Comment box Scope: summary, personal response Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none I object to the pessimism of the modern psyche with respect to climate. Here is another story within a...
Comment box
Scope: summary, personal response
Tone: neutral
Opinion: yes
Sarcasm/humor: none
I object to the pessimism of the modern psyche with respect to climate. Here is another story within a positive narrative, which is that many parts of the world are consistently and substantially increasing the proportion of electricity they generate via renewable sources rather than fossil fuels.
In the EU, 52% of power electricity was generated from renewable sources in Q2 2024. This is up from 46% at the same time last year. If you include nuclear, the renewable portion was 76% of electricity generation (fossil fuels only made up 24%).
That's a big deal. The EU still has to increase renewable and grid capacity/storage significantly to support the transition, but so far it's in an extraordinarily good position.
Offshore wind output surged 37% year on year, hydropower generation grew 21%, solar was up 20%, and onshore wind 6%. On the other hand, coal-fired generation fell 7% and gas output dropped 24%
Europe’s rapid energy transition is partly thanks to the effectiveness of its carbon market system, which places a price on pollution. Carbon prices averaged €69 per tonne of emissions in the second quarter, a 21% decline from a year before, per the European Commission.
We are very close to a coal-free Europe and not so far off from a gas-free Europe either. European coal consumption has decreased from 12.31 exajoules in 1998 to 5.48 in 2023, a 55% decrease even as the population has risen, energy demand has surged, and and economic productivity has increased.
European natural gas consumption rose in the 2000s but has since been dropping. You can expect that decline to hasten as renewable technology becomes increasingly cost-competitive.
I also admire your stance on looking at the optimistic side of things as well. One note though This is not correct, the title you used is correct, as electricity usage is a part of the total...
I also admire your stance on looking at the optimistic side of things as well. One note though
In the EU, 52% of power was generated from renewable sources in Q2 2024.
This is not correct, the title you used is correct, as electricity usage is a part of the total energy usage. Most obviously there is fuel used for ICE vehicles, but also other energy sources being employed at heavy industries.
I think it is an important nuance. I do realize you want to focus on the optimistic news, which I do understand, but I honestly believe that including these sorts of nuances makes for a stronger overall message.
Comment box Scope: summary, information Tone: neutral Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none Thanks for the correction. I'm aware of the distinction but miswrote it at the beginning of that paragraph....
Exemplary
Comment box
Scope: summary, information
Tone: neutral
Opinion: none
Sarcasm/humor: none
Thanks for the correction. I'm aware of the distinction but miswrote it at the beginning of that paragraph. This story does indeed refer to electricity generation and not total power consumption.
The story is notable merely in that it refers to electricity generation. The data indicates that burning coal and natural gas to generate electricity is going away (the former faster than the latter, but both are happening), being replaced by renewables. No reason not to be optimistic about that.
With respect to total power consumption, it doesn't change my outlook. There is not actually a great way to directly compare total electricity generation/usage and total power usage. When you read fact sheets like this one from the Energy Institute showing the entire primary energy consumption mix in a single chart, it looks pretty depressing. But it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. I have seen some people refer to this as the primary energy fallacy.
The primary energy fallacy is the assumption that all primary energy from burning coal, oil and gas needs to be replaced by renewables. It doesn’t. What needs to be replaced is the energy that provides us with the energy services.
Climate Club: We need to talk about the Primary Energy Fallacy is the only researched video I have found that attempts to explain the issue, which is one of measurement and data presentation. In brief, fossil fuels are so inefficient at doing most of the things we want them to do that they necessarily dwarf renewable electricity generation in absolute terms. The two ways of understanding energy as envisioned in this video are:
Primary energy (total energy before transformation), which contains a vast amount of "energy" which technically exists but is not actually used because the process of transformation wastes (rejects) it.
Useful energy (total energy after transformation), which refers to the amount of energy that can be utilized by "energy services" and the machines that we actually need power for.
It's typical to present the total energy mix in terms of primary energy ("direct conversion method"). It is therefore natural to consider that we must translate 100% of that energy into renewable form. But renewables don't have the same waste/rejection problem during transformation that fossil fuels have, so as far as such charts are concerned, the amount of energy we need to replace is just the amount of useful energy we will actually use. This is about 1/3 of total primary energy. Other conversion methods ("substitution method") attempt, but fail, to accurately compare total primary energy use by applying a diminishing factor to fossil fuel, accounting for waste heat; this is insufficient because it neglects other inefficiencies and can ironically lead to other fallacies. Other methods likewise tend to overrepresent certain energy types.
