Energy sources have changed throughout the history of the United States
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11951&src=email[font size=5]Energy sources have changed throughout the history of the United States[/font]
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, AER Energy Perspectives and MER.
[font size=3] Energy consumption patterns have changed significantly over the history of the United States as new energy sources have been developed and as uses of energy changed.
A typical American family from the time our country was founded used wood (a renewable energy source) as its primary energy source until the mid- to late-1800s. Early industrial growth was powered by water mills. Coal became dominant in the late 19th century before being overtaken by petroleum products in the middle of the last century, a time when natural gas usage also rose quickly.
Since the mid 20th century, use of coal has again increased (mainly as a primary energy source for electric power generation), and a new form of energy—nuclear electric power—emerged. After a pause in the 1970s, the use of petroleum and natural gas resumed growth, and the overall pattern of energy use since the late 20th century has remained fairly stable.
While the overall energy history of the United States is one of significant change as new forms of energy were developed, the three major fossil fuels—petroleum, natural gas, and coal, which together provided 87% of total U.S. primary energy over the past decade—have dominated the U.S. fuel mix for well over 100 years. Recent increases in the domestic production of petroleum liquids and natural gas have prompted shifts between the uses of fossil fuels (largely from coal-fired to natural gas-fired power generation), but the predominance of these three energy sources is likely to continue into the future.
EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO2013) Reference case, which assumes continuation of current laws, regulations, and policies, projects continued significant reliance on the three major fossil fuels through at least 2040, when they still supply more than three-quarters of the nation's overall primary energy consumption. [/font][/font]
= new reply since forum marked as read
He gets paid to paint a rosy picture but I just spent 45 minutes reading / skimming "Renewables 2013 Global Status Report" (from REN21) and I got to tell you the guy has got to be kidding himself. For one, most commitments that I see go to 2020, so he can't even begin to speculate about 2040. Secondly, the commitments are not that big, as we saw with the last bit climate gathering, Rio+20. And just to clarify on that bit, I realize he didn't author the latest GSR, I'm saying REN21s latest GSR doesn't reflect the GFR.
Note: I did only skim the Global Futures Report but it only outlines the various "scenarios" (where the New Policies Scenario is merely BAU with some meager subsidies), so I didn't feel it merited my full attention. Compiling all the other reports and putting the graphs together is of course fantastic, but it doesn't tell us much about what is actually happening.
Furthermore, I find it hard to find Eric credible on this subject, as a predictor or speculator, when he claims, "Overall, I think there are excellent prospects for the world to become predominantly powered (and fueled) by renewable energy by the 2040–2050 timeframe (including electricity, heating, cooling, and transport). Indeed, this should be an explicit political and social goal worldwide. As to what “predominantly” means, I would say something like 80–90%." When his own conclusion can't even support the delusional imaginings of such a scenario (really, the conclusion doesn't present any prediction whatsoever, it only poses the possibility of "transformational change"
.
> Response to joshcryer (Reply #2)
> ...
> Lame Baggins.
... or is that just your signature now ?
