Statistics: Nuclear down, renewables up
Statistics
Nuclear down, renewables up
Today, energy expert Bernard Chabot is back with a special Christmas present – an overview of the global power sector over the past decade. There are three salient findings: the rise of China, the demise of nuclear, and the appearance of non-hydro renewables.
As usual, the slides are available as a PDF, but I want to draw your attention to a few things. First, slide 17 shows that power production is basically flat throughout the OECD, but it nearly tripled in China from 2003-2012 and nearly doubled in India (albeit from a much lower level – Chinese power production is currently nearly 5 times as great as India's). The only other major increase was in the Rest of the World, which saw power production to grow by more than 20 percent.
More importantly for this website, you have probably heard of a renaissance of nuclear power; I have certainly been hearing about it since Chernobyl. But slide 20 reveals that power production from nuclear plants is also basically flat over the past decade, with a slight dip in 2012 after Japan shut down more than 50 nuclear plants and Germany followed suit with eight of its own.
But overall power production has been growing, so the share of nuclear in total supply (see slide 22) has actually slipped by 4.7 percentage points from 15.7 percent in 2003 to 11 percent in 2012. Note that this decrease is discernible all the way back to 2004; it is not a sudden dip as a result of Fukushima in 2012.
Non-hydro renewables have not quite managed to fill that gap, rising only by 3.0 percentage points over the past decade, but there has been an uptick...
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/nuclear-down-renewables-up/150/537/75598/
= new reply since forum marked as read
You're so amusing, Pam.
Don't like BP's numbers? How about this from the World Nuclear Association (which seems to show a decline since 2006 or so):
Never mind that the NRC may have uprated a few plants in the US; the OP is about global production, and clearly those increases don't change the global picture appreciably. But of course, the Have Caps Lock, Will Babble MO doesn't include reading a source carefully enough to realize that the domain is world production and that the data are about electricity generation, not capacity.
No thanks!!
Why don't you start up a poll and see what's the percentage of DUers who agree with you??
I have a feeling it would be very very tiny 
You're here to educate me, huh? Do you think caps and bold letters are going to make anyone who is against nuclear energy, accept it??
Gawd, this is funny!! Thanks for the laughs!!
Damn fool is right
there in lies your problem. Most of us learned the second law of thermodynamics long ago in junior high.
You see most of us don't feel compelled to try to educate you as you seem to think that is your mission for us
Fail is all I see.
As someone said earlier, gawd you are funny
Have a good night I plan too.
ETA: I remember well when you tried to tell me there was hardly any losses in the gears of an automobile drive train. Something you were totally and completely WRONG about. So again I have to laugh at you
For a tip: Why don't you try to be a little bit more congenial and you might get along a little better here.
pamw says
Gears do not waste energy, they are one of the most efficient parts of an automobile.
No where in this exchange did you say anything close to what you just lied about when you said:
(What I told madokie before was that the efficiencies of the gears in an automobile are in the 90+% percentile. The types of gears in auto drive trains are spur, bevel and helical for the most part. We see here a comparison of the mechanical efficiencies of those types of gears courtesy of an information hub for mechanical engineers
this is a perfect example of why I have no use for whatever you have to say, TEACHER LADY.
Gawd you're funny
I'll remove this for the sake of DU.
I didn't make a claim that gears are the only problem. I simply pointed out that there are losses in the gears in the transmission and differential.
As I stated in the linked to discussion, what we/they should have done is the same as what they do with locomotives, that is use an engine turning a generator with an electric motor turning the wheels. hardly if any gears are needed in that system as an electric motor has its most torque right off stand still where it is needed most and why an automobile has a transmission and differential to begin with.
Don't make me laugh at you again by grading me, gawd you're funny . Ah hell I'll laugh at your ass anyway
Most efficient way to transmit power is by chain actually, geared up or geared down, it doesn't matter chain is the most efficient. Using chains are not practical though in this case so they're not used.
BTW you're talking to a person who understands the carnot cycle and mechanics very well so you'll not be educating me at all on this subject rather you're only be showing your ass
I've figured you out and thats in your eyes the whole world is stupid except you.
Jebus Christ!! 
...
I feel bad for you, to be honest.
Since 2008:
Annual nuclear power production has dropped by 95 Twh.
Renewables have added 505 Twh/year.
Hydro has added 457 Twh/year.
Fossil fuels have added 1353 Twh/year.
The question in the subject line is rhetorical, by the way. We all know why.
Because that's what we would have needed to prevent catastrophic global warming if we'd started it 50 years ago. Concentrating on the economic efficiency of minor players has been a recipe for fail. Now the game is pretty much over, and economists like you have killed a global civilization.
Thanks a heap, evangelist. 
None? That's not very efficient, is it?
You and your pusillanimous, obfuscating, misdirecting, game-playing ilk are part of the problem, kristopher. You're all selling shit you don't own.
If you're going to trumpet yourself as an honest man, the first criterion is that you must actually BE honest.
You say, with NO references, "Nuclear power is going up also, but more modestly due to reactor uprates."
Looks to me like you're playing the "future capacity" game, just like our other evangelistic friend. The actual amount of power produced by your beloved nukes has been declining since it peaked in 2007, with one small bump in 2011.
You make me sick too, evangelist.
which was that understanding other peoples' point of view and how their world works is key to understanding energy dynamics, and especially key in making political alliances and getting good candidates, which I would assume to be of importance on a political website.
But you don't care, and that's fine with me, but it leaves me wondering what you're doing. Trying to convince people into being nuclear supporters? So what? Do you give out t-shirts for that? Are they going to build one? Or elect someone who can't build one? Or maybe elect someone who will go easy on the ones already built.