Limitations in power capacity for particular sources are real. This is the main reason we are not completely on renewables: the sun doesn't shine at night, etc you know the drill. This doesn't actually change the fact that we just have to replace useful energy from fossil fuels with useful energy from renewables. But it does materially change the execution of that process. This is more of a problem with transmission and storage than our understanding of actual generation.
The exaggerated image people have in their heads about how much "energy" must be generated to run the world is mostly a function of being exposed to charts tuned to fossil fuels rather than renewables.
Comment box
I object to the pessimism of the modern psyche with respect to climate. Here is another story within a positive narrative, which is that many parts of the world are consistently and substantially increasing the proportion of electricity they generate via renewable sources rather than fossil fuels.
In the EU, 52% of
powerelectricity was generated from renewable sources in Q2 2024. This is up from 46% at the same time last year. If you include nuclear, the renewable portion was 76% of electricity generation (fossil fuels only made up 24%).That's a big deal. The EU still has to increase renewable and grid capacity/storage significantly to support the transition, but so far it's in an extraordinarily good position.
We are very close to a coal-free Europe and not so far off from a gas-free Europe either. European coal consumption has decreased from 12.31 exajoules in 1998 to 5.48 in 2023, a 55% decrease even as the population has risen, energy demand has surged, and and economic productivity has increased.
European natural gas consumption rose in the 2000s but has since been dropping. You can expect that decline to hasten as renewable technology becomes increasingly cost-competitive.
I also admire your stance on looking at the optimistic side of things as well. One note though
This is not correct, the title you used is correct, as electricity usage is a part of the total energy usage. Most obviously there is fuel used for ICE vehicles, but also other energy sources being employed at heavy industries.
I think it is an important nuance. I do realize you want to focus on the optimistic news, which I do understand, but I honestly believe that including these sorts of nuances makes for a stronger overall message.
Comment box
Thanks for the correction. I'm aware of the distinction but miswrote it at the beginning of that paragraph. This story does indeed refer to electricity generation and not total power consumption.
The story is notable merely in that it refers to electricity generation. The data indicates that burning coal and natural gas to generate electricity is going away (the former faster than the latter, but both are happening), being replaced by renewables. No reason not to be optimistic about that.
With respect to total power consumption, it doesn't change my outlook. There is not actually a great way to directly compare total electricity generation/usage and total power usage. When you read fact sheets like this one from the Energy Institute showing the entire primary energy consumption mix in a single chart, it looks pretty depressing. But it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. I have seen some people refer to this as the primary energy fallacy.
Climate Club: We need to talk about the Primary Energy Fallacy is the only researched video I have found that attempts to explain the issue, which is one of measurement and data presentation. In brief, fossil fuels are so inefficient at doing most of the things we want them to do that they necessarily dwarf renewable electricity generation in absolute terms. The two ways of understanding energy as envisioned in this video are:
It's typical to present the total energy mix in terms of primary energy ("direct conversion method"). It is therefore natural to consider that we must translate 100% of that energy into renewable form. But renewables don't have the same waste/rejection problem during transformation that fossil fuels have, so as far as such charts are concerned, the amount of energy we need to replace is just the amount of useful energy we will actually use. This is about 1/3 of total primary energy. Other conversion methods ("substitution method") attempt, but fail, to accurately compare total primary energy use by applying a diminishing factor to fossil fuel, accounting for waste heat; this is insufficient because it neglects other inefficiencies and can ironically lead to other fallacies. Other methods likewise tend to overrepresent certain energy types.
Limitations in power capacity for particular sources are real. This is the main reason we are not completely on renewables: the sun doesn't shine at night, etc you know the drill. This doesn't actually change the fact that we just have to replace useful energy from fossil fuels with useful energy from renewables. But it does materially change the execution of that process. This is more of a problem with transmission and storage than our understanding of actual generation.
The exaggerated image people have in their heads about how much "energy" must be generated to run the world is mostly a function of being exposed to charts tuned to fossil fuels rather than renewables.
You make a good point and I agree with all you said. I also think that including this reasoning makes your message of optimism even stronger.