Top Ten US States: Renewable Electricity Generation

Guest “Now that’s funny right there!” by David Middleton

NOVEMBER 23, 2020
New York generated the fourth most electricity from renewable sources of any state in 2019

In 2019, more electricity was generated from renewable sources in New York than in all but three states, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Electric Power Monthly. New York’s 39.4 million megawatthours (MWh) of renewable electricity generation was more than any other state east of the Mississippi River and accounted for 30% of the state’s total electricity generation in 2019.

Hydroelectricity is the primary source of renewable generation in New York. Nearly 31 million MWh of hydroelectric power was generated in New York in 2019, which accounted for 78% of the state’s renewable electricity generation and 23% of the state’s total electricity generation. The Robert Moses Niagara hydroelectricity plant, located downstream from Niagara Falls, has a capacity of 2.4 gigawatts and is the second-largest conventional hydroelectric power plant in the country in terms of electric generating capacity, behind only Washington’s Grand Coulee dam.

Wind has been the second-largest source of renewable electricity in New York, with 4.5 million MWh generated in 2019. Wind generation in New York during 2019 accounted for 11% of the state’s renewable generation and 3% of the state’s total electricity generation. At the end of 2019, New York had 1,132 wind turbines at 27 power plants, according to EIA’s Annual Electric Generator Inventory.

Solar energy generated nearly 2.4 million MWh of electricity in New York during 2019. Small-scale solar installations, such as those found on residential and commercial rooftops, accounted for nearly 80% of the state’s solar electricity generation. Biomass, at 1.9 million MWh, accounted for the remainder of New York’s renewable electricity generation in 2019.



The Top Ten

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly

In 2019, New York generated 29% of its electricity from “renewable” sources, the vast majority coming from hydroelectric…

SourceMillion MWh

The article goes on to note the following:


In the United States, the sources of electricity generation have been shifting from coal to natural gas and renewables since the mid-2000s. Changes in New York’s electricity generating mix have contributed to this trend. Coal’s share of New York’s electricity generation fell from 14% in 2005 to less than 1% in 2019, and natural gas-fired electricity grew from 22% to 36%.

Electricity generation from renewable energy technologies collectively grew from 19% to 29% in the same period. New York adopted a renewable portfolio standard in 2004 and the Clean Energy Standard (CES) in 2015. The CES currently requires New York to generate 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040 and attain economy-wide net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.



The increase in so-called “renewables” generation is really funny. Biomass and hydroelectric barely changed; while wind and solar grew from nonexistent to trivial.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly

It appears that about half of the growth in so-called “renewables” from 19% to 29% was due to New Yorkers using less electricity, with a precipitous decline since 2015. I guess people are turning out the lights when they leave.

New York’s population continues to decline

By Jeff Platsky / Gannett New York
Posted Apr 29, 2020

More than one-third of New York’s 62 counties failed to record a population increase in any year in the past decade — 25 reported nine years of successive decreases, all upstate, census data showed.

Included in the population decline are all but two counties stretching along New York’s Southern Tier, where the the combined loss was nearly 32,000 people.


After showing consistent, if relatively small gains from 2010 through 2015, the state’s population posted successive losses from 2016 through 2019, according to Census estimates.

That means it has fallen further behind the three states with the largest population, California, Texas and Florida.

Florida passed New York in population in 2014, and out of the 1.4 million residents who left for other states between 2011 and 2018, 21% of them went to the Sunshine State, census data earlier this year showed.

New York has lost more people than any other state in the nation for two years in a row.


Times Telegram

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 3, 2020 2:50 am

Figures for 2019:

UK 37.1%… Germany 46%… Spain 36.8%… Denmark 51.9%

(excludes nuclear)

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  griff
December 3, 2020 9:40 am

Bit of an exageration that.

And includes hydro (Sweden) and biomass.

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
December 3, 2020 9:51 am

Probably realistically close to functional maximums.
Why exclude Nu-clear energy…The only non CO2 producing energy source that can generate electricity 24/7/365 and function at sea

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  David Middleton
December 3, 2020 12:28 pm

Never fear, Sacramento is working hard to correct California’s rate deficit. Once PG&E bankruptcy costs are fully passed on to their customers, they’ll be there is short order.

