CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website in the world. Subscribe today!


Biomass US Renewable Electricity Generation - Aug 2014

Published on November 2nd, 2014 | by Zachary Shahan

41

Renewable Energy = 10% of US Electricity Generation In August

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

November 2nd, 2014 by Zachary Shahan 

UPDATE November 3: This article (including the top 3 charts and top table) has been updated to correct numbers used for fossil fuel and nuclear sources. I previously used “Table 1.1. Net Generation by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors), 2004-August 2014 (Thousand Megawatthours)” of the EIA’s Electric Power Monthly report for those sources, when I should have used “Table ES1.A. Total Electric Power Industry Summary Statistics, 2014 and 2013 Net Generation” and “Table ES1.B. Total Electric Power Industry Summary Statistics, Year-to-Date 2014 and 2013.” Thank you to the readers who caught this. I have also added a graph created by one of our readers that shows net generation by year.

I’m starting a monthly report on US electricity generation, to supplement our reports on US electricity generation capacity. Thanks to a couple of readers for the idea and help gathering the data sources. The above charts include all generation sources, while the below charts only include renewables. There are also respective tables at the bottom of this article. Below the following charts are some renewable energy highlights I picked out.


 

Water (aka hydropower) is just under 50% of renewables for the year to date (49.79%), probably the first time other renewables have together risen to over 50%. For the past 12 months running, water is down to 48.77% of renewable electricity generation.

Amongst all electricity sources, utility-scale solar power was sitting at .51% of electricity supply in August. (Just remember that this excludes rooftop solar power, or any project under 5 MW in size.) We still have a long way to go.

Of course, wind power is the most mature non-hydro renewable. As such, wind power accounted for 26% of renewable electricity production in August and 33% for the first 8 months of 2014, up from 31% for the same period in 2013. Of all electricity sources, wind provided 2.65% of electricity in August and 4.39% for the first 8 months of the year, up from 4.11% for the same 8 months in 2013.

This is interesting and exciting news, but it shows that we still have a long ways to go to even get to 20% electricity generation from renewables (we’re currently at 10%, counting hydro).

If you compare to the capacity report I just completed (for September, since those data are available earlier), you can see that renewable power capacity accounts for 42% of total US power capacity, compared to that 10% of generation figure. Of course, generation is what really matters.

If you enjoyed this report, check out more CleanTechnica reports.

US electricity generation sources

Graph Credit: CleanTechnica commenter “solarone”

US Renewable Electricity Generation - Aug 2014 Update US Renewable Electricity Generation - August 2014 update

Data Source: EIA

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , ,


About the Author

spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as the director/chief editor. Otherwise, he's probably enthusiastically fulfilling his duties as the director/editor of Solar Love, EV Obsession, Planetsave, or Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and wind energy expert. If you would like him to speak at a related conference or event, connect with him via social media. You can connect with Zach on any popular social networking site you like. Links to all of his main social media profiles are on ZacharyShahan.com.


Related Posts



  • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

    Thank you much for spotting that. Updated. As I wrote above:

    Was my mistake, but honestly, that EIA table is horribly titled. Says “Table 1.1. Net Generation by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors), 2004-August 2014 (Thousand Megawatthours).” Does not mention “Independent Power Producers” and is immediately before the renewables table that has the correct information. And both have hydro numbers and they are the same. I should have checked more thoroughly after seeing surprisingly high renewables %s, but everything else made this look correct.

  • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

    Sorry, I cross-referenced with the hydro, which matched in both places, and the table I used for the fossils & nukes was titled “Table 1.1. Net Generation by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors), 2004-August 2014 (Thousand Megawatthours)” — which obviously looks like the total — but you are right. I’ve found a master table that indicates these numbers must be Independent Power Producers. Am taking this article down while I update. Thanks!

  • solarone

    Zach:
    Here is the US production versus source from the EIA website. I plotted it on a graph to hopefully make it clearer (and hopefully it renders properly).

