Sep 20, 2022·edited Sep 20, 2022Liked by Green Leap Forward
Your data is inaccurate. You are using fraudulent BP (British Petroleum) data. They multiply wind & solar primary energy by 2.5X to make them not look so bad. They also divide nuclear primary energy by 1.2X to make it look worse. Real scam artists. IEA shows the correct data. I wonder why British Petroleum wants to promote wind & solar so much while they denigrate nuclear.
Using the correct IEA data 2019 World Primary Energy Supply was 90.3% combustion fuels and 2014 was 91.3%. So a 1% drop in 5yrs. In 2008 it was 91.2% combustion fuels. And even that 1% drop in 5 yrs is dubious as well because we know China is hiding its coal emissions.
And Renewables in 2019 were 14.1% of total World primary energy. Renewables not including dirty Biomass were 4.7%. Wind + Solar + Geothermal + Tidal were 2.2%. Not a lot to show for over $4T spent on wind & solar. And much of that will have to be replaced in the next decade. Do that plus spend another $200T and were good to go? Not really. Wind & solar get more & more expensive as their proportion increases.
Great catch. I did read somewhere else there were higher figure. There's a few other fishy things in that BP report too - notably that they weren't including hydro as a renewable source.
The Our World in Data piece has flaws too, consider:
"Because primary energy losses are particularly large for fossil fuels, their contribution to energy demand is much higher in primary energy terms compared to the other three ways of measuring energy. This is important to know because it can skew our perception of how much of a contribution low-carbon sources make: in primary energy terms they can appear smaller because they are diluted by the wasted energy that comes along with fossil fuel burning."
I don't think whoever wrote that objectively looked at the fact a lot of FF burning is for process heat which is the desired goal as opposed to something such as a motor vehicle where the heat is indeed an undesired energy loss.
Our World in Data uses BP data. What they are saying is nonsense. First off the primary energy of coal, nuclear, gas generation is real energy, it is useful energy. You can use that "wasted heat" for building heat, hot water, greenhouses, desalination, wildlife habitat all kinds of uses. And it is done all over the world.
Yes, there are inefficiencies in thermal electric generation but there are much greater inefficiencies in solar and wind generation. Like storage and long distance transmission losses which can easily exceed thermal generation losses. They want to use solar/wind hydrogen for stored energy and chemical heat energy from solar & wind. Well that is a loss of 30-80%, even worse than coal generation.
They state: "...skew our perception of how much of a contribution low-carbon sources ..."
How about skewing the contribution of the lowest carbon electricity source nuclear makes by dividing it by 1.2X.
Say Norway replaced all of their ICE vehicles with BEV's run off of their 95% hydro generation. They are more efficient. So you would rightfully expect fossil consumption to drop while electricity consumption increases. Since they are more efficient you should see their primary energy consumption drop due to that efficiency improvement. Instead it won't drop because they will multiply their BEV charging electricity by 2.5X. That's crazy. Talk about skewing perception.
Similarly if a nation utilizes their thermal generation waste heat to replace hydro electric heat, i.e. a CHP plant. You should see that replacement in Primary energy consumption, not an additional 1.5X drop in Primary energy consumption due to multiplying hydro by 2.5X
They are double counting renewables. If they ACTUALLY did replace 1twh of coal generation with 1twh of solar you would expect a 2 twh drop in primary energy, since it takes 3 twh of coal to make 1 twh of electricity. But they will instead show only a 0.5 twh drop in primary energy while solar primary energy would increase an extra 1.5 twh, that's double counting.
More likely they add 10 twh of solar and wind generation. You would therefore expect a big drop in fossil primary energy due to replacing say 30 twh of coal generation primary heat input energy. So what if wind & solar aren't replacing fossil but are just reducing grid efficiency. Then the expected drop in primary energy doesn't occur. They try to hide that fact by boosting the component of wind & solar primary energy by 2.5X.
Why do you think the Greens are doing this? Have they all forgotten how to do math and/or physics, which doesn't seem parsimonious even if people are generally becoming dumber?
Are they deliberately killing us off?
Conditioning us to tolerate energy slavery/remote control of basic resources?
Beholden to some distant and invisible globalist shithead demanding we share in the suffering for a Great Reset?
Just getting Sports Illustrated-grade fat on ESG pork while remaining personally untouched?
Why are they doing this to us when it so clearly doesn't work?
Honestly, I think it's a doomsday-esque religion. A lot of these people presumably never learned math or physics given the poor quality of the schools. Our local school district even excused all students today to join a city-wide climate march.
Fiat money led to the change to a ultra high time preference society which decimated things from diet to even energy. Expansion of government certainly doesn't help either.
The IEA has also lost its credibility. Their politics is bubbling very visibly.
“Facts, facts, stupid facts, don’t bother me with the stupid facts.”