Reply to  David Middleton
December 3, 2020 4:17 pm

So, the more stock they have to sell, the higher they want to price it?

Now that’s a marketing strategy that would only work in a command economy, and/ or one where the public purse got raided to soak up the disposal of unsaleable stock.

Reply to  David Middleton
December 4, 2020 12:56 am

Well yes… and once again note that Germany and Denmark were early adopters and chose relatively expensive feed in tariffs to encourage take up, plus Germany chooses to tax its electricity at a higher rate than other nations.

roll out for the USA will involve less capital outlay and likely no subsidy.

tsk tsk
Reply to  griff
December 4, 2020 9:31 am

You mean besides the subsidies for wind and solar and the required feed-in tariffs? So sure, except for the subsidies there are no subsidies.

and once again note that Germany and Denmark were early adopters and chose relatively expensive feed in tariffs to encourage take up

It would have been shorter to simply say, “You’re right, David.”

Hans Henrik Hansen
Reply to  griff
December 3, 2020 12:59 pm

I’m quite sure that ‘the Danish figure’ (52 %) represents the renewable share of electricity PRODUCTION! Due to the considerable (and largely unpredictable) variations in solar and wind production output the thermal plants must be permanently prepared for backup as demanded. In consequence there is a vast overproduction of electricity, and the surplus must be exported to willing customers in the neighbouring countries, frequently at a very low (sometimes negative) price. The ensuing losses are mainly paid by the electricity consumers – via a ‘green’ surcharge on the kWh rate! 😉

December 3, 2020 2:52 am

New York is currently on the verge of death. De Blasio may have successfully killed the city for ever.

“‘We’re at War’: New York City Faces a Financial Abyss” even the NYTimes is calling this what it is.

Reply to  Laertes
December 3, 2020 11:57 am

New York has been on the “verge of death” well into the previous century; reincarnation is alive and well. Nothing has or will change.

Reply to  PMHinSC
December 3, 2020 7:37 pm

New York state is like a zombie, staggering along, incapable of living, incapable of dying. Eventually, it will attack neighboring states and eat their brains!

willem post
December 3, 2020 3:08 am


World energy consumption is projected to increase to 736 quads in 2040 from 575 quads in 2015, an increase of 28%, according to the latest from the US Energy Information Administration. EIA.
See URL and click on PPT to access data, click on to page 4 of PowerPoint

Most of this growth is expected to come from countries that are not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, and especially from countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia.

Non-OECD Asia, which includes China and India, accounted for more than 60% of the world’s total increase in energy consumption from 2015 through 2040.


China, India, and other developing Asian countries, and Africa, and Middle and South America need to use low-cost energy, such as coal, to be competitive.

They would not have signed up for “Paris”, if they had not been allowed to be more or less exempt from the Paris agreements

Obama agreed to commit the US to the Paris agreements, i.e., be subject to its financial and other obligations for decades.
However, he never submitted the commitment to the US Senate for ratification, as required by the US Constitution.
Trump rescinded the commitment. It became effective 3 years later, one day after the US presidential elections on November 3, 2020.

If the US had not left “Paris”, a UN Council likely would have determined a level of RE spending, say $500 billion/y, for distributing to various poorer countries by UN bureaucrats.
The Council would have assessed OECD members, likely in proportion to their GDPs.
The US and Europe would have been assessed at 100 to 150 billion dollars/y each.
The non-OECD countries likely would continue to be more or less exempt from paying for the Paris agreements.

CAPITAL COSTS; 50% RE by 2050

World capital expenditures, CAPEX, for renewable energy, RE, were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $25,409 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years.

US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $7,181 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years

The above CAPEX numbers relate only to having 50% RE in the mix by 2050, a very narrow focus.

Reply to  willem post
December 3, 2020 5:18 am

‘ China, India, and other developing Asian countries, and Africa, and Middle and South America need to use low-cost energy, such as coal, to be competitive.’

