Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Joe Romm: Why James Hansen Is Wrong About Nuclear Power [View all]Nihil
(13,508 posts)As in, showing the same breakdown categories for a direct comparison?
I'd be quite interested to see how (/if) the different segments have changed
in five years as the total amount has definitely increased.
Ideally, I'd also like to see "biomass" treated correctly too and not combined
(albeit conveniently) with solar & geothermal (for heating) or with wind & solar
& geothermal (for power generation) as well as the "biofuels" category.
As it is, it is painfully obvious that over 90% of the global energy is derived
from "burning stuff": fossil fuels + traditional biomass + biofuels + biomass
contribution to two other categories + (stretching a point slightly) nuclear.
It's only the 3.3% from hydro + the unstate wind/solar/geothermal (less than
4.2%) that *doesn't* involve burning shit - with all of the polluting end-products
that result ... call it 7.3% to be generous ... that is dismally low (even for 2010).
Is there a more hopeful recent update to this diagram please?