of millennia, and burning off that existing waste for power. Global warming would be at a point where it's easy to stop if the US and china were mostly nuclear- the major polluters then would be cars, which could then be migrated to electric without the paradoxical dirty power generation. Nuclear power is the replacement for coal, and could have done so by now if not for anti-nuclear hysteria. Solar and wind energy have their place in the world, but that place is not base load power generation. That is much better filled by nuclear and geothermal plants.

Re:Meaningless comparisons

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I keep hearing these same quotes that either ethanol uses more energy to produce or it breaks even. I rarely hear anyone sourcing where this information comes from or a breakdown of these energy costs. Most of the petroleum costs that are quoted refer to fertilizer and tractor fuel, etc and not the actual production of Ethanol. I believe they generally use natural gas in the production. The point is they can use bio-mass or other sources of heat to produce the ethanol. The distilation equipment could be run off mirror based solar collectors which would largely get rid of the fossil fuels used except for growing the feedstock. Trust me the fossil fuel use in creating feedstocks like corn will disappear over the next few decades. Why? Not cost effective. As oil sources dry up petroleum based fertilizers will get far too expensive for farmers forcing them finally to go with sustainable sources and yes there are options. The real problem is that they are forcing the land to produce 2X to 4X what the land can sustainably produce. Who cares? Guess why your food has the nutricianal value of cardboard? All the nutrients in the soil have been depleted so they use nitrogen fertilizers to pump up the plants a lot like balloons. It's one of the reasons people are eating more because you have to eat several times as much to get any nutrician out of the food. Use sorghum, which can be grown on crap land, sugar beets and other sources than corn and switch to sustainable heat sources for distiling and ethanol is a great fuel. Can't replace oil? Get car mileage up to 50 to 100 mpg and it might. Wanta see what's possible look up woodgas on Google. The process goes back to the 1800s and paper mills use a similar process for using up waste wood to produce useable energy. Essentially you can run a car off scrap wood using this process. A million cars were run this way back in WW II. Few today would consider it because it would be too inconvenient but imagine paying nothing for gasoline? Not even the cost of electricity like electric cars. We just have to get off our fat asses and be more inventive. There are answers out there. Remember most cars were electric a 100 years ago and people came up with options in WW II when gasoline was hard to come by at any price. In a 100 years we've forgotten more than we have learned and that's the saddest part of it. Most people when they think of apples they think of fruit roll ups and walking out to the tree to pick one just seems like too much work.