Another EIA/DOE page gives the following data for electricity production (primary fuel): Coal 45% Nat Gas 23% Nuclear 20% Hydro 7% Other Renewable 4% Petroleum, all other 1 % Hydro can't expand much. All the high head/high flow locations are already dammed and environmental groups HATE hydro. The EIA projections are roughly compatible with "other renewable" doubling, not total renewable doubling. Since the environmental lobby considers hydro as bad as nukes, perhaps this is what is meant.
--- On Wed, 3/2/11, John M. Steele <[email protected]> wrote: From: John M. Steele <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [USMA:49965] Re: energy flow in watts To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, March 2, 2011, 8:55 AM I believe the graph only addressed renewable energy, but mentioned the total in the text. The balance is coal, natural gas, nuclear, and residual fuel oil (that may be the correct order, but I'm not sure). They will swamp the renewables. --- On Wed, 3/2/11, Michael Payne <[email protected]> wrote: From: Michael Payne <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:49965] Re: energy flow in watts To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, March 2, 2011, 8:31 AM A very well reasoned letter. But where does Coal come into the mix? I believe Coal is used for a considerable amount of electricity generation but I don't see any mention of it. Regards, Mike Payne On 01/03/2011, at 15:40 , Stanislav Jakuba wrote: > Attached you will find my letter to a concerned U.S. commentator. It is about > energy and there is a lot of SI with it, particularly towards the end. I > though you might be interested also in the status quo on renewables in the > U.S. > Stan Jakuba > <Obama 2011-U.doc>
