25
Pocarithmetic: 2 + 2 = 6,267,453,000
I know that Gavin M. has already been on this truly ridiculous post from the Pythagoras of the Pocatilico, Don Surber, but more really needs to be said about Surber’s apparent inability to put two and two together and come up with an an answer within, oh, 6 billion or so of the correct answer:
In 2006, solar supplied 1% of 1% of America’s electric use. Wind supplied about ½%. Combined they produced 26.3 billion kilowatt hours of power – in a nation that consumed 4,053 billion kilowatt hours of electricity
Let’s — as they say — do the math. Now 1% of 1% is 0.01%, and 0.01% of 4,053 billion is 405,300,000. And ½%, or 0.5% of 4,053 billion is 20,265,000,000. Now when I add 405,300,000 and 20,265,000,000, I get 20,670,300,000 or 20.67 billion, more than a little short of Don’s figure of 26.3 billion kilowatt hours produced by solar and wind energy.
Now if you look at the figgerin’ of Don, he also seems to be confusing electricity generation and consumption and using the same figure for both. He talks about “4 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity generated in the USA” right before he talks about 4 trillion kilowatt hours “consumed.” Of course, electricity generation and consumption figures aren’t ever the same due to that pesky little phenomenon of transmission loss and other factors such as exports and direct use in the generation process. So perhaps he’s applying his solar and wind percentages to annual consumption which is 3.67 trillion kilowatt hours. Still no cigar because 0.51% of 3.67 trillion is 18.7 billion, again not coming even close to 26.3 billion kilowatt hours of solar and wind power that Don is talking about.
Hamsters on wheels may keep the lights on here at Sadly, No!, but hamsters on meth apparently are doing Surber’s math for him. And yet he continues to wonder why he keeps getting passed over for the Pulitzer.
milo said,
March 25, 2008 at 19:44
He’s at least within an order of magnitude.
Be magnanimous for that.
SamFromUtah said,
March 25, 2008 at 19:53
Is his argument that since solar and wind supply so little electricity, we shouldn’t build any more solar or wind facilities? I can’t quite figure it out.
tigrismus said,
March 25, 2008 at 19:59
That’s what it sounds like, Sam. I hope his doctor never advises him to eat more fruits and vegetables.
Arky "I Just Get These Headaches" The Blasphemer said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:00
I’m not great at mathemitizen but when I see a fRightard trying to do math I instinctively know it is w.r.o.n.g. I just hope his sister-wife doesn’t allow him to handle the fambly bank account. “But honey snuggles, I put in $100 and only took out $1,000. We should have 50,000 dollars left!”
Cripes. Watching these assholes is like watching an endless loop of Jackass pratfalls that has somehow had all the humor extracted.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:03
S,N!’s hamsters have been working pretty well, lately. Give ‘em some veggies for me.
zeppo said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:04
Jeez, lighten up. Math is HARD! Hardly anyone these days knows, for example, how to count to 4000.
Gary Ruppert said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:05
The fact is that Obama knew what was going on, and he chose to give hundreds of thousands of dollars to Wright.
Clinton has a delegate lead according to sources like MyDD. She’s going in for the kill here.
g said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:14
corkscrewing right in, under sniper fire, I imagine.
gbear said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:19
Hillary proclaiming that she’s too good for her minister and church isn’t exactly going to sell well with people who actually like their minister and church. I’d say that argument will sink like a rock. No change.
mikey said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:21
I am but a simple, undeducated man with a tenuous grasp on reality, but I find myself confused by this phrase “under sniper fire”.
Snipers, in my experience, do not put a significant volume of fire downrange. To be “under sniper fire” would to me indicate that the person under said fire was the selected target, and even if the sniper was off the mark, the rounds would be impacting close in. Anybody else in the vicinity, unless later selected as a target, would not be “under fire” at all.
And while there is live incoming fire it’s probably a good idea to vacate the premises, I don’t think it can in any way be considered accurate to say you were “under fire” when you happened to be within earshot of somebody who was the selected target of a sniper.
But then, maybe I just haven’t passed my “Commander in Chief” threshold test yet…
mikey
Badonkadonk said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:24
2+2 is five…..
….for sufficiently large values of 2.
Some Guy said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:26
Unless the sniper is on the front line doing general anti-infantry fire, as opposed to sneaking around hunting for a select target.
It’s a very obtuse phrase, to be sure.
RodeoBob said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:26
I love reading conservatives discuss energy policy. It invariably follows the same, elegant lines every time:
*Solar & wind power are insignificant compared to our massive consumption numbers!
*Coal is plentiful!
*Nuclear is clean!
