A graph I can’t live with

The graph shows the distribution of all primary energies. It’s unfortunate that it also includes secondary energies (sun, wind and water) in the same graph. The grah compares “Apples and Oranges”.

The graph is quite similar to graphs from @IEA and used by the UN. I have chosen Our World in Data (OWD), as the source, because the graph’s data is available.

For me, the graph is misleading and senseless. For example, it shows that solar power covers 0.29% of energy consumption. On the other hand, Michael Liebreich in BloombergNEF tells that it is 6% of electricity.

These differences make me feel uncomfortable with regards to the facts. I cannot live with such uncertainty. Therefore, I have been searching online since the climate meeting in Katowice last year. With this blog post, I share my findings.

An attempt to make a meaningful graph

I will first explain the difference between primary and secondary energy sources, and then correct for the differences.

I first heard about primary energies in the Norwegian article Energistatistikken: Tellemåte i fossil favør [Energy statistics: Way to count in fossil favor], written by Julie Wedege and Henrik Sætnesss on Energy and Climate 21.12.2018:

… fossil energy sources are counted based on the theoretical energy that is latent, while renewable energy, on the other hand, is counted based on the electricity produced.

To find more confirmations, I checked how Wikipedia defines primary energy:

Where primary energy is used to describe fossil fuels, the embodied energy of the fuel is available as thermal energy and around 70% is typically dissolved in conversion to electrical or mechanical energy.

Secondary energy as follows:

Secondary energy is a carrier of energy, such as electricity. These are produced by conversion from a primary energy source.

After these findings, I felt I still lacked confirmation from analysts that I trust. A few days ago Michael Liebreich (ML) confirmed my view in the following tweet:

I have also discovered Mark Z. Jacobson and his team from Stanford University and the research on whether 100% renewable is realistic before 2050 in 139 countries.

I have chosen to use Jacobson’s constant for average efficiency in primary energy from Jacobson study [Table 1, page 5] : 23%. I have reduced the fossil energies and biofuels accordingly in the data source. To make the differences clear, I have grouped oil, gas and coal underneath Fossil.

My corrected and simplified version of Our Word in Data graph:

The renewables increased from 13% to 27%. It makes more sense to what I’ve learned earlier on.

Opinions? @AukeHoekstra @MaxCRoser @MLiebreich @mzjacobson