GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,542]

1 hour ago, Eric Gagen said:

It's all about the COST of the replacement parts, and most critically the LABOR of installing them.  Things like engine blocks, and transmissions can fail.  body frames can bend - these things are technically repairable, but they are extremely expensive in terms of labor to work on.  Then there are the 1,000 things made of plastic, or thin metal which will eventually wear out.  Individually they aren't very expensive.  But lets look at your 15 year old car.  There are are 500 of those little things that are going out that cost $5 each (headliner clips, radio buttons, door switches, fuse box trays, the hood latch, etc.  , that's $2,500  AND you need a new transmission which is going to cost $10,000 in parts and labor to replace, AND the mechanics are telling you that you going to need a new head gasket soon for $3,000 AND the heater core is cracked and it's going to be $1,500 to install, then guess what - the value of your car is zero.  Throw it out, and start over, because the car is worthless. 

Your in over your head Mr Gagen. Aside from that do carry on...10k trannies..3k head gaskets...oh well desperate times do call for desperate measures.

Ahh below, a automotive ind critic.

Drivers naturally become concerned about reliability as a car ages, because the risk of inconvenience and unexpected expenses rises while the miles rack up. Most modern cars can make it to 200,000 miles with little more than routine maintenance and minor repairs for worn components. But Consumer Reports surveys show that some models carry a significantly greater failure rate than their peers.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-repair-maintenance/cars-most-likely-to-need-new-transmission-what-to-buy-instead/

Edited March 3, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Your in over your head Mr Gagen. Aside from that do carry on...10k trannies..3k head gaskets...oh well desperate times do call for desperate measures.

Ahh below, a automotive ind critic.

Drivers naturally become concerned about reliability as a car ages, because the risk of inconvenience and unexpected expenses rises while the miles rack up. Most modern cars can make it to 200,000 miles with little more than routine maintenance and minor repairs for worn components. But Consumer Reports surveys show that some models carry a significantly greater failure rate than their peers.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-repair-maintenance/cars-most-likely-to-need-new-transmission-what-to-buy-instead/

Why do you say in over my head?  These are 'high end numbers' but they arent' fantasy.  Get a nice sedan like a Lexus or a BMW, or a vehicle with a large engine set up for towing like a pickup truck and those are realistic numbers. And between pickups and fancy sedans that's a solid 35-40% of all vehicle sales.  Can you get a small, cheap easy to repair vehicle?  Yes you can, but that's not reflective of the average. 

[notsonice + 1,080]

2 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Your in over your head Mr Gagen. Aside from that do carry on...10k trannies..3k head gaskets...oh well desperate times do call for desperate measures.

Ahh below, a automotive ind critic.

Drivers naturally become concerned about reliability as a car ages, because the risk of inconvenience and unexpected expenses rises while the miles rack up. Most modern cars can make it to 200,000 miles with little more than routine maintenance and minor repairs for worn components. But Consumer Reports surveys show that some models carry a significantly greater failure rate than their peers.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-repair-maintenance/cars-most-likely-to-need-new-transmission-what-to-buy-instead/

Most modern cars can make it to 200,000 ???? and the average mileage per year is 15,000. At year 12.....do the math......Okay I will help you.........180,000 miles ....year 13 .....crunched

How long will a car engine last?

 

 

In 2013 that number increased to 10.8 years and again in 2015 to 11.4 years. Engineering standards for automotive engines have vastly increased within the past 15 years, which has done much to prolong the useful life of an engine.

PS when you sell a 13 year old car to a junk yard.............Crunched within 6 months ....stripped of parts ......not rebuilt ...and not put back on the road.

Edited March 3, 2022 by notsonice

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

On 3/2/2022 at 5:00 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

You said "And the output and usage of fossil fuel vehicles keeps skyrocketing beyond belief....!!" Yet in 2020 ICE sales were 90% greater than EV and in 2021 they were only 82% greater. That is shrinkage! This year ICE will only be 70% greater and so it goes.

Wrong, it means that the vehicle sales markets are still dominated by ICE vehicles, which are still increasing in numbers by more than a factor of five compared to EVs...that is still huge dominance. And if you add in used car and new and used truck markets, which are totally dominated by ICE, that would probably push EV percentage below 1% of vehicle sales.

Why don't you just admit that you never took a class in econometrics, which is already obvious from your meaningless rants.

 

Edited March 4, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

Here is what Green mania has done to oil production, left American oil industry incapable of responding to crisis needs.

