Another Look At The Fuel Mix

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

After my previous post on the subject of the fuel mix that powers the planet, I thought I’d take another look at energy use, this time by region and country. Let me start with the country that uses the most energy. No, it’s not the US … it’s China. Here is China’s energy use since 1965. All figures in all graphs are actual consumption of the fuel type, not nominal nameplate capacity.

Coal is the mainstay of China’s fuel mix. Despite all the hype about their push for renewables, they are only 3% of the total. They’ve increased nuclear, hydro, and gas.

Next in size is the US. Here’s our fuel mix, to the same scale. I’ve used that scale for all of the first group of graphs so we can compare the actual size of the energy usage.

US fuel use has been about level since around 2000. The decrease in coal has been matched by an increase in gas, aided by a rise in renewables.

We’ll get to the other countries in a moment, they use much less energy. In terms of size of energy usage, the next smaller unit is the region of Europe, again at the same scale:

Total European energy use is about the same size as that of the US. It uses less fossil fuels than the US, with the difference made up mostly by hydro and nuclear, along with a 9% contribution from renewables.

Next in size is the CIS, the old USSR which is now the Commonwealth of Independent States— Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

As you can see, the CIS countries run mostly on Russian natural gas … and as you can see, they are not that thrilled by renewables. None of the above. You can also see the economic effect of the fall of the Soviet Empire around 1990.

Next down in size is the Middle East. Care to guess what fuels the Middle East?

I knew you’d know … and I see that they are just as interested in renewables as is the CIS …

Next smaller is India. There has been a lot of talk lately about how India is investing in solar and solar is growing … here’s the reality.

Solar … six-tenths of one percent. India runs mostly on oil, coal, and gas, 92%.

Next in size is South and Central America.

In part because South America has no coal but is blessed with big rivers, hydro provides 22% of the energy. In addition, the sugar cane fields of Brazil provide biofuel, and they burn the bagasse (sugar cane with the sugar crushed out of it) to fuel the sugar mills. So fossil fuel usage is low, and renewables are 8%.

Next in size, we have Japan. At this point, we’re getting down the list to areas whose energy use is small enough that I’ll have to quintuple the scale on the graphs to show the details. So further graphs will be five times as large as if I used the same scale used in all the graphs above. Here is Japan on that expanded scale.

Japan is an interesting case, in that they basically shut down their nuclear power nationwide after the Fukushima tsunami disaster. They replaced the nuclear with fossil fuels. I understand that recently they are beginning to restart the nuclear program.

Next after Japan is … all of Africa! Yikes. An entire continent using less energy than one tiny island …

Africa has fossil fuels, hydro, and not much else … one percent renewables.

Next in line is Canada.

Canada has lots of hydro and some nuclear, so fossil fuels are only 65% of the mix. Renewables, 3%, Then we have Germany.

Germany is an interesting case, because it has been the poster child in the crazy war on fossil fuels. Note how they’ve been shuttering their nuclear plants. In doing so they’ve raised their renewable use to 14%. However, it’s gotten to the point where the German people are getting tired of the push for renewables, which has driven the energy prices through the roof. See e.g. Germany’s Green Transition Has Hit A Brick Wall. The pattern is clear—the more installed renewable energy capacity a country has, the higher the electricity price.

Germany has hit the saturation point and still only gets about one-seventh of its energy from renewables.

Now, before y’all Germans start saying that all of the personal, business, and economic costs of the transition towards renewables are worth it because of the big difference that your getting to 14% renewables has made to the planet, here’s the chart of German fuel use by type as above, but this time to the scale of the whole world’s fuel use:

See the colored lines down at the bottom? That’s the German portion of the world energy use, shown on the same scale as the world fuel mix in the background, and using the exact same data as in the detailed German chart above.

And when considering the world energy usage, you cannot even see the German renewable consumption …

Finally, returning to the detailed scale used above, here’s France, where people in yellow vests are in open revolt against carbon taxes.

As in many countries, even after pushing hard for renewables, in France the percentage is still small. Note the strong dependence on nuclear. Curiously, France is showing us the only practical way to replace fossil fuels … by splitting atoms. In 1975, almost all of France’s energy came from fossil fuels, and today it’s only 53% because of nuclear energy.

