Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(33,690 posts)
11. Your numbers are incorrect as they are off by orders of magnitude.
Sat Jun 8, 2024, 03:42 PM
Jun 8

The correct numbers are posted at the EIA's website going back to 1973 in table 1.2.

Numbers are important. People lie, to themselves and to each other, but numbers don't lie.

Regrettably the units in the EIA table are "Quads," an unfortunate English unit of a quadrillion "BTU." The conversion factor of "Quads" to the SI unit Exajoule is 1.055056 EJ per quad to the number of significant figures given in the EIA table. EJ, Exajoules, are 1018 Joules.

Summing, using the Excel format of the data for 2023, we see that the US energy consumption was 102.815275 "Quads" which translated to SI units is 108.4758728 EJ, or 108.4758728 X 1018 Joules.

I will translate the numbers in Quads to the SI unit EJ.

Of this, with the planet in flames owing to the whining of antinukes, regrettably only 8.546828241 EJ was produced by nuclear energy, using largely infrastructure completed in the 20th century, compared to the 1.530782861 EJ to the useless expensive fossil fuel dependent wind industry, and the equally useless expensive fossil fuel dependent solar industry, which produced 0.925854897 EJ. Biomass combustion, which contributes to the death toll associated with air pollution, contributed 5.443922261 EJ.

Whiny bourgeois antinukes have spent the last 50 years saying that we didn't need nuclear energy because so called "renewable energy" was so great. They have always been disinterested in the cost in health, environmental and direct use of fossil fuels. In 2023, the United States consumed 91.03879135 EJ of fossil fuels. Nevertheless, combined, wind, solar and biomass produced 7.900560019 EJ in 2023, less than nuclear, with wind and solar and biomass soaking up vast sums of money, and nuclear under constant attack by intellectual and moral Lilliputians despite its low external and internal costs as measured over lifetimes.

On global scale, numbers ignored by penny pinching antinukes, the expenditures on so called "renewable energy" have been extreme:

The amount of money spent on so called "renewable energy" since 2015 is 4.12 trillion dollars, compared to 377 billion dollars spent on nuclear energy, mostly to keep vapid cultists spouting fear and ignorance from destroying the valuable nuclear infrastructure.



IEA overview, Energy Investments.

The graphic is interactive at the link; one can calculate overall expenditures on what the IEA dubiously calls "clean energy."

It's triply amusing because of the antinuke rhetoric that flies around here about cost. The real cost of antinuke rhetoric is global warming and a vast death toll associated with air pollution.

Thanks for your interest.
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Energy Secretary Granholm...»Reply #11