    • solarone

      The same graph with 2013 added.

      • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

        Thanks. I’m adding this to the article. If you have the data in a spreadsheet already, can you send it over to me: zach@importantmedia.org

        I can reproduce the graph using the same service used for the bar charts, and would be quicker than finding/adding it myself.

        Thanks!

  • Michael G

    Something’s off on PV. In your other report on renewables added, you have PV added YTD 2014 as 1671 – less than 1746 previous year. Yet here, PV generated is almost double the previous YTD. These are not quite the same, but I don’t see how to make sense out of it.

    Your other report:
    http://cleantechnica.com/2014/11/02/renewable-energy-68-new-electricity-capacity-september/

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Relative to the past, a ton of solar came online at the end of 2013 and in 2014. Hence, generation has doubled relative to last year. It looks like the same won’t happen next year.

  • Keith

    good news

  • solarone

    According to the EIA website, your numbers for coal, natural gas, and nuclear are too low. The renewables numbers are correct. Consequently, your calculations are not right. Renewables including hydro are ~10% of US supply for August. For the rolling averages the U.S. is at about 13%. Even California is not even close to 30% renewables,

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      See my comment to Philip below. Thanks.

  • No way

    Got any count on the grams co2 per kwh? Should be somewhere around 4-500. I find it an interesting measurement to compare to other countries clean or dirty electricity. :)

  • JamesWimberley

    Good initiative. I suggest labelling the table systematically as “grid generation”, so the undercount through distributed is obvious. I’m not sure if it’s worthwhile adding a distributed solar estimate to the monthly data; a frequent reminder of the rough percentage undercount should be enough.

    It should in fact be a requirement on distributed grid-connected generators to report their total as well as net generation, minute by minute. It’s a small return for the privileges of net metering and other incentives, and good data are needed to plan and manage the new grid. Off-grid won’t be significant for some time, if ever.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Thanks. I think I’ll make an estimate but not include it in the tables/charts, just the text. We’ll see. But will try to make that undercount even more clear next time.

  • Steven F

    This is a great idea for a monthy article. Two suggestions. In all report keep the 2013 YTD numbers so people can compare the future reports with where we started. Also it would be nice to see links to the sources you used.

  • solarone

    Zach:

    I am confused by your numbers. If you go to the AWEA site they say that wind is at ~5% of total electricity generation not near 10%. If you go to the EIA web site and download their numbers you see the same thing. The EIA numbers are all quite different from what you list, and the units are thousand megawatt hours, not the megawatt hours that you are listing. EIA shows total yearly US generation of ~4,100,000 thousand megawatt hours or 4,100 terrawatt hours. Your 12 month running averages are about half of that if you ignore the units. Am I missing something?

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Sorry, I should have included my sources (EIA):

      Table 1.1. here for fossils and nukes: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/epm.pdf
      (Page 15)

      And this for specifics on renewables: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_01_a
      (Which is actually Page 16 in the first link)

      You can verify that they are indeed measuring everything the same bcs hydro is the same in each.

      These tables say they are for “Total [Generation] (All Sectors)”

      And yes, I messed up on the metric: is “thousand MWh” (editing now).

      Where are you finding 5%? I’m assuming they are basing that on another timeframe…?

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Thanks again. Updated. Was my mistake, but honestly, that EIA table is horribly titled. Says “Table 1.1. Net Generation by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors), 2004-August 2014 (Thousand Megawatthours).” Does not mention “Independent Power Producers” and is immediately before the renewables table that has the correct information. And both have hydro numbers and are the same. I should have checked more thoroughly after seeing surprisingly high renewables numbers, but everything else made this look correct.

