...more "percent talk."

As long as this mathematically obscene Trumpian misrepresentation is allowed to stand, we have no hope of addressing climate change.

After 50 years of mindless cheering, and obscene fraudulent marketing, the so called "renewable" wind and solar industries don't produce 2% of the world's energy.

As reported in the most recent update of the World Energy Outlook published by the International Energy, solar, wind, tidal and geothermal and related wishful thinking do not, in "percent talk" produce 2% of the world's energy.

Maybe Trump doesn't know it; and maybe the general public engaged in screwing all future generations is willing to hear what it doesn't want to hear, but a BIG LIE, is still a lie.

I think I'll repeat this referenced report as often as I hear the same bullshit repeated by the so called "Renewable Energy" business, which is pretty much every damned day.

In this century, world energy demand grew by 164.83 exajoules to 584.95 exajoules.

In this century, world gas demand grew by 43.38 exajoules to 130.08 exajoules.

In this century, the use of petroleum grew by 32.03 exajoules to 185.68 exajoules.

In this century, the use of coal grew by 60.25 exajoules to 157.01 exajoules.

In this century, the solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal energy on which people so cheerfully have bet the entire planetary atmosphere, stealing the future from all future generations, grew by 8.12 exajoules to 10.63 exajoules.

10.63 exajoules is under 2% of the world energy demand.

2018 Edition of the World Energy Outlook Table 1.1 Page 38 (I have converted MTOE in the original table to the SI unit exajoules in this text.)

All the big deal marketing by the trivial so called "renewable energy" industry can avoid this truth:

Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa:

Week beginning on March 3, 2019: 412.14 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 409.78 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 388.97 ppm

Last updated: March 12, 2019

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html

All the false innumerate bullshit marketing in the world will not reduce the rate of carbon dioxide concentration increases, over the last decade, of 2.3 ppm/year, the highest rate recorded since records have been kept, this while we "invested" trillion dollar sums in stuff that will be landfill in 20 years and that the infants of today will need to clean up, along with their planetary atmosphere.

So much for the "renewable data book."

whereas the "Other renewables" in the IEA WEO does not include hydro and bioenergy

All of the numbers and graphs in the OP is about U.S. energy, with the exception of the one sentence

Wind: 2.4%, Solar: 0.8%, Geothermal: 0.2%, Hydropower: 2.8%, and Biomass is 5.0%. Totaling 11.2% (within roundoff error of 11.3%)

That sort of focus of course, motivating Walmart Markeeter and Oil Sands Company "consultant," and, oh, um, "Renewable energy and Conservation Genius" Amory Lovins to announce back in 1976 that we'd all be living in suburban houses with solar heated "fused" salt tanks in our backyard by the year 2000.

"We're America! We're #1"...at something, hubris and self absorption maybe...

Lovins, like many others, was uninterested in considering whether Indians and Chinese, for just two examples, would agree to remain unimaginably impoverished while we all drove solar powered hydrogen hypercars.

I personally am holding my objections to biomass in abeyance, simply because it does seem - under very different circumstances - capable of participating in atmospheric carbon dioxide capture. Right now it's responsible for slightly less than half of the world's air pollution deaths, 7 million/year, but one can imagine it in oxyfuel situations being smokestack free.

It is also presently responsible for the death of a huge swath of the ecosystem of the Mississippi Delta via eutrophication and, um, the fact that Iowa plays a huge role in picking Presidents of the United States, but that might also be addressed.

And again, right now, biomass combustion kills people, but it could be cleaned up.

This said, even if used to capture carbon, all the agricultural cellulosic biomass, even divorced from food supplies, on the planet might only account for a few billion tons, even if gasified relatively locally, without drying and shipment.

We have a big problem on our hands, and we're still wasting time talking about whirlygigs and glass coated with toxic concoctions of exotic metals.

Air capture, even with biomass is an unbelievable engineering task, unbelievable. I'm just barely able to imagine it as technically feasible, just barely.

But then again, I shouldn't be all that negative. Tesla car! Elon Musk! Space X!

I feel better already. 412 ppm?!? Pfft. Child's play by the year 2100! I heard it over at 350.org. If that's wrong, if everything won't be fixed "by 2100," tough shit, I'll be dead and no one will be able to do a damned thing about it.

On the more serious side, I trust you're finding the World Energy Outlook a pleasant read...

(which was essentially all U.S.) with the IEA WEO report.

And that in the U.S. the wind + solar + geothermal is a small percent of the total U.S. energy production / consumption (about 3.4%), not anything like 19.7% or 17.7% which is the impression one might get from a fast read of the OP.

In the last ten years, the average rate of increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached 2.3 ppm per year.

In the 20th century, it was 1.3 ppm/year.

These figures are based on the data available at the Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Observatory.

It's working great, just great, all that money thrown at so called "renewable energy."

N.t.