Skip to main content

Americans Using Less Energy, More Renewables

energy-flow2009_650x360 Lawrence Livermore Laboratories toted up energy use last year (for 2008) and found a marked drop. This year’s version (for 2009) reveals a further drop:

The United States used significantly less coal and petroleum in 2009 than in 2008, and significantly more wind power. There also was a decline in natural gas use and increases in solar, hydro and geothermal power according to the most recent energy flow charts released by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

You’d be perfectly within your rights to say, It’s the economy, stupid, and that was the main takeaway from the Labs report last year. Not this time:

“Energy use tends to follow the level of economic activity, and that level declined last year. At the same time, higher efficiency appliances and vehicles reduced energy use even further,” said A.J. Simon, an LLNL energy systems analyst who develops the energy flow charts using data provided by the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration. “As a result, people and businesses are using less energy in general.”

Since no new nuclear plants went online in 2009, its numbers remain much the same – and although Livermore does look at carbon emissions – where nuclear energy shines out - in a different report, that’s not the goal here. Here, the interest is: coal down and wind up (and natural gas and nuclear energy holding steady). These elements will have an impact on the country’s carbon emissions profile, but we’ll have to wait for Livermore’s report on this a little later this year to see how it totes up.

Wind power increased dramatically in 2009 to .70 quads of primary energy compared to .51 in 2008. Most of that energy is tied directly to electricity generation and thus helps decrease the use of coal for electricity production.

The relatively tiny contribution of wind still represents a big year over year increase in a period where most sources drooped a little. Nuclear is 8.35 quads (down from 8.45 quads in 2008), natural gas 23.37 (down from 23.84) and coal 19.76 (drooping a lot from 22.42). A quad is a quadrillion BTUs and the total energy use in 2009 was 94.6 quads, down from 99.2 quads in 2008.  

So you can see this report as demonstrating the beneficial aspects of energy efficiency – as practiced by industry and individual – and in so doing providing considerable cheer all along the ideological spectrum. It shows progress being made without much government intervention but also shows government’s interest in promoting industries that help fulfill a policy objective.

A chart only a scientist could love. This is the visualization of the report. See here for a readable pdf version, but expect every last synapse in your brain to fry.

Comments

Joffan said…
There's something slightly weird about those numbers. I think hydro and wind input must have been recalculated to "add" imaginary thermal losses, which are then stripped out again. Otherwise hydro comes in at (2.66/12.08) ~ 22% of electricity, which I know is wrong, and wind is similarly higher than reality. So that 0.7quad of wind may be virtual quads, created from about 0.22 quad of electricity - the flip side of which is that nuclear's 8.35 quad is only about 2.8 quad of electricity.

Update... there it is in a footnote:
EIA reports flows for non-thermal resources (i.e. hydro, wind and solar) in BTU-equivalent values by assuming a typical fossil fuel plant "heat rate".
Wind replaces coal ?!??!!? said…
The Livermore report is wrong when it says that the increased wind production (very small in absolute quantity) offset coal electricity production. Wind is intermittent, so what it does is to reduce the consumption of the most expensive fuel (natural gas) in fossil plants with the lowest capital cost (simple Brayton or combined cycle).

Nuclear provides a direct substitute for coal electricity (including eliminating the need to build the coal plants).

Wind can only partially reduce the consumption of natural gas (but one still must spend money to build the natural gas plants to provide back-up).

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…