  • http://www.michaeljberndtson.com/ Michael Berndtson

    Good stuff. Customer sited PV solar systems have to get tallied. How this gets done should be figure-out-able by our tech savvy youth. That data helps marketing to build momentum. A very interesting and comprehensive study by Lawrence Labs in Berkley:

    “Financial Impacts of Net-Metered PV on Utilities and Ratepayers: A Scoping Study of Two Prototypical U.S. Utilities,” dated Sept 2014.

    http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/LBNL%20PV%20Business%20Models%20Report_no%20report%20number%20(Sept%2025%20revision).pdf

    It looks like rooftop or customer sited PV is estimated at 0.2 percent (probably 2012 or 2013 data). Small PV solar is presumably going to skyrocket over the next decade. A fair estimate of penetration looks to be between 2.5 and 10 percent by 2022. I’m going to guess the percentage of all PV solar is greater than 1 percent if all systems are totalled. Maybe close to 2 percent for rolling 12 month.

    It looks like PV systems won’t impact rates much, just investors of utilities and central generation companies. So the whole, “what about the poor” meme being propagated by big energy seems kind of silly.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Yeah, I’ve thought about trying to work in an estimate. May do so in future months.

  • Senlac

    Great report Zach, thanks. Solar YTD at present is twice what YTD in 2013. Could end up over 16,000 2014 YTD considering what the rolling looks like.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Thanks! I meant to highlight that change but then it slipped my mind.

  • Eric Gerber

    From a global warming perspective, it doesn’t look like things are getting better. Coal and natural gas were the same last year as this year. Although renewables likely helped to limit the expansion of coal and gas, we are still miles from actually beginning to decarbonify the atmosphere. It isn’t good enough.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Indeed…
      And doesn’t help that hydro is down a lot, “for some reason.”

      • Steven F

        Drought in the west is the major reason for the low hydro numbers.

        • globi

          I guess that was his point. On the bright side: There must have been much more sunshine in the west.
          California has half the population of Germany and Germany installed 3 GW of PV in one single month. So, California could essentially install 18 GW of PV per year. link

          • Larmion

            And don’t forget that PV makes far more sense in California (far, far stronger and more consistent solar radiation and massive usage of AC that reaches peak demand when solar reaches peak output).

            Germany shows that even a country with a demand profile and solar resources that don’t lend themselves very well to solar can still make solar work. So what’s holding the US back? :)

          • Bob_Wallace

            A better question is “What put Germany so far out in front?”.

            Germany used a better subsidy program, one which did more than just let people break even on their electricity bill from day one. Germany allowed people to make a profit over and above cutting their electricity bill.

            When you can make a profit then the next thing you start thinking about is how you earn a larger profit. And that sent people looking for lower cost ways to get solar on their roofs.

          • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

            Good way to word that…

          • GCO

            Hmm, more sunshine in CA this year I don’t know, but apparently less PV production (maybe because it’s been hotter?)
            See http://monitoring.solaredge.com/solaredge-web/p/public_home
            Search for ‘California’ and pick a few systems at random; all the ones I’ve looked at show 2014 higher than 2013 in May and June, and lower every other month.

            Now yes, one can pick some German systems too. Comparing yearly production per installed capacity with places like California shows how little sun they get (and how much they do with it nonetheless)…

        • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

          yeah, that was my point, subtly implied.

      • Jim Young

        I couldn’t find out how much water was being used for fracking in California. before SB 4 went into effect, and don’t know that the report of only 300 acre feet in 2013 (I think industry self-reported and according to FracFocus) could be verified by independent observers I would trust.

        I’d hate to find out part of the low hydro is due to more than officially reported use for fracking.

        • Steven F

          California oil production has been fallinng for at least 30 years and has been essentially flat for about 5 years. the none existant shale oil in california has nothing to due with the low hydro production.

          http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/petroleum/statistics/crude_oil_receipts.html

          there is very little new shale oil being produced in california. Most of the fracing being done today is on very old wells to loosen mineral buildup around the wells. Also laws that have been on the book for a long time do not allow the use drinking water for fracking. Waste water can be used but not drinking water.

          I live in California and we have had essentially no rain south of San Francisco or the last 3 years. Reservoirs all over California are at record low levels. Well below the levels needed to produce power. The drought is also affecting Oregon Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah

          • Jim Young

            I’m sure you’re a much better source on the lack of hydro impact than my much less informed speculation.

