830,000 Btu’s per Day/Person

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Energy Flows of the U.S.A. 2020

Congress and our President are in the process of forcing Net Zero Carbon, Green Energy on all of us. In my view what this will do is increase prices of energy, make our energy less reliable, make America less competitive and in general, harm our quality of life. In thinking about this and attempting to explain why I feel this way, it occurred to me that if all of the citizens knew where our energy comes from and how much we depend on it each day, perhaps more of us would pressure our Congressmen/Congreswomen to resist this foolishness. So, here is my stab at explaining where our energy comes from and why the “Green New Deal” is so harmful.

I have been involved in the energy business for many years and the one chart that explains energy flows best, is the DOE Sankey diagram above. This shows the sources of all of our energy and how it is used throughout the economy. I have been watching this for about 20 years and interestingly, the total U.S. energy use has held steady at about 100 Quadrillion Btu’s per year. In fact, I will show a graph below of the U.S. Energy use by year from 1950-2019.

Where does the 830,000 to a million Btu’s per day come from? If we divide 100 Quadrillion Btu’s by the population of 330 million, then the per capita energy use is about 303 million Btu’s/person/year. Divide the 303 million Btu’s per person/year by 365 days and it comes out to about 830,000 Btu’s/day/person.

This is average and of course, a person living in a small condo that does little travel, will use less energy than a person who lives in a 2500 square foot home, owns a small fishing boat and travels the world. Lets say the latter example would use more than a million Btu’s per day. This energy could be in gasoline, natural gas, propane for the grill, electricity for HVAC of the home and for cooking. Included in the allottmant of per capita energy use is our share of industrial production, commercial buildings, shipments of goods and government use for the military. Below is an illustration of the forms of energy we might use each day.

So what does this have to do with the “Green New Deal” and the Clean Energy Plan Congress is about to pass? Well, if we are accustomed to living productive lives using conventional energy sources such as outlined above, then how can we sustain our high quality of lives by substituting wind turbines and solar panels for the 96.2 Quadrillion Btu’s provided by conventional forms of energy? Note that on the first figure above, the Sankey diagram I have inserted the total wind and solar in 2019 provided 3.8% of our energy. Petroleum, natural gas, nuclear, coal, biomass, geothermal and old hydropower dams provided the other 96.2%

Let’s get to electricity. The total energy used in 2019 was 100 Quadrillion Btu’s and 37% of this was used to generate electricity. So if we look into the future of EV’s and eliminating the internal combustion engine, then the energy used for transportation will need to come from electricity. Lots more electricity. How does the “Net Zero 2050” proponents think they will get to zero carbon emissions? By windmills and solar. Lots of windmills and solar. Here is an illustration from the Princeton University Net Zero Path.

My opinion is that if this path is taken, it is totally impractical and harmful to America, our way of life and our national security.

After many years of tax subsidies, wind and solar produced 3.8% of our energy in 2019. Texas, Hawaii and California have their own applications of too much renewable power which resulted in Blackouts in CA and TX and the highest electricity costs in the nation for Hawaii. How can we expect zero carbon based fuels by 2050 and still maintain a strong economy and enjoy our way of life. Perhaps more important to our grandchildren, keep English as our primary language, not Mandarin? The next three charts show the relationship of carbon emissions and manufacturing by a few selected countries.

I will close with the fact that according to a report I saw in S&P Global, China has the four largest banks in the world. The relationship of energy use and economic prosperity cannot be denied. China built more power generation in twenty years than America did since Thomas Edison’s first Pearl Street Station was commissioned.

Vaclav Smil’s quote of “Energy is the Universal Currency” comes to mind.

China loves America’s Net Zero 2050 and the “Green New Deal” Maybe they even wrote them?

Dick Storm, September 16, 2021

A Short Summary of Why I Believe The War on Carbon is Wrong For America

 AKA, “Net Zero 2050”

I have written before on the “Green New Deal” and why it is wrong for America. However, it is now September and as I understand it, the Princeton University Study, Net Zero Carbon by 2050 is basically about to become law. 

