Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. tips us to this interesting yet inconvenient graph.
The graph below shows data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014, which was released yesterday. It shows the proportion of global energy consumption that comes from carbon-free sources. Guess what? It isn’t growing.
Pielke writes:
The proportion of carbon-free energy consumption is a far more important metric of progress with respect to the challenge of stabilizing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere than looking at carbon dioxide emissions.
…
What you should take from this however is that there remains no evidence of an increase in the proportion of carbon-free energy consumption even remotely consistent with the challenge of atmospheric stabilization of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Those who claim that the world has turned a corner, soon will, or that they know what steps will get us around that corner are dreamers or fools. We don’t know. The sooner we accept that, the sooner we can design policies more compatible with policy learning and muddling through.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My thanks to Roger Pielke and Anthony for highlighting this issue. Yes, as several folks said, there has been a fairly large percentage growth in solar, wind, and the like. But most of Roger’s graph is from two non-intermittent sources, hydropower and nuclear.
For those interested in the large percentage growth in solar, wind, biofuel, and the other intermittent energy sources, here you go …
You can see why a percentage growth rate doesn’t mean diddly squat when you start with half a percent … yes, getting to 1% is a 100% increase, but so what?
And of course, almost every bit of this increase was subsidy-driven or requirements-driven. Why? BECAUSE WIND AND SOLAR WON’T WORK WITHOUT DIPPING INTO MY POCKETS TO PAY FOR IT!
Forgive the shouting, but this kind of highway robbery deserves some shouting. We started subsidizing wind and solar under Jimmy Carter in the 1970s, with the promise that it was temporary and they would soon be market-ready.
We are now half a century into this madness, and people today, this very day, are making the same bogus claim—it’s just a temporary subsidy, they’ll be market-ready any day now.
Meanwhile, electricity costs are skyrocketing, just as Obama hoped for …
w.
@Willis – makes a big difference when Hydro is eliminated. As well it should be. Just about every river than can be dammed has been. And Hydro is the oldest energy source in the world still in use.
Willis Eschenbach says: June 17, 2014 at 12:45 pm
‘Nick, please tell me that this was a senior moment, and that in fact you actually do know that there is a difference between “global power generation”, which refers to electricity alone, and “global energy consumption”’
I explicitly spelled out that it was electricity. You quote me doing so. But you can’t have renewables doubling their share of power generation without it contributing to global energy consumption. And my quote set out that arithmetic:
“Renewables contributed 34.6% of the growth in global power generation in 2013, representing 15.7% of world energy growth.”
Nick Stokes, “Renewables contributed 34.6% of the growth in global power generation in 2013, representing 15.7% of world energy growth.”
We are talking percentages. The above statement means that although renewables were growing in 2013, non renewables grew faster. Of all the growth (100%), renewables only accounted for 34,6 %, a little over one third. Renewables are losing out to non renewables which added twice as much during 2013.
Nick Stokes says:
June 17, 2014 at 1:52 pm (disagreeing with)
Willis Eschenbach says: June 17, 2014 at 12:45 pm
Ah, but “renewables” are always quoted and praised based on their nameplate (theoretical, right-out-of-the-package, fresh-on-the-pole, right-at-beginning-of-lifetime) 100% rating… Not at their actual production ability: Which, as others have written about is around 8-12% for solar, and about 18% for wind. Thus, if the US retires 15,000 GWatt of useful production by forcing the retirement of coal plants, it needs 6 x 15,000 GWatt to replace the production, and 10 x nationally to replace local outages. And that ignores regional long periods of low winds (the east coast Bermuda high for example) plus the nightly 18 hours of darkness and dusk when solar is useless.
Regardless, if worldwide renewable nameplate energy growth were 15.7% (1/6) of total energy GROWTH, but 34.6% of power production GROWTH (and what renewables are “pure heat” such as concrete production, steel smelting and refining, chemical production, etc?) , then actual renewable “ability to generate energy” is only 1/6 of of 1/6 of the GROWTH in energy production! Further, we have seen in the US a “flat” electrical energy production since 2007: With today’s power production slightly lower than what could have been generated prior to Obama’s disastrous policies.
Brazil, South Africa, China, and India are NOT growing due to their renewables” portfolio, but in spite of their renewables.
