Great News on Energy Production
 

The US Energy Information Administration, a branch of the Federal government, has released its report for 2019. For the first time in over 130 years more energy was created from renewable sources than from coal in the US.

Wait you say, that can't be right. There were no renewables in 1870 before the coal industry ramped up. Wrong, because included in renewables is the oldest heat source, wood, and water power like old water wheels, and wind. The steep decline in coal which began about 2008 and has continued unabatedly actually contributed more to the crossover than the rise in renewables. The drop in coal is mostly due to the big increase in natural gas from fracking.

The chart does NOT show oil or gas usage, just coal and renewables. Nonetheless, this is a great thing to see and I am sure the trend will continue. The link reports that coal use for electricity generation is 30% lower in 2020 from 2019, a huge drop. It is interesting to see how little solar is contributing so far, but it has the steepest upward trend.

interesting (and it's not covid nor politics) . thanks

I am surprised coal gasification to produce electricity decreased so much. What is amazing is that the US is no longer a net importer of energy.

Here is a better chart (the second chart) that shows the whole picture. Due to significant prices drops, natural gas has been replacing coal at many electric powerplants.

U.S. natural gas consumption sets new record in 2019 - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

[QUOTE=blueash;1885003]The US Energy Information Administration, a branch of the Federal government, has released its report for 2019. For the first time in over 130 years more energy was created from renewable sources than from coal in the US.
snipped

Would be interesting to find out how that decrease has impacted the cost of energy to us....along with any prediction on future cost if renewables and fracking are not available sources/are replaced with other sources in the future. I'm guessing the development of delivery system infrastructure will be an expensive item passed on to us consumers.

It is a serious stretch calling burning wood to create energy either renewable or good for the environment. I know a lot about this as I researched it extensively, and went to numerous public meetings, when a “Biomass” plant was proposed near our home up north. Fortunately, our state up north came to their senses and removed Biomass from the list of green and renewable energy sources, thus eliminating taxpayer subsidies and squashing the economics of the proposed plant. Burning wood releases a serious amount of toxins into the air, and not only do stripped forests take very long to regenerate, but trees sequester large quantities of carbon from the air. It is much better for the environment to leave the trees alone and not harvest wood to be burned for energy.

Transmission and delivery, and maintenance of the electrical grid system is by far more expensive than the production of electricity. As long as renewables are creating energy from a critical mass location, and not from individual roof tops, the grid is easier to operate. The more renewables are installed on roof tops, the more the grid becomes the backup supply, and that will start to get very expensive for the grid to bill for maintenance of the system. . .

There are alot of very old, or tried and true federal laws, on how utilities can set rates and get a guaranteed return on assets. So don't expect any or significant reductions in the near future. . . and yes, I work for a gas and electric utility currently and going on my fifth year soon

sportsguy

Too many renewables will cause blackouts. Be careful what you eat.

And most renewables are only marginally economical with a large percentage of their costs subsidized by either taxpayers or other ratepayers.

The continued striving for more renewable and green energy, even with subsidies (vehicles, power generation, etc.), is the only thing that makes any sense for our nation's future and national security. P.S. There is no such thing as "clean coal."

Four Dirty Secrets of So-Called Clean Coal | Climate Reality

We are like hamsters on a treadmill, always trying to come up with ways to INCREASE energy production - many of which have social costs. Coal and gasoline usage hurts people's lungs and increases Global Warming. Nuclear production produced accidents like Chernobyl. WHY do we need INCREASED energy?

Because of the ever-increasing population and over-population. All animals have a habitat that can be over-grazed or over-fished or over-whatever and then those animals DIE out or become EXTINCT. Humans are no exception! Better to think in terms of BALANCE and QUALITY of life for humans. So, 1st find an OPTIMUM population for the US of A and THEN worry about resources like energy. Energy is just ONE of the many resources needed by mankind for maximum QUALITY OF LIFE !

There is a price to everything. Since 1990, industrialization has halved poverty and hunger by half.

Energy per capita in developed countries is expected to remain constant. So the goal should be to control population as you stated.

Industrialization began (or increased) around 1900 with the development of the internal combustion engine. Mercedes Benz began making automobiles. New England ran cotton spinning equipment with hydro-power and etc. Maybe 1900 was meant instead of 1990. Regardless, the population of the US in the 1950s was around 180 million. There may have been a greater quality of life then at 180 million than now at 350 million people - which is my point or question. Should population increase unchecked until when(?) - until ALL animal species are extinct - until all oxygen on the planet is gone?

I believe in science and progress. But I define progress as the improved individual "quality of life". Forget GNP and the stock market as gauges of progress - use quality of life. Run a computer simulation taking into consideration ALL raw material and resources of the US and come up with an IDEAL population. Is it 400 million? - is it 300 million - 200 million? What would it be? Then make PROGRESS toward that population and make progress through science toward the maximum quality of life.

I am in favor of capitalism and individual freedom and not a racist - I just WISH that some leader would question the VALIDITY of believing that PROGRESS is synonymous with brute population growth. To me, that would be a reasonable debate to have.