Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: U.S Renewables Hit 5%...Where’s the Celebration?

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,805

    U.S Renewables Hit 5%...Where’s the Celebration?

    http://blog.rmi.org/blog_US_Renewables_Hit_5_percent

    Between April 2011 and March 2012, the U.S. generated 5 percent of the country’s annual electricity from renewable sources, according to preliminary data from the Energy Information Administration.

    To be exact, the U.S. generated 204 terawatt-hours (‘TWh”) out of 4,070 TWh from non-hydro renewables.

    Putting this annual total of non-hydro renewable generation in context, this is:
    •More than the individual electrical usage of 197 nations (92 percent of all nations), including Indonesia, Mexico, Turkey, and Thailand.
    •More than the combined electrical usage of the Philippines, Switzerland, and Malaysia.
    •Enough electrical energy to power about 16 million American homes, deducting about 10 percent for transmission and distribution losses.

    The data submission forms the EIA uses do not catch every last TWh, and indeed, don’t include solar photovoltaic generation from systems less than 1 megawatt in size. This smaller capacity segment includes most residential and commercial distributed PV systems.

    Including these systems would likely add about another 0.1 percent of generation (so ~5.1 percent in total) based upon PV capacity from NREL’s Open PV Project data. Also, including small hydro (hydro <10 MW in capacity) in the mix would yield a non-large hydro renewable generation total above 6 percent, perhaps even above 7 percent.

    What’s even more impressive is that non-hydro renewable generation has grown approximately 150 percent since 2004, primarily from utility-scale wind, with the preceding 13 years seeing basically no non-hyrdo growth.

    Where’s the champagne?

    So where are the celebratory announcements or at least press releases announcing the milestone? Or did any major print or online newspaper take the time to chronicle the climb to this milestone? Not that I’ve seen.

    Instead, this landmark of having one out of every 20 electrons flowing throughout the U.S. grid generated by non-hydro renewables was met mostly with silence.

    Is 5% Truly a Success?

    Compared to some of our peers, perhaps not. Germany has about 20 percent annual renewable power generation, which can result in greater than 50 percent of electrical energy from just solar PV for short durations.

    Sweden, Portugal, Finland, Spain, and Denmark also have non-hydro renewable power penetration well above the U.S..

    In Asia, China is now experiencing very aggressive renewable power growth rates and indeed is ahead of the U.S. with the most non-hydro renewable power capacity installed. Japan may soon blow by many of these countries in non-hydro renewable penetration due to their need to replace the power of their shuttered nuclear power fleet.

    In absolute terms, however, the U.S. still has a large presence in renewable power, leading all nations in project investing in 2011 according to the Pew Charitable Trusts.

    But ultimately, 5 percent is shy of the pace detailed in Reinventing Fire, targeting over 80 percent of generation from non-hydro renewables by 2050, which would require about 7 percent as of the end of March, 2012.

    What can be deemed a success is the decrease in the total amount of electrical generation driven by demand. Energy efficiency likely has had a lot to do with the year-over-year decrease in electrical energy generation for the first quarter of 2012 vs. 2011 even while the US has had nearly 2 percent GDP growth.

    We appear to be heading toward an electrical demand year as low as 2009 (when the economy was in much rougher shape than today), and potentially the lowest we’ve seen since 2003. Perhaps the energy efficiency revolution is kicking into higher gear earlier than many had prognosticated.

    The Takeaway

    What might be the most relevant takeaway is that non-hydro renewable power is clearly moving beyond “niche” power. It’s a mainstream source that will increasingly challenge existing electricity generation and provision business models, particularly as distributed solutions (electric vehicles, demand response, PV, etc.) take off.

    The growth of distributed energy solutions is one of the reasons for the recent launch of RMI’s Electricity Innovation Lab (“eLab”): to stimulate new ideas, energy, and commitment to solutions at the distribution edge of the electricity system, the interface between the electricity system’s macrogrid and the rapidly growing portfolios of energy assets, control systems, and end-use technologies.

    Let’s celebrate this milestone. It’s not a small mark considering where we came from. But let’s not lose sight that the U.S. still lags many other countries in renewable generation penetration, and the true end-zone of a secure, clean, and resilient electricity system is still at the far end of the field.