Since that flat-line total in the face of increasing demand includes these absurd unrealistic nameplate renewables increase, it means we are even closer to failure of the national grid due to instabilities in produciton.
Nick Stokes says: June 17, 2014 at 1:52 pm (disagreeing with)
“Regardless, if worldwide renewable nameplate energy growth were 15.7% (1/6) of total energy GROWTH, but 34.6% of power production GROWTH (and what renewables are “pure heat” such as concrete production, steel smelting and refining, chemical production, etc?) , then actual renewable “ability to generate energy” is only 1/6 of of 1/6 of the GROWTH in energy production!”
No, they distinguish between installed capacity (in GW) and production, and the figures are for energy produced. For wind, they say:
“Wind power now generates 628 TWh of electricity, 2.7% of total world electricity generation. That is almost equivalent to the total power generation of Germany.”
That’s 628 TWh actually generated in 2013.
gamecock: I thought California was going with the “let power generation happen in other states; we’ll buy from them” plan. That should help them reach their emissions goals.
On the CAISO web page I linked to, that is in the “imported” electricity category.
Willis Eschenbach: Forgive the shouting, but this kind of highway robbery deserves some shouting.
Speaking of highways, they are subsidized also. As are airports, libraries, and public parks. It’s hard to do anything without experiencing tax angst.
Granted, one subsidy does not justify another, but when the electrical workers are out repairing the lines, it’s comforting to know that they are protected by subsidized police; and that the subsidized firemen help with the electrical fires.
“””””…..walker808 says:
June 17, 2014 at 4:07 am
Fossil fuels are a finite resource, sooner or later all the oil, coal and gas will be used up, renewable energy is the only hope for our long term energy needs. This report is in no way “good news”……”””””
“””…FOSSIL…””” fuels ARE renewables; by definition.
Get it; they are STORED chemical energy derived from SOLAR ENERGY, and biological processes.
Ethanol corn, IS fossil fuel, that has simply not yet reached the fossil stage.
It is the SUN that is the FINITE source of energy; about 1,000 W/m^2 maximum available terrestrial rate of available energy renewal.
And then of course there is Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions….
http://coldfusionnow.org/interviews/2014-cflanr-colloquium-at-mit-full-coverage/
Once ‘renewables’ hit their life cycle end, they need replacement. Looks like that chart above is illustrating that renewables have hit a plateau where new construction roughly equals equipment going off-line.
Matthew R Marler says:
June 17, 2014 at 7:04 pm
Sorry for the lack of clarity. I don’t mind taxes. I do mind my taxes being poured down the same “renewable energy” rathole for the last 50 years. And particularly I hate “renewable mandates”. These mandates are both pouring my taxes down a rathole while simultaneously raising my electricity rates.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 17, 2014 at 10:06 pm
Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention. You mentioned “subsidized policemen”. Policemen are not subsidized. They are government employees, as are firemen and librarians.
A “subsidy” is a partial payment of something sold in the marketplace, which is often designed to assist one of Obama’s wealthy friends make even more money passing off some crappy technology as being almost ready for the krool, krool market … and if you’ll just give him a half-billion dollars, it will be right there.
As such, it has nothing to do with libraries, firemen, or any of the normal government functions. Governments can run quite happily and do all of the normal government functions without subsidizing anything.
Note that I’m not saying that they are all bad. We got railroads across across the US by the judicious use of subsidies, for example.
I just object to subsidizing some brain-dead green money pit for which we get nothing in return. We got the railroads, and they worked well. We didn’t get the energy, and ethanol doesn’t work for beans.
w.
Solar and wind are subject to the “Duck Curve”. What do their proponents do when presented with this. They duck!
Then why have global oil resources increased since 1980?
Besides, 4,000 papers in Russian and untranslated say oil can be produced in a lab. Which they have done. Laboratory-pure solid marble (CaCO3), iron oxide (FeO), wet with triple-distilled water, and subjected to pressures up to 50 kbar–the earth’s mantle is 30 kbar–and temperatures to 2000 C. They got oil. Stuff they could put in their gas tanks. They used this discovery to produce the huge Dneiper-Dunetz field in the Ukraine, producing more oil than the entire Alaskan reserves. And it’s why they are the number one producer of oil globally today, or were the last time I checked. They bring in oil in every field they drill, whereas American and British oil producers only hit one field for every 28 they drill (ref: USGS) whose discovery doesn’t rely on seismic readings.