*Anything that isn’t insignificant lowers our need for “Middle-East-Oil”!
Only in America does the Conservative power policy have nothing to do with conservation.
Blue Buddha said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:29
There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don’t.
Senator Ted said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:29
Hillary: There weren’t snipers? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
LD said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:38
Awww, Gary is here right a way to advertise Hillary.
That is so cute. I think he has a crush on Hillary…
As for the math, it is a minor detail, but those usually cause the writer to lose credibility in the eyes of the readers who notice the error.
Of course, in this case there was no damage done, as there was no credibility to begin with.
I don’t mean to be picky, but what is it with the number and unit selections? Isn’t electricity on this scale usually measured in Megawatthours.
Chairman Meow said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:40
Humbly submitted: 1% of 1% = .01 x .01 = .0001… right?
I know, it’s central to our point. But someone’s gonna point it out sooner or later…
OB-GYN Kenobi said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:42
What Surber doesn’t realize is that by himself, he blows enough hot air to run 500 lefty blogs.
No need to stress the hamsters out when we’ve got Donnie to do the heavy lifting.
pedestrian said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:45
I am actually curious about the opinion of the “typical voter” concerning whether you should leave your church if you disagree with the pastor.
I grew up in a pretty loosely organized religious environment. I believe that the term that we used was “Charismatic Non-denominational Evangelical”, or more presumptively, “Christian”. Our tradition was about 40 years old, tops. Everyone in the church got there by being pissed off at a pastor and jumping ship. I doubt that they are representative of the rest of the country, however, and I don’t think that Obama has to worry about losing those votes to Hillary. Their big debate is whether to vote McCain or stock up on small arms and wait for the National Guard.
I thought that this study was interesting. Americans are unusually religious for a wealthy democracy, but they don’t seem to feel obligated to settle on a particular creed. I wonder if there is a split in the way that people respond to Wright that cuts across the usual political boundaries?
Clif said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:47
And .0001 = .01%
pedestrian said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:50
There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don’t.
Heh. Heh heh heh. That’s CUTE. I feel more like a nerd for laughing, but less like a nerd for having never heard that before. Or maybe I just don’t don’t have enough friends.
SamFromUtah said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:51
That percent stuff is too confusing. We should go with per mille – ‰
It sounds bigger, too. 0.01% is 0.1‰.
SamFromUtah said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:55
Or better still, the permyriad (?).
SamFromUtah said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:56
…which doesn’t show up except in preview. Darn.
Chairman Meow said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:57
Thanks Clif, I missed that :D better switch to caf again :D
gbear said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:57
I’d say that argument will sink like a rock. No change.
Of course that won’t stop a 150 comment per hour flame war about it on the Talking Points Memo. I need to go buy stock in companies that make defibrillators, antacids, blood pressure medications and screen cleaners…
actor212 said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:58
Yer using that fuzzy math again!
You know, the kind that doesn’t support any conservative conclusions.
Some Guy said,
March 25, 2008 at 20:58
Just wait until some wing nut starts bouncing between Fahrenheit and Celsius.
F= 1.8C + 32
Also, -40F and -40C are the SAME THING!
Fascinating, EHHHH??
call me ishmael said,
March 25, 2008 at 21:04
He’s also forgetting the many MW that is bought from Canada, too. But that’s socialist power, so that doesn’t count.
And, there’s the small matter of the sun producing all that plant matter that got turned into coal and oil. And uranium, for that matter.
The only difference between those processes and the ones used today for existing solar/wind are that the new ones are a lot faster and cleaner.
Candy said,
March 25, 2008 at 21:12
I need to go buy stock in companies that make defibrillators, antacids, blood pressure medications and screen cleaners…
Definitely a growth market . . .
LD said,
March 25, 2008 at 21:16
Actually, I did some looking around, and I have to ask something.
First of all, after looking around a bit, I found out that US windpower capacity at the end of 2006 was 11 575 Megawatts .
(Found at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/)
Now this might seem like a drop in the ocean when compared to the 4 107 000 000 Megawatthours mentioned in the statistics table linked in original post.
But the units don’t add up. Megawatt and Megawatthour are not interchangeable.
Now, if we for simplicitys sake assume the energy consumpiton was even (which it is not) throughout day and year, then yearly consumption above would transtale to constant rate of consumption of about 470 000 Megawatts.
Or, if we assume wind power would produce 11 575 Megawatts throughout day and year, it would mount to about 100 000 000 Megawatthours.
Either way, the windpower would equal to about 2.5% of the total. Obviously it is smaller, as windpower changes based on wind. But the magnitude would likely be close.
