The US now gets more energy from renewables than nuclear.

[bananas]

The latest data from the EIA is for May 2009.
For both April and May, renewables beat nuclear.
Two months in a row - it's not a glitch.
Mostly biofuels and hydro, but wind is increasing rapidly.

Table 1.2 Primary Energy Production by Source (Quadrillion Btu)
Month: nuclear renewables
April: .620 .664
May: .684 .707

Table 1.3 Primary Energy Consumption by Source (Quadrillion Btu)
Month: nuclear renewables
April: .620 .667
May: .684 .710

Sources:
EIA Monthly Energy Review: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/overview.html
Table 1.2 pdf: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec1_5.pdf
Table 1.3 pdf: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec1_7.pdf

[OKIsItJustMe]

1. True, but

The lion's share of the renewables is "hydro-electric" and "biomass" (i.e. not wind and solar, which many people equate with "renewables.")
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/renew.html

[vinylsolution]

2. But it's still great news....

.... another nail in nuclear power's coffin.

And darn' good riddance, too.

[kristopher]

4. Why repeat a point the OP clearly made?

I guess you missed it....

...again.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. No, actually I didn't

My link does a good job of giving more specifics. It's not just, “mostly biofuels and hydro,” it's the great majority (i.e. “the lion's share.”)

You may find this table helpful.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1001.html

In 2008: Energy consumption (in Trillions of BTU's)
Conventional Hydro: 2,452
Wood: 2,041
Biofuels: 1,413
Wind: 514
Waste: 431
GeoThermal: 358
Solar PV: 91

(Wind just beat out “Waste.” PV was a little more than 1% of the “Renewables.”)


This table "Renewable Energy Consumption: Electric Power Sector, 1949-2008" is also helpful:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1002c.html

[Statistical]

17. While they are renewable most are burned releasing emissions & CO2. n/t

[kristopher]

22. If the wood decays it emits the same GHGs.

[TheWraith]

19. Burning wood should not be considered a renewable form of energy.

Because normally we harvest wood at a rate far in excess of it's replenishment.

[kristopher]

21. That presents its own problem.

The first of which is your assertion that we normally harvest at a rate in excess of replenishment. I understand your point, but biomass *is* a renewable resource when harvested responsibly and it is proven by many cultures that it can be harvested sustainably; for example, look at the difference between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater by wanting to reclassify it as a resource.

I'd certainly agree that close scrutiny of each and every instance is required before wood is granted any type of financial credit as a contributor to GHG reductions.

[TheWraith]

23. Responsible biomass is, to my mind, pretty much like clean coal.

Maybe you can demonstrate how it SHOULD work, but when you compare that to the actual real-world results of using it for energy, it falls far short. The fact is that any sort of combustion has an inherent inefficiency for electrical generation, as well as hidden costs detracting from how "green" it is.

[GliderGuider]

26. The point is that "renewable" and "sustainable" are completely different concepts

However, most laymen conflate them -- with no small help from vested interests, I suspect.

[joshcryer]

29. I think "renewable" and "sustainable" should be synonymous.

I don't know why they shouldn't. I mean, I, being a layman, wouldn't say something like "oil fields are renewable." Even though, technically, in millions of years, we can suck up a bit of oil to play with.

Nor would I say "Brazilian rainforest logging is renewable," even though the trees would grow back, eventually. Because their carbon sequestering ability would be set back for centuries.

For me "renewable" is within timescales relevant to *me* or *my generation*. Thus "sustainable."

[kristopher]

20. Really?

You *now* say, "My link does a good job of giving more specifics" yet that isn't what you wrote in post 1.

At that time you wrote, "The lion's share of the renewables is "hydro-electric" and "biomass" (i.e. not wind and solar, which many people equate with "renewables.")"

Which was a response to "For both April and May, renewables beat nuclear. Two months in a row - it's not a glitch. Mostly biofuels and hydro, but wind is increasing rapidly."

Why didn't you say in post something about "more specifics" if that was, in fact, the reason for the post?

[Greyskye]

3. .

:popcorn:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madokie]

6. Just think where we could be if we weren't spending so much money

and time on trying to keep the nukeular pig fed. If there was a viable solution to what to do with the highly radioactive waste they'd have found it by now, so why are we still throwing money at that dead horse I ask?

[TheMadMonk]

34. There are plenty of viable options. The problem is that the only...

...options deemed acceptable as a result of anti-nuclear scaremongering, is euivalent to requiring that all fossil fuel burners (powerplants, motor vehicles, etc) operate with 100% carbon capture and zero emissions of any kind and that those emissions be stored indefinitely.

The vast majority of so called "nuclear waste" is less radioactive than concrete. However, because of its source it must be handled, stored and disposed in a manner all out of proportion to the danger it actually represents (essentially zero). Of the material that is highly radioactive, a good deal loses the vast majority of its radioactivity over timescales of days and weeks, but even once it has lost that radioactivity it still must be treated as if it were as hot as the day it was produced.

What's left is intermediate level nuclear waste, with danger times measured in centuries to millenia, this stuff really does require special handling if it is to be stored until it is safe. Glassification is demonstrably adequate to the task for at least the shorter lived of this intermediate level waste, and there is no actual evidence that it would be inadequate for the longer lived.

Another solution is to irradiate it in a reactor (or with a neutron gun) and convert it to something that is far less radioactive, or that will decay in days or weeks to such a state. This has been demonstrated and proven viable experimentally, however it is not permitted to be done as part of an actual waste disposal strategy.