I have seen this argument before but does it really hold true?
The other things developing countries can use to be competitive are for instance, low cost of labour, low taxation, essentially no environmental regulations, no safety standards, low cost of land and local availability of other essential (like mineral) resources.

Cost of energy is only one of the items that determine the cost of production, albeit an important one.

(Un)fortunately there is no such thing as a level playing field when it comes to production of anything.

Just wondering 🤔

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Willem69
December 3, 2020 9:24 am

Your expectation of what energy use makes a population efficient is far too limited. You can’t expect a population who lives at the subsistence level to be productive and efficient workers. That means raising a countries overall standard of living. Using high cost energy will just condemn people to continue to live at the subsistence level and to be unproductive.

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  willem post
December 3, 2020 9:53 am

Willem the CapX costs do not reflect the replacement cost of failed RE which haven’t survive the time frames 2010-2019 many of installed RE have failed, and does not reflect the excessive maintenance costs during that time frame. The same goes for the 2019-2050 period.
See Bill Happer’s keynote at ICCC-10 for Califorication dreaming:

December 3, 2020 3:09 am

but…but.. aren’t New Yorkers all Democrats, and therefore “believe” in socialism and the climate change agenda

…. so should be moving to COOLER climates?

Yet there they are moving to MUCH warmer climates.. funny about that 😉

I don’t think ANYONE actually REALLY “believes” in this AGW crap, otherwise they would act very different.

That includes the resident trollettes..

They all CHOOSE to live in warmer climates.

They are on the energy chewing computer day and night making their idiotic comments.

Bet they all RELY on having reliable dispatchable electricity always available too.

All the modern conveniences, right 😉

Reply to  fred250
December 3, 2020 4:49 am

Big chunk of them are moving to Florida, too – which WILL BE UNDERWATER BY 2030 (according to the Gospel of Saint Gore).

Unfortunately, Florida will most likely be underwater by then. Financially, as they vote to make it into the same welfare state they escaped.

Reply to  Writing Observer
December 3, 2020 7:41 pm

By 2030, Florida will be in deep poop, 5′ deep in New York Democrats.

A C Osborn
December 3, 2020 3:11 am

I love the way that dirty Biomass is called “renewable” as if it was clean, even though it is producing CO2 at the same or a higher rate than fossil fuels.

Reply to  A C Osborn
December 3, 2020 4:29 am

All the carbon emitted by burning biomass came from the atmosphere in the first place, so biomass is indeed carbon neutral. Something that applies equally to meat-eating and bushfires (wildfires). So the activists who argue for biomass but campaign against meat-eating and/or bleat about carbon emissions from bushfires are, at best, ignorant.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
December 3, 2020 5:21 am

CO2 from coal and oil also came from the atmosphere – just millions of years ago. Burning fossil fuels is also carbon neutral.

Reply to  Gary
December 3, 2020 5:36 am

And also, biomass requires fossil fuel energy for cultivation, harvesting and its transportation, as well as for the construction and operation of biomass plants.

This is all an accounting exercise with assumptions and ledgers being used to support the narrative.

John Endicott
Reply to  Gary
December 3, 2020 9:15 am

Technically every fuel that has carbon atoms is “carbon neutral” as matter can be neither created or destroyed. we end up with the same number of carbon atoms that we started with, what’s more neutral than that?

Reply to  Gary
December 3, 2020 4:29 pm

While there may be no physical problems from producing more CO2 , CH4, or various other GHGs, words have meanings because they are created to stand for something. Mostly that something is differentiable from other things, that is the purpose of the word(s). Carroll Humpty Dumpty’s approach only leads to an inability to think and communicate clearly.

John Endicott
Reply to  AndyHce
December 4, 2020 3:01 am

The problem is the words being used are meaningless buzzwords:
“carbon pollution” – 1) it’s CO2, not carbon, that they are claiming to be a pollutant, 2) CO2 is not a pollutant, it’s an essential element of life on this planet, it’s literally plant food.
“carbon neutral” – again, they’re talking about CO2, not carbon, and it’s a nonsense concept as already pointed out in previous posts.

