I did try to explain to Jan, when he said something similar, why he was wrong. I guess you haven't read that yet, but here's another way of putting it; Let's say you drive an EV, even an ebike that you built yourself. So you've been out on it a few times, and you get a feel for how well it does in mileage per charge. In this time you find how to make some energy efficiencies and you make some improvements to efficiency, and you get some improvements. Let's say you improved efficiency by thirty percent (A lot!), this would mean you would get thirty miles when previously you got only twenty.
Now let's say you add enough solar to your ebike to drive down your requirement to keep charging, to zero.
Every time you make a trip, you get longer between charges, your requirement to keep charging the bike eventually goes to zero.
See improvements in efficiency can never result in actually charging the system, all you can do with efficiency is charge slightly less often, you can never get to zero charging.
But that is the picture you are seeing in that data.
The slope of energy usage is not just becoming slightly less steep, it's gone negative. Seriously negative. It became negative around 2005.
The only way to explain that is that energy is being input from another source. There is only domestic and community solar that fits the bill.
This is to be fully expected, after we've signed the energy and done the maths, and it's easy now with the solar Ai, which even has all the data to hand, I've covered how to do it, with the Ai, many times, it cross references everything and agrees.
Follow the utilities Energy usage trend, it has to go to zero.
Now look at what utilities energy supply for profit actually means.
More energy is supplied to the utilities Energy supplier by the consumer, in the form of money, than is supplied as electricity or gas or whatever to the consumer. This means it's the consumer supplying energy to the utilities Energy supplier, not the other way round.
Utilities Energy supply at profit is an impoverishing energy scam. It doesn't enrich any consumer unless they happen to be a major shareholder in the utilities Energy supply company, such that what they get in profit from their shares exceeds their energy bills.
And look, because the market is shrinking whilst the shareholder base isn't, more and more shareholders are going to realise it's not worth their while keeping their shares in energy.
Further, all money is issued as debt, money as debt can't monetise energy from solar.
See the problem?
I'd suggest to think this out a little more, the consequences are huge, and if we really want to fix the issue, we need to get the truth sorted out.
Btw it's known that Nikola Tesla already covered this, as early as 1900, he knew it would be unsustainable, and probably thought common sense would come round in his lifetime but it obviously didn't. Meantime he lived in mysteriously funded hotel accommodation, under threat probably of being made homeless, if he didn't keep quiet about the grand energy con being pulled by the banks.
He had to make sure all his work never went public, creating around 700 patents. The US government inherited his work, the day after he died in 1948, a US government Engineer took custody of all of it, his name was John Trump, Donald Trump's uncle.
Fast forward to the recent charges made against Trump, that he had secret documents in his custody that he shouldn't have had, according to the new government.
Its an incredibly interesting coincidence that Trump has teamed up with the owner of the Tesla company, is it not?
Its the banks and financial industry that tried to cancel Trump, or rather the inhuman emergent property of us working on negative energy, that tried to kill Trump. The shooters were just unwitting energy slaves, blinded by the perception filter.
What goes around, comes around, I think Trump knows that much :)