A goodly part of the excessive cost of nuclear power is in complying with regulations that are all out of proportion to the danger they are there to protect against. Don't get me wrong, some nuclear waste IS very dangerous and must be handled (at least in the short term) with a great deal of dilligence, but nobody is served when hospital gowns worn by patients undergoing radiotherapy MUST be disposed of in the same waste stream as a decommissioned reactor core.

And there is a hidden danger in this strategy of ridiculous excess. The sheer volume of material that must be given special handling under current regulations makes inventory errors almost inevitable. Stuff gets lost, mislabled, or forgotten in dumps. Containers corode, high level material leaks and contaminates low level. Simply allowing material that is demonstrably not dangerous (geiger testing, etc) to be disposed of in the ordinary industrial waste stream would make a huge difference here.

The rest of the cost excess is in keeping reactors, built on fifty year old designs, operational whilst simultaneously failing (mostly because of opponents) to introduce newer, cleaner "burning" and enormously safer reactors to replace the older ones.

Nuclear power is held to a standard of safety that far, far exceeds those required of any other industry. And for good reason. Yet even when it does meet these standards (and indeed exceed them by a more than comfortable margin most of the time) it's still not good enough for its opponents.

[NickB79]

7. How much expansion of hydro power is left available in N. America?

I was under the impression that most of the best hydro sites in Canada and the US have already been fully developed.

It is great news that hydro is making a dent in our energy demands, but future increases will have to come from somewhere else.*


*I consider tidal power as separate from the conventional hydroelectric currently in use. Successful installation of large-scale tidal power facilities would render my statement moot.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. Actually, the figures for "conventional hydro" are dropping

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1001.html
1983 - 3,527 (Trillion BTU's)
2008 - 2,452 (Trillion BTU's)

[Nihil]

8. Definitely moving in the right direction!

Renewables are now 9.6% of total primary energy consumption (0.71 / 7.38 quads).

Need to keep working on the remaining 81% from fossil fuel (5.98 / 7.38),
especially the 1.51 quads (20.5%) from coal, but this is still progress!

[madokie]

9. Sure it is

any step in the right direction is almost always a good thing especially when we're talking about coal or nuclear power, both of which we can't get away from soon enough. :hi:

[GliderGuider]

10. The use of the word "can't" in your post can make the sentence read two ways. Both are correct. /nt

:-(

[madokie]

11. Well the written english word is not something I've mastered thats for sure

Never claimed to have either.

[GliderGuider]

12. It just struck me as interesting - the linguistic version of an optical illusion

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. One of my favorite SNL sketches

Ed Asner played the retiring head of a nuclear plant. His parting advice was something along the lines of, “Remember, you can't put ‘too much’ water on a nuclear reactor.” His ex-employees fall into an argument on exactly what he meant by that.

The sketch ends with him on a beach, with a strange glow on the horizon.

[Indenturedebtor]

27. I always see a beautiful girl in that picture.

I can see the old woman but I always see the girl first and it's a struggle to see the old woman. Does that make me horny or an optimist? Or a horny optimist?

[joshcryer]

28. Do you browse zoomed in a bit?

I see it similarly but I browse at 180% zoom (eek, I know; don't like straining my eyes!). However, I zoomed out and can see the old lady much easier.

[Indenturedebtor]

30. Well I can see both, but my brain tends towards the girl

Maybe it's a hemispheric dominance issue?

[joshcryer]

32. Heh, now you got me failing to see the old lady zoomed out!

:P Wonder what's up with that.

You may be interested in this, btw: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html

Neil DeGrasse Tyson said recently in a PBS show that "They call them 'Optical Illusions,' they should call them, 'Brain Failures.'" :)

[Indenturedebtor]

33. I actually studied optical illusions/brain failures in school

(psych degree) but I can't remember what their supposed to represent... and in reality I don't think that you can reach the deep recesses of a person's psyche with ambiguous visual stimuli, etc... though I get a kick out of it.

I think it's probably that my brain is constantly looking for hot girls. Even though I'm very happily married - girls are nice to look at :D

[joshcryer]

16. Nuclear got nearly 60% of *all* energy R&D for the past 30 years.

If only we put 60% of that energy R&D into renewables. :(

[madokie]

18. Thats what I'm saying too

Nuclear energy so far is a failed idea due to the fact that we're talking about something thats dangerously radioactive and some of which half life is measured in thousands of human lives. We have a responsibility to not leave something such as nuclear fuel nor it's waste to descendant's who very well may never understand it. IMHO

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madokie]

25. Just not worth it

[joshcryer]

31. Here's the chart I made:

Conservation: 16956990000 / 6.9%
Fossil Fuels: 33038553000 / 13.5%
Renewables: 19811293000 / 8.1%
Nuclear: 143844275000 / 58.8%
Storage Tech: 7426103000 / 3%
Other Tech: 23193409000 / 9.4%
Total: 244271100000

(all numbers USD, worldwide energy R&D)

Of note is that nuclear power grew at around .2% a year on average, over a thirty year time period. 58.8% of R&D, .2% growth. Impossibly insane.

Yet we see solar power now doubling every two years, with a pitiful amount of R&D in comparison.

(Note: I made this graph way back in 2003, so it may be inaccurate if new figures are added in; but it does illustrate that the time frame between the 70s and 2000 had a crapload of nuclear R&D basically fall into a bottomless pit of nothingness.