[DoughtyOne]

Brought this table (below) over from: LINK


You were right.  If these figures are accurate, I was under a mis-impression that Petrol was used more broadly than it is.

It still remains to be seen what the nuclear produced energy will be replaced with, and looking at the most prevealent alternatives, it's not really a "greenie's" dream is it.

Natural gas would seem to be a viable alternative that they might not get too upset about.  You never know...

Thanks for the mention.


Units in table below are billion kilowatt hours.

Biomas	55.9
Coal	1994.0
Geothermal	14.9
Hydro	248.1
Natural Gas	876.9
Nuclear	806.0
Petrol Coke	14.2
Petrol Liquids	31.2
Solar P/V	0.8
Wind	52.0
Other Gases	11.6
Other	10.4

[thackney]

From your link:

I got motivated to build a small spreadsheet using tables 1.1 and 3 from the Energy Information Agency’s 2008 US Electric Power Monthly publication.

The more current data will show a continued trend for less petroleum liquid used (which still includes the near-tar residual oil)

Table ES1.A. Total Electric Power Industry Summary Statistics, 2013 and 2012
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_es1a

Table 1.1. Total Electric Power Industry Summary Statistics, 2011 and 2010
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_01.html

Petroleum like diesel is too expensive to use for Electrical Power Generation except when special conditions make the options even more costly (like a remote Alaskan Village).

Most of the growth in electrical power generation the last few years has come from Natural Gas.