100 million years of stored, concentrated sunlight vs one day’s worth of intermittent sunlight. HMMM.
Sooner or later? Or three to five centuries? It depends upon your reference frame.
Is there any reason to doubt technology won’t advance during that time? Any reason newer, better, cheaper and cleaner energy sources won’t be discovered? Technology advances, but you can’t force it and you can’t legislate or regulate it into existence.
philjourdan says:
June 18, 2014 at 4:55 am
Phil, truly, you should do some research first before committing your misconceptions to the electronic winds. Many, many countries have rivers that could provide power.
Not only that, but in a monumental joke, big stacks of the “Clean Development Fund”climate change money from the Eurofools was sent to China, and guess what they did with it?
Yep. Built dams. Apparently they didn’t get your memo that there are no more rivers to dam …
w.
@Willis – what part of “just about” means “every last one” to you?
You are arguing the wrong issue.
Willis Eschenbach: A “subsidy” is a partial payment of something sold in the marketplace,
OK. Your objection was that the money was coming from you. That objection covers everything that takes money from your pocket.
which is often designed to assist one of Obama’s wealthy friends make even more money passing off some crappy technology as being almost ready for the krool, krool market … and if you’ll just give him a half-billion dollars, it will be right there.
You are shifting your ground again, now objecting to cronyism.
One of the things you don’t like (me neither) is the renewable fuel standard for generating electricity in CA. That also is not a “subsidy” by your definition.
Face it: you wrote an unworkably broad objection, which now you are refining.
Willis Eschenbach: These mandates are both pouring my taxes down a rathole while simultaneously raising my electricity rates.
I apologize. I am reading in reverse order and didn’t notice that you had posted twice.
Matthew R Marler says:
June 18, 2014 at 1:44 pm (Edit)
Matthew, I’m sick of charming folks like not quoting me. Here is exactly what I said:
My objection is clearly that they WON’T WORK.
Nope. I’m objecting to subsidies, which are often given to cronies.
Gosh. You mean that I didn’t put every single sub-section of my objection into a 12-sentence post? And that I immediately followed it by another post further refining my position? And that when you asked about it, I further explained my objection, viz:
It’s called a DISCUSSION, Matthew, and generally you don’t put every objection into every line of the interchange. This is totally unworthy of you.
w.
Matthew R Marler says:
June 18, 2014 at 1:47 pm
You jumped up ready to accuse me without quoting what I said on the subject and without doing your homework. You made totally false claims, and you were unpleasant in the process.
You want the unvarnished truth, Matthew?
I [reject firmly] your pathetic apology.
Seriously. I’m sick of people flying off the handle to attack me for things I never said, getting all nasty about things I already explained, busting me for claims I’ve never supported, all in an unpleasant fashion … and then thinking that saying “I apologize” somehow excuses the personal nature of the attack.
An “I apologize” is quite sufficient for a simple error.
It is entirely inadequate for your most unpleasant and totally unwarranted personal attack. Do you talk like that to your co-workers? What have I done to deserve your mudslinging?
w.
PS—Yes, I am encouraged that you actually apologized, that’s a good thing. And yes, you are forgiven for your sins of commission and sins of omission. I’m not a man to hold grudges.
But in future, if you think I’ve done something wrong, ask for clarification, and lay off the attacks. I used to think you were one of the good guys. Now, I’m starting to wonder.
Renewable wind power with a 10-20 year lifespan? Going to be interesting to watch renewing the renewables
Willis Eschenbach: Quooting me: OK. Your objection was that the money was coming from you. That objection covers everything that takes money from your pocket.
Matthew, I’m sick of charming folks like not quoting me. Here is exactly what I said:
And of course, almost every bit of this increase was subsidy-driven or requirements-driven. Why? BECAUSE WIND AND SOLAR WON’T WORK WITHOUT DIPPING INTO MY POCKETS TO PAY FOR IT!
My objection is clearly that they WON’T WORK.
Your objection was clearly about the money coming from your pockets. With money from your pockets, they do work.
Willis Eschenbach: It’s called a DISCUSSION, Matthew, and generally you don’t put every objection into every line of the interchange. This is totally unworthy of you.
You wrote an overly broad objection, which you subsequently refined after DISCUSSION from me. Everyone is sloppy sometimes, and this time it was you.