Renewables at 10.6% of US energy production, increase of 5% over last year

[bananas]

although only 7.36% of energy consumption.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/97468-renewable-energy-is-on-the-rise-in-u-s

Renewable Energy Is On the Rise in U.S.
posted on: September 26, 2008
By: Jennifer Kho

Renewables made up 10.6 percent of the energy produced in the United States in the first half of the year, said the U.S. Energy Information Administration in a report released this week.

<snip>

That represents a 5 percent growth from 3.44 quadrillion Btu of renewable-energy production in the first half of last year. Most of that growth came from wind power, which increased production by nearly 49 percent from the year-ago quarter to 244 trillion Btu.

<snip>

Ken Bossong, Executive Director of the Sun Day Campaign, a nonprofit that promotes renewable energy, said:

"The significant contribution being made by renewable energy sources to the nation's energy supply documented by the U.S. Energy Information Administration is far greater than most Americans realize. Repeated statements by nuclear and fossil fuel interests that renewables contribute only a tiny fraction of the nation's energy supply are not only misleading but flatly wrong."

<snip>

[NNadir]

1. If you don't know what you're talking about, make stuff up.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

It's pretty easy to find out directly from the EIA what the numbers are, unless you're a numeric illiterate whose chief source of information is one's own stupid biases and google.

Of course, in 2007 - and you'd have to be able to do a third grader's inequality to do this - dangerous fossil fuels set a record.

That's probably because of all the dumb ass tractors driving around to prop up the biofuels three card monty game.

[bananas]

2. If you don't know what you're talking about, make stuff up.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/mer/

It's pretty easy to find out directly from the EIA what the numbers are, unless you're a numeric illiterate whose chief source of information is one's own stupid biases and google.

Of course, in 2007 - and you'd have to be able to do a third grader's inequality to do this - dangerous fossil fuels set a record.

That's probably because of all the dumb ass pro-nukes googling around to prop up the nuclear three card monty game.

[NNadir]

3. Oh. I see we have to give instruction in adding and subtracting again. What a surprise.

Um, genius? Did you even look at the numbers?

Still can't tell one number from another?

Why am I not surprised?

Once again, genius, let me help you, not that it will do any fucking good, since you are McCainian in your distortions and misrepresentations.

It should be pretty easy, but maybe the anti-nuke reading level isn't too good and is just as bad as the anti-nuke mathematical ability, which hardly qualifies as third grade.

Let's look at the table again:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

The first row in the table - that would be the one on the top if you can't find it - gives the sum of dangerous fossil fuel use about which you couldn't fucking care less. The first column - that would be on the left gives the figures for 2003. The number is 84.708 quads. ( If you need help with understanding decimals, find a fucking third grader to help you.) In 2007, that would be last year genius, the dangerous fossil fuel use was 86.253 quads.

Now if you can do subtraction - and there is no evidence you can - you can come to understand that dangerous fossil fuel use increased by 2.175 quads.

You couldn't fucking care less.

Now, scroll down and see if you can find the renewables part. Here let me spell it for you R-E-N-E-W-A-B-L-E-S.

In 2003 this class of energy - lead by hydroelectric and burning shit - trees and garbage - went from 6.150 quads to 6.83 quads. This, Genius, means that the entire fucking game you've been hyping here for years while trying to vandalize the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy - increased by 0.680 quads.

Again, if you can't do decimals, get a third grader to help you.

Since you're so fond of percent talk, we'll put the ratio between the growth of dangerous fossil fuels about which you couldn't fucking care less to your yuppie renewable 3 card monty yuppie toy renewables at 316% in favor of dangerous fossil fuels.

Nuclear power, in spite of the appalling ignorance of people tirelessly trying to vandalize its infrastructure because they can't fucking think, went from 7.959 quads to 8.415 quads meaning - without building a single fucking plant, without any huge investment - it increased 0.456 quads.

The "cool" things hyped here, solar, wind and geothermal combined increase in that 4 year period 0.252 quads. Nuclear didn't even need to add a single plant to outstrip these three in growth combined.

It is also clear that even including hydroelectric and burning shit, including garbage, and strip mining the soil (ethanol) all forms of renewable energy combined in this country did not equal nuclear power in terms of energy production.

We could build just one nuclear plant and outstrip the entire solar industry in this country on less land, using less money and creating less waste.

What a dork.

[kristopher]

4. The problems with that (blinkered) vision

The problems with that (blinkered) vision are many. Nuclear energy requires us to input much more energy per unit of output than renewables. That comparison is already TERRIBLY against nuclear and sadly, is getting worse. As uranium gets more scarce and becomes harder to recover or forces us to employ breeder technology, the energy input can be expected to increase DRAMATICALLY. Meanwhile, the energy input for real renewables is dropping per unit of output. Summed up: nuclear getting worse, renewables getting better.

Then there is the fact of nuclear proliferation. EVERY ROGUE NATION THAT HAS OBTAINED NUCLEAR WEAPONS OUTSIDE THE AUSPICES OF THE Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty HAVE OBTAINED THEM THROUGH THE TECHNOLOGIES OF THEIR CIVILIAN NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAMS.

Add permanently toxic wastes, central control of power resources and mining practices that are very destructive to the HUGE MONETARY COSTS and you have a technology that only a Republican could love.

[madokie]

5. ' and you have a technology that only a Republican could love.'

No doubt about that one.