Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
  • “Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
  • “Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

AI Summary. US electricity generation shifted from coal, which supplied over 40% of power until 2011, to natural gas, which overtook coal and reached 35.5% in 2018 following advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. Coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric together still supply over 88% of US electricity.

Mark Perry American Enterprise Institute
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

US electricity generation has shifted significantly since 1949, with coal dominating until 2011, natural gas surging past coal in 2016, and renewables increasing gradually.

How has the US electricity generation fuel mix shifted over decades?

Core argument: US natural gas-fired generation reached 35.5% of electricity in 2018, surpassing coal by 2016 after falling below 10% in 1988, a shift attributed to advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.

From 1949 to 2019, US electricity generation underwent significant shifts in fuel sources, with coal historically dominating, providing over 40% of power until 2011 and over 50% in 43 of those years. Natural gas, after a decline to less than 10% in 1988, surged past coal by 2016, reaching 35.5% in 2018 due to advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. Nuclear power, contributing since 1957, stabilized between 19% and 21.5% over the last 30 years. Hydroelectric power's share fell from over 30% in 1949 to between 6% and 8% in recent years. Solar and other renewables, including wind, have seen gradual increases, with wind reaching over 10% by early 2019. Despite these changes, coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric still supply over 88% of US electricity. The CPI for electricity has risen only about 1% annually since 2010, indicating a decrease in real costs, but a shift to renewables could increase electricity costs and taxes, impacting low and middle-income households.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. US natural gas-fired generation reached 35.5% of electricity in 2018, surpassing coal by 2016 after falling below 10% in 1988, a shift attributed to advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.
  2. Coal supplied over 50% of US electricity in 43 of the years from 1949 to 2019 and over 40% until 2011, while hydroelectric power's share fell from over 30% in 1949 to between 6% and 8%.
  3. Coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric together still supply over 88% of US electricity, with nuclear holding between 19% and 21.5% over the last 30 years and wind exceeding 10% by early 2019.

Mark Perry, "Animated chart of the day: US electricity generation by fuel source, 1949-2019," American Enterprise Institute, July 9, 2019, https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/animated-chart-of-the-day-us-electricity-generation-by-fuel-source-1949-2019/

Animated chart of the day: US electricity generation by fuel source

Animated chart of the day: US electricity generation by fuel source, 1949-2019: Extended Excerpt Image 1


Here’s a new animated “bar chart race” visualization using the online Flourish software, this one showing US electricity generation by energy source shares from 1949 to 2019 (through April) based on data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Here are few observations:

1. Coal has historically been the largest energy source for America’s electricity generation, and provided more than 40% of the nation’s electric power in every year between 1949 and 2011, and more than 50% in 43 of those 59 years.

2. Although natural gas provided more than 20% of US electric power from 1959 to 1972 it provided less than 20% from 1973 to 2008, less than 15% of US electricity from 1982 and 2005 and a record low of less than 10% in 1988. In 2011, natural gas provided more than 25% of US electric power for the first time when oceans of shale gas were accessed for the first time in shale rock formations with revolutionary drilling and extraction technologies (hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling) and its share quickly surpassed coal for the first time in 2016. During the last full year (2018) natural gas provided 35.5% of electric power versus 27.7% for coal, its lowest share in the history of these EIA data.

3. Nuclear started provided a small share of US electric power in 1957, but its share never rose above 1% until 1968. By 1977, nuclear’s share of electricity rose above 10% for the first time and rose above 20% in 1990 for the first time and hit an all-time peak of 21.8% in 2001. Over the last 30 years, nuclear’s share of US electric power has been fairly stable in a range between about 19% and 21.5%.

4. Solar never contributed to US electricity generation until 1984, but its share never exceeded 1% until 2017 and its share in 2018 was 1.6%.

5. Conventional hydroelectric power provided nearly one-third (more than 30%) of the nation’s electricity in 1949, and its share was above 20% from 1950-1958 before steadily after that. By 1987, hydroelectric power was supplying less than 10% of US electricity and during this century the share has ranged between 6% and 8%.

6. The category “Other Renewables” includes “wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture byproducts, other biomass, geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic energy, and wind” according to the EIA. I assume that category today mostly includes windmills, and it never supplied more than 1% of America’s electricity until 1989, and never more than 2% until 2006. During the last full year (2018), it provided 8.6% of the country’s electric power and its share increased to slightly above 10% for the first time during the first four months of this year.

MP: The environmentalists and Green New Deal supporters apparently want to eliminate all fossil fuels, nuclear power and even hydroelectric power, and replace those energy sources with millions of acres of solar panels and windmills. The chart above demonstrates what a massive change that would be, since coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydroelectric power currently supply more than 88% of America’s electric power.

Further, the CPI for electricity has increased on average only about 1% per year since 2010 compared to the average 1.8% increase in the overall CPI during that period, meaning that the real cost of electric power for Americans has been falling for the last decade. Replacing affordable and dependable fuels to generate electricity with costly and undependable renewables (solar and windmills) would have to result in significant increases in the cost of electricity and would also likely involve increases in taxes to continue to subsidize energy sources that aren’t scientifically and economically viable without taxpayer life support.

Higher energy costs and higher taxes from converting to renewables would burden Americans, especially low and middle-income households, and would significantly lower the standard of living in the US. The GND is what is an existential threat, a threat to affordable energy, a threat to our standard of living and a threat to the economy that supports our way of life.

Ed Comment:Kinda cool although I don’t see why animation is better than a graph, which allows you see all the data more clearly.

Showing 489 database articles primarily about either Productivity, Cronyism, Incentives/Risk-Taking, Innovation/Research, Institutional Capabilities, Intangibles, Investment, Startups, or Workforce Reorganization