Melvyn Dackombe
Reply to  Mike Jonas
December 3, 2020 8:39 am

All the CO2 emitted by……

Reply to  A C Osborn
December 3, 2020 5:30 am

Yes, and for quite a while, hydro was not considered renewable or at least was said to be renewable with caveats. It appears that hydroelectricity is evolving to become politically correct.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Scissor
December 3, 2020 8:35 am

Yes, lest (Gaia forbid), the alternative would be that someone would consider using nuclear power!

Reply to  Scissor
December 3, 2020 9:42 am

The scam was that it (hydro) could not be considered renewable until new permits were approved for the facilities.

That way, states like oregon and washington still had to implement (subsidize) other crap (windmills and solar and biomass) to meet their (self)mandated goals … The local utility couldn’t just say “we are already their!” and not have to participate in the schemes.

Now that they can count hydro, the utilities that are run by reasonable people are dumping their wind shares.

Reply to  Scissor
December 3, 2020 4:30 pm

Depends on where you live or how desperate the radicals are.

John Tillman
Reply to  A C Osborn
December 3, 2020 6:53 am

Wood has a higher C:H ratio than coal, which has a higher ratio than petroleum, which has a higher ratio than natural gas, ie one carbon atom to just four hydrogen atoms.

Reply to  John Tillman
December 3, 2020 7:31 pm

Methane is practically hydrogen, I don’t know why the eco-nazis bother with the hydrogen economy… Oh, yes because they are nazis and are not happy unless they are making us goosestep around.

Ben Vorlich
December 3, 2020 3:22 am

I don’t really think that biomass and hydro are counted as eco friendly

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
December 3, 2020 3:34 am

I dont think windmills and solar panels are environmentally friendly, either.
The fact is that renewable energy is diffuse and requires massive structures to extract it, Naturally no one is concerned about the environmental impact those structures, or the industries that create them, have…

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
December 3, 2020 3:42 am

Biomass—renewable energy from plants and animals

Biomass is renewable organic material that comes from plants and animals. Biomass was the largest source of total annual U.S. energy consumption until the mid-1800s. Biomass continues to be an important fuel in many countries, especially for cooking and heating in developing countries. The use of biomass fuels for transportation and for electricity generation is increasing in many developed countries as a means of avoiding carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use. In 2019, biomass provided nearly 5 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) and about 5% of total primary energy use in the United States.

It’s OK to burn trees for energy but let them turn into petroleum and coal to be pumped and mined out of the ground they become existential threats to children and other living things.

There are many who think that the dams which are responsible for hydro power should be removed. But they don’t live in New Orleans (subject to Spring floods) or Ontario, Canada (cheap and plentiful hydro power).

Cyril Gibb
Reply to  Speed
December 3, 2020 7:03 am

Ontario power is hardly cheap. Did a quick look at the TOTAL cost of hydro to me.
Base KWH rates: off peak 10.5 mid peak 15.0 on peak 21.7
BUT there are other per KWH charges which add up to 11.2 per KWH. so the actual KWH charges are 21.7, 26.2 and 32.9.
However the KWH $ component of my bill is much less than the other fixed regulatory, delivery and tax charges. Those fixed monthly fees are about 120% of the “usage charges”.
We typically try hard to keep off peak price times; usually less than 20%. Nevertheless, our bill works out to 32 cents per KWH. BUT, there are “rebates”* that reduce the amount we actually pay to 25 cents per KWH. I shudder to think what the cost would be if we weren’t retired and were forced to use the peak time charges in the mornings and evenings.
25c / KWH while being frugal isn’t cheap.
*Note: the rebates are just added to our enormous public debt. Translation: let the next generation pay for it.

Reply to  Cyril Gibb
December 3, 2020 7:51 am

Clearly the objective of this confusing rate scheme is to make it so opaque that only retired people have the time, experience and expertise to understand it. Which means that it isn’t designed to drive usage into times of excess capacity rather it is to generate more revenue.

