The U.S. Is Crushing Its Clean Energy Forecasts

Tyler Durden's picture

Paris, schmarish...

In a February 2007 report, the United States Department of Energy made thirty-year predictions for the country's energy usage and production. As Statista's infographic below shows, using data from the non-profit international environmental pressure group Natural Resources Defense Council, these forecasts have so far been smashed.

Infographic: The U.S. Is Smashing Its Clean Energy Forecasts | Statista

You will find more statistics at Statista

Martin Armstrong details that actual CO2 emissions in 2016 have undercut the 2006 predictions by 24 percent.

In terms of the energy mix, power generated from coal was 45 percent beneath the forecast while clean(er) alternatives natural gas and wind/solar power saw overshoots of 79 and 383 percent, respectively.

Renewable energy infrastructure is also expanding at a much faster rate than was thought ten years ago. 2006's prediction for installed solar was a massive 4,813 percent shy of the 2016 reality. The U.S now also has installed wind capacity of 82 gigawatts, 361 percent more than had been hoped for.

In fact, energy consumption in total was also 17 percent lower than expected... which is odd and perhaps a better indication of the recovery-less recovery's reality?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
GOLD AND SILVER NATZI's picture

Awesome, we can use all that stored up power to mine shitcoins.

Gap Admirer's picture

It's been too cool in my area lately.  To many people not using enough fossil fuels.  I need a larger SUV to warm this area up some.

ScratInTheHat's picture

So we are well within the zone to stop globull warming! Great! Can we turn Al Gore's BS off now?

skbull44's picture

Stop using the term "clean energy." There's no such animal!

https://olduvai.ca

runningman18's picture

The real story here is that this decline in energy usage is most likely due to the continued decline of the economy overall.  If you want to reduce CO2, you can always make everyone so poor that they stop buying things and production crumbles.  Also, "climate change" is caused by changes in solar activity, just sayen'.   

Paul Kersey's picture

But Congress doesn't want to make everyone poor (just American workers). In fact, Congress wants to give foreigners, entering the U.S. to work, a whopping pay raise:

"WASHINGTON: A key Congressional committee has voted to pass a legislation that proposes to increase the minimum salary of H-1B visa holders from $60,0000 to $90,000 and imposes a number of restriction on the work visa popular among IT professionals from India.

The Protect and Grow American Jobs Act (HR 170) - introduced by Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet Subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa - was passed by the House Judiciary Committee during a markup hearing today morning.

The bill now heads to the full House for necessary action."

//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/61665673.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

rejected's picture

Good luck getting idiot Americanus to question anything government does...

HominyTwin's picture

They should LOWER salary requirements for H1B, but make them join the Army for two years. I would be all for war then. Send the H1B core to Africa, and see how they fare with Al Shebab. When silicon tits valley complains, then accuse them of being unpatriotic.

techpriest's picture

Wow, you don't get what that means do you?

I'm getting a business going, which means that right now I hire or contract work out every time I get money to pay for it (at the start of a business you don't make any money, every dollar in goes right back out because so much has to get done). So, lets say that I have an American worker and a Chinese worker that both have the same skills and capacity. If the American asks for $70k a year, under the new law the Chinese guy cannot ask for $60k and get the job. The law forces his wage to be $90k, which makes him $20k more expensive.

So, in this case the American gets the job, and doesn't have to concern himself with wage competition until he is in the $100k range or so (extra paperwork/legal advice when hiring foreigners). If a foreign worker is pulling such a large salary, it also means he is a contributor to the economy, not a burden, and most nations give a green light to a contributor.

What this also means is that each of the foreign tech major kids have a 3 year OPT after school, which means they have three years to go from graduating to a $90k job, and if they fail they go home. The people who will be hurt the most are employers that rely on cheap H1-B labor, because this will explode their costs by 50%, and it will be a benefit to Americans who would be paid above H1-B salaries but below the new threshold.

dark pools of soros's picture

Then move to china fucknut... you want to sell to people who still have jobs here by throwing some of that wealth out of the country so the next person can't benefit from selling to your employee

Get your gook to become a full citizen, then hire him for less if you want ... and if he is still that stupid to work for less

New_Meat's picture

techpriest, you should hire only women and then do what Hillary and Fauxahontas do--pay them 70% of what men make.  You'd be rich-Rich-RICH in no time.

Secret Weapon's picture

With this law it means the American worker is going to demand $89.999.00 and get the job.

UndertheDRADIS's picture

Or terminate the H1-B program and only admit immigrants with needed skills.

land_of_the_few's picture

Clearly not, it's an attempt to block.the cheap H1Bs, the majority of the annual allocation is grabbed by the big Indian outsourcing companies which use H1B to undercut the locals with cheap low-ability foreigners.

Imagine if they tried to do that to say, the FIRE sector or law or medicine.

The standard method is to bribe a midlevel corrupt manager to get the contract, then funnel in lots of useless Desi slaves as quickly as possible after laying off the locals or making them train their replacements. Additionally there is usually a push to remove any effective QA, for obvious reasons. The corrupt manager normally has to move on with their stuffed pockets, otherwise they get burned by the inevitable quality and productivity related blowback.

How Outsourcing Companies Are Gaming the Visa System

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/06/us/outsourcing-companies-...

https://www.computerworld.com/article/2550822/it-management/wipro-preced...

Stuck on Zero's picture

All the fossil fuel use was moved to China.

IH8OBAMA's picture

Those damn wind farms are killing all the birds!  I just hope there are enough turkeys left for Thanksgiving dinner.

