Energy Information Administration Report: Renewables at 2.4% of net generation

EIA Report: coal slipping a little bit, Midwest a hot spot
Size: 10 KB

For the EIA 2006 annual report: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html

selected quotes:

Coal’s share of total net generation continued its slow decline over the past decade, from its peak of 52.8 percent in 1997 to 49.0 percent in 2006.

Renewable energy, other than hydroelectric, grew 10.6 percent and accounted for 2.4 percent of net generation in 2006. The greatest growth in the renewable sector was in wind generation, which contributed 95 percent of the growth in renewable energy. Wind generators produced 26.6 million MWh, 49.3 percent higher than in 2005.

In 2006, electricity providers reported total peak-load reductions of 27,240 MW resulting from demand-side management (DSM) programs, a 6.0 percent increase from the amount reported in 2005. Reported DSM costs increased to $2.1 billion, a 6.7 percent increase from costs reported in 2005.

During 2006, 542 MW of new coal-fired generators started commercial operation, while 735 MW of older, inefficient coal-fired capacity were retired from service. The most notable addition to capacity was the 400-MW unit 3 at the Tucson Electric Power Company’s Springerville facility, while the shutdown of 180 MW of capacity at NRG’s C.R. Huntley facility was most notable on the retirement side.

Although coal-fired capacity has not changed significantly since 1995, generation by coal-fired plants was 16.5 percent higher in 2006 than in 1995. The utilization of coal-fired generators, a measure of actual generation compared to the theoretical maximum output, has increased from 63 percent in 1995 to 73 percent in 2006. Planned coal-fired capacity on January 1, 2007, totaled 29,698 MW, up slightly from the 27,884 MW reported on January 1, 2006. Most of this proposed capacity is scheduled to start commercial operation between 2009 and 2011. Coal plants planned for Texas, Kentucky, Illinois, and Wisconsin represent over one-half of all proposed coal-fired capacity additions.

Coal is the only fossil fuel that has continued to increase in cost at electric plants each year since 2000.

In 2006, the average retail price for all customers rose to 8.9 cents per kWh, a sharp increase of three-fourths of a cent from the 2005 price level. The 9.3 percent increase was the largest since 1981

we'll see exponential growth from here on out.


Renewables can now be configured to be available 24/7

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/02/2048420.htm

... the utilities are confidently predicting that their solar power will soon be providing baseload electricity - that is, day and night - at prices competitive with coal.


http://www.isepa.com/FAQs.asp

In a CAES at the ISEP facility, air will be compressed using low-cost, off-peak electricity, and wind that is not being sold on the grid at that time. The air is stored in a deep underground geological formation for later use in making electricity. When energy is needed, the stored air will be released, heated and used to drive generating turbines. The electricity it produces can be used as needed, especially during high-demand peak hours. This process uses less fuel than a conventional combustion-turbine facility.

:rofl:

I'm sceptical that we can even maintain the current growth rate in the face of a looming global depression and evisceration of the middle class as Peak Oil sets in over the next few years. As companies see their profits fall, the capital for building any large-scale investments will also fall.

Peak Oil = Peak Economy

That is what is driving the stock market up to record levels. Investment is shifting from coal fired plants to renewable generation. If you want to know what the future will be like, your best reference is the present.

From World Energy to 2050:







The world's total energy use out to 2050:



And the proportion of each source now and in 2050:



That's a nice build-out of wind and solar, but I think anyone who is expecting to see 10,000 square miles of Nevada covered with panels by then is going to be disappointed.

The curves I'm using for wind and solar behave like I would expect a technical industry to behave - a rapid early ramp up with a gently decreasing percentage growth over time as the industry expands. The constraints on growth are capex, installation capacity, interconnection issues, regulatory and logistical hurdles etc. You don't get infinite parallelism in any of these areas, because most of them are human-mediated. As those channels saturate it slows down the percentage growth.

...to expound with thoroughly absurd verbiage.

http://greenoptions.com/2007/09/23/us_power_requirements_solved_in_92_square_miles

As the article says, they pooched the numbers originally, making all the innumerate ecogeeks think that 92 square miles would do it. They have since corrected that impression:



Now 92 miles square is 8,464 square miles. That's as near as dammit to 10,000 square miles, which is a lot more mnemonic as well as being more realistic when you consider that Nevada isn't a totally featureless pancake of rock..

It means there is a 99% certainty they are partially false.

It means a 70% certainty that there are omission and alterations in the data specificaslly designed to promote Bushie goals and the gestalt of Bushie False Reality.

I can't guess what they are, but only a fool dealing with tyrannical liars and criminals such as Nazis, Soviets, Bushies, the followers of Pol Pot and Ferdinand Marcos, would forget that they ALL follow the same basic rules regarding information control and propaganda.

