6 ms·

These reports are inferring a lot from 1 year trends that are often changing only around 1%. Certainly it is great if new energy is coming mostly from cleaner s

These reports are inferring a lot from 1 year trends that are often changing only around 1%. Certainly it is great if new energy is coming mostly from cleaner sources, but the idea that we are actually getting rid of the non clean sources is something we should be skeptical of. This graph shows all energy usage over time: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy New energy sources have always been additive. We have never gotten rid of an energy source unless we exhausted the resource or it got prohibitively expensive (whale blubber having a population collapse). Coal is far more polluting then any other fuel source and globally we aren't reducing its usage. This graph is not updated for 2026, but I doubt the message will change much. As we now undergo a worldwide population decline things might change. But at the same time we are also introducing energy intensive technologies: AI and robots, so there is no clear end in sight to increased energy consumption yet.

locallost 5mo ago
While your statement is true your graph is misleading for two reasons. 1) comparison of spent energy for fossil fuels vs electricity is not a good way to do it because electric motors use less for the same output. Compare kWh per 100km for an ICE car and EV. Electrification will lead to a drop simply because of this 2) the graph is global, we have seen energy consumption go down in the developed world. E.g. the EU now uses less electricity than 20 years ago.
- philipallstar 5mo ago
  > comparison of spent energy for fossil fuels vs electricity is not a good way to do it because electric motors use less for the same output. Compare kWh per 100km for an ICE car and EV. Electrification will lead to a drop simply because of this Yes but there are losses in generating electricity, and in transmitting it as well. If you only measure from energy in your car's battery to motion you're right, but I don't think that's a useful measure.
  - triceratops 5mo ago
    Then you also have to account for losses in drilling oil, shipping it to a refinery, refining it into gasoline or diesel, shipping it to a distribution hub, then to a gas station. And all the electricity consumed in doing that. And the navy and coast guard ships that need to patrol all the oceans to keep the oil tankers safe. And...
    - philipallstar 5mo ago
      Yes, and the same for building and fuelling the power station I suppose. That's why I'm saying you need to pick a sensible point to compare efficiency at.
      - triceratops 5mo ago
        Building power stations is a one-time cost. If the power station is solar or wind, same thing, only no fuel. Not the case for fossil fuels. Solar panels or windmills are like oil drills. They aren't oil.
      - locallost 5mo ago
        There are no losses in generating from solar which is the topic of the article. There is no loss since there is no fuel. There is a loss in transmission but not enough to offset the roughly 4x reduction in energy use. As the other person also pointed out, there is the same loss in transmission for e.g. combustion engines. You don't pour the gasoline that came out of your back yard. It's extracted and processed for most of the world somewhere very far away and then transported. If anything, the losses in electricity are less than the energy required to transport these huge amounts of fossil fuels.
- gregwebs 5mo ago
  I think 2) is a lot more complicated to the point statements like that are misleading. Take a look Graph of energy consumption of China which is about double the US: https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/china https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/china The energy consumption of the United States has flat lined: https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/united-states https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/united-states One can argue that the US and Europe have maintained a low energy consumption by de-indusrializing and having China produce all the energy (largely with coal!) to manufacture their goods instead of manufacturing it themselves. 1) Is a lot more complicated as well. A simple ICE vs EV comparison ignores electric grid generation efficiency and transmission losses as well as the massive energy cost of manufacturing the battery.
  - triceratops 5mo ago
    > A simple ICE vs EV comparison ignores electric grid generation efficiency and transmission losses as well as the massive energy cost of manufacturing the battery Does it take into account the "massive energy cost" of manufacturing the ICE vehicle then?
    - ahhhhnoooo 5mo ago
      Or the gasoline generation efficiency and transmission losses? Or the economic impacts of oil pollution? Getting oil from the ground to the pump isn't free either.
      - triceratops 5mo ago
        100 percent
      - leonidasrup 5mo ago
        The ecological impact of mining and refining of rare earths, used for permanent magnets in EV motors or in electric generators - wind turbines, is quite large. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389425033205 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_Rare_Earth_Mine#Environmental_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_Rare_Earth_Mine#... Because of ecology, refining of U.S. mined rare earths was outsourced for a very long time to China. Outsourcing of ecological damage... https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/mp-materials-stops-china-bound-rare-earth-shipments-over-tariffs-2025-04-17/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/mp-materials-sto...
drob518 5mo ago
Yea, the article struck me immediately as a lot of spin in that it’s hyping the growth rate of solar versus the growth rate of other tech. Solar is newer and is still a relatively small slice of the overall pie compared to oil and gas. It’s relatively easy to rapidly grow a small pie wedge than a large one given the overall growth rate of the pie. And growth rates inevitably slow down as pie wedges get larger, because they have to. So, as you say, good news, but still over-hyped, IMO.
standeven 5mo ago
Comparing primary energy is VERY misleading. From Marc Jacobson: The use of primary energy on the vertical axis is an old trick by the fossil fuel industry to mislead people into thinking that one unit of fossils = one unit of renewables. In fact, one unit of primary energy for wind or solar electricity is the equivalent of three units of fossil fuel electricity. Another trick is to pretend we need all those fossils if we switched to renewables. In fact, if we switch to renewables, 12% of the fossil fuel energy disappears because that is how much energy is used to mine-transport-refine fossil fuels+uranium for energy, and we wouldn't need to do that anymore A third trick is to pretend we need so much energy if we go to all electricity powered by renewables. In that case, because EVs use 75% less energy than gasoline/diesel vehicles, heat pumps use 75% less energy than combustion heating, etc., energy demand goes down another 42%. In sum, this plot illustrates the real story of where we are and where we need to go. The proper metric is end-use energy, not primary energy. https://lnkd.in/gYw9mB3x https://lnkd.in/gYw9mB3x and here's the paper https://lnkd.in/gTcqkyG5 https://lnkd.in/gTcqkyG5
- leonidasrup 5mo ago
  Making one unit of primary energy for wind or solar electricity equivalent to three units of fossil fuel electricity is an old trick of renewable energy advocates to argue that in future we will need less primary energy. They base this on the efficiency of older gasoline engines, which is about 25%. They ignore future improvement in fuel efficiency and disregard all current combustion engines with higher efficiency. High-tech gasoline engines have a maximum thermal efficiency of more than 50%. https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/how-f1-technology-has-supercharged-the-world.6Gtk3hBxGyUGbNH0q8vDQK https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/how-f1-technology... Very fuel efficient diesel engines have been developed for large ships because fuel costs are large part of operating costs of big ships. Low speed diesel engines like the MAN S80ME-C7 have achieved an overall energy conversion efficiency of 54.4%, which is the highest conversion of fuel into power by any single-cycle internal or external combustion engine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Diesel_engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Diesel_engin... Renewable energy advocates also like to disregard efficiency of gas turbines. Latest generation gas turbine engines have achieved an efficiency of 46% in simple cycle and 61% when used in combined cycle. And still some of the waste heat can also be used for cogeneration. Another trick is to pretend that renewables need almost no mining-transportation-refining. According to International Energy Agency. "The special report, part of the IEA’s flagship World Energy Outlook series, underscores that the mineral requirements of an energy system powered by clean energy technologies differ profoundly from one that runs on fossil fuels. A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car, and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a similarly sized gas-fired power plant." https://www.iea.org/news/clean-energy-demand-for-critical-minerals-set-to-soar-as-the-world-pursues-net-zero-goals https://www.iea.org/news/clean-energy-demand-for-critical-mi...
tim333 5mo ago
It's quite impressive how badly we've done in cutting fossil fuel use in that. Gas+Oil+Coal has gone up 71% since the first IPCC report in 1990 to the amount for 2024.