It seems to me that a watch/phone APP that tells you what your electricity cost is in real time might actually do some good.

Peta of Newark
December 3, 2020 3:26 am

Slightly OT..
While charging your electric car with renewable energy (perchance) and it takes fire, heating up the entire block – does that count as Renewable Energy = Good
Is it a contribution to Global Gas Gas Warming, as per forest-fires for instance and thus = Bad?

Maybe bad coz there’s petrol in them there Kugas also. Evil EVIL stuff is petrol
Still, a dizzying mix indeed

Is this why Noo Yawkers are moving out – potentially a bit too much like another 9/11 with those old bangers (haha) prowling the streets- the terrorist potential of those crates is off-the-scale

December 3, 2020 3:32 am

The objective is to not put CO2 into the atmosphere yet safe, clean, reliable nuclear power is often ignored.

“In 2019, one-third of New York’s utility-scale net generation was from the state’s nuclear power plants, which the state counts toward its 2040 100% carbon free electricity goal.”

On the other hand, they have no problem with the CO2 that comes from burning biomass.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Speed
December 3, 2020 4:01 am

“On the other hand, they have no problem with the CO2 that comes from burning biomass.”

There are two colors of CO2, green and black.
The green CO2 comes from young biomass and is excused because it is green.
The black CO2 comes from old biomass and is not excused because it is black.

Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
December 3, 2020 4:55 am

#BlackLeavesMatter too

Reply to  Redge
December 3, 2020 8:02 am


Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
December 4, 2020 1:01 am

Most green groups have a problem with biomass when it comes from clearing forest primarily for wood pellets, especially when it is shipped a long distance. all UK green groups are opposed to using imported wood pellets from USA.

Using wood waste from sawmills, coppiced and rapidly regrown willow, waste wood from demolition – all green.

And please note a majority of biomass in some places is animal manure, waste from food processing and especially from brewing and distilling (stuff which used to go to landfill). NManure biomass does require growing some green crop to mix with the… main ingredient… (a downside)

Reply to  griff
December 4, 2020 9:59 am

grift, since you’re on the UK grid, and the grid includes wood-pellet burner inputs, you’re a wood-pellet burning supporter.

Reply to  Speed
December 3, 2020 2:01 pm

The objective is to part you from the money you earn and place it into the accounts of people managing and implementing God’s work to save the planet.

UN tried to introduce an email tax in 1999. For decades now they have been trying to get income streams not tied to sovereign states. Trump has been their worst nightmare – expecting value for money. The CO2 nonsense is proving to be an effective means of gaining prestige, control and income.

Bloke back down the pub
December 3, 2020 3:42 am

There are plenty of eco worriers out there who think that the only solution to Earth’s ‘problems’ is de-population. It would seem New York state is leading the way.

Reply to  Bloke back down the pub
December 3, 2020 4:57 am

The difference is the de-population nutters don’t want people to simply move away, they want them done away with

Reply to  Redge
December 4, 2020 12:57 am

They don’t. That’s a conspiracy theory.

Serge Wright
December 3, 2020 3:43 am

“Florida passed New York in population in 2014, and out of the 1.4 million residents who left for other states between 2011 and 2018, 21% of them went to the Sunshine State, census data earlier this year showed.”

There is something to be said for people fleeing NY due to climate change policies, and moving to a place where temperatures are 10 degrees F warmer in summer. Obviously not everyone is getting the memo.

Reply to  Serge Wright
December 3, 2020 5:15 am

Not good for us Floridians if they bring their dubious politics with them.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  NavarreAggie
December 3, 2020 5:39 am

And their arrogant, narrow minded attitudes.

Reply to  Serge Wright
December 3, 2020 5:46 am

Freeze warnings in Florida tonight down to Ocala. Those NY’ers can’t even leave their weather behind.

Isn’t is strange that the Spanish grew citrus in Georgia and Northern Florida where it’s too cold to do so today, except with genetically engineered cold hardy varieties? There are multiple reasons why the citrus has been moving South and climate plays a role.

December 3, 2020 4:34 am

It’s easy to have high “renewables” when you’ve got 1/2 of the Niagara River to generate hydroelectricity.