And the guy in the White House keeps trying to deflect the blame to anything that moves. Pathetic.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/US-Oil-Rig-Count-Falls-Despite-Major-Rally-In-Crude-Prices.html

"The number of total active drilling rigs in the United States stayed the same this week—bringing the 18 weeks of increases to a close as pressure mounts on the Biden Administration to do more to increase crude oil production in the United States in an effort to relieve high gasoline prices.

The total rig count remains at 650, as the world watches for any signs of increased output from the United States that would allow weaning off from Russian oil—at least in part.

Baker Hughes reported this week that the total active rig figure—oil, gas, and miscellaneous—is 247 rigs higher than the rig count this time in 2021.

Oil-directed rigs, however, fell by 3 to 519, while gas-directed rigs were up by 3 to 130. Miscellaneous rigs stayed the same."

Edited March 4, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

According to the official data, passenger plug-in electric car registrations more than doubled last month to 15,094 (up 127% year-over-year). That's 25.6% of the total market. Together with 6,883 non-rechargeable hybrids, the xEVs (BEVs, PHEVs, HEVs) stand for about a third of the market.

Especially interesting is that all-electric car sales almost tripled year-over-year, which is almost enough to reach a market share of 18%.

 

Plug-in electric car registrations in the UK – February 2022

• BEVs: 10,417 (up 196% year-over-year) at market share of 17.7%
• PHEVs: 4,677 (up 49% year-over-year) at market share of 7.9%
• Total: 15,094 (up 127% year-over-year) at market share of 25.6%

Edited March 4, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Wrong, it means that the vehicle sales markets are still dominated by ICE vehicles, which are still increasing in numbers by more than a factor of five compared to EVs...that is still huge dominance. And if you add in used car and new and used truck markets, which are totally dominated by ICE, that would probably push EV percentage below 1% of vehicle sales.

Why don't you just admit that you never took a class in econometrics, which is already obvious from your meaningless rants.

 

You keep forgetting to subtract the number of old ICE being retired. How uneducated of you.

Edited March 4, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Electrical Generation by Renewable Sources Exceeded EIA Forecasts in 2021

 

Driven by strong solar and wind power growth, electrical generation by renewable energy sources (also including biomass, geothermal, hydropower) accounted for 21.02 percent of total U.S. electrical generation in 2021, exceeding U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts. https://www.retrofitmagazine.com/electrical-generation-by-renewable-sources-exceeded-eia-forecasts-in-2021/

Edited March 4, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

53 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

According to the official data, passenger plug-in electric car registrations more than doubled last month to 15,094 (up 127% year-over-year). That's 25.6% of the total market. Together with 6,883 non-rechargeable hybrids, the xEVs (BEVs, PHEVs, HEVs) stand for about a third of the market.

Especially interesting is that all-electric car sales almost tripled year-over-year, which is almost enough to reach a market share of 18%.

 

Plug-in electric car registrations in the UK – February 2022

• BEVs: 10,417 (up 196% year-over-year) at market share of 17.7%
• PHEVs: 4,677 (up 49% year-over-year) at market share of 7.9%
• Total: 15,094 (up 127% year-over-year) at market share of 25.6%

Again, you miss the point, that EV sales of 18% means that fossil fuel sales are four times as much, adding new vehicles  (excluding truck sales from the calculation, which is all-ICE) at a rate of 400% of the EV amount. That is dominant control in the market, and it gets worse for EVs if you include truck markets and used vehicle markets. Those additions would probably push down the EV share of vehicle sales to below 1%.

Your fumbling with the numbers tells me that you never took a course in econometrics, am I not right?  

Edited March 4, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

Here is something which we have all known for some time now, the Green Dream is just that, a dream without any rational foundation.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/The-UK-Has-No-Credible-Plan-for-Its-Energy-Transition-Report.html

“There is no point planning a carbon-free energy future if you haven’t got a clue how you will get there or how it will be paid for,” said Lord Clive Hollick, the chairman of the committee, as quoted by the Financial Times.

The country has committed to net zero emissions by 2050 and, before that, completely decarbonize its grid by 2035. A ban on the sales of internal combustion engine cars is also part of Downing Street’s plans for decarbonization.

These are lofty goals, but the government has so far either failed or been unwilling to discuss how they will be accomplished and who will shoulder the financial burden, the report said. Specific incentives aimed at moving the country forward towards these goals have also not been specified.