Here’s an oddity. France’s large amount of baseline nuclear energy is one reason that Germany is able to have high renewable usage. When the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing, Germany imports nuclear electricity from France. If it were not for that French nuclear power the Germans would be shivering in the dark …

And here is Spain, where the Government has decided to stop throwing good money after bad regarding renewables …

Once again, when the renewables were subsidized to the point of economic insanity, the people revolted and stopped the madness.

Well, that’s likely enough of a look at the energy usage of regions and countries. And what is my point in all of this?

My point is simple. We’re not going to be able to power the planet using any of our current mix of renewables. The claims by rabid green supporters that we can get to 100% renewables are just fever dreams. Current renewables are too expensive, too weak, and too intermittent to ever power the planet. And that is why the historical change in the total global consumption of renewable energy looks like this:

That graph shows the problem. After decades and decades of subsidies, grants, and government spending starting back during the time of Jimmy Carter, and after “cap and trade” systems, and renewables mandates, and carbon taxes, and public pressure, after “carbon-shaming” lectures by jet-setting Hollywood hypocrites, and fiery speeches by politicians promising Thermageddon if we don’t mend our evil ways, and endless IPCC reports, and indoctrination in the schools and universities … after all of that including billions and billions of dollars spent on propping up renewable energy, you can see that the consumption of renewables has barely made it up off of the floor …

So I’m here to spread the latest news about the loony “War On Carbon” that climate alarmists have been fighting for nearly half a century now …

Carbon won.


[UPDATE] In the comments, someone asked for the equivalent graphic for the UK. It’s below. There may be others, per request. Unless otherwise noted, I’ll put them at the same scale as Germany, France, and Spain above.

And here’s Norway. Because Norway is so small, I’ve put it at five times the scale of the UK graph above. Norway is the land of endless hydro.

Here’s Denmark, to the scale of Norway:

Curious … Denmark is using less fuel than it did in 1970.

And here is Australia, not to the scale of Denmark and Norway above, but to the scale of Germany, Spain, UK, and France:

Here’s Finland. It is very small, so I’ve used a larger scale than any of the graphs above.

Coal, oil, and gas use has declined, hydro is steady, nuclear and biomass (forest waste) are up

From the antipodes, here’s New Zealand …

Interesting. Big growth in hydro and gas. No nukes.

Here’s Netherlands, for Marcel.

Mostly gas and oil, a bit of coal …


A sunny day to everyone,

w.

It Bears Repeating: To avoid misunderstandings, when you comment please quote the exact words that you are discussing.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

184 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Farmer Ch E retired
December 23, 2018 8:26 am

Willis – thank you for this very nice data analysis. I’ve got a question/request.

According to your first graph above, China presently consumes about 2700 Mtoe (assumed annually) from fossil fuels which includes about 1900 Mtoe from coal. Is it possible to divide this fossil fuel usage among China’s clients? For example, how much is used to produce goods for sale in the US, in the EU, etc.? This data can give us a transparent view of fossil fuel usage by other countries that depend on goods from China.

Thank you.

jkneps73
December 23, 2018 9:38 am

The article (link below) states “…about 80% of the power generated in Canada is already decarbonized.” That does not match up well with Canada’s graph in this post which indicates coal at 5% and oil at 31%. The article also states “Currently coal power supplies only 9% of Canada’s power…” I suppose there are multiple sources for fuel mix data

https://www.empireadvance.ca/regional-news/natural-gas-features-in-canada-s-plan-to-switch-from-coal-power-1.23541430

December 23, 2018 10:41 am

Excellent article, Willis.

Seeing your graphs puts in perspective the folly of thinking 100% renewables is a reasonable goal for achieving anything besides virtue signaling.

I have a spreadsheet I made from the California generation breakdown from 2001 through 2017. Let me know if you would like it.

catcracking
December 23, 2018 1:51 pm

Outstanding article, Willis.
On thing that stands out is that Biomass and biofuels are only a minor player in the energy mix despite the huge promise over a decade ago that they would be major sources for fuel.
As one who consulted on numerous projects back over a decade ago, it was clear that these no only had economic problems but also technical problems.
One should take note of the huge subsidies and expenditure of resources including cash and talent which the USA expended on a folly with such little payback even with the US Navy being forced to pay exorbitant premiums to prop up this industry.
Think where we might be if the money were spent wisely on better projects.

