5 ms·

I was rather confused by this until I saw the 2011 date. Things have changed quite a bit, it doesn't appear at all on this chart, but the US now consumes 3.0 qu

by aquova 5y ago

I was rather confused by this until I saw the 2011 date. Things have changed quite a bit, it doesn't appear at all on this chart, but the US now consumes 3.0 quadrillion Btu from wind energy in 2021, more than any other renewable.[0] [0]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48396 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48396

vlovich123 5y ago
Where does plastics manufacturing fall under here? Is it industrial + electrical? Also, according to that chart, 0% of the US energy comes from nuclear but [1] has it at 20%. What's going on? [1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
- OldManAndTheCpp 5y ago
  Are you asking about the feedstock input to plastic, or the energy input? I doubt that the Energy Information Administration tracks feedstock inputs, as they are not consumed as energy.
  - thedudeabides5 5y ago
    Yes that's my understanding as well. Only the parts that are consumed in energy production (aka not physical elements in other products). Then the EIA kind of makes judgement calls where it's messy. The difference is one is measuring ELECTRICITY (where 20% nuclear would make sense), and the other is TOTAL ENERGY (which is electricity + transportation + energy used in heating physical processes etc) In terms of nuclear this link says 8 Quad BTU (out of who knows how many units in TOTAL ENERGY) https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10 and the other says 20% of electricity https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
- nostrademons 5y ago
  GP's link is renewables only. Nuclear isn't considered a renewable energy source. Neither are plastics or the petroleum products they're made from. GP's chart should be considered a blow-up of the 20% of U.S. energy that your link shows from renewable sources. Within that context the numbers match up pretty well, except that biomass is much more heavily represented in [0] than in [1].
- xyzzy21 5y ago
  It's BOTH. You can't run a plastic industry without high density energy - fossil is the best for that short of nuclear. Simple matter of Carnot. No way to fake it or break it. Feedstocks also ONLY can come from oil. Not even coal works as well. You must have carbon in the supply chain. Sadly a lot of Soviet-style propaganda and erasure of "inconvenient" information is absolutely happening with every .gov site these days.
runarberg 5y ago
For those who are as confused as me: BTU stands for British Thermal Units and 1 BTU is roughly equal to one kilo Joule (1.054 kJ to 1.060 kJ depending on definition) or just short of 0.3 watt hours. Quads is also use in the USA (and by a nibling comment) as a short for quadrillion BTUs which is roughly equal to 1 exa Joule or just short of 300 terawatt hours. 3 quads is roughly equivalent to 3 EJ or 880 Twh
- titzer 5y ago
  I'm not used to seeing BTUs outside of heating systems. It's bizarre. Also I often see GWh/yr or some other such. I don't get it. Just use Watts and Joules (or maybe watt-hours). It somewhat bothers me that batteries are labelled in amp-hours, though it makes partial sense because they typically have a fixed voltage. Still. I guess next we need to introduce the watt-hour-per-second?
  - runarberg 5y ago
    The units for energy are indeed weird, even within the SI derived system we have Joule, erg, watt-hours and watt-seconds. Then marginally related to the SI system we have electron-volts and the Calorie. The Calorie is also weird because most often they mean kilo-calorie when then say calorie. At least on European packaging this is truthfully abbreviated to kcal while Amarican labels just lie and say Calories. Then we have kilo-tonne, which could be a unit of weight (I wonder why mega-gram never became a thing in stead of the tonne) but is usually the explosive power of an equal amount of TNT. And none of the above had any of the American eccentrism we all love to make fun of, which have in addition to the aforementioned BTU have their own foot-pound and foot-ounce (when I pound on your door I exert a force of around 4.5 newtons on your door; and my ounce of strength is just one-sixteenth of that force).
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      The US convention is capital C Calorie is supposed to be kilocalorie and lowercase calorie is supposed to need regular calorie. It is a poor convention, I assume brought about by marketing purposes.

by aquova 5y ago

vlovich123 5y ago

Where does plastics manufacturing fall under here? Is it industrial + electrical? Also, according to that chart, 0% of the US energy comes from nuclear but [1] has it at 20%. What's going on? [1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

OldManAndTheCpp 5y ago
Are you asking about the feedstock input to plastic, or the energy input? I doubt that the Energy Information Administration tracks feedstock inputs, as they are not consumed as energy.
- thedudeabides5 5y ago
  Yes that's my understanding as well. Only the parts that are consumed in energy production (aka not physical elements in other products). Then the EIA kind of makes judgement calls where it's messy. The difference is one is measuring ELECTRICITY (where 20% nuclear would make sense), and the other is TOTAL ENERGY (which is electricity + transportation + energy used in heating physical processes etc) In terms of nuclear this link says 8 Quad BTU (out of who knows how many units in TOTAL ENERGY) https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10 and the other says 20% of electricity https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
nostrademons 5y ago
GP's link is renewables only. Nuclear isn't considered a renewable energy source. Neither are plastics or the petroleum products they're made from. GP's chart should be considered a blow-up of the 20% of U.S. energy that your link shows from renewable sources. Within that context the numbers match up pretty well, except that biomass is much more heavily represented in [0] than in [1].
xyzzy21 5y ago
It's BOTH. You can't run a plastic industry without high density energy - fossil is the best for that short of nuclear. Simple matter of Carnot. No way to fake it or break it. Feedstocks also ONLY can come from oil. Not even coal works as well. You must have carbon in the supply chain. Sadly a lot of Soviet-style propaganda and erasure of "inconvenient" information is absolutely happening with every .gov site these days.

runarberg 5y ago

For those who are as confused as me: BTU stands for British Thermal Units and 1 BTU is roughly equal to one kilo Joule (1.054 kJ to 1.060 kJ depending on definition) or just short of 0.3 watt hours. Quads is also use in the USA (and by a nibling comment) as a short for quadrillion BTUs which is roughly equal to 1 exa Joule or just short of 300 terawatt hours. 3 quads is roughly equivalent to 3 EJ or 880 Twh

titzer 5y ago
I'm not used to seeing BTUs outside of heating systems. It's bizarre. Also I often see GWh/yr or some other such. I don't get it. Just use Watts and Joules (or maybe watt-hours). It somewhat bothers me that batteries are labelled in amp-hours, though it makes partial sense because they typically have a fixed voltage. Still. I guess next we need to introduce the watt-hour-per-second?
- runarberg 5y ago
  The units for energy are indeed weird, even within the SI derived system we have Joule, erg, watt-hours and watt-seconds. Then marginally related to the SI system we have electron-volts and the Calorie. The Calorie is also weird because most often they mean kilo-calorie when then say calorie. At least on European packaging this is truthfully abbreviated to kcal while Amarican labels just lie and say Calories. Then we have kilo-tonne, which could be a unit of weight (I wonder why mega-gram never became a thing in stead of the tonne) but is usually the explosive power of an equal amount of TNT. And none of the above had any of the American eccentrism we all love to make fun of, which have in addition to the aforementioned BTU have their own foot-pound and foot-ounce (when I pound on your door I exert a force of around 4.5 newtons on your door; and my ounce of strength is just one-sixteenth of that force).
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    The US convention is capital C Calorie is supposed to be kilocalorie and lowercase calorie is supposed to need regular calorie. It is a poor convention, I assume brought about by marketing purposes.