So far, the only idea that the government seems to have put on the table is adding surcharges on electricity bills. This may not be the best way to work towards net zero, however, especially since electricity bills are about to surge from April this year after Ofgem, the grid regulator, raised the ceiling on electricity costs prompted by the energy and gas crunch that hit the UK along with Europe last autumn and winter.

According to the authors of the House of Lords committee report, this additional surcharge burden on household electricity bills will add unfair pressure on consumers who are already suffering the worst consequences of the energy crunch, the Financial Times reports.

“Bills are regressive as the poor pay more of their income on energy costs . . . the government should look again at using greater public borrowing to fund what are huge and long-term infrastructure costs,” the report said."

Edited March 4, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

35 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You keep forgetting to subtract the number of old ICE being retired. How uneducated of you.

No, the used vehicle market for ICE is about three times the ICE new vehicle market, and the EV used market is non-existent. 

How uneducated of you, you are supposed to know something about vehicle markets.

Edited March 4, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

31 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, the used vehicle market for ICE is about three times the ICE new vehicle market, and the EV used market is non-existent. 

How uneducated of you, you are supposed to know something about vehicle markets.

I know that it is irrelevant how many used vehicles are transacted. It makes no difference whether people hold onto them for 20 years or buy and sell every month. What matters is how many vehicles are in the fleet and every year the number of ICE vehicles is decreasing because old ICE retirees exceed the number of new ICE.

Edited March 4, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, you miss the point, that EV sales of 18% means that fossil fuel sales are four times as much, adding new vehicles  (excluding truck sales from the calculation, which is all-ICE) at a rate of 400% of the EV amount. That is dominant control in the market, and it gets worse for EVs if you include truck markets and used vehicle markets. Those additions would probably push down the EV share of vehicle sales to below 1%.

Your fumbling with the numbers tells me that you never took a course in econometrics, am I not right?  

The only point that matters is that EV market share is increasing which by definition means ICE market share is decreasing.

18% is so last year. If you could read you would see that the UK is now at 25% PEV new sales. ICE dominance is shrinking fast.

Edited March 5, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Here is something which we have all known for some time now, the Green Dream is just that, a dream without any rational foundation.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/The-UK-Has-No-Credible-Plan-for-Its-Energy-Transition-Report.html

“There is no point planning a carbon-free energy future if you haven’t got a clue how you will get there or how it will be paid for,” said Lord Clive Hollick, the chairman of the committee, as quoted by the Financial Times.

The country has committed to net zero emissions by 2050 and, before that, completely decarbonize its grid by 2035. A ban on the sales of internal combustion engine cars is also part of Downing Street’s plans for decarbonization.

These are lofty goals, but the government has so far either failed or been unwilling to discuss how they will be accomplished and who will shoulder the financial burden, the report said. Specific incentives aimed at moving the country forward towards these goals have also not been specified.

So far, the only idea that the government seems to have put on the table is adding surcharges on electricity bills. This may not be the best way to work towards net zero, however, especially since electricity bills are about to surge from April this year after Ofgem, the grid regulator, raised the ceiling on electricity costs prompted by the energy and gas crunch that hit the UK along with Europe last autumn and winter.

According to the authors of the House of Lords committee report, this additional surcharge burden on household electricity bills will add unfair pressure on consumers who are already suffering the worst consequences of the energy crunch, the Financial Times reports.

“Bills are regressive as the poor pay more of their income on energy costs . . . the government should look again at using greater public borrowing to fund what are huge and long-term infrastructure costs,” the report said."

Let's see, UK is already at 25% new PEV sales so that is ahead of schedule. Renewables + Nuke are at 58% of electricity so that seems to be on schedule. Coal is almost to zero and the increase in costs is due to the spike in natural gas prices. I'd say Lord Hollick is a lying idiot, just your sort.

Edited March 5, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[notsonice + 1,080]

Panasonic plans new massive battery plant in U.S. to supply Tesla -NHK

TOKYO, March 4 (Reuters) - Japan's Panasonic Corp (6752.T) is looking to purchase land in the United States for a mega-factory to make a new type of electric vehicle (EV) battery for Tesla Inc (TSLA.O), public broadcaster NHK reported on Friday.

Panasonic is looking at building the factory, to cost several billion dollars, in either Oklahoma or Kansas close to Texas, where Tesla is preparing a new EV plant, NHK reported. NHK gave no timeline for Panasonic's U.S. project.

 

NHK did not cite the source of its information. Panasonic said the reported plan was not something it announced.

