Skip to main content

(Top Secret, Eyes Only) – The Blog Post Congressman Ed Markey Shouldn’t See

Earlier today Congressman Ed Markey sought to score political points for renewables by referencing a monthly report on energy use (pdf) by the Energy Information Administration.

Here’s Markey:

Buried in a report issued by the U.S. Energy Information Administration are these facts: domestic production of renewable energy has now surpassed nuclear energy, and is swiftly gaining on oil. In their “Monthly Energy Review” released last week, the EIA said that in the first quarter of 2011, total domestic production of renewable energy (2.245 quadrillion BTUs of wind, solar, water, geothermal, biomass/biofuels) outpaced domestic production of nuclear energy (2.125 quadrillion BTUs).

While words and numbers can explain a lot, below is the applicable chart that shows trends in U.S. energy production since 1973. Nuclear energy surpassed renewable energy in the early 1990s and has been ahead for most of the last 20 years.

Primary Energy Production (Quadrillion Btu) p. 4

image

There’s a little bit more to the story, of course. The thing about using overall energy numbers is that it compares and includes production from all sectors. So while renewables have produced more energy than nuclear for the first three months of 2011, that number includes biofuels and biomass used in the industrial and transportation sectors. When we look at generation in the electric sector where nuclear actually competes, renewables produce about half as much electricity as nuclear. Renewables still have a long way to go to match nuclear’s electric generation. See chart below and pages 94 and 95 from EIA.

Electricity Net Generation (Billion Kilowatt-hours)

image

Back to the Congressman:

The [EIA] report comes after years of nuclear energy boosters continually suggesting that a “nuclear renaissance” was just around the corner

Hmm, it might be good for the Congressman to read more of the EIA report before making this claim. A full read shows that U.S. nuclear stations broke their record in 2010 for most generation in a year, p. 115 (pdf). The nuclear industry continues to pump more megawatt-hours on the grid even with the same number of units.

But the number is about to change. Here are pictures of nuclear construction going on around the country.

Vogtle 3 and 4

image

Watts Bar 2 

image

V.C. Summer 2 and 3

image

Looks like the industry is alive, kicking and growing.

Back to politics from the Congressman:

The [EIA] report comes ahead of a week when House Republicans will put a 2012 energy spending bills [sic] to a vote in the House of Representatives that prescribes devastating cuts to clean energy while actually increasing investments in coal, natural gas, nuclear, and other traditional technologies.

While I don’t know all of the specifics of the new energy spending bill, I’m reminded of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) that passed in 2009. Wikipedia notes that ARRA provided $27.2 billion for “energy efficiency and renewable energy research and investment” while excluding incentives for nearly all other so-called traditional technologies.

So if the nuclear and fossil industries don’t want folks to see the EIA report because renewables are apparently taking over, it looks like the Congressman’s news release is trying to hide the billions in loan guarantees, production tax credits, grants, etc. made available to renewables in a previous stimulus bill…

Comments

Joel Riddle said…
The picture allegedly of Watts Bar Unit 2 construction is actually of Unit 1's steam generator replacement. Unit 2's reactor building is on the left in that view, Unit 1 is on the right.
SteveK9 said…
Do those figures for renewables still include hydroelectric? Often when I see figures for renewables it turns out that most of it is hydroelectric dams, not wind, solar, biomass .... etc.
Brian Mays said…
Steve - Yes. The figures for renewables include hydroelectric.

In terms of primary energy, hydro is dwarfed by biomass (which includes biofuels added to petroleum, i.e., ethanol), which accounts for almost half of the figure for "renewable" energy. When only electricity generation is considered, hydro makes up the lion's share of the "renewables."
Maury said…
"When we look at generation in the electric sector where nuclear actually competes"

For now. After all, one of the arguments for new nukes is all the plug-in-hybrids we'll be driving.

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…