 

Forty Six and 2's picture

Not to worry, turkeys are masters of the sky. They laugh at wind farms.

https://youtu.be/lf3mgmEdfwg

DPLETTENBERG's picture

Does this mean that cows are allowed to fart again?

AGuy's picture

"The real story here is that this decline in energy usage is most likely due to the continued decline of the economy overall."

Partially, But:

(1). Demographics as boomers start to retire or consume less to save more for retirement.
(2) A lot more automation: Factories need fewer workers and thus reduction in transportation. Data Centers have embraced Virtualization: One Rack of Virtualization hosts can replace an an entire row of machine racks. Companies are shifting to the cloud, reducing the need for in-house servers.
(3) More workers working from home: Remote access to office systems, Traveling Salesman now use WebEx/Goto meeting instead of boarding a plane to demo a product.
(4) High fuel prices a decade ago, cause consumers to replace SUVs with sedans and crossover vehicles

Of course I don't Asia's energy consumption has decreased at all. What we don't consume (Oil/Coal) China gladly will.

"Also, "climate change" is caused by changes in solar activity, just sayen'."

Yup. Earth has been on a warming trend since the end of the ice age. Even if humans stopped releasing CO2, it still going to get warmer and probably will do so for the next 20K years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

No matter what we do, with the exception of global dimming via orbital solar shields, sea levels will rise. So sorry for all thos coastal dwellers (boo-hoo).

UndertheDRADIS's picture

I ran a regression analysis a long time ago. Shockingly enough, there was high correlation between carbon dioxide production and GDP.

A Sentinel's picture

Want to know what’s a disaster for the economy?

THIS is a disaster. Idiotic pseudoscience based pseudo-religious condemnation of *exhailed air* (CO2) and the contortion of resources away from efficient markets (like: you make and buy the cheapest of undifferentiated goods which are epitomized by freaking ELECTRICITY) and instead, rush into the shackles of command-economy full-retardism.

Do not be fooled. This continues to cause vast unnecessary drain of capital. Terrible for America, it is good for the Rockefellers and the Saudis though.

autofixer's picture

Make everyone equal; equally poor.  That is the socialist's wet dream.  

afronaut's picture

And oceans are the thermostat. 

afronaut's picture

That's because, outside the lab bench, CO2 warms nothing.

Jugdish's picture

Real mature guys. Real fuckin mature, your fuckin jokes, you shitcoin owning wojack fuck toys.

Radical Marijuana's picture

Burn about 20 barrels of oil, in order to benefit  the

tiny percentage of the population that own a bitcoin.

VWAndy's picture

 Cooked numbers would be my first guess. There is way more down time on those windmills than anyone wants to talk about. Many of them are free spinning. You can tell if you know what to look for.

Juggernaut x2's picture

The story is not so much wind as it is the increased use of NatGas as a substitute for coal. Nat Gas burns cleaner and is much easier to move it via pipeline instead of rail.

afronaut's picture

And when prices go waaay up, coal will be used because...cheaper. 

jmack's picture

you obviously havent been to  central and west texas in the past 4 years.  Thousands of wind turbines.  They do not free sping, they change the pitch of the prop to controll speed.   If they free spun, they would hit too high an rpm and break the shaft.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_Creek_Wind_Farm

VWAndy's picture

Keep tellin yourself that. And click your heels three times.

tmosley's picture

Eh? You trying to say that the dozens of windmills I see every day aren't there? And the massive power lines lowering the value of my property aren't being run out to yet another new wind farm outside of town?

Go for a drive through Sweetwater Texas and tell me that wind investment hasn't absolutely exploded. Can't throw a dead cat without hitting two of the bastards.

VWAndy's picture

 Oh the windmills are there. The question is how many are actually producing power?

jmack's picture

     look at the graphic....  now sound it out with me  EN  stahled  ku pah sit tee...     "Installed Capacity"  no one is making any power production claims dumb ass.

VWAndy's picture

Yea ! Thats the point

Citizen G's picture

Depends on the amount of power the grid needs, just like any power plant.

New_Meat's picture

If  you throw a cat into the spinning disk, you get shaved pussy.

afronaut's picture

Oh they are there. Just not without plenty of diesel to mine the components and to keep them running. It BS.

jimmy12345's picture

Wind and solar prices have fallen much more than faster than anticipated.  The good news for consumers and soceity is that prices for wind and especially solar will drop dramatically in the future which means we will have energy deflation.  Additionally, batteries will get better and cheaper with time, which means energy prices will get cheaper.

afronaut's picture

Too many batteries. It will be a major issue. Nuclear fuel cells are the only reasonable solution. We already Have the technology for that

afronaut's picture

What happens to the storage batteries at the end of their lives? Has a solar panel ever been made using only solar power? No? It's bullshit, make work projects funded by taxpayers.

AGuy's picture

"Cooked numbers would be my first guess. There is way more down time on those windmills than anyone wants to talk about."

I think your right, or who ever compiled the output has some huge errors. its probably 1/4 of the estimate.

Radical Marijuana's picture

Steve Ludlow, Economic Undertow

euphemistically refers to this as

conservation by other means.

Juggernaut x2's picture

Sorry, Orange Jewlius, the US is not going back to coal any time soon- but feel free to go grandstand in front of a few hundred W Virginia coal miners.

afronaut's picture

It's related to cost of natural gas and oil. When prices inevitably spike to unaffordable levels. Coal will be king. It is a solar energy storage system. Highly concentrated nrg

HardAssets's picture

I stopped reading at '30 year prediction'.

How quaint. Bet the old USSR had those too.

New_Meat's picture

In a couple of months, the actuals have crushed the prediction.  But they have the hubris to predict 30 years out.

Yep.