Reply to  Buckeyebob
December 3, 2020 9:00 am

Right now, only a fraction of the river’s flow is being used to generate power.
How long until these renewable power morons require that fraction to go up to 100%?

December 3, 2020 5:04 am
Jeff Demaine
December 3, 2020 5:16 am

Not that it really changes the debate, but I might point out that NY does not generate hydro-electricity itself. Instead, it imports most of it from Quebec, which has vast hydro dams throughout “Le Grand Nord”. Indeed, many houses in Quebec are heated by electric baseboards because power is so cheap.

Robert MacLellan
Reply to  Jeff Demaine
December 3, 2020 4:22 pm

It is not really clear from the numbers quoted but they are only about the amount actually generated in the state. So the Niagara generator produces about 2/3 of the hydro produced instate so 2/3rds hydro of 78% of renewable generation but not any mention of consumption percentage . I have no idea how much is imported.

December 3, 2020 5:19 am

As far as I can tell, New York City itself continues with modest growth. The rest of the state is in the rust belt and has experienced a steady loss of manufacturing jobs since 1980. link

Reply to  commieBob
December 3, 2020 5:33 am

It appears the NYC metro area is actually now shrinking a bit (although probably within the error of estimation)

December 3, 2020 5:41 am

Californian officials don’t count hydroelectric generation as renewable (which is bs).

But the bigger joke regarding hydro electric in New York is that the Niagara Falls power station was the FIRST of it’s kind in the country.

For the longest time hydroelectric was the only electric in New York’s portfolio. One hundred percent renewable

Reply to  papertiger
December 3, 2020 8:08 am

For the longest time hydroelectric was the only electric in New York’s portfolio.

Edison’s DC system was the first in New York. Because of the distance limitations of DC, there were many generators. link The last DC distribution was decommissioned in 2007 but that was probably supplied by a rotary converter or other device powered by AC. What I can’t find is the date the last DC generator was turned off.

I would be surprised if New York was ever powered entirely by hydro. The Sherman Creek station operated ’til 1970. link It was supplying electricity to New York City even after the Robert Moses plant at Niagara Falls was commissioned.

Reply to  papertiger
December 3, 2020 9:58 pm

In California, hydroelectric is renewable if it is below the (incredibly low) threshold of 30 MW on the generator nameplate.

December 3, 2020 6:14 am

These “renewable energy folks are never accurate – what they really want is low carbon, low emission energy. And the future for that is molten salt small modular reactors, due to commercialize before 2030. Cheaper and safer and more reliable than any energy source, they will prove that technology, which the greenies pretend to approve, is the solution to the whole problem, small though it may actually be. Tis is a solution which all folks can agree on, except the anti nuclear twerps who think all technology with the word “nuclear” in its name is equivalent. These people are dumber than dumb – they are dangerously ignorant

Richard Sandvig
December 3, 2020 6:16 am

Michael Moore’s movie Planet of the Humans pretty much says it all. Now every time I read about “renewables” I think of massive landfills of old solar panels and windmill parts and clear-cut, decimated forest land.

December 3, 2020 6:24 am

South Carolina shows why it is so much smarter than all the rest – affordable electricity which is over 50% emission free, thanks to nuclear power.

Reply to  ColMosby
December 3, 2020 7:42 am

South Carolina electricity costs are just average and not low cost, could be even more affordable.

Nuclear “emission free”, oh yeah give me a break, tell me that when they figure out how to dispose of waste for the long term.

CO2 an “emission”? It is not poison. It is plant food. It may be slightly deferring imminent glacial period. CO2 is good, not evil. Incentives should be given for higher CO2 rather than lower CO2.

Brook HURD
Reply to  RelPerm
December 3, 2020 8:44 am


The mass of material waste from a nuclear plant is a tiny fraction of the waste from retired wind and solar production of equivalent generation capacity. Furthermore, the nuclear waste could be reprocessed into more low carbon fuel were it not for idiotic governmental policies which scuttled reprocessing in the US. There is no way to recycle old wind mills and PV panels. They end up in landfills.

