You need to elucidate what actually your data represents. It look erroneous to me. Are you including biomass/waste in your "carbon free" sources? That would be false. They release more carbon than fossil fuel per unit energy. Dubious you can grant them significant reductions due to supposed regrowth of biomass harvested, at anywhere near…
You need to elucidate what actually your data represents. It look erroneous to me. Are you including biomass/waste in your "carbon free" sources? That would be false. They release more carbon than fossil fuel per unit energy. Dubious you can grant them significant reductions due to supposed regrowth of biomass harvested, at anywhere near the rate of carbon released.
If you are not including biomass, then your numbers for the change in carbon free energy are way high. The actual proportion of Global Primary energy that was carbon free in 2023 was 8.2% not 18.5%. You must be using the fraudulent BP data where they multiply wind/solar/hydro by 2.6X to make them look far better than they really are while dividing nuclear by 1.2X in order to make it look worse than it actually is. You need to go to the IEA to get the correct data:
So in actual fact we are not seeing any improvement in the portion of primary energy that is carbon free. Also it is incorrect to call solar carbon free, since we now know that the IPCC seriously and erroneously way underestimated the carbon emissions of solar PV as Enrico Mariutti has documented. Putting Solar PV only somewhat lower than CCGT in CO2eq gms/kwh.
The REAL TRUTH is that the global primary energy supply share of fossil fuel was 86.5% in 1997, 86.7% for combustion fuels, which are the carbon emitters. In 2022 it was 89.8%, 90.6% for combustion fuels. So we have gone backwards, both proportionally & absolutely, since the Kyoto protocols.
Sure it changes the bottom line. By falsely boosting Wind/Solar/Hydro by 2.6X it looks like primary energy is getting cleaner which it isn't.
And yes it is fraudulent. Because Primary energy means primary energy. Thermal power sources extract primary energy from a fuel and then convert that to electricity. They also can and do utilize the waste heat for cogeneration/CHP applications like agriculture, building heat, swimming pools, desalination or other chemical process. You can achieve 90% efficiency like that. That's why its primary energy, it is available to use if we choose to do so. So why does BP ignore that fact?
What BP/EI are really pretending to do, is invent a new metric which should be called Useful Work, rather than Primary Energy. But that would be incredibly complex and far reaching change in the data. BP is welcome to do that, that would be honest. So they won't.
Some examples of how crazy BP's method is:
Recently it was in the news that Wind Power in Germany is often too high for the grid to absorb, so they have to shutdown (brake) the Wind Turbines in Denmark. So what's that German wind doing? Just removing wind from Denmark. As wind/solar grid penetration increases you will have a whole lot of that happening, wind/solar curtailments of wind/solar/hydro/nuclear which is 100% waste. Why doesn't BP count that in their data?
And thermal power plants can't be just shutdown when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. That will destroy the boilers/turbines causing them to explode violently. People die. They have to continue burning fuel until the wind/solar drops and then they have to ramp up. That's waste. And you have to have fossil/nuclear/hydro plants spinning to generate the reactive power (mostly used by motors) that the grid needs. More fuel wasted for wind & solar. Why doesn't BP count that in their data?
And when they're giving wind/solar a giant boost for supposed efficiency, why not CCGT & ultra-supercritical coal which are ~1.8X more efficient than conventional coal/nuclear? That's a far more significant difference than the wind/solar/hydro one. Where is that in the BP data?
And fuel use. Heavy crude is largely distilled into diesel, kerosene, heating oil and bunker oil. Whereas light crude is largely converted into light distillates, largely gasoline. The heavy distillates are typically burned at 2-4X the efficiency of light crude, in diesel engines and furnaces. Where is that difference in the BP data?
And wind & solar must be increasingly stored to be used. That storage has typical round trip efficiencies of from 30% to 85%. And the long distance intermittent transmission of wind & solar has high losses of ~10%. This will all become more and more significant. Where is that in the BP data?
And wind/solar have very high embodied energy, mostly imported from Chinese coal energy. That is contained in all the vast grid infrastructure needed for wind & solar, including the long distance transmission and storage. That only adds to grid infrastructure, it is not replacing grid infrastructure. Where is that in the BP data?
And wind/solar requires buffering with fast spooling electricity sources, mostly OCGT. Otherwise much more efficient & cost effective CCGT would be used. It also economically favors the low cost, low efficiency power sources like diesel and OCGT. Where is that in the BP data?
Also it is very convenient how BP effectively divides the REAL well documented primary thermal energy of nuclear by 1.2X in their scam. Do you think BP will change that as more high temperature, high efficiency NPPs come online? Answer: No.
You need to elucidate what actually your data represents. It look erroneous to me. Are you including biomass/waste in your "carbon free" sources? That would be false. They release more carbon than fossil fuel per unit energy. Dubious you can grant them significant reductions due to supposed regrowth of biomass harvested, at anywhere near the rate of carbon released.
If you are not including biomass, then your numbers for the change in carbon free energy are way high. The actual proportion of Global Primary energy that was carbon free in 2023 was 8.2% not 18.5%. You must be using the fraudulent BP data where they multiply wind/solar/hydro by 2.6X to make them look far better than they really are while dividing nuclear by 1.2X in order to make it look worse than it actually is. You need to go to the IEA to get the correct data:
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/energy-statistics-data-browser?country=WORLD&fuel=Energy%20supply&indicator=TESbySource
So in actual fact we are not seeing any improvement in the portion of primary energy that is carbon free. Also it is incorrect to call solar carbon free, since we now know that the IPCC seriously and erroneously way underestimated the carbon emissions of solar PV as Enrico Mariutti has documented. Putting Solar PV only somewhat lower than CCGT in CO2eq gms/kwh.
The REAL TRUTH is that the global primary energy supply share of fossil fuel was 86.5% in 1997, 86.7% for combustion fuels, which are the carbon emitters. In 2022 it was 89.8%, 90.6% for combustion fuels. So we have gone backwards, both proportionally & absolutely, since the Kyoto protocols.
I appreciate your points, and you/IEA could be correct.
That won't change the bottom line here.
One point where I have a different view is that the BP/EI data is not fraudulent.
There is plenty of room here for methodological diversity and disagreement.
Sure it changes the bottom line. By falsely boosting Wind/Solar/Hydro by 2.6X it looks like primary energy is getting cleaner which it isn't.
And yes it is fraudulent. Because Primary energy means primary energy. Thermal power sources extract primary energy from a fuel and then convert that to electricity. They also can and do utilize the waste heat for cogeneration/CHP applications like agriculture, building heat, swimming pools, desalination or other chemical process. You can achieve 90% efficiency like that. That's why its primary energy, it is available to use if we choose to do so. So why does BP ignore that fact?
What BP/EI are really pretending to do, is invent a new metric which should be called Useful Work, rather than Primary Energy. But that would be incredibly complex and far reaching change in the data. BP is welcome to do that, that would be honest. So they won't.
Some examples of how crazy BP's method is:
Recently it was in the news that Wind Power in Germany is often too high for the grid to absorb, so they have to shutdown (brake) the Wind Turbines in Denmark. So what's that German wind doing? Just removing wind from Denmark. As wind/solar grid penetration increases you will have a whole lot of that happening, wind/solar curtailments of wind/solar/hydro/nuclear which is 100% waste. Why doesn't BP count that in their data?
And thermal power plants can't be just shutdown when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. That will destroy the boilers/turbines causing them to explode violently. People die. They have to continue burning fuel until the wind/solar drops and then they have to ramp up. That's waste. And you have to have fossil/nuclear/hydro plants spinning to generate the reactive power (mostly used by motors) that the grid needs. More fuel wasted