Now, I’m not sure if I am reading the this correctly. But if I am, the initial claim of one percent of one percent shows that the person who wrote the initial claim would be sloppy with their work, or unable to tell the difference between power and energy.
Can someone tell me: Did I mess something up in the checking?
t4toby said,
March 25, 2008 at 21:19
Swooning Couches and Pearl Necklace Repair are both hot commodities, I hear.
PeeJ said,
March 25, 2008 at 21:20
Don’t need to wait for a wingnut. Lately, I’ve taken to giving my age in Celsius.
zeppo said,
March 25, 2008 at 21:21
This entire argument is bogus, IMHO. Take my toaster, for example. If I were to run my five amp toaster continuously for seventeen years, that’s approximately, uh, hold on…. 744,000 amp.hours. Which really sounds like a lot, you know? So, it is obvious that we can’t build a windfarm in Nevada just to run my toaster. That’s ludicrous. That would upset all the residents of the fine state of Nevada who also don’t really want the nuclear waste buried in their mountains. Which is highly reasonable, and I fully support their position. Put it in Utah where it belongs. Additionally, since I don’t live in Nevada, someone would have to string new electrical transmission lines from there to here. This is obviously not cost beneficial and just another sad ploy of those tired liberals who continually whine and moan about “the environment”. Oh, boo hoo!
Besides, I don’t eat toast. I put my Pop Tarts in the microwave. They get nice and gooey that way.
The Hamsters of Sadly, No! said,
March 25, 2008 at 21:34
Speaking of energy, our legs are getting really tired.
Can haz pellet of food plz?
Doodle Bean said,
March 25, 2008 at 21:38
Isn’t it sweet how Gary is oh so literate in the morning, but by afternoon is a typo-typing illiterati?
I think so..
Well, unless it’s one of the fake Garys. Then, not so much.
sagra said,
March 25, 2008 at 22:21
One thousand, two thousand, three thousand, four thousand.
That was easy.
Blue Buddha said,
March 25, 2008 at 22:36
You can’t blame Surber… he learned math from his parents.
The Middle Managers of Sadly, No! said,
March 25, 2008 at 22:37
Why, you greedy-guts little beggars! After all we do for you??? I’ll give you something to be tired about!
pedestrian said,
March 25, 2008 at 22:40
Blue Buddha, that was a thing of beauty. I even teared up a little.
sxwarren said,
March 25, 2008 at 22:41
Also, -40F and -40C are the SAME THING!
That’s just cold, man.
MaineMan said,
March 25, 2008 at 22:43
Also, -40F and -40C are the SAME THING!
A nice spring day?
Bitter Scribe said,
March 25, 2008 at 22:44
How come, whenever you post a picture of this guy, the music from “Deliverance” starts playing in my head?
Rugged in Montana said,
March 25, 2008 at 22:44
You LIE-bruls just don’t get it, do you? Nuclear power is SAFE power and has been since Wyoming started up the first nuclear power plant in 1929 (without a single accident so far!). Montana’s 19 nuclear power plants supply 87% of the electrical power used by the USA of America, and that’s the equivalent of 8,243 TRILLION barrels of oil, coming straight from the heartland. I’m thankful that our American President, Iraqi War jet-pilot hero George Willard Bush, has been instrumental in initiating the construction of over a thousand new nuclear power plants, to help with our recent Savings and Loan crisis. Our war with the Demofascists has only just begun and our War President has promised that it will last 100 years, so we’ll need plenty of radioactive material to fight the Muslosexual radicals that threaten our nation.
actor212 said,
March 25, 2008 at 22:50
Hillary proclaiming that she’s too good for her minister and church isn’t exactly going to sell well with people who actually like their minister and church.
That’s not what she said, however, and it’s what I said a few days ago (not here). In fact, she said nothing about her own pastor, who is Don Jones and by all accounts a very pastoral Christian who instilled the values of caring for the poor and children that have guided Hillary all her life.
A topic I have some first hand knowledge about, having worked with Marian Wright Edelman and her at the Children’s Defense Fund.
If Wright had been my pastor, I would have left. Hell, I left my congregation because the church’s doctrine was hateful, much less the hate-spewing idiot foaming every Sunday.
She’s right to point out that Obama could have quit the congregation if he had such awkward feelings about what Wright was saying. After all, he only came to that church as an adult, and therefore presumably could make an adult, informed choice. It’s not like this was his father’s church, or his mother’s, and he was born into it.
Which really calls into question his judgement.
lardass said,
March 25, 2008 at 23:00
If Wright had been my pastor, I would have left. Hell, I left my congregation because the church’s doctrine was hateful, much less the hate-spewing idiot foaming every Sunday.
