Skip to main content

Stat Pack: EIA's Annual Energy Review 2004 (Part 5)

By
Today, in our continuing examination of EIA's Annual Energy Review 2004, we take a hard look at Section 8 (pdf) concerning the generation of electricity.

In 2004, it took the U.S. 40.77 quadrillion BTUs to produce 3,717 billion kilowatt-hours for consumption in the residential, commercial, industrial and transportation sectors. Fossil fuels provided 69% of that energy; nuclear, 20% and renewables, 10%. About two thirds of the energy (BTUs) consumed to create electricity was lost. Why?

Electrical system energy losses are calculated as the difference between total primary consumption by the electric power sector and the total energy content of electricity retail sales. Most of these losses occur at steam-electric power plants (conventional and nuclear) in the conversion of heat energy into mechanical energy to turn electric generators. The loss is a thermodynamically necessary feature of the steam-electric cycle.

Here's a chart comparing the share for fuels used for electrical generation between 1973 and 2004. When we look at the past thirty years, we can identify three important trends:

1) Electricity generation from oil has dropped by half;

2) Hydro generation was flat while U.S. electricity consumption more than doubled; and

3) Nuclear power generation increased more than eight fold.

Fossil fuels in 2004: Coal accounted for 70% of the mix; natural gas, 25%; and petroleum and other gases, 5%.

Renewables in 2004:
Hydro power made up about 75% of renewable generation in 2004. Wind and solar made a combined contribution of 5%. Wood, waste and geothermal accounted for the rest with about 20%.

Electric Capacity

The total electric capacity in the U.S. in 2004 was 968.1 gigawatts. Fossil fuels accounted for 77%; nuclear, 10%; and renewables, 12%. Here's a table which compares total capacity to actual generation:

The table shows nuclear capacity at 10% of the U.S. total. Yet nuclear contributes 20% of total electrical generation. Renewables have more capacity than nuclear, yet generate less than half as much electricity. What does that mean? It means that you don't have to build as much nuclear capacity to produce the same quantity of electricity.

Many people believe wind and maybe solar can provide a total solution for our future electricity needs. It's clear they can play a vital part in the equation (like solar may be able to play during peaking hours in the summer), however, they won't be sufficient in isolation.

Nuclear power has obvious advantages: It provides baseload electrical generation; forward price stability in the electrical marketplace; and promotes clean air. Once again, the choice in the marketplace shouldn't be between nuclear energy and renewables. In fact, it's pretty clear that we're going to need significant amounts of both to meet future demand.

For previous posts on EIA's Annual Energy Review click here, here, here and here.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more