Sure did. But you don't get a PhD in chemistry and not know what "inverse" means.
And you can KMA.
Then you should have no problem explaining the point I made concerning the graphic.
If you claim the numbers do not include the fuel itself, then do the same with the coal and try to explain that one the same way. If so, we will go back to the charts for total energy used in the US and you can explain where all that energy comes from.
Wow, standards have really slipped. I guess you understand "inverse" but get confused between 1.23 and 2.23.