A long-time supplier for Tesla, Panasonic has said it plans to begin mass-producing the new type of lithium-ion battery for Tesla before the end of March 2024 with two new production lines at its western Japanese plant in Wakayama.

The 4680 format (46 millimetres wide and 80 millimetres tall) battery is about five times bigger than those currently supplied to Tesla, meaning the U.S. car maker will be able to lower production costs and improve vehicle range.

 

Panasonic's relationship with Tesla stretches back more than a decade when Tesla signed an agreement that made the Japanese company its key battery supplier.

Since then, Tesla has ramped up production and diversified its supply chain to other firms, including Chinese manufacturers of cheaper lithium iron phosphate (LFP) powerpacks such as Contemporary Amperex Technology Co (CATL) (300750.SZ).

South Korea LG Energy Solution Ltd (373220.KS) also plans to make 4680 batteries, sources told Reuters last year.

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

This is where the Green mania has led us, to a point where we have self-strangulated the economy by attacking 85% of our energy resources, and discouraged any new energy development with worthless and misguided environmental panic.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/US-Oil-Rig-Count-Falls-Despite-Major-Rally-In-Crude-Prices.html

Edited March 5, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

14 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Let's see, UK is already at 25% new PEV sales so that is ahead of schedule. Renewables + Nuke are at 58% of electricity so that seems to be on schedule. Coal is almost to zero and the increase in costs is due to the spike in natural gas prices. I'd say Lord Hollick is a lying idiot, just your sort.

Again, your numbers are whacky, just as previously. Coal usage is increasing. The EV sales as a percentage of total vehicle sales is probably more like 1%. Playing with numbers fools no one, Jay. Give up the tricks.

Edited March 5, 2022 by Ecocharger

[specinho + 440]

On 3/4/2022 at 4:33 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

Preposterous.

not  at all........... This was on a discussion board somewhere.......... not sure if it is correct but, for your reference.........

2 C8H18 + 25 O2 => 16 CO2 + 18 H2O

Complete combustion of 1 mole of octane releases 5464 kJ of energy. Fuel Comparison Chemistry Tutorial - AUS-e-TUTE

Density range of petrol is 710 to 775 gram/ litre at 15 degree celcius. Thus weight of 1 litre of petrol at 15 degree celcius varies from 710 to 775 grams. How much does 1 litre of petrol weigh? - Quora

mole of octane in one litre fuel = 775 / 114 = 6.8 or ~ 7 moles

potential energy input per litre petrol = 7 moles * 5464 kJ = 38248 kJ

Compact cars that carry a 2-liter capacity engine burn around 0.16 – 0.3 gallons of gas on a per hourly basis. How Much Gas Does Idling Use? - Car From Japan.

1 gallon = 3.7 litre.

therefore, idling car burns roughly one litre petrol per hour??

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) states that the energy content of unleaded petrol is 115,000 British thermal unit (BTU) per US gallon (32 MJ/L) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport

efficiency = output/ input *100 = 32000/ 38248 *100 = 84% ??

[specinho + 440]

On 3/4/2022 at 3:56 AM, Eric Gagen said:

It's all about the COST of the replacement parts, and most critically the LABOR of installing them.  Things like engine blocks, and transmissions can fail.  body frames can bend - these things are technically repairable, but they are extremely expensive in terms of labor to work on.  Then there are the 1,000 things made of plastic, or thin metal which will eventually wear out.  Individually they aren't very expensive.  But lets look at your 15 year old car.  There are are 500 of those little things that are going out that cost $5 each (headliner clips, radio buttons, door switches, fuse box trays, the hood latch, etc.  , that's $2,500  AND you need a new transmission which is going to cost $10,000 in parts and labor to replace, AND the mechanics are telling you that you going to need a new head gasket soon for $3,000 AND the heater core is cracked and it's going to be $1,500 to install, then guess what - the value of your car is zero.  Throw it out, and start over, because the car is worthless. 

not too sure if they have charged you differently but overhaul of a car (taking out  car parts, wash, repair, replace etc) would be around 400 (gasket and engine only) to 2000 (whole car).........

[Eric Gagen + 713]

11 minutes ago, specinho said:

not too sure if they have charged you differently but overhaul of a car (taking out  car parts, wash, repair, replace etc) would be around 400 (gasket and engine only) to 2000 (whole car).........

