Renewable Energy Production Surpasses Nuclear In the US 452
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."
Biomass = Wood Stoves? (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder how much of that biomass consists of wood-burning stoves. Considering the time period of this study (first three months of this year) that could definitely be a large factor.
EDIT: A quick look at the PDF shows that biomass is the largest renewable energy source, at 1.049 quadrillion BTUs. It even beat out hydropower at 0.618 quadrillion BTUs. However, a look at 2009 and 2010 does not show a seasonal variation that you would expect from wood stoves.
Great, but ... (Score:5, Interesting)
This sounds like great news for renewable energy buffs, except for one thing: if you're thinking this represents a success by high tech new power sources like wind, solar, etc., you're wrong.
The two biggest components of "renewable energy" in EIA's report are hydroelectric dams and biomass -- the biomass sector is mostly industrial wood and paper plants which run on waste wood, plus people using wood-fired stoves at home. Good for them, but it's not exactly high tech.
In 1990, before the wind-and-solar revolution, things broke down this way: .09 EJ
Nuclear: 6.1 exajoules
Hydro+biomass: 5.7 EJ
Wind+solar:
In 2000:
Nuclear: 7.8 EJ
Hydro+biomass: 5.8 EJ
Wind+solar: 0.12 EJ
In 2010:
Nuclear: 8.4 EJ
Hydro+biomass: 6.8 EJ
Wind+solar: 1.03 EJ
Or to put it another way: The "wind and solar revolution" that's taken place in the past 20 years now produces 1 EJ of energy per year. The nuclear power industry has managed to increase output by *twice* as much, without building a single new power plant, just running existing plants a little harder.
This isn't intended to support nuclear power or to knock renewables. My only point is that wind and solar are much less significant than people on both sides of the debate think they are, and if we intend to use them as serious industrial power sources, we're going to have to start building them in a serious industrial way. What we're doing now is making a mountain out of a molehill.
Re:So then. (Score:5, Interesting)
PROTIP: Operation DESERTEC [wikipedia.org].
Yes, it does scale. And with 400 km^2 of CSP [concentrat...rpower.com] we can power the entire world. (Including nighttime through hydroelectric pumped-storage and winters.)
(Connected with high-voltage DC lines to minimize losses btw.)
To be honest, I think this project is awesome. Cheap, simple, elegant, easy to repair, only made of abundant and recyclable materials, never (well, not in any imaginable time frame) running out energy source... It's hard to imagine a better solution.
And the best part: The mirrors allow water from the air to condense on them, moisturizing the ground below, which creates a whole flora and fauna thriving on it. So it's not only neutral to nature, but has a positive effect.
P.S.: I have nothing against nuclear power, and know pretty well how it works. I don't think it's bad. I just think this is so much better! :)
Re:Way to grind that axe, buddy (Score:3, Interesting)
Obsolete information. People are largely unaware of the full gamut of renewable energy technologies. Even so, the Department of Energy did an extensive study that said that Texas, Kansas, and North Dakota could supply the country's full energy needs from wind energy alone, but we're not just talking solar panels and turbines.
We could slash building energy requirements drastically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_solar_building_design [wikipedia.org]
Move to peer-to-peer microgrids which by the redundancy of many diverse small energy sources would fill gaps in baseload, reduce the need for redundant large powerplants and losses to electric resistance: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/09/uk-island-micro-grid-wales [guardian.co.uk]
Consider alternatives for urban and suburban transit that would on today's grid be the equivalent of 300MPG cars: http://www.jpods.com/ [jpods.com]
For 24/7 baseload, use offshore wind and concentrated solar thermal: http://www.solarreserve.com/ [solarreserve.com]
Not to mention use solar thermal for hot water, a highly affordable approach: http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12850 [energysavers.gov]
These are proven solutions with excellent working examples. You can also look at kites: http://ecoble.com/2008/08/26/wind-power-generated-from-kites/ [ecoble.com] for cheaper material costs or extending power generation to altitudes where the wind is constant, panels of windbelts for smaller-scale solutions as on http://www.humdingerwind.com/ [humdingerwind.com] and artificial photosynthesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_photosynthesis [wikipedia.org]
They're also making great strides towards net-positive fusion using lasers: https://www.llnl.gov/str/Petawatt.html [llnl.gov]
I think the full range of these makes nuclear strictly a question of how to use the remaining nuclear fuel to the fullest extent with less waste left over. I don't understand the enthusiasm for nuclear in the light of the above, or the recent disasters.
Re:Growth in nuclear is really prior waste. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not exactly. Since TMI, domestic construction of new nuclear power plants has ground to a halt here in the US. Since building a new plant hasn't been politically feasible, operators have learned how to squeeze every joule out of the existing fleet. Steam generator upgrades and thermal power uprates have increased the fleet's output substantially. Taking fuel to higher burnups through better in-core fuel management has allowed operators to squeeze a bit more energy from the fuel bundles. But mostly, plant operators have pretty much perfected the art of running a light water reactor. Capacity factors (the percent of time that the plant is operating and generating power) averaged around 75% or so in the US back in the 1970s. Last year it was more like 91%. That's like getting a few reactors "for free."
It's not that operators in the 1970s were incompetent, it's that we've been continuously raising the performance bar. Par for the course is 90%+ capacity factors these days -- totally unheard of, and deemed impossible back then.
Re:Can it scale? (Score:5, Interesting)
No one will let nuclear power scale. We haven't actually built a new nuclear plant in 30 years. With old ones simply wearing out means nuclear is on a decline that just can't be stopped without new plants.
That said, most of the US energy supply still comes from coal and gas (in that order), with 'renewables' as a group taking a distant third, and nuclear still chugging along in a close fourth. We don't seem to really be decreasing coal and gas use, which are real problem areas and instead focus on the perfectly adequate nuclear as what needs to go away.
I'd really rather they replace some of those craptastic coal and gas power plants that make up the bulk of our energy production.
Re:That's really ironic (Score:3, Interesting)
"Nuclear is dangerous and bad and scary!" -- the coal energy lobby
And mdsolar. Guy's a fucking idiot, just look at his submissions [slashdot.org].
Anti-nuclear crackpots are why we can't have nice things, like non-40 year old plants, and thorium reactors.
Stopgap Measure (Score:2, Interesting)
I think one of the major things that a lot of people are missing is that nuclear energy should be seen as a stopgap measure. We don't know if the climate can continue to support coal and oil based power sources. It might, but then again it might not and I don't think thats a risk people are willing to take.
The major problem with current wind, solar, and basically any other power source dependent on the sun is that its only on-line for half the day. The other half has to be taken up by coal and oil plants. It's not easy to spin up or down a generator on the fly so most of the time they just leave them running even if no one is burning the power. Compounded by the unpredictability of solar power (wind, wave, and various light based technologies) "backup generators" have to be left running for the event that there is a break in the supply (cloud) or spike in demand. That said, I would like to see numbers stating how much oil / coal is burned to backup the "green" tech. This is also why net metering is such a problem for both the gird and the environment. Not to mention the truly horrible chemicals used in PV fabrication or any other IC for that matter.
It's my hope that in twenty years we will have better solar panels and battery technology. There are research groups making great strides in both directions. However, without higher efficiencies in both categories these alternative power sources remain largely nonviable. Further, impact of manufacturing and disposal needs to be considered. That is not to say we shouldn't invest but we need clean sources to get us from here to there.
Personally I'm sticking with high MPG pure gas cars and nuclear power for now and hoping for a brighter future.