Some things to note:

• 40.26 Quads = 1.35 TW in Name Plate Electricity generation
• Total system efficieny is poor: (14.89/40.26) =37% almost all this loss is thermal (waste heat).
• Our deliverable power is then .37*1.35 = 0.5 TW which equates to 1500 Watts per person of continuous consumption this is our individual electricity footprint.
• Note that transmission and distribution losses = 1.04/14.06 = 7.5% of end use!
• 68% of the input is Fossil Fuel based
• 21% of the input is Nuclear based
• only real evolution is slight decrease in coal fired electricity, slight increases in natural gas and wind resulting in small decrease in overall fossil (3.5% but if sustained, this would be good).

Total Energy Use may be flattening

Part of this flattening is due to improved energy efficiency in "defense"

Coal is declining, really

But Price Volatility Remains and Issue

And of course we are drilling baby drilling, deeper, deeper

Renewables have a long way to go in terms of the Energy Portfolio:

Renewable sources contribution to Electricity Portfolio:

Things to note:

• Its not until about 1985 when there starts to be other sources of renewable electricity generation. Prior to that its all hydro.
• Hydro peaks in 1997 and lowers thereafter primarily becuase of the Western US Drought
• Wind trajectory is good but is it sustainable?
• Solar/PR trajectory is non existent on this scale.
• in 2011 Wind is 37% of hydro. But note that in 2011 hydro poewr is up by 20% relative to the average in the 2000's. Improved stream flow in the American West in 2011.

Carbon Footprint Trajectory:

Over the next 10 years we must do better than this by adopting the concept of "National Purpose":

From a 2006 Speech: Maximizing Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is the domestic epicenter in the War on Terror and it is imperative that we maximize the partnerships between the public and private sectors in new and creative ways with a sense of seriousness, national purpose and the urgency the situation merits." So why do we remain asleep? We have clearly pushed ourself into a corner due to a 50 year energy policy of building "more of the same". China is definitely on the more of the same pathway, but at an alarming rate: And remember, 2003 is the year that China emerges: To avoid global death by coal greenhouse gas emissions its important that china build other large scale projects (which they are doing but not at the desired rate). In addition, the US should invest heavily in Carbon Capture and Storage technology and then giving it to China for Free. China numbers (Hard to verify): Total nameplate electricity production in 2008 was 800 GW (0.8 TW) or about 60% of the US Estimated nameplate at the end of 2010 (i.e. now) is 950 GW or 20% growth in 2 years! Estimated namepalte by 2020 is 1.5 TW (which will be about 90% of the US) In 2008, 82% of China eletricity portfolio comes from fossils. Other things to note: The World Bank estimates that investments of $1 trillion will be needed in this decade and upwards of $4 trillion during the next 30 years to meet developing countries' electricity needs alone. America uses about 15 times more energy per person than does the typical developing country this is due to our transportation habits. The United States spends about $700 billion annually for energy and energy costs are now rising significantly faster than inflation (or wages). Transportation The United States consumes about 20 million barrels of oil per day, of which nearly two-thirds is used for transportation. This is equivalent to 400 million gallons of gasoline burned EVERY DAY at a total cost of $1-2 billion most of that money goes to foreign governments While the world's population doubled between 1950 and 1996, the number of cars increased tenfold. Renewables And in the 1990's virtually no large scale renewable energy generation projects were done: Virtually all new power plants that have been brought online since 2000 have been NG fired. In short, our near term energy course is still strongly fossil based and assumes two things (both of which are questionable) That Foreign LNG imports will be there for us to use That we can develop and operationalize new methods of more efficient coal burning than has been used in the past Investing in both of the above removes dollars from building truly renewable energy infrastructure. Current wind nameplate capacity in the US stands at 45,000 MW or 45 GW. Assuming a 33% on average capacity factor means that there is 15,000 MW available at all times. 15000/500000 = 3% of electrical consumption. So after 10 years of wind farm build out we only stand at 3%!!! The build out of solar grid connected PV is pitiful: At then end of 2009 there was 1200 MW of grid-connected PV electrical power @40% capacity factor this is 500 MW of Solar PV compared to 15,000 MW of wind. If we include solar thermal power (solar troughs primarily) the total solar grid connected power in the US as of the end of 2010 is about 3000 MWe nameplate. That is 3000/135e6 = 0.2% of US nameplate. We have a very, very, very, very long way to go.