It means that there is a 20% certainty (only owing to the time and place ourt particular tyranny is taking place) that some or all of the data is based upon wholsale fabricastions. It is very likely that, as Bushie power grows and becomes more unchecked, and as repeat propagandizations work without a hitch, irresepctive of how many millions of people know it is a lie, the temptation to "go fully Soviet" may be too tempting to resist since it will be so easy to get away with.

I estimate this may not occur until the Caligulan Generation of Royal Bushies assume the throne, but I have been far too generous with my projected timelines in the past and almost everything I ahve predicted (the 75-80% I have been correct about) have ALL arrived either faster than I expected or have exceeded my worst projections in other ways.

using the rule of 72 to calculate doubling time, a sustained 10% growth rate will cause renewables to generate 4.8% of our electricty by 2014, 9.6% by 2021, 19.2% by 2028, 38.4% by 2035 and 76.8% by 2042. While a step in the right direction, this seems too slow to prevent the looming energy crisis and the environmental catastrophes already beginning to occur.

Very few industries have sustained 10% growth over 40 years. I don't expect renewables to do that either.

Here's my sniff test. The curves I'm using for wind and solar behave like I would expect a technical industry to behave - a rapid early ramp up with a gently decreasing percentage growth over time as the industry expands. The constraints on growth are capex, installation capacity, interconnection issues, regulatory and logistical hurdles etc.You don't get infinite parallelism in any of these areas (because most of them are human-mediated), which slows down the percentage growth as they saturate.

I expect a combined wind+solar curve to maintain 10% per annum or better out to 2020, then start slackening as the human channels get saturated. A growth rate of 5% per annum in 2050 seems reasonable. By 2050 I expect wind and solar to own 21% of the electricity market, or 18% of the total energy market. Remember that hydro and nuclear will still be supplying a chunk of the market, but the majority of electricity (~50%) will probably come from coal.

So I agree with the spirit of your last sentence, renewable energy will not protect the planet from ecological catastrophe.

"few" industries grow that fast ... some do. Think of the growth of the microchip industry, cell phones, etc.

As energy demands continue to rise, oil prices skyrocket, and pollution from 'dangerous' fossil fuels becomes less and less acceptable, there is nowhere for the renewable sector to go but up. I think a 10% growth rate is, if anything, a bit on the conservative side. Solar, in particular, will grow faster and faster. I wouldnt be surprised to see a 20% annual rate-of-growth in the next ten years as technology and cost-effectiveness catches up with demand.

Anybody else you like?

mutual funds are the way to go. My father is a financial planner and we've been discussing this recently but havent made a decision yet. Id be happy to share once we make a pick.

http://www.calvert.com/alternativeenergy/

June 11, 2007, 5:13 pm
Calvert Launches New Green Fund

http://blogs.wsj.com/energy/2007/06/11/calvert-launches-new-green-fund/

After years of promoting socially responsible investment when it comes to climate change, Calvert Funds is launching a new alternative energy fund this week.

The new Calvert Global Alternative Energy Fund, which was up and running as of May 31 (read a Q&A on the fund), will invest in both U.S. and non-U.S. stocks of companies involved in renewable energy sources. It will be the first such fund for Calvert, although the Bethesda, Md., mutual-fund company has been a vocal participant in the climate-change debate, publishing research on the issue, filing resolutions and pressing several companies for change. The firm, which has about $15 billion under management, has also gone “carbon neutral,” says Paul Hilton, the interim director of social investment strategy at Calvert.

Hilton hopes the new fund will reach $1 billion — a size he calls a “good fund for us.” He says a lot of investors have been asking for such a fund from Calvert, which in the past has encouraged shareholders not to invest in companies that do business in Sudan. “It’s just natural for Calvert” to launch an alternative energy fund, Mr. Hilton explains. “People associate us with socially responsible investing.”

There are now at least eight other alternative energy funds: four ETFs — three from PowerShares and a relatively new one called the First Trust Nasdaq Clean Edge Fund — and four mutual funds, including the New Alternative Fund and the Winslow Green Growth Fund. Mr. Hilton says Calvert’s new fund will be more international than most others. Like the New Alternative Fund, which also has more of a global focus, the Calvert fund will have a heavy weighting in wind and solar power.

I hear what you're saying about the chippies - I used to work for a fabless semi back in the day. However, they grew by making the chips smaller. PV has to grow by making them bigger...

Kidding aside, I'm much more comfortable with conservative projections, because of the global response we've seen so far. On one hand you have Germany and Denmark putting in panels and windmills, on the other hand there's China putting in coal.

I really have no doubt that the OECD will get through the energy crunch without a dark-ages style interregnum. We have a lot of money, a lot of resources and a TFR below 2.0. By contrast, the developing world is where all the population growth is, and where all the money isn't. If, by 2050, the world's population consists of 1.5 billion fat cats and 7.5 billion desperately poor trying to survive at the energy level of Pakistan, I don't think all the windmills in the USA or the solar panels in Western Europe are going to prevent enormous problems.