Geez………my dislike of Obama stems from the fact that he’s NOT saying what Wright was saying! IMHO, Wright was being quite reserved in his critical comments, as the truth is far more damning than he made it.
t4toby said,
March 25, 2008 at 23:01
Really? His comments got you swooning, too, actor?
Nothing Wright said even phased me. Who gives a fuck what some minister says, especially if you have to sift through innumerable hours of sermons to get two or three ‘shocking’ comments. It is the equivalent of Fox mining HuffPo’s comments for anything untoward. If you have to look that close, what’s the big deal?
I’ve certainly heard much more radical talk than that in the average Seattle brew pub. Maybe not racially charged, but way more subversive…
pedestrian said,
March 25, 2008 at 23:01
Good point. Do we really want someone in the White House who can respect a person who holds a different opinion? Can you imagine a president who can listen to views that he fundamentally opposes, but instead of storming out of the room he looks for common ground, for things that he does respect in the other person?
Captain Clutch and his String of Pearls said,
March 25, 2008 at 23:03
Yeah, if I don’t agree 100% with those around me, I’m outta there.
Needless to say, I spend a lot of time by myself.
Swoony McSwoonerson said,
March 25, 2008 at 23:05
Don’t forget the man that said those hateful, vile, disgusting comments was a dark person.
How will you convince me now that they all aren’t all part of a Darkie Sleeper Cell?
I need to sit down…
zeppo said,
March 25, 2008 at 23:12
However, Rugged, don’t forget that we aren’t QUITE that energy independent as of yet, Montana’s 19 nookular power plants notwithstanding. We still need to go dig up Alaska, you know. I have it on good authority that Alaska contains enough oil to power 27 million Hummers for the next 8 years at present levels of consumption, which is good enough for me, but does not account for any craziness on the part of Hugo Chavez. A pox on the caribou, I say! Fie, salmon runs, fie!
Tone In DC said,
March 25, 2008 at 23:12
Again with the mandatory renouncing. By democratic politicians. I know that I should try to be ironic, or otherwise utilize teh funny here, but I cannot take this double standard shit.
Let McCain renounce Hagee, Robertson, Dobson and the rest of those hate-filled winger conservative dominionists, then I’ll join the keening millions demading that Obama renounce Wright.
And by the way, Dubya and Darth Cheney would be doing very well indeed if they collectively possessed one tenth of Barack Obama’s judgement.
g said,
March 25, 2008 at 23:29
And just imagine what his old uncle said round the Thanksgiving table tht time back in 74!
jim said,
March 25, 2008 at 23:31
These are the cheerleaders for Trickle-Down Theory, Enron-Math & tax-cuts for billionaires – the same folks who brought you derivatives & Sub-Primes … expecting them to fathom the mysterious arcana of MWh & percentages is like expecting your cat to get you a refund on your tax returns.
Will Rev. Wright be formulating policy for Obama?
No.
Does what he said have any real importance?
No.
Will the corporate-media whorehouse ( & its blogosheric halo of Goebbels-wannabes ) joyfully pimp this for every minute of air-time they can waste on it?
Take a wild guess.
Pinky McPinkerson in Montana said,
March 25, 2008 at 23:32
Classy, g.
Throw his uncle under the bus.
Exactly what I’d expect from a LIE-brul.
Innocent Bystander said,
March 25, 2008 at 23:39
I don’t profess to know why Don thinks the way he does. I’m betting he wrote “1% of 1%” because he was a little shaky on what the actual product would be. But if this is his whole point that wind and solar is a fraction of our usage, he truly misses the point (but I’d expect nothing less from what passes as a conservative thinker today.)
Don, what would our country be like if we had invested the TRILLION DOLLARS or so we wasted in Iraq, killing millions of innocents and 4000 Americans, in renewable/alternative/decentralized energy grids? How many new jobs would that have created? Instead, what have we gotten for that investment? Oil @ $100/barrel. Not that Bush, Cheney, and the House of Saud are complaining…but that doesn’t exactly help the rest of us, does it Don?
Don may struggle with the math, but he’s incapable of understanding how Republican corruption, starting 30 years ago, made us more dependent on ME oil … which now threatens our national security and our domestic economy. Doh.
Smut Clyde said,
March 25, 2008 at 23:39
I’ve certainly heard much more radical talk than that in the average Seattle brew pub.
Moreover, unlike a Trinitarian Church, the average Seattle brew pub is likely to contain a shuffleboard table. There may or may not be people dancing on it by the end of the night.