locallost 5mo ago

While your statement is true your graph is misleading for two reasons. 1) comparison of spent energy for fossil fuels vs electricity is not a good way to do it because electric motors use less for the same output. Compare kWh per 100km for an ICE car and EV. Electrification will lead to a drop simply because of this 2) the graph is global, we have seen energy consumption go down in the developed world. E.g. the EU now uses less electricity than 20 years ago.

philipallstar 5mo ago
> comparison of spent energy for fossil fuels vs electricity is not a good way to do it because electric motors use less for the same output. Compare kWh per 100km for an ICE car and EV. Electrification will lead to a drop simply because of this Yes but there are losses in generating electricity, and in transmitting it as well. If you only measure from energy in your car's battery to motion you're right, but I don't think that's a useful measure.
- triceratops 5mo ago
  Then you also have to account for losses in drilling oil, shipping it to a refinery, refining it into gasoline or diesel, shipping it to a distribution hub, then to a gas station. And all the electricity consumed in doing that. And the navy and coast guard ships that need to patrol all the oceans to keep the oil tankers safe. And...
  - philipallstar 5mo ago
    Yes, and the same for building and fuelling the power station I suppose. That's why I'm saying you need to pick a sensible point to compare efficiency at.
    - triceratops 5mo ago
      Building power stations is a one-time cost. If the power station is solar or wind, same thing, only no fuel. Not the case for fossil fuels. Solar panels or windmills are like oil drills. They aren't oil.
    - locallost 5mo ago
      There are no losses in generating from solar which is the topic of the article. There is no loss since there is no fuel. There is a loss in transmission but not enough to offset the roughly 4x reduction in energy use. As the other person also pointed out, there is the same loss in transmission for e.g. combustion engines. You don't pour the gasoline that came out of your back yard. It's extracted and processed for most of the world somewhere very far away and then transported. If anything, the losses in electricity are less than the energy required to transport these huge amounts of fossil fuels.
gregwebs 5mo ago
I think 2) is a lot more complicated to the point statements like that are misleading. Take a look Graph of energy consumption of China which is about double the US: https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/china https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/china The energy consumption of the United States has flat lined: https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/united-states https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/united-states One can argue that the US and Europe have maintained a low energy consumption by de-indusrializing and having China produce all the energy (largely with coal!) to manufacture their goods instead of manufacturing it themselves. 1) Is a lot more complicated as well. A simple ICE vs EV comparison ignores electric grid generation efficiency and transmission losses as well as the massive energy cost of manufacturing the battery.
- triceratops 5mo ago
  > A simple ICE vs EV comparison ignores electric grid generation efficiency and transmission losses as well as the massive energy cost of manufacturing the battery Does it take into account the "massive energy cost" of manufacturing the ICE vehicle then?
  - ahhhhnoooo 5mo ago
    Or the gasoline generation efficiency and transmission losses? Or the economic impacts of oil pollution? Getting oil from the ground to the pump isn't free either.
    - triceratops 5mo ago
      100 percent
    - leonidasrup 5mo ago
      The ecological impact of mining and refining of rare earths, used for permanent magnets in EV motors or in electric generators - wind turbines, is quite large. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389425033205 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_Rare_Earth_Mine#Environmental_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_Rare_Earth_Mine#... Because of ecology, refining of U.S. mined rare earths was outsourced for a very long time to China. Outsourcing of ecological damage... https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/mp-materials-stops-china-bound-rare-earth-shipments-over-tariffs-2025-04-17/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/mp-materials-sto...