            I’m aware of some requirements on not using water with less than 5 parts per unit (can’t remember what unit, though) contaminants and the uproar when they considered requiring the water to essentially be twice as “dirty” at 10 parts per unit before it would be considered dirty enough to use it for fracking instead of eventual drinking water (a bit concerning that some might find it advantageous to dirty up the water so they can use it for fracking). I think I do get your point on the water quality.

            I’m not in contact with water treatment experts or flood control personnel like I had some contact with before retiring from the college, so I’ll have to depend on others to put this in context better than I can imagine.

            Some of what I was surprised by was that the myriad of hundreds of water districts run the gamut of types, from traditional municipal or county utilities to multiple water districts that may be privately owned, including foreign owned and/or managed, cooperatives, privately managed, which seems very difficult to identify as sources of the 300 acre feet claimed to have been used for fracking. A further mystery to me, is why the flood control districts that also recharge the aquifers aren’t allowed to talk to the water supply agencies (or so says the flood control guy I asked about how such coordination was being done). It seems we have a very poorly coordinated hodge-podge of water districts with some of the worst being privatized or contracted management where they grossly under performed maintenance then went bankrupt and abandoned the customers they didn’t find profitable.

            Seems everybody points to some one else whenever someone asks any relevant questions, making it easy to lose the big picture.

            Anyway, I’m listening if you can provide a better overall description of how all this works together (either in theory or actual results in the field, preferably both in theory and actual practice).

          • Steven F

            Keep in mind the water system in any state was not made at one time and not by one organization. Some cities built their own water systems. Some dames were built by cities, the state, or the US government. So after Each dame has to supply water to its owner. it also has to follow rules set the the state and US government. Those rules and commitments change over time. So after 200 years It is complicated and coordination can be difficult at times with conflicting rules and commitments. Add that to the fact that California (mostly desert) has a large population that uses 40 million acre feet of water a year doesn’t help.

            Other states have the same issues but if you have a lot of water and or a smaller population many of the issues would not make the news and would be largely unknown to most people.

            “A further mystery to me, is why the flood control districts that also recharge the aquifers aren’t allowed to talk to the water supply agencies (or so says the flood control guy I asked about how such coordination was being done”

            My advise is don’t take the word of one person and apply it to all of California. He may have been wrong or didn’t understand what was going on. This Wikipedia articles goes over some of the legal issues:

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

            As to Fracking, Keep in mind the oil industry has been Fracking for 40 years or more. Most of the time it is simply used to help maintain flow in a older well. Most news stories of shale oil in the the California Monterrey shale are mostly Hype. Oil production in california is not increasing. The estimates of oil that can be extracted from Monterrey shale has been cut by 96% in the last few years. Every time I see a mape showing fracking wells,I see most are in old oil fields. If you look outside of the old oil fields where the Monterey shale is you don’t see many wells.

            http://montereyoil.org/

          • Jim Young

            I appreciate all you’ve expanded on. One thing I appreciated about the way Tim Russert worked was he and his staff asking a lot of lower tier people in a field (the ones that don’t get the talking points memos) about what they saw and felt from much more direct observations and participation. To me, Tim Russert and his staff took a lot of their observations and compiled them into much more articulate and focused questions. The talking heads couldn’t get away with anywhere near as much fluff and bluff on his show.

            I ask as many locals and lower tier people as I can, doing my best to emulate Russert’s approach, and “do my homework” before I ask the best question I can come up with.

            I did expect the Director of the California Department of Conservation to give a better answer, though, when I asked him in person.

  • Fact

    YTD, renewables are almost at Natural Gas levels. I counted roughly 310Mwh YTD.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      The second table on the bottom is just renewables (if you count waste gas), comes to 370,984. But, yeah, I didn’t catch that!

Back to Top ↑

© 2014   Sustainable Enterprises Media, Inc.



Back to Top ↑