Based on my career in power generation and including professional involvement in other countries of the world, my opinion is that “Net Zero Carbon” is wrong for America. Here are some reasons why I believe this:

  1. Climate Change is mostly natural, not caused by human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Some references are listed below. These are some of the respected Scientists that specialize in Atmospheric and Climate Science that disagree with the “War on Carbon”.
  2. The U.S.A. is a minor contributor to world emissions of COwhen compared to Asian countries including China and India.
  3. Economic prosperity and manufacturing is dependent on reasonable cost energy. The Net Zero Carbon Path will increase American energy costs and is impractical.
  4. America uses about 100 Quadrillion Btu’s each year. This is total energy and it includes renewables as well as nuclear and fossil fuels. The total energy use of 100 Quad’s +/- 8 has been pretty steady for over ten years. In my view, America will continue to require 100 Quadrillion Btu’s of energy and more into the future.
  5. Each American citizen on average uses about 800,000 to 1 million Btu’s each day. This is to simplify #4 above. 
  6. So, why is there such a rush to destroy America’s economy (and threaten our National Security) if Fossil Fuels do not pose a threat? 
  7. I just forund the answer to the question #6. The last lines of Dr. Rossiter’s excellent article in the WUWT Blog, “Follow the Money, It seems to me that the “science” will only be settled (or forgotten) when Mother Nature does exactly what she wants: the temperature may go up and the alarmists will rejoice in having sounded the alarm (even though it has little to do with CO2), or it will stay unchanged or go down, in which case they will either claim success in taming the monster or quietly fade away and find some new cause to dump on the long-suffering public. Whichever way it goes, the Climate Industrial Complex and all that supports it is now probably too big to fail.”

Dick Storm, September 10, 2021

References for further study:

  1. Watts Up With That Blog, “Follow the Money” By Dr. Paul Rossiter: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/06/understanding-the-climate-movement-part-3-follow-the-money/
  2. Judith Curry website, Climate.etc : https://judithcurry.com
  3. Science and Environment Policy Project  Website: http://www.sepp.org
  4. The Right Stuff Climate Team (Retired NASA Engineers): https://www.therightclimatestuff.com
  5. D. Roy Spencer website, “Is there a Climate Crisis?” : http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Introduction.pdf
  6. Global Warming Policy Foundation website: https://www.thegwpf.com/topics/?mc_cid=15d7acdaf7&mc_eid=9e46528ac6
  7. WUWT Blog on Global Fuels Use, July 11, 2021: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/11/2020-global-energy-data-shows-fossil-fuels-completely-dominate-world-energy-use/
  8. EIA Battery Storage as of August 2021: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49236
  9. Wind Power Costs and info, Stopthesethings.com: https://stopthesethings.com/?s=cost+of+wind+power

10. Donn Dears Articles: https://ddears.com/donns-articles/


January 8th, 2021 This is from Dr. George Holliday Environmental Newsletter, January 17, 2021 and are posted on D. Roy Spencer’s website, which is listed above #5

“Late last year, several of us were asked by David Legates (White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) to write short, easily understandable brochures that supported the general view that there is no climate crisis or climate emergency, and pointing out the widespread misinformation being promoted by alarmists through the media. 

Below are the resulting 9 brochures, and an introduction by David. Mine is entitled, “The Faith-Based Nature of Human Caused Global Warming”. 

David hopes to be able to get these posted on the White House website by January 20 (I presume so they will become a part of the outgoing Administration’s record) but there is no guarantee given recent events. 

He said we are free to disseminate them widely. I list them in no particular order. We all thank David for taking on a difficult job in more hostile territory that you might imagine. 

Introduction(Dr. David Legates) 

The Sun Climate Connection(Drs. Michael Connolly, Ronan Connolly, Willie Soon) 

Systematic Problems in the Four National Assessments of Climate Change Impacts on the US(Dr. Patrick Michaels) 

Record Temperatures in the United States(Dr. John Christy) 

Radiation Transfer(Dr. William Happer) 

Is There a Climate Emergency (Dr. Ross McKitrick) 

Hurricanes and Climate Change(Dr. Ryan Maue) 

Climate, Climate Change, and the General Circulation(Dr. Anthony Lupo) 

Can Computer Models Predict Climate(Dr. Christopher Essex) 

The Faith-Based Nature of Human-Caused Global Warming(Dr. Roy Spencer) 

Roy Spencer

8. Net Zero Carbon Project, Princeton University Researchers, Jenkins et al: https://cmi.princeton.edu/annual-meetings/annual-reports/year-2019/the-net-zero-america-project-finding-pathways-to-a-carbon-neutral-future/

Net Zero Website

12. Whats Up With That Website on Climate Science, Post by Andy May on the Wijngaarden & Happer Discussion of GHE (Green House Effect) Gases:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/09/21/the-greenhouse-effect-a-summary-of-wijngaarden-and happer/