 

Great - now run your numbers for a high compression V8 engine with aluminum heads.  Not sure where you are, but labor alone here (Houston area USA) will be more than $400 for a low compression 4 cylinder vehicle.  

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, your numbers are whacky, just as previously. Coal usage is increasing. The EV sales as a percentage of total vehicle sales is probably more like 1%. Playing with numbers fools no one, Jay. Give up the tricks.

UK was the topic of the post. Again your reading comprehension is wacky. Coal usage in UK is almost to zero and EV sales are at 25% of new vehicle sales. Used car sales are irrelevant. Today's new car sales are tomorrow's used car sales. Give up playing economist.

Edited March 5, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

UK new ICE sales keep crashing.

 

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking?CMP=twt_gu

Russia 'secretly working with environmentalists to oppose fracking'

This article is more than 7 years old  ( I have been informing people about it that long RCW)

Nato chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, says Moscow mounting disinformation campaign to maintain reliance on Russian gas

 

David Cameron's home in Dean, Oxfordshire, being turned into a 'fracking site' in protest at shale gas development. Photograph: Kristian Buus/Greenpeace/PA Photograph: Kristian Buus/Greenpeace/PA

 

Fiona Harvey

Thu 19 Jun 2014 11.34 EDT

 

•  
•  
•  

 

 

1,036

The head of one of the world’s leading groups of democratic nations has accused Russia of undermining projects using hydraulic fracturing technology in Europe.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato), and former premier of Denmark, told the Chatham House thinktank in London on Thursday that Vladimir Putin’s government was behind attempts to discredit fracking, according to reports.

 

Rasmussen said: “I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations - environmental organisations working against shale gas - to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas.”

 

He declined to give details of those operations, saying: “That is my interpretation.”

Fracking, a process that involves blasting dense shale rocks with a high-pressure mixture of water, sand and chemicals to release the tiny bubbles of natural gas trapped within, has been the subject of protests in the UK and other parts of Europe, and is opposed by many environmental groups.

It has been associated with methane leaks and the pollution of water sources in the US, and green campaigners fear that it will lead to a rise in the use of fossil fuels, exacerbating global warming.

Rasmussen made clear that fracking should be used, in his view, to increase Europe’s energy security, by providing a new source of gas and oil supply.

Nato's press office said the remarks were Rasmussen's personal views, not official policy.

Nato was originally formed at the start of the cold war as an alliance of western states, including the US and many European nations, and historically has often opposed Russia. Rasmussen himself has spoken out previously against Russia's actions in Ukraine.

A Nato official told the Guardian that Russia's influence on energy supplies was causing problems for Europe. The official said: "We don't go into the details of discussions among allied leaders, but Russia has been using a mix of hard and soft power in its attempt to recreate a sphere of influence, including through a campaign of disinformation on many issues, including energy. In general, the potential for Russia using energy supplies as a means of putting pressure on European nations is a matter of concern. No country should use supply and pricing terms as tools of coercion.

 

"As energy supplies and routes are an issue mostly for the EU, we count on the EU to take into account the new security realities in Europe and look at whether there is a need to review diversifying energy sources and expanding energy infrastructure. Clearly, it is in the interest of all Nato allies to be able to have adequate energy supplies. This is critical to our economies, our security and our prosperity. We share a concern by some allies that Russia could try to obstruct possible projects on shale gas exploration in Europe in order to maintain Europe’s reliance on Russian gas."

Surveys in the UK have found that there is a potentially large supply of shale gas and oil, perhaps enough to fulfil gas needs for several decades, though it is unclear how much of that can be profitably extracted. No shale gas has yet been produced in the UK.

Russia, a major source of international gas supplies, recently signed a $400bn deal with China to supply gas for decades to come, and has threatened to cut off gas supplies to Ukraine, emphasising its willingness to exploit its dominant position in fossil fuel markets for political ends.

But the future of fracking in Europe is less clear than Rasmussen acknowledged.

The Polish government’s leading fracking expert recently told the Guardian that geology, rather than political concerns, was likely to be the main obstacle.

 

Katarzyna Kacperczyk, under-secretary of state for non-European policy and public and economic diplomacy in the Polish foreign ministry, and its leading voice on fracking, told the Guardian: “It is all about geology, whether you can extract the gas. Different parts of the world have different geologies.”

She said that there was “political will” to explore fracking in the country, but that even so there was no guarantee that Poland would be able to access its shale gas reserves. Poland is thought to have some of the best shale gas formations in Europe, but attempts to exploit it have so far come to nothing, though companies are still trying.

