Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumEnergy 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 energynuclear electric poweremerged. 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 fuelspetroleum, natural gas, and coal, which together provided 87% of total U.S. primary energy over the past decadehave 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]
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Among a bad lot, the EIA is one of the worst. This is from a report analyzing performance of the various entities that forecast change in the energy sector; including the EIA. Even though they aren't specifically mentioned in this quote, they are more conservative than the IEA, and thus historically they have been even more off target.
"...the International Energy Agency (IEA) in 2000 projected 34 gigawatts (GW) of wind power globally by 2010, while the actual level reached was 200 GW. The World Bank in 1996 projected 9 GW of wind power and 0.5 GW of solar PV in China by 2020, while the actual levels reached in 2011, nine years early, were 62 GW of wind power and 3 GW of solar PV. The history of energy scenarios is full of similar projections for renewable energy that proved too low by a factor of 10, or were achieved a decade earlier than expected..."
The full report is available for download here:
The REN21 Renewables Global Futures Report (GFR) is a pioneering publication that provides access to the range of credible possibilities on the future of renewable energy. The report is based on interviews with over 170 leading experts around the world and the projections of 50 recently published scenarios. The report can serve as a tool for dialogue and discussion on future options, and compliments well the REN21 Renewables Global Status Report.
Released in January 2013, the report was authored by Dr. Eric Martinot and was the product of a unique collaboration between REN21 and the Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies (ISEP) during 2011-2012.
http://www.ren21.net/Portals/0/REN21_GFR_2013_print.pdf
By the way, REN21 is organized by the UN, like the International Energy Agency. However REN's mission is to concentrate on information related to renewables specifically.
http://www.ren21.net/AboutREN21.aspx
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)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 20402050 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 8090%." 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" .
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Past performance by these different agencies/organizations is unambiguous.
Those making conservative projections have been not only consistently wrong, but they have been consistently wrong in a very significant way.
Unless you have evidence that they have altered their methods of analysis, there is no reason to believe their present efforts are any more reliable.
Conversely, those employing methods that show greater growth have been far closer to observed performance.
In the world of normal people, that means the performance of those who have models that previously made more accurate predictions are more credible than those whose models were off by orders of magnitude from what has been observed.
Lame Baggins.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)> Response to joshcryer (Reply #2)
> ...
> Lame Baggins.
... or is that just your signature now ?
NickB79
(19,253 posts)Clearcutting forests, damming massive rivers, and extracting and burning fossil fuels.
For 200+ years, our country has been pillaging the natural resources of our lands, not giving a fuck about future generations or the consequences of modern-day actions.
Just because I switch from pain killers to crack to meth doesn't mean I'm no longer addicted to drugs......