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,352


    Happy?

    Yes we generated some power. I think the reason that no one made a fuss is that 5% is such a small number that it doesn't seem like an accomplishment. There probably is also a fear that someone will look behind the curtain and realize we probably paid 25% of our energy costs to get that 5%.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,857
    Where’s the champagne?


    We're still crying over Solyndra.

  4. #4
    There's usually a 4% margin of error in most estimates and calculations so this is negligible.
    I'm for the expansion, though, of CapeWind. That's the operation trying to have windmills off Hyannnis. Our friends, the Kennedy's have been objecting on ENVIRONMENTAL grounds. Imagine that.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,353
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    There's usually a 4% margin of error in most estimates and calculations so this is negligible.
    I'm for the expansion, though, of CapeWind. That's the operation trying to have windmills off Hyannnis. Our friends, the Kennedy's have been objecting on ENVIRONMENTAL grounds. Imagine that.
    Windmills are great as long as it's the great unwashed clingers in flyover that have them within view.... But to expect American royalty (environmental royalty at that) to have to look out their windows and see these monstrosities?

    That's blasphemous....

  6. #6
    Anyone could have taken the hundreds of billions Obama has spent on his "green Jobs" initiative and achieved much greater percentage of renewable energy. Instead it was wasted on companies that are bankrupt two years later. No jobs and billions wasted. Lets pop the champagne!

  7. #7
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    There probably is also a fear that someone will look behind the curtain and realize we probably paid 25% of our energy costs to get that 5%.
    This.

    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    There's usually a 4% margin of error in most estimates and calculations so this is negligible.
    And this.

    And 4%+/- for a Govt. Produced Stat is being generous.

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,786

    Ethanol Fails to Lower Gas Prices, Study Finds

    The government subsidizes corn for ethanol production. Even if that did lower the price of gasoline at the pump, subsidies always cause inefficiencies in the marketplace. When consumers buy and sell things, a natural price is reached. Remember, communism failed largely because of the command economy – where a handful of bureaucrats in Moscow determined how many socks, bars of soap, and rolls of toilet paper were produced. No matter how smart the bureaucrats, the everyday decisions of 100s of millions of people is far more effective at determining the needs of a country for products and services.

    The renewable ethanol fuel blended into the United States’ gasoline supply does not lower prices at the pump as advocates have claimed, according to a study released this week by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    The paper critiques earlier studies sponsored by the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), which found that mixing ethanol with transportation fuel reduced gasoline prices by 89 cents in 2010 and $1.09 in 2011.

    “The RFA and Secretary of Agriculture are relying on the [papers] for policy recommendations, and once I started seeing signs and billboards all around D.C. pop up with the same numbers, it became important for me to set the record straight,” said Christopher Knittel, a professor of energy and economics at MIT and lead author of the report.

    Today, ethanol made from corn makes up about 10 percent of all U.S. gasoline, up from 3 percent in 2003. Industry groups have maintained that increased ethanol production supports farmers, improves energy security, lowers greenhouse gas emissions and saves money at the pump.

    But the MIT paper found that ethanol production has almost no impact on gasoline prices. According to Knittel, the RFA reports are flawed because the statistical models omitted important variables and made flawed correlations — in this case that as ethanol production increased, the ratio of gasoline to oil prices fell.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...es-study-finds
    And here’s Ron Paul talking about the inefficiencies of corn as an ethanol production crop.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvJ2uLq295w

    http://americafirstsite.com/americaf...#axzz21CI9li2p

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,805
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post


    Happy?

    Yes we generated some power. I think the reason that no one made a fuss is that 5% is such a small number that it doesn't seem like an accomplishment. There probably is also a fear that someone will look behind the curtain and realize we probably paid 25% of our energy costs to get that 5%.
    This is a plausible argument. Unlike the rest of the posts.

    2 things:

    What is the price paid in terms of dollars and safety for nuclear power?
    prolly a lot more than what it is for solar

    By paying the 'premium" for solar and wind installations what the consumer gets is a fixed cost. That is why Germany, China and now Japan are spending big on solar.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us