America's energy use?

Question

What type of coal do Americans use most for their energy?

If over half of our energy comes from coal, what makes up the other percent?

What is keeping us from switching to other alternative fuel sources?

Answer 1

We mostly use bituminous coal for our energy, and it makes up about 52% of our power supply.

http://www.nma.org/statistics/pub_fast_f...

The rest comes from various sources - nuclear, natural gas, hydroelectric, other renewables, and a bit from oil.  You can compare your local power grid to the US average here to see where it comes from:

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-an...

We are switching to more renewable fuel sources, but it takes time and money.  Right now coal is the cheapest form of energy, and while other technologies like solar are advancing and becoming cheaper, they're still not as cheap as coal.

We are slowly and gradually moving toward renewable energy though.  Hopefully our next president will help speed up the process.

Answer 2

Mostly what is keeping us from changing is the politics of energy.  

Some of the answers have recommended nuclear, with one saying it is the only alternative.  Not true at all.

Don't we want to become energy independent?

Well  that won't happen with nuclear.

"We import 65 percent of our oil, but 90 percent of our uranium. At a time when state and federal leadership has set goals for "energy independence," reliance on nuclear power would mean depending on technology that requires fuel imported from overseas. Moreover, according to MIT scientists, there is less global supply of enriched uranium than commonly projected and the price has increased more than tenfold over the last five years."

  Is nuclear safe.  Depends who you ask.  They say the reactors are safer designs now but here's what they don't  tell you.

"A report from Argonne National Lab concluded that aircraft crashes could subject nuclear plants to numerous multiple failures that could lead to "total meltdown" even without direct damage to the containment structure."

If we are worried about terrorist attacks, we might not want to give them more targets.

Nuclear power plants are extremely costly to build

"Estimates of the cost to construct nuclear power plants are as high as $4,000 per kilowatt, as compared to about $1,400 per kilowatt for wind projects."

  

Nuclear plants are extremely costly to unbuild.

"Nuclear plant owners are responsible for costs to dismantle retired units, dispose of waste, and decontaminate the site. Each unit has its own decommissioning trust fund, paid for by customers. Wisconsin ratepayers have spent $1.5 billion for the eventual decommissioning of the Point Beach, Kewaunee, and Genoa plants."      

Nuclear energy relies on heavy govt susidies.

"Federal subsidies to new nuclear power plants are likely between 4 and 8 cents per kWh (levelized), and could well be the determining factor driving the construction of new nuclear power plants.  $9 billion per year in the U.S."

    The nuclear industry isn't accountable in the event of an accident.

  "The nuclear industry has long enjoyed limited liability for nuclear accidents under the Price-Anderson Act, which ensures that taxpayers, not industry, will pay for damages in the event of a serious accident."

The waste from nuclear plants is particularly troublesome, as we would be transporting it all over the country, with all the potential for accidents which that entails.   And this is also expensive.

"Part of our electric rates go to payments to the federal Nuclear Waste Fund, which is intended to fund the construction of the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada and pay for transportation of waste to the proposed disposal site. To date, Wisconsin customers have paid about $600 million into this fund."    

That's just one state.

Coal is also heavily subsidised.

"Small modifications to standard coal makes the "new" material eligible for substantial tax credits that run close to $3 billion per year. The subsidy is one example of scores around the world ("clean coal" subsidies are another) that shift new product development costs and risks from the industry to the taxpayer. The subsidies reduce the pressure on the industry itself to innovate, and mask the competitive advantage of alternative energy resources with a more favorable environmental profile."

  And the enormous subsidies to oil mask the competitive advantage of alternative energy even more so.

And for anyone who doesn't think there are alternatives other than nuclear, you are dead wrong, we have many alternatives.

Solar has huge potential, as does wind.

Scientific American  A Solar Grand Plan

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...

  According to Ausra, a solar thermal power plant company:

"Solar thermal power plants such as Ausra's generate electricity by driving steam turbines with sunshine. Ausra's solar concentrators boil water with focused sunlight, and produce electricity at prices directly competitive with gas- and coal-fired electric power."

Solar is one the most land-efficient sources of clean power we have, using a fraction of the area needed by hydro or wind projects of comparable output. All of America's needs for electric power – the entire US grid, night and day – can be generated with Ausra's current technology using a square parcel of land 92 miles on a side. For comparison, this is less than 1% of America's deserts, less land than currently in use in the U.S. for coal mines."

Answer 3

just want to put this in...people need to cut back on stuff such as bottled water.

Last year Americans spent nearly $11 billion on over 8 billion gallons of bottled water, and then tossed over 22 billion empty plastic bottles in the trash.

In bottle production alone, the more than 70 million bottles of water consumed each day in the U.S. drain 1.5 million barrels of oil over the course of one year.

Answer 4

I'm pretty sure it's anthracite.

[edit- or it could be lignite... lol.]

The rest would be oil. Domestic and imported.

[edit- yeah, alternatives are starting to make some good inroads into our energy profile. ]

Unfortunately, people think they have to wait for the gov't to solve our problems for us. Ethanol from corn is the worst possible way of going.  TWO acres of land could produce enough switchgrass ethanol to run the average car for a year. You can amortize that cost in about 7 years. So why aren't loan companies yelling about this from the housetops???

Thin film solar has great promise for the future, and nuclear will never STOP being dangerous. Burying it is no solution! Wind, wave, tidal, and geothermal all have their place.

Answer 5

Bituminous for electricity generation.  See:

http://www.nma.org/statistics/pub_fast_f...

Anthracite is very rare in the US.

Coal is a little less than a quarter of America's energy usage.  (Coal is half of electricity production.)  Petroleum is 40%.  See:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/page...

Economics determines what fuels we use.  Period.  Liquid hydrocarbons have the highest energy density of any fuel, and therefore used in transportation.

America has enormous coal reserves, but coal is a bit dirty and only power plants can invest in the pollution abatement needed.

Nuclear is the only alternative energy source that has a chance.  Yucca mountain takes care of the waste, and the technology is available today.

Solar has such a low energy density, it is 10X more expensive than anything else (and unreliable).

Ethanol takes more energy to produce from corn than you end up with.  (Remember you have to use energy to distill the ethanol.)

Hydrogen is not a primary fuel source, you have to make it from something else.

Any river that can support hydro power already has a dam courtesy of the US Corps of Engineers.

There you have it in a nutshell.