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."

Comments

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.

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.

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: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: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.

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.