Toto
December 23, 2018 7:00 pm

“After my previous post on the subject of the fuel mix that powers the planet”
I don’t see a link back to that; I think it is this one:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/15/the-social-benefit-of-carbon/

The comments about India, Africa, and biomass prompted me to look at the data source.
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2018-full-report.pdf
OR
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics.html

I think after looking at footnotes in that document, that all of this data is about commercial fuel sources. It would only make a noticeable difference in third world countries, the ones where the poor have to burn wood or grass or dung or peat or whatever they can scratch up.

As everybody did ever since fire was discovered. Fireplaces, candles, steam locomotives, horse and buggy, those were the good old days we can look forward to going back to. It’s a very romantic idea, with practical disadvantages.

D
December 23, 2018 8:06 pm

Willis,
Excellent wrap-up of stuff I’ve been aware of both intra-industry and jaw-dropped observance as a modelling/forecasting researcher who tripped over the insanity in 2003 when I first had occasion to look behind the curtain (I wholly trusted the meme until that point — literally laughed at “the denialists” until then, then came up ranting and furious after only 2 days hard digging once the first fraud accidentally came to light).

BUT
or perhaps ALSO

Could you perhaps overlay on these graphs, the PRICE of electricity.
Just to nail the actual reality. Of the larger consequences.

ie. What you’ve pointed out here is that the fuel mix is nowhere near where the evangelists are touting.
You’ve demonstrated that one side of this is rubbish.

But if you throw in (as a line graph, just for Comprehensibility-purposes) the price of electricity as these changes/non-changes were happening, that would seriously aid the larger communication of the larger problem.

I would suggest, if possible, that you do all of: Average Retail Price, then Price for Residential Customers and Price for Commercial Customers.
And if you can: Wholesale Price.

The lunatic acceleration of the price, vs the only-minor changes in the mix, would show in 1 pic per country what the actual impacts are.
Similar to your graph plotting price-vs-renewablesproportion, but showing the time progression.
I think this would add to the impact of what you’ve already done, with fairly light additional work.

[By site policy, you are required to use a login_id of more than 1 letter. .mod]

Jan Kjetil Andersen
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
December 24, 2018 5:58 am

The long link is due to all parameters for a filled in form for Sweden. The actual link is Csens.org

Choose source group energy data.

Christopher Crouch
December 24, 2018 12:12 pm

Great article, however you have not included the fuel cost in Canada, which I believe would be off your scale as it is so inexpensive. We need cheap energy here as it is so bloody cold and life would be intolerable if we had to pay European electricity costs. Here in Quebec the electricity supplier is known as HydroQuebec………..for obvious reasons !

thingadonta
December 24, 2018 1:16 pm

And things aren’t going to change in the China region. Next door Mongolia has huge resources of untapped coal, hasn’t been used so far because it’s too far from ports, but it’s only a matter of time. Expect China-Mongolia relations to be ‘warm’ in coming decades.

The above graphs also very much relate to geography, UK coal was utilised early because of closeness to ports and hungry markets, Chinese coal was far from ports and so developed late. Innovative policies and favourable property rights also had something to do with it. But you don’t hear much about geography in renewables /energy debates (and is the bane of most dictators and historical empires), but as always, geography plays a major role.

A useful book here is ‘ Why the west rules’ which emphasises geography in the industrial revolution.

Richard D. Patton
December 24, 2018 10:33 pm

A few comments on wood pellets. Here in the South, a number of pulp and paper mills have closed and gone to Indonesia and Australia. A considerable number of tree farmers have no outlet for their product. The wood pellet industry has been a help to Southern tree growers.

Co-firing with coal is probably not the best use of wood pellets. Costs at the factory for industrial pellets are $120/ton or $7.50/million BTU. In Europe, natural gas costs $9.00/million BTU. Coal is more like $3.00/million BTU.

Unlike coal, pellets have very little ash, sulfur or nitrogen. Their pollution profile is similar to that of natural gas, and they do better economically when competing against gas or other alternatives. In the US, gas is much cheaper than in Europe, but if you are not on the gas line, pellets are cheaper than propane or heating oil for home heating.

Michael
December 26, 2018 1:54 pm

Excellent graphs, I wonder if your graphs would have more imp[act if you could overlay price per KW/h for the countries!