Reply to  Brook HURD
December 3, 2020 9:23 am

“Furthermore, the nuclear waste could be reprocessed into more low carbon fuel were it not for idiotic governmental policies which scuttled reprocessing in the US.”

Thank you Jimmy Carter, the second worst US President ever, only due to his single term. Obama had 2 terms but still just barely did more damage done than by Jimmy.

Reply to  Brook HURD
December 3, 2020 4:52 pm

the nuclear waste could be reprocessed…, then make it so. We’ve been waiting 50+ years for solution to be implemented. Keeping waste stored on site for decades without reprocessing is not a sensible solution. Nuclear waste mismanagement is the biggest obstacle preventing nuclear energy industry from flourishing.

Julian Braggins
Reply to  Brook HURD
December 4, 2020 3:22 am

I heard today that a 500 hectare solar pv installation in a semi desert area in NSW Australia was producing enough dew run off during the recent severe drought to support much of the local wildlife with the grass growing from the dew.

Producing power or not, pv panels could help green the desert!

Reply to  RelPerm
December 3, 2020 9:05 am

They figured out how to deal with nuclear “waste” decades ago. It’s just that the green/anti-nuke nut cases won’t permit it to be used.

It’s called re-processing. ALL of the long half-life isotopes are fuel and could be used as such if reprocessing would be permitted.
The rest only has to be stored for a few months to a few years. A very tiny fraction of what’s left would have to be kept isolated for maybe 100 years.

Peter W
Reply to  MarkW
December 3, 2020 2:50 pm

Right! The French have been demonstrating this for years!

Nick Schroeder
December 3, 2020 6:32 am

Remember the clean power plan?
Hydroelectric built before 2012 did not count.
Will CPP II say the same?

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 3, 2020 6:58 am

I think Hydro is only counted now because it Pads their Books for renewables

Ed Zuiderwijk
December 3, 2020 7:01 am

3% of electricity generated by wind. Some progress indeed.

Bryan A
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
December 3, 2020 9:53 am

Sounds like Peak Wind has been reached

December 3, 2020 9:36 am

Bio digester producing methane for renewable energy.

4 dead?

Joel O’Bryan
December 3, 2020 9:41 am

The very fact that New York, Washington, and Oregon make that list in the top 5 is a deception by employing a half truth.
Fact: there is no future growth path available in the US to expand hydroelectricity capacity beyond its current levels as the de-carbonists are destroying coal power generation and attempt to destroy natural gas power generation.
New York is going to start ‘enjoying’ California style blackouts in cold winter months when their generation plants can’t receive enough natural gas delivery due to lack of pipeline infrastructure (or Dementia Joe and Kammie the commie shutting down PA’s gas fields). Right now they depend on electricity imports from Canada to make up the difference, but Canada too is going down the de-carbonization path.

Jeff Corbin
December 3, 2020 10:24 am

Give me a scaled down commercialized super conductive storage system, (SCMES) for my home and a micro gas turbine to spin a superconductive generator which will then run the exhaust through a thermoelectrical generator (TEG)…. and I would be cooking with gas and electricity like the EU without the smart grid. I might not even bother with the Solar/TEG panels on my roof. Anything to be free of cash pipe of the inefficient, wasteful socialized utilities/Government attached to my house. With a NG mirco-turbine and SCMES and TEG system, I’d have on demand electricity for my car, lawnmower, snow blower,… tractors and green houses…. and I might even raise high end ag products under lights…maybe even light manufacturing…thing steel fabrication artisanal and otherwise. The USA might be the last country on earth to go off grid. I see the big tankers of liquified gas heading south out of PA…. my guess is the gas is going to giant turbines operated by one of the utility giants on the east coast. The model is I speak of is already operating, it just needs to be scaled down and commercialized for the homeowner, (TESLA what are you doing?, Bruker what are you doing?, Capstone why not? Some one is going to clean your clock in Central Asia and Africa) and all this stupid yap about wind and solar tax subsidies will cease to scratch the surface. Big oil wants states to put regulation in to force people to pay the grid tax and carbon tax because the tech is emerging that makes off grid a huge boom for the American Hinterland and the hinterlands around the world.

