Question

the use of nonrenewable energy sources has increased significantly, while the use of renewable energy sources has decreased. true false energy consumption (twh) 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2023 global primary energy consumption by source traditional biomass coal oil natural gas nuclear hydropower other renewables

Explanation:

Step1: Analyze the graph trend

The graph shows global primary energy consumption by source over time. Nonrenewable sources (like coal, oil, natural gas) have increasing consumption (area under their curves grows), while renewable sources (traditional biomass, hydropower, other renewables) – traditional biomass's area decreases, but hydropower and other renewables' areas seem to increase? Wait, no, the statement says "nonrenewable... increased significantly, renewable... decreased". Wait, traditional biomass (a renewable) has a large area in 1800, shrinking over time. But other renewables (like solar, wind) – the "Other renewables" area is small but maybe increasing? Wait, the statement's claim: "nonrenewable increased, renewable decreased". Let's check nonrenewable: coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear (nuclear is nonrenewable? Wait, nuclear is nonrenewable? Wait, nuclear fuel is nonrenewable. So nonrenewable sources: coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear. Their consumption (TWh) – the vertical axis is TWh, horizontal is time. The area for coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear: from 1800 to 2023, their areas (consumption) have increased (since the curves for them expand over time). Renewable sources: traditional biomass, hydropower, other renewables. Traditional biomass: large in 1800, shrinking. Hydropower: maybe stable or slightly increasing? Other renewables: small but increasing? But the statement says "renewable... decreased". Wait, maybe the main renewable (traditional biomass) decreased, but overall? Wait, the question is whether the statement is true or false. The statement: "The use of nonrenewable energy sources has increased significantly, while the use of renewable energy sources has decreased." Let's check nonrenewable: yes, their consumption (TWh) has increased (the area for coal, oil, gas, nuclear is much larger in 2023 than 1800). Renewable: traditional biomass (yellow) has decreased, but hydropower (light blue) and other renewables (purple) – their areas? Wait, hydropower's area: in 1800, maybe zero, now some. Other renewables: small but increasing. But the total renewable consumption: traditional biomass was huge, now smaller. But the statement says "renewable... decreased" – maybe considering total renewable? Wait, traditional biomass is a major renewable, and its consumption (TWh) – in 1800, traditional biomass is at 180,000 TWh? Wait, no, the vertical axis: the left axis is time (1800 - 2023), the right axis is TWh (0 - 180,000). Wait, the graph is a stream graph, so the height at each time is total consumption, and each color is a source. So for nonrenewable sources (coal, oil, gas, nuclear), their share (area) increases over time (so consumption in TWh increases). For renewable sources: traditional biomass (yellow) has a large area in 1800, shrinking over time. Hydropower (light blue) and other renewables (purple) – their areas are small but maybe increasing? But the statement says "renewable... decreased" – maybe the total renewable consumption (sum of traditional biomass, hydropower, other renewables) – traditional biomass's decrease is more than hydropower and other renewables' increase, so total renewable decreased? Wait, the statement's claim: nonrenewable increased (true, as their TWh consumption is much higher now), renewable decreased (is that true? Let's see: traditional biomass in 1800: maybe 180,000 TWh (since the yellow bar is at the top, 180,000). In 2023, traditional biomass is much lower. Hydropower and other renewables: their TWh is much less than traditional biomass's decrease. So total renewable consumption (TWh) – 1800: traditional biomass (180,000) + hydropower (0) + other renewables (0) = 180,000. 2023: traditional biomass (maybe 20,000) + hydropower (10,000) + other renewables (5,000) = 35,000. So total renewable decreased. And nonrenewable: coal, oil, gas, nuclear – in 1800, maybe coal (0), oil (0), gas (0), nuclear (0) – total nonrenewable 0. In 2023, coal, oil, gas, nuclear: each has significant TWh, total much higher. So the statement's claim is true? Wait, but the options are true or false. Wait, the user's question: the radio buttons are true and false. Wait, maybe I misread. Wait, the graph: nonrenewable sources (coal, oil, gas, nuclear) – their consumption (TWh) has increased (since the area under their curves grows over time). Renewable sources: traditional biomass (yellow) has a large area in 1800, shrinking. Hydropower (light blue) and other renewables (purple) – their areas are small but maybe increasing, but total renewable (traditional biomass + hydropower + other renewables) – traditional biomass's decrease is more than the other two's increase, so total renewable decreased. So the statement "nonrenewable increased, renewable decreased" is true? Wait, but let's check again. Wait, nuclear is nonrenewable. So nonrenewable sources: coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear. Their consumption (TWh) – in 1800, almost zero. In 2023, large. So nonrenewable increased significantly. Renewable sources: traditional biomass (renewable) had high consumption in 1800, now low. Hydropower and other renewables: low but maybe increasing, but total renewable (sum) is less than 1800. So the statement is true? Wait, but the radio button: the "true" is selected? Wait, no, the user's question: is the statement true or false? Let's re-express the statement: "The use of nonrenewable energy sources has increased significantly, while the use of renewable energy sources has decreased." From the graph: nonrenewable (coal, oil, gas, nuclear) – their TWh consumption is much higher in 2023 than 1800 (so increased significantly). Renewable (traditional biomass, hydropower, other renewables) – traditional biomass's TWh is much lower in 2023 than 1800, and hydropower + other renewables' TWh is much less than traditional biomass's decrease, so total renewable TWh decreased. So the statement is true? Wait, but maybe I made a mistake. Wait, the "Other renewables" – in 2023, their area is small but present, while in 1800, zero. But traditional biomass was 180,000 TWh in 1800, now maybe 20,000. So 180,000 vs (20,000 + 10,000 + 5,000) = 35,000. So total renewable decreased. So the statement is true. So the correct answer is true.

Step2: Confirm the statement's accuracy

Based on the graph's trend (nonrenewable consumption up, renewable total down), the statement is true.

Answer:

true