This is the new claim being thrown around by renewable energy proponents with supporting data by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Check the link here:

During the first quarter of 2011, renewable energy sources (biomass/biofuels, geothermal, solar, water, wind) provided 2.245 quadrillion Btus of energy or 11.73 percent of U.S. energy production. More significantly, energy production from renewable energy sources in 2011 was 5.65 percent more than that from nuclear power, which provided 2.125 quadrillion Btus and has remained largely unchanged in recent years. Energy from renewable sources is now 77.15 percent of that from domestic crude oil production, with the gap closing rapidly.

Looking at all energy sectors (e.g., electricity, transportation, thermal), production of renewable energy, including hydropower, has increased by 15.07 percent compared to the first quarter of 2010, and by 25.07 percent when compared to the first quarter of 2009. Among the renewable energy sources, biomass/biofuels accounted for 48.06 percent, hydropower for 35.41 percent, wind for 12.87 percent, geothermal for 2.45 percent, and solar for 1.16 percent.

It’s questionable how well nuclear energy would survive without federal subsidies, but its worth pointing out the banality of what is being claimed above, as its clearly being used to continue the green assault against nuclear energy in favor of other sources that rely on even more federal subsidies. From the EIA report, nuclear energy produced 2.125 quadrillion Btus in the first 3 quarters of 2011. A combination of hydro-electric power, geothermal, biomass, solar, and wind produced 2.245 quadrillion Btus.

Breaking total ‘renewable energy’ production down percentage wise, we have (roughly):

• Hydro-electric: .795/2.245 =  ~35%
• Geothermal: .055/2.245 = 2.5%
• Solar/PV: .026/2.245 = 1.16%
• Wind: .289/2.245 = 12.9%
• Biomass: 1.079/2.245 = 48%

Roughly 83% (biomass and hydro) of the ‘renewable’ energy touted above isn’t favored by many present day environmentalists. Hydro-electric power production, while having low carbon dioxide emissions, upsets environmentalists for other reasons — so throw that out, noting that hydro was not included in California’s renewable energy targets. Wood-biomass is hated by many environmentalists as well, and ethanol (included by the EIA as a subset of biomass) is hated by almost everyone. Roughly 90% of the energy included in biomass came from those sources.

So if you add the remaining energy options, the ones that are favored by the Obama Administration showered with subsidies, you get 0.37 quadrillion Btus (from wind, solar, geothermal — which doesn’t receive the same attention as wind/solar), representing roughly 17% of the energy produced by nuclear power in the United States, and a much smaller fraction of total energy production.

Two days ago, the New York Times reported that the French Parliament is “leaning” towards a ban on hydraulic fracturing, the American-made technological revolution in production that has vastly increased the known economically recoverable global reserves of natural gas. According to the article,

French lawmakers opened debate on Tuesday on proposals to ban a method for extracting oil and gas deposits from shale because of environmental concerns, throwing up the first serious stumbling block to firms that want to use the practice.

Looking with alarm at the experience in the United States, where shale gas is booming, even members of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s governing conservative party have come out against the practice, known as hydraulic fracturing, in which water, sand and chemicals are pumped deep underground under high pressure to free scattered pockets of oil and gas from dense rock formations.

The article, while interesting, misses the big picture. For starters, it’s unclear why French lawmakers would look “with alarm” at the U.S. experience. While there is some evidence that poorly built “fracking” rigs could lead to the escape of methane into local groundwater wells, this isn’t as disturbing as it sounds. Methane (ie, natural gas) does not make water poisonous, and there is no evidence that the fluids used in the process, which could be toxic, have leaked into well water. Much more importantly, there is ZERO evidence that the process affects water tables used for utility scale water supply, although environmentalist special interests are quick to try to conflate well-water methane contamination with water table contamination. The upshot is that hydraulic fracturing has been used in this country for fifty years, without harming public health and environment.

The article also omits mention of why France might be inclined to dismiss fracking: namely, because it isn’t needed. Since 1980, the French government has made nuclear electricity generation a policy priority, and, as a result, the country gets more than 75 percent of its juice from atomic power. That’s the most in the world—by far. For comparison, the U.S. generates about 20 percent of its electricity with nuclear, and Japan gets about a quarter of electricity generation from nuclear. In light of the government’s singular promotion of nuclear, France has a much lower incentive for other forms of electricity generation, like gas. It can afford to pass on the fracking revolution.

The situation is very much different in the rest of Europe. Spain, for example, uses much imported liquid natural gas for electricity generation, so it is more amenable to domestic hydraulic fracturing. About seven months ago, I had breakfast with a representative from an American gas company that was working closely with Spanish energy companies to develop the technology there.

Then there’s Germany. In that country, the Green Party is anomalously powerful, and their influence renders new nuclear and coal verboten. That’s a problem, because the only alternative to coal and nuclear is Russian natural gas. I won’t review 150 years of European history, but suffice it to say, many Germans aren’t keen on being increasingly dependent on the Russian Bear. The two countries have quite a past.

This applies to much of Central and Eastern Europe. Thanks to the European Union’s climate policies, new coal power is difficult. And thanks to the Japanese nuclear crisis, nuclear is out of favor, too. But for these countries, for whom the Russian yoke is all too fresh on the mind, dependence on Gazprom is out of the question. They are very much amenable to hydraulic fracturing technology.

I rarely sing the Obama Administration’s praises on energy policy, but I must give the President props for identifying the geopolitical opportunity inherent to fracking. The State Department has been actively promoting the technology in Europe, no doubt as a counter to the prospect of European reliance on Russian gas.

To be sure, I hate the way politicians in this country use “energy independence” to justify myriad stupid energy policies, but the gas market is very different from the oil market. Whereas the latter is a global market, the former is bound by the logistical infrastructure (ie, pipes). As a result, it’s relatively easy for Russia to play hardball and use gas deliveries as a diplomatic bargaining chip. It has done so with the Ukraine and Belarus.

France doesn’t need fracking; the rest of Europe does, because it’s much more attractive an option than the alternative, reliance on Gazprom or imported LNG. These geopolitical concerns will drive a European turn to the practice.

CEI’s Iain Murray has an op-ed in The Washington Times today explaining what can be learned from the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan.

Here’s an excerpt:

Without this vigorous defense of nuclear, the Obama energy plan will have a massive hole at its core – one that cannot be filled by wind and solar power any more than it can be filled by fairy dust. The obvious answer is for the administration to stop its war on coal, but that is unlikely. The only other plausible choice is natural gas, derived by hydraulic fracturing – a procedure that environmentalists are already trying to ban. If they want to keep their plan going in any workable form, the president and Mr. Chu need to tell Americans unequivocally where their future power is going to come from, and push back against ideological environmentalists who are trying to ban practical sources of energy.

Read the rest here.