Reply to  Jeff Corbin
December 3, 2020 3:53 pm

Solar/battery is already an economic alternative to the grid in Adelaide, Australia for house owners. The folly with weather dependent generators is that there is near zero benefit of scale. It is a such a low density source of energy that the transmission cost from subsidy farms to domestic consumers negates any benefit of scale.

What would have made economic sense was to avoid connecting intermittent sources to the grid while leaving them to develop without subsidy. The subsidy farms have hampered the development of weather dependent generators. It has made them fat and lazy before they are economically viable.

Reply to  RickWill
December 3, 2020 9:47 pm

The Tesla PowerWall is closer to grid cost than you think. 11’000AUD installed for 14kWh capacity, 4000 cycles (by which time is below 70% of original capacity or requires repairs) which costs around $0.23/kWh(actual power delivered) on top of the cost of power source & 10% losses (about 0.026AUD/kWh for solar PV from a roof if 20yr life cost to homeowner). Out hot water costs 0.14/kWh & anytime power is 0.22/kWh, if we had solar feed-in-Tariff would be 0.075/kWh (add cost of daily service fees on top of these, prices@December 2020 incl.GST except FiT in NSW retailer using Endeavour energy wholesale). I would wait until the $/kWh capacity of home battery was half the current cost to be really economical.

YMMV depending on location & local pricing. Remember, Green rebates/certificates/subsidies may make it cheaper for your purchase but it costs the rest of us to pay for them somewhere along the way (total economic cost vs your personal TCO). If I got the prices wrong you can do your own sums to work it out. How many cycles will they last? What usable depth of discharge in kWh do they have at end-of-life & average through total life? Losses while charging, losses when discharging & converting to AC, losses while sitting idle? Maintenance costs? …

Reply to  RickWill
December 4, 2020 12:52 am

The Tesla system in SA is not an economic alternative … it can only power short duration for switching to alternative sources … of course, if you only read what the boosters want you to read you’d not know that. SA relies on fossil fuel energy from neighbouring states to pick up the load as it has demolished its own coal fired generator … a dastardly act by the socialist government at the time to prevent it ever being used again by successive government. SA energy depends on the good will of other states which consequently has forced the price of electricity up in those states.

Reply to  RickWill
December 4, 2020 1:01 am

Sorry Rickwill, misread your post and thought you were referring to the grid.

None the less, domestic solar/battery combination is not economical … Tesla domestic battery $15k, 6kW solar panels (if that will fit on the roof) $6k … average family power bill pa. $1.1k … ~20 years for payback by which time both the solar panels and the battery will be long gone cactus. Cannot get off grid entirely for obvious reasons charging batteries when the sun doesn’t shine / shine strongly enough.

Unless of course there are SUBSTANTIAL government subsidies 😉

December 3, 2020 2:15 pm

How much energy was spent chopping wood, transporting it, transforming it?

December 3, 2020 5:42 pm

Sample of Maritime Ocean Shipping Reports how much “Green” – 522,007 tonnes in one year

Date Origin Port Destination Port Cargo Tonnes Ship Charter-$/day
25-Jan-20 US-Gulf coast United Kingdom wood pellets 44,368 $15,500
26-Sep-20 US-east coast United Kingdom wood pellets 40,820 $9,000
1-Feb-20 US-Gulf coast United Kingdom wood pellets 66,691 $9,000
26-Oct-19 US-east coast United Kingdom wood pellets 68,158 $19,000
8-Feb-20 US-east coast United Kingdom wood pellets 83,412 $9,500
10-Oct-20 US-Gulf coast US-east coast wood pellets 67,321 $10,000
7-Dec-19 US-east coast US-gulf coast wood pellets 66,723 $20,000
7-Mar-20 US-east coast US-gulf coast wood pellets 41,457 $13,250
11-Apr-20 Brazil Denmark wood pellets 43,057 $11,250

%d bloggers like this: