The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Electricity From Renewables and Nuclear Power in Statistical Dead Heat
The latest issue of the U.S. Energy Information's (EIA) Electric Power Monthly (with data through June 30) reveals that renewable energy sources (i.e., biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar—inc. small-scale PV and wind) remain in a statistical dead heat with nuclear power vis-à-vis their respective shares of the nation's electrical generation, with each providing roughly 20 percent of the total.
During the six-month period (January — June), renewables surpassed nuclear power in three of those months (March, April and May) while nuclear power took the lead in the other three. In total, according to EIA's data, utility-scale renewables plus small-scale solar PV provided 20.05 percent of U.S. net electrical generation compared to 20.07 percent for nuclear power. However, renewables may actually hold a small lead because while EIA estimates the contribution from distributed PV, it does not include electrical generation by distributed wind, micro-hydro or small-scale biomass.
EIA has acknowledged the neck-in-neck status of nuclear power and renewables and stated as much in a news release it issued in early summer. However, the agency simultaneously stressed its view that "nuclear will generate more electricity than renewables for all of 2017."
Well, maybe ... maybe not.
While renewables and nuclear are each likely to continue to provide roughly one-fifth of the nation's electricity generation in the near-term, the trend line clearly favors a rapidly expanding market share by renewables compared to a stagnating, if not declining, one for nuclear power. Electrical output by renewables during the first half of 2017 was 16.34 percent higher than for the same period in 2016 whereas nuclear output dropped by 3.27 percent. In the month of June alone, electrical generation by renewable sources was 27.15 percent greater than a year earlier whereas nuclear output dipped by 0.24 percent.
In fact, almost all renewable energy sources are experiencing strong growth rates. Comparing the first six months of 2017 to the same period in 2016, utility-scale + small-scale solar has grown by 45.1 percent, hydropower by 16.1 percent, wind by 15.6 percent and geothermal by 3.2 percent. Biomass (inc. wood and wood-derived fuels) has remained essentially unchanged—slipping by 0.8 percent. Electrical generation by solar alone is now greater than that provided individually by biomass, geothermal and oil (i.e., petroleum liquids + petroleum coke).
And on the capacity front, renewables long ago eclipsed nuclear power. For the first half of 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions recently reported that renewables' share of total U.S. available installed generating capacity is 19.70 percent compared to 8.98 percent for nuclear—i.e., more than double. Finally, last month's cancellation of the Summer 2 and 3 reactors in South Carolina and Duke Power's subsequent decision to pull the plug on construction of the twin William Lee reactors (also in South Carolina) means the growing gap between renewables and nuclear will accelerate at an even faster clip in the coming years. In addition, the possible cancellation of the uneconomic Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors in Georgia would mean no new nuclear coming online for the foreseeable future, as reactor closures continue. In fact, counting possible additional closures and cancellations, retirements could very likely exceed additions.* "Everyone loves a horse race," noted Ken Bossong, executive director of the SUN DAY Campaign. "However, the smart money is now on renewables to soon leave nuclear power in the dust."
"Nuclear power is in irreversible decline in the U.S., due to rising costs and failing economics of new and existing reactors, alike," said Tim Judson, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "Last month's cancellation of half the new reactors under construction in the U.S. means that gap is going to be wider than projected and accelerating."
*Planned reactor closures through 2025:
- 2018: Palisades (Michigan - 811 MW)
- 2019: Pilgrim (Massachusetts - 688 MW); Oyster Creek (New Jersey - 637 MW); Three Mile Island, Unit 1 (Pennsylvania - 829 MW)
- 2020: Indian Point, Unit 2 (New York - 1,029 MW)
- 2021: Indian Point, Unit 3 (New York - 1,040 MW)
- 2024: Diablo Canyon, Unit 1 (California - 1,118 MW)
- 2025: Diablo Canyon, Unit 2 (California - 1,122 MW)
- TOTAL Capacity Retirements: 7,274 MW
Planned reactor additions:
- 2016: Watts Bar, Unit 2 (Tennessee - 1,150 MW)
- ????: Vogtle, Unit 3 (Georgia - 1,117 MW) - delayed, cancellation under review
- ????: Vogtle, Unit 4 (Georgia - 1,117 MW) - delayed, cancellation under review
- TOTAL Capacity Additions: 3,384 MW (as few as 1,150 MW possible)
Possible reactor closures:
- 2022 or later: Millstone, Unit 2 (Connecticut - 882 MW)
- 2022 or later: Millstone, Unit 3 (Connecticut - 1,198 MW)
- ????: Davis-Besse (Ohio - 889 MW)
- ????: Perry (Ohio - 1,231 MW)
- ????: Beaver Valley, Unit 1 (Pennsylvania - 911 MW)
- ????: Beaver Valley, Unit 2 (Pennsylvania - 904 MW)
- TOTAL Additional Retirements: 6,015 MW
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Nestlé cannot claim that its Ice Mountain bottled water brand is an essential public service, according to Michigan's second highest court, which delivered a legal blow to the food and beverage giant in a unanimous decision.
A number of supermarkets across the country have voluntarily issued a recall on sushi, salads and spring rolls distributed by Fuji Food Products due to a possible listeria contamination, as CBS News reported.
If you read a lot of news about the climate crisis, you probably have encountered lots of numbers: We can save hundreds of millions of people from poverty by 2050 by limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, but policies currently in place put us on track for a more than three degree increase; sea levels could rise three feet by 2100 if emissions aren't reduced.
Poverty and violence in Central America are major factors driving migration to the United States. But there's another force that's often overlooked: climate change.
Retired Lt. Cmdr. Oliver Leighton Barrett is with the Center for Climate and Security. He says that in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, crime and poor economic conditions have long led to instability.
"And when you combine that with protracted drought," he says, "it's just a stressor that makes everything worse."
Barrett says that with crops failing, many people have fled their homes.
"These folks are leaving not because they're opportunists," he says, "but because they are in survival mode. You have people that are legitimate refugees."
So Barrett supports allocating foreign aid to programs that help people in drought-ridden areas adapt to climate change.
"There are nonprofits that are operating in those countries that have great ideas in terms of teaching farmers to use the land better, to harvest water better, to use different variety of crops that are more resilient to drought conditions," he says. "Those are the kinds of programs I think are needed."
So he says the best way to reduce the number of climate change migrants is to help people thrive in their home countries.
Reporting credit: Deborah Jian Lee / ChavoBart Digital Media.
Reposted with permission from Yale Climate Connections.
- Trump Admin Ignored Its Own Data Linking Migrant Crisis to Climate ... ›
- How Climate Change Is Driving Emigration From Central America ... ›
Chris Pratt was called out on social media by Game of Thrones star Jason Momoa after Pratt posted an image "low key flexing" with a single-use plastic water bottle.