The electricity produced by renewable means in 2004 was 150% of production in 1990.

As of 2004, Florida produced 2.7% of its electrical energy by renewable means, down from 2.9% produced in 1990. In absolute terms, renewables account for almost 6,000,000 megawatt-hours of electricity in Florida.

The percentage of energy produced by fossil fuels in this period rose slightly from 79.3% in 1990 to 81.9% of the energy. However the type of fossil fuel used has changed, with natural gas displacing coal as the chief fossil fuel. Coal provided 29.7% of Florida's electricity in 2004 whereas in 1990 it accounted for 45.7%. Natural gas nearly doubled in percentage terms as a source of electrical generation in Florida.

The consumption of electricity in Florida is 167% of what it was in 1990.

The production of nuclear energy in Florida in that period rose by 44% in that same period, and remained in 2004 relatively close - in absolute terms - to its record high production figure established in 1999, more than 31,000,000 megawatt-hours. However in percentage terms, because of the increased consumption of electricity in the state, the nuclear share fell from 16.6% in 1990 to 14.3% in 2004.

I find it amazing to learn that there actually is hydroelectric power in Florida, one of the most low lying states in the nation - large parts of it are expected to be submerged in the next century. It must be run of the river. It is in any case tiny.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept05fl.xls

Florida, of course, is known for its sunshine. However in 2004 the entire United States produced only enough energy from solar energy to account for 0.008% of Florida's electrical demand.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table5b.html

It follows that whatever the source of Florida's "other" renewables are, it ain't solar.

...production sites. The vast majority of Florida's electric production comes from non-renewable sources of coal, oil, gas and nuclear fission

It just shows up in the data. There is no detail.

Maybe there are some small facilities in the panhandle, I don't know. Maybe someone has seen a hydroelectric dam in Florida and can help us out.

hydroelectric power that's generated in another state? Just a thought.

I'm impressed. The single highest point in FL is 345ft: It'd be like installing wind turbines on the moon...

...I really like that idea. Lots of open space, no trees or structures, plenty of room for transmission lines with no obstructed rights of way.

Damn that's good.

....I can't even think where there might be tides sufficient to generate electricity in sufficient quantities in Florida to register. But, I am open to any source which would identify hydro electric power generation on a commercial scale in Florida. Maybe there are locks or gates on the St Johns River, or Lake Okeechobee or some similar low elevation controlled water fall of some sort, but it is a well kept secret if there is.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/wuhy.html

http://www.census.gov/epcd/susb/latest/us/US221111.HTM

<snip: found this reference>
POWER PLANTS
About 80% of Florida's power comes from burning fossil fuels, 17% from nuclear sources, and about 1% from hydropower. (The remaining 2% comes from renewable sources such as the wind and sun.)

There are two hydroelectric power plants in Florida. Hydroelectric plants are cheaper and cleaner to operate than are fuel-burning plants since they rely only on water as their energy source. Very few places in Florida are suitable for hydroelectric plants.

The Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam (also known as the Lake Seminole project) on the Apalachicola River on the Georgia-Florida border produces enough electricity for 50,000 homes.

The C.H. Corn Hydroelectric Plant on Lake Talquin near Tallahassee was first built in 1929 and has operated off and on since then.


http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/guide/industry.html

Thanx.

....the other looks to be 50-60 years old as well. I am not surprised. I guess the answer for high deman needs will be in some type of thorium gas cooled nuclear reactors in the 800 to 1,000 mgw range, the kind now being developed in China and India, safe, modern, efficient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

http://www.uic.com.au/nip77.htm

High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactors (HTGR): HTGRs are distinguished from other gas-cooled reactors by the higher temperatures attained within the reactor. Such higher temperatures might permit the reactor to be used as an industrial heat source in addition to generating electricity. Among the future uses for which HTGRs are being considered is the commercial generation of hydrogen from water. In some cases, HTGR turbines run directly by the gas that is used as a coolant. In other cases, steam or alternative hot gases such as nitrogen are produced in a heat exchanger to run the power generators. Recent proposals have favored helium as the gas used as an HTGR coolant. The most famous U.S. HTGR example was the Fort Saint Vrain reactor that operated between 1974 and 1989. Other HTGRs have operated elsewhere, notably in Germany. Small research HTGR prototypes presently exist in Japan and China. Commercial HTGR designs are now promoted in China, South Africa, the United States, the Netherlands, and France though none of these is yet commercially marketed. The proposed Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) in the U.S. will most likely be a helium-based HTGR, if it is funded to completion.

The Citrus County Commissioners and the Crystal River City Council have both passed unaminous resolutions calling for the reactor.

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061122/LOCAL/211220336

They are also looking to build four coal plants, which is regrettable and should be opposed.

I very much doubt that the reactor will be a high temperature gas cooled reactor. Probably it will be one of the modern pressurized water reactors like the EPR. I believe that Progress is part of a consortium pushing this design and that forged parts have already placed on order for the reactors.

This really isn't news. For starters Floriday has almost no industry and a mild climate that requires little heating and only moderate AC use (compared to Arizona anyway). So really Florida gets most of its heat from a renewable source, the sun. It also gets most of it's cooling from tropical winds, also renewable.

To bad your figures don't reflect that.

It's nonsense to assert that Florida gets "most of its energy from the sun."

What part of the numbers showing how much coal and oil and gas they burn do you not understand?

Fucking people starting moving to Florida in huge numbers after the invention of the air conditioner.

I do understand that to not get the "nuclear is better than everything else" fact, you have to be clueless, but really...