In the US, the development of modern fracking technology has led to a boom in gas production, but that situation may not be easily replicated in other, more densely populated countries, with differing geologies.

Green groups were swift to attack Rasmussen’s views, saying that they were not involved in any alleged Russian attempts to discredit the technology, and were instead opposed to it on the grounds of environmental sustainability.

“The idea we’re puppets of Putin is so preposterous that you have to wonder what they’re smoking over at Nato HQ,” said Greenpeace, which has a history of antagonism with the Russian government, which arrested several of its activists on a protest in the Arctic last year.

Andrew Pendleton, a campaigner at Friends of the Earth, added: “Perhaps the Russians are worried about our huge wind and solar potential and have infiltrated the UK government.”

 

[notsonice + 1,080]

Coal ,2021 a dead cat bounce. Look at the last 3 months of 2021.......Coal cratered and resumed its path to zero in the US. Enjoy

2022 more coal fired power plants shutting down and no new ones being constructed....Coal production will decrease again

 

United States coal generation (GWh)^[43]

Year Total % of total Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2001 1,903,955   177,287 149,735 155,269 140,671 151,593 162,616 179,060 183,116 154,158 148,931 144,117 157,402

2002 1,933,131   164,358 143,049 151,486 142,305 151,406 164,668 183,195 179,955 165,366 159,099 156,054 172,190

2003 1,973,736   181,313 156,982 155,002 141,960 150,263 162,285 181,852 185,332 164,910 159,323 158,223 176,291

2004 1,978,359   180,657 161,503 154,288 141,471 157,076 167,642 181,492 178,181 164,253 157,605 157,436 176,755

2005 2,012,874   177,014 155,818 163,613 143,083 153,958 174,867 186,091 187,574 171,656 162,437 158,798 177,965

2006 1,990,511   169,236 158,616 161,325 141,426 157,010 169,693 187,821 189,455 161,590 161,390 159,440 173,509

2007 2,016,455   175,739 163,603 159,811 146,250 157,513 173,513 185,054 190,135 169,391 162,234 159,382 173,830

2008 1,985,800   182,876 166,666 160,743 146,983 154,916 171,043 186,733 180,576 161,356 151,841 154,281 167,786

2009 1,755,905   171,925 140,916 135,530 125,935 131,673 148,087 158,234 163,260 137,145 139,956 136,810 166,434

2010 1,847,289   173,320 153,044 144,406 126,952 143,272 165,491 179,600 177,745 148,746 132,270 135,185 167,258

2011 1,733,341   170,803 138,311 134,845 124,488 137,102 158,055 176,586 171,281 140,941 126,627 121,463 132,929

2012 1,514,043   129,091 113,872 105,526 96,285 115,983 131,261 160,450 152,181 125,589 120,999 128,727 134,079

2013 1,581,116   138,105 123,547 130,634 111,835 119,513 138,283 152,867 149,426 133,110 120,996 120,940 141,860

2014 1,581,710   157,097 143,294 136,443 109,281 118,786 137,577 149,627 148,452 126,110 111,296 119,127 124,620

2015 1,352,400   132,451 126,977 108,488 88,989 104,585 125,673 139,100 134,670 117,986 96,759 87,227 89,495

2016 1,239,129   113,459 92,705 72,173 72,113 81,695 116,034 136,316 135,635 114,118 99,194 86,940 118,747

2017 1,205,835   115,333 86,822 89,365 81,335 92,777 107,508 127,698 119,488 98,202 89,776 90,986 106,545

2018 1,149,487   119,284 82,050 80,626 73,346 85,227 101,503 115,376 115,129 96,544 87,264 92,819 100,319

2019 964,958   100,905 79,929 78,352 59,922 71,885 78,540 100,771 94,040 85,707 66,777 75,549 72,581

2020 773,393   65,140 56,201 50,731 40,675 46,527 65,283 89,709 91,145 68,407 59,805 61,182 78,588

2021 898,680   81,483 87,849 62,037 53,989 63,900 87,356 101,600 101,923 78,891 62,614 57,160 59,878 

Edited March 6, 2022 by notsonice

[notsonice + 1,080]

Less fossil fuels used for Electric generating capacity 2022, just in time to counter the inflation causing Coal and Nat Gas 

 

JANUARY 10, 2022

Solar power will account for nearly half of new U.S. electric generating capacity in 2022

Coal will account for 85% of U.S. electric generating capacity retirements in 2022