Home › Renewables - Business › Is Renewable Energy Growing Stronger? It Depends on How You Look At It › Page 21773

Is Renewable Energy Growing Stronger? It Depends on How You Look At It

craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Business

EVWorld has a wonderfully encouraging article on renewables that begins:

Pop quiz time. The fastest growing energy sector in terms of percentage of growth in the United States between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011 was: A) natural gas, B) nuclear power, C) renewable energy?

The answer is C, renewable energy (RE) by a huge margin. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), RE grew by 27.12%. That includes biofuels, biomass, geothermal, solar, water, and wind. By comparison, natural gas production increased 13.66%, while crude oil grew 14.27%. Nuclear power, in contrast, shrunk 1.99% and coal dropped 7.16%.

All true, but one can find different facts that would support a different conclusion.  E.g., under 5% of the U.S. grid mix is renewable energy (if you don’t count hydroelectric dams), so talking about percent growth of this small number may not be the most relevant stat.  

 

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2 comments on “Is Renewable Energy Growing Stronger? It Depends on How You Look At It”
  1. Glenn Doty says:
    April 10, 2012 at 10:32 am

    Craig,

    Naturally, I have a number of problems with how EVworld chooses to calculate and compile their data. First: it’s useless to compare different months. Each month has its own power demands, and comparing January to December can lead to very wrong perspectives (we use more electricity in December – Christmas lights, 24-hour shopping, Christmas music being played in outdoor speakers, etc…)

    But furthermore, by grouping renewables we can mask the performance of some and the stagnation of others… and the current irrelevance of some as well.

    That 27.12% number was derived by including hydropower, biomass, and geothermal. That tends to severely lower the percentage growth for renewable industry at large… but on the flip side it serves to increase the total amount of energy generated.

    A better way to evaluate renewables is to break them up and look at them individually:

    Biomass:
    Jan 2009 – 4.49 TWh
    Jan 2012 – 4.91 TWh
    % change: 9.35%

    Geothermal:
    Jan 2009 – 1.29 TWh
    Jan 2012 – 1.44 TWh
    % change: 11.63%

    Solar:
    Jan 2009 – 0.01 TWh
    Jan 2012 – 0.07 TWh
    % change: 700%

    Wind:
    Jan 2009 – 5.95 TWh
    Jan 2012 – 13.82 TWh
    % change: 232.27%

    Hydropower:
    Jan 2009 – 23.49 TWh
    Jan 2012 – 23.93 TWh
    % change: 1.87%

    Nuclear:
    Jan 2009 – 74.10 TWh
    Jan 2012 – 72.38 TWh
    % change: -2.32%

    Natural Gas:
    Jan 2009 – 66.39 TWh
    Jan 2012 – 91.21 TWh
    % change: 37.39%

    Coal:
    Jan 2009 – 171.93 TWh
    Jan 2012 – 129.06 TWh
    % change: -24.93%

    In this we see that only solar and wind are growing at a faster rate than natural gas… But the GROWTH in natural gas electricity generation for one single month is greater than the total generation from wind over a 54 day span, and the amount of electricity generated in one single month by natural gas is greater than the sum of all solar power generation in the history of this country. So celebrating faster growth must be taken in context.

    Of course, natural gas is far better than coal, and slightly worse than nuclear.

    At least coal power is plummeting. That’s good any way you wish to calculate anything.