drob518 5mo ago

Yea, the article struck me immediately as a lot of spin in that it’s hyping the growth rate of solar versus the growth rate of other tech. Solar is newer and is still a relatively small slice of the overall pie compared to oil and gas. It’s relatively easy to rapidly grow a small pie wedge than a large one given the overall growth rate of the pie. And growth rates inevitably slow down as pie wedges get larger, because they have to. So, as you say, good news, but still over-hyped, IMO.

standeven 5mo ago

Comparing primary energy is VERY misleading. From Marc Jacobson: The use of primary energy on the vertical axis is an old trick by the fossil fuel industry to mislead people into thinking that one unit of fossils = one unit of renewables. In fact, one unit of primary energy for wind or solar electricity is the equivalent of three units of fossil fuel electricity. Another trick is to pretend we need all those fossils if we switched to renewables. In fact, if we switch to renewables, 12% of the fossil fuel energy disappears because that is how much energy is used to mine-transport-refine fossil fuels+uranium for energy, and we wouldn't need to do that anymore A third trick is to pretend we need so much energy if we go to all electricity powered by renewables. In that case, because EVs use 75% less energy than gasoline/diesel vehicles, heat pumps use 75% less energy than combustion heating, etc., energy demand goes down another 42%. In sum, this plot illustrates the real story of where we are and where we need to go. The proper metric is end-use energy, not primary energy. https://lnkd.in/gYw9mB3x https://lnkd.in/gYw9mB3x and here's the paper https://lnkd.in/gTcqkyG5 https://lnkd.in/gTcqkyG5

leonidasrup 5mo ago
Making one unit of primary energy for wind or solar electricity equivalent to three units of fossil fuel electricity is an old trick of renewable energy advocates to argue that in future we will need less primary energy. They base this on the efficiency of older gasoline engines, which is about 25%. They ignore future improvement in fuel efficiency and disregard all current combustion engines with higher efficiency. High-tech gasoline engines have a maximum thermal efficiency of more than 50%. https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/how-f1-technology-has-supercharged-the-world.6Gtk3hBxGyUGbNH0q8vDQK https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/how-f1-technology... Very fuel efficient diesel engines have been developed for large ships because fuel costs are large part of operating costs of big ships. Low speed diesel engines like the MAN S80ME-C7 have achieved an overall energy conversion efficiency of 54.4%, which is the highest conversion of fuel into power by any single-cycle internal or external combustion engine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Diesel_engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Diesel_engin... Renewable energy advocates also like to disregard efficiency of gas turbines. Latest generation gas turbine engines have achieved an efficiency of 46% in simple cycle and 61% when used in combined cycle. And still some of the waste heat can also be used for cogeneration. Another trick is to pretend that renewables need almost no mining-transportation-refining. According to International Energy Agency. "The special report, part of the IEA’s flagship World Energy Outlook series, underscores that the mineral requirements of an energy system powered by clean energy technologies differ profoundly from one that runs on fossil fuels. A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car, and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a similarly sized gas-fired power plant." https://www.iea.org/news/clean-energy-demand-for-critical-minerals-set-to-soar-as-the-world-pursues-net-zero-goals https://www.iea.org/news/clean-energy-demand-for-critical-mi...

tim333 5mo ago

It's quite impressive how badly we've done in cutting fossil fuel use in that. Gas+Oil+Coal has gone up 71% since the first IPCC report in 1990 to the amount for 2024.