My 2nd ex-wife
Your data is inaccurate. You are using fraudulent BP (British Petroleum) data. They multiply wind & solar primary energy by 2.5X to make them not look so bad. They also divide nuclear primary energy by 1.2X to make it look worse. Real scam artists. IEA shows the correct data. I wonder why British Petroleum wants to promote wind & solar so much while they denigrate nuclear.
Using the correct IEA data 2019 World Primary Energy Supply was 90.3% combustion fuels and 2014 was 91.3%. So a 1% drop in 5yrs. In 2008 it was 91.2% combustion fuels. And even that 1% drop in 5 yrs is dubious as well because we know China is hiding its coal emissions.
And Renewables in 2019 were 14.1% of total World primary energy. Renewables not including dirty Biomass were 4.7%. Wind + Solar + Geothermal + Tidal were 2.2%. Not a lot to show for over $4T spent on wind & solar. And much of that will have to be replaced in the next decade. Do that plus spend another $200T and were good to go? Not really. Wind & solar get more & more expensive as their proportion increases.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/energy-statistics-data-browser?country=WORLD&fuel=Energy%20supply&indicator=TESbySource
Great catch. I did read somewhere else there were higher figure. There's a few other fishy things in that BP report too - notably that they weren't including hydro as a renewable source.
The Our World in Data piece has flaws too, consider:
"Because primary energy losses are particularly large for fossil fuels, their contribution to energy demand is much higher in primary energy terms compared to the other three ways of measuring energy. This is important to know because it can skew our perception of how much of a contribution low-carbon sources make: in primary energy terms they can appear smaller because they are diluted by the wasted energy that comes along with fossil fuel burning."
I don't think whoever wrote that objectively looked at the fact a lot of FF burning is for process heat which is the desired goal as opposed to something such as a motor vehicle where the heat is indeed an undesired energy loss.
Our World in Data uses BP data. What they are saying is nonsense. First off the primary energy of coal, nuclear, gas generation is real energy, it is useful energy. You can use that "wasted heat" for building heat, hot water, greenhouses, desalination, wildlife habitat all kinds of uses. And it is done all over the world.
Yes, there are inefficiencies in thermal electric generation but there are much greater inefficiencies in solar and wind generation. Like storage and long distance transmission losses which can easily exceed thermal generation losses. They want to use solar/wind hydrogen for stored energy and chemical heat energy from solar & wind. Well that is a loss of 30-80%, even worse than coal generation.
They state: "...skew our perception of how much of a contribution low-carbon sources ..."
How about skewing the contribution of the lowest carbon electricity source nuclear makes by dividing it by 1.2X.
Say Norway replaced all of their ICE vehicles with BEV's run off of their 95% hydro generation. They are more efficient. So you would rightfully expect fossil consumption to drop while electricity consumption increases. Since they are more efficient you should see their primary energy consumption drop due to that efficiency improvement. Instead it won't drop because they will multiply their BEV charging electricity by 2.5X. That's crazy. Talk about skewing perception.
Similarly if a nation utilizes their thermal generation waste heat to replace hydro electric heat, i.e. a CHP plant. You should see that replacement in Primary energy consumption, not an additional 1.5X drop in Primary energy consumption due to multiplying hydro by 2.5X
They are double counting renewables. If they ACTUALLY did replace 1twh of coal generation with 1twh of solar you would expect a 2 twh drop in primary energy, since it takes 3 twh of coal to make 1 twh of electricity. But they will instead show only a 0.5 twh drop in primary energy while solar primary energy would increase an extra 1.5 twh, that's double counting.
More likely they add 10 twh of solar and wind generation. You would therefore expect a big drop in fossil primary energy due to replacing say 30 twh of coal generation primary heat input energy. So what if wind & solar aren't replacing fossil but are just reducing grid efficiency. Then the expected drop in primary energy doesn't occur. They try to hide that fact by boosting the component of wind & solar primary energy by 2.5X.
New to the stack. Love it so far.
Why do you think the Greens are doing this? Have they all forgotten how to do math and/or physics, which doesn't seem parsimonious even if people are generally becoming dumber?
Are they deliberately killing us off?
Conditioning us to tolerate energy slavery/remote control of basic resources?
Beholden to some distant and invisible globalist shithead demanding we share in the suffering for a Great Reset?
Just getting Sports Illustrated-grade fat on ESG pork while remaining personally untouched?
Why are they doing this to us when it so clearly doesn't work?
Thank you!
Honestly, I think it's a doomsday-esque religion. A lot of these people presumably never learned math or physics given the poor quality of the schools. Our local school district even excused all students today to join a city-wide climate march.
Fiat money led to the change to a ultra high time preference society which decimated things from diet to even energy. Expansion of government certainly doesn't help either.