Your concern for the two billion brings a tear to my eye, but I don't see how generic concern can possibly be converted into action with out understanding them, asking them, working with them -exactly the behavior you've dismissed. I've never known the nuclear industry to be active in that field, but by all means, share. I'm here to learn.
Sorry, but I found your link to be less than detailed. If you want, I can get a .01 breakdown the tax structure, with the largest segment being the 19% VAT. I thought I was being clear in talking about the generation/distribution price of the electricity itself vs the residential billing price.
The cost of production is .081, and the legally permitted profit, admin, and advertising is .059 for a subtotal of .14 euro. Add .114 in taxes = .253euro. The eurostat data is from 2011, so it might have gone up a cent or two. It has not damaged the economy. But if you know anyone who would be interested, there's a shortage of skilled labor. It's union labor, and well paid.
http://tinyurl.com/olzffup
618g CO2/kWh US avg 2007 (the US needs better data), Germany 443 CO2/kWh avg 2011, but I know it can range to 525 CO2/kWh depending on the date and state.
http://www.miloslick.com/EnergyLogger_files/State_Electricity_and_Emissions_Rates.pdf
http://www05.abb.com/global/scot/scot380.nsf/veritydisplay/6ab4390d79abfd11c1257be800540e7c/$file/Germany.pdf
Oh my, by that measure the US has some catching up to do. And, damn, the US consumption is double too -so on an end-use, per-person basis that's over twice the carbon per person for electricity. I don't think you should be mentioning Germany.
http://www.kwh-preis.de/strom/strompreise
The amount over and the generation and grid costs does not go into the FiT.
It's nice that you link to the germanenergyblog.de, but the page you linked to was for TiF payouts, not residential billing. The TiF payouts are based on a 5-10% return. It's also based on the idea that the homeowner/producer should get the same breaks the Big4 utilities get.
This is how it breaks down for residential customers:
Production/purchase/ or generation +€0.082 (Varies by district)
Netznutzung: Grid cost and distribution. You'll be happy to know it's underground. +€0,0574
Metering, billing: +€0.086
That's the base price of the electricity. Now the taxes.
Stromsteuer: An electricity tax designed to reduce consumption and reduce a utilities ability to manipulate the market. + €0.021
Introduced in 1999, most of this revenue goes to fund state pensions.
Konzessionsabgabe: Concession charges paid to local municipalities: +€0.017 (to €0.0239)
Local property taxes are nil, but there's a tax any business operating in the town. It's a theory of taxation that goes back centuries.
KWK offshore: This was formerly a CHP cogeneration surcharge(with a 25% CHP goal), now temporarily re-purposed: +€0.04
Umsatzsteuer (VAT): +€0.046
A source of general revenue channeled to social and local services.
EEg: Renewable Energy sources act. I assume this is what has you wound up. +€0.03592
The 2013 EEG Surcharge was €0.03592 /kWh, and based on normal usage would be about €15/month for a family of three. For a single person living alone that's about €5-6,00 /month -about the price of a train ticket to work for one day. The EEg is nearly at its price peak, will stay there for a few years, then decline.
You specifically mentioned the FiT, as if that was the whole price above the base amount and suggesting that was all of the EEg. But the EEg fund surcharge covers hundreds,maybe thousands of programs, from light bulbs to insulation to big projects. It varies over time, but 70% of the EEg for the FiT is a good average. That means, at its peak, for a few years, the FiT portion for a family of three is about €10, less than a movie ticket.
That's €0.025144 /kWh. So you're having a stroke over a 2-1/2 cents per kWh charge that a democratic people have intentionally imposed on themselves. I assume you don't think an energy transition is free?
The following does not include missionaries or soldiers and their efforts to aid the 2 billion. Otherwise the US would fare better. I was going to be the top 20 givers of foreign aid, but it had to be 21 instead. Foreign aid per $GDP, by nation:
Statistic VerificationSource: OECD, The World Bank, Development Assistance Committee
Date Verified: 3.15.2012
http://www.statisticbrain.com/countries-that-give-the-most-in-foreign-aid-statistics/
Oh my, 0.19 % is half of 0.38 %. If you prefer, here's ODA/GNI. At least by this measure, the US is better than Italy.
http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human-rights/statistics-on-poverty/statistics-on-international-development-aid/
And PressTV, really? "plunging into relative poverty"? I guess that what get for taking in immigrants. You should be so unlucky. And here I thought you liked numbers.
The GINI index CIA data 2009:
Iran 44.5(2006) that's horrible; EU average: 26.0; Germany 27.0; France 32.7, Czech Republic 31.0; UK 40.0, that takes down the average; USA 45.0 (2007).
Lower is better, BTW. So who's slightly worse than 45.0? Bulgaria, Mozambique. I assume the USA number is the only one you can do anything about.
I'm not surprised you use vile insults to attack one of the most democratic, most progressive people. I am surprised you get away it on a democratic and progressive website.
Don't go away now, coal is next. You're not going to like it though. It's reads about like the GINI index.
is not only because of our coal burning power plants or our automobiles rather it is mostly because of poor design or lack of inside heating and cooking apparatuses in third world countries. If you are so concerned about these deaths you need to get off your ass and do something about that. Not rant and rave as you do against anything thats not nuclear powered. Nuclear energy to produce electricity is on its way out and you might as well get used to that fact. Chernobyl brought the dangers into the light and Fukishima is going to finish it off. Bet on it.
Just how much do you get paid to come here and spout your shit anyway???
You lie
Question for you. Is that caps lock key on automatic or do you actually have to press it?
Oh yea, you're about to wear that one link out don't you think