Joshua said,
March 25, 2008 at 23:45
I really can’t fault the guy for being off like that. Umm… it’s really not by a huge amount and there’s no point in providing precise percentages in an article like that.
But I can fault for him for his ridiculous argument. It doesn’t produce a lot now, so why bother? What if people said that when the first cars rolled off the assembly line (okay, I know the first cars were not produced on an assembly line, but bear with me)? The amount of people who used cars was a tiny percentage of those who used horses or trolleys or whatever. So why bother?
Things CHANGE, Don. They change a lot more than they don’t.
Blue Buddha said,
March 25, 2008 at 23:48
Considering that the world’s first nuclear power generator was built in a squash court at the Univ. of Chicago in 1942, that’s a bunch of bullshit.
Smut Clyde said,
March 25, 2008 at 23:53
Oh noes, WordPress ate my comment!
I’ve certainly heard much more radical talk than that in the average Seattle brew pub.
Moreover, unlike a Trinitarian Church, the average Seattle brew-pub is likely to contain a shuffleboard table.
zeppo said,
March 25, 2008 at 23:56
In the larger context, do those slight misstatements make any difference? It is the feeling behind the facts and numbers, not the facts and numbers themselves.
Jay said,
March 25, 2008 at 23:58
Twice in the last few months Surber’s beloved power plant, John Amos, emitted a blue haze that had people gagging almost as much as Surber’s blog.
I noticed a few people wondering about the cooling towers in the pic of yesterday’s post about the Chinless Wonder. Any power plant, regardless of fuel, that uses steam driven turbines draws water from a nearby river. Returning the condensed steam back to the river without letting it cool raises the river temperature creating a more hospitable environment for fecal coliform which robs the river of oxygen and kills the river.
We haven’t found the solution to the Fecal Surberform problem yet.
mikey said,
March 26, 2008 at 0:14
There are also pressurized tanks of “Neutron Poison” liquids stored above the reactors inside containment, and isolated from the primary coolant flows. These can be triggered in a SCRAM (emergency shutdown) to stop the fission reaction in seconds. They are in the containment towers inside those “cooling towers” being discussed…
Yes, actually, I have worked on a Nuke Plant.
Comanche Peak, in point of fact…
mikey
Andre said,
March 26, 2008 at 0:35
Y’know, it’s sort of understandable.
Here in New Zealand, our Inland Revenue Department (equivalent to the IRS) forgot to carry the $600,000,000 when calculating their half year report.
I’m not kidding.
t4toby said,
March 26, 2008 at 0:38
Where do I get me some Neutron Poison?
I’ll bet you can get high as a motherfuck on that shit!
Harry Cheddar said,
March 26, 2008 at 0:40
I stopped going to church with my wife because the pastor was talking up Bush and promoted an anti-gay rally from the pulpit. As a center-left type living in Indiana, I spend a lot of time alone.
OB-GYN Kenobi said,
March 26, 2008 at 0:41
Attention Blue Buddha.
YHBT. That is all.
Smut Clyde said,
March 26, 2008 at 1:01
Only a shameless pedant would remind Blue Buddha that the 1942 Chicago reactor was not a power generator. It was in fact designed to respond to parody trolls (and to create plutonium).
SamFromUtah said,
March 26, 2008 at 1:21
Considering that the world’s first nuclear power generator was built in a squash court at the Univ. of Chicago in 1942, that’s a bunch of bullshit.
Oh no, the plant was built in ’29, but they had to wait to bring it online until somebody invented nuclei.
Look it up!
Bob Munck said,
March 26, 2008 at 2:47
That’s a tad misleading. A fair amount of the electricity we use goes to make heat and light. Solar power, in its raw form (sunlight) also provides a fair amount of heat and light to America; in effect, it replaces the electricity we’d need to create all that heat and light. In terms of energy use, and counting things like growing crops and lighting our cities, towns, and countryside for about 50% of the time, solar power supplies maybe 99.99% of our energy. And that’s ignoring the fact that it’s the original source of wind, hydroelectric, and even fossil fuel energy.
Dorothy said,
March 26, 2008 at 3:29
I’m thankful that our American President, Iraqi War jet-pilot hero George Willard Bush, has been instrumental in initiating the construction of over a thousand new nuclear power plants blah blah blah.
Willard?
Gentlewoman said,
March 26, 2008 at 5:18
A pox on the caribou
Awesome name for a band.
Someone had to say it.
Crissa said,
March 26, 2008 at 22:08
Well, it may be that he was given those numbers that are slightly off.
…Although he really should have noted the source or that he knew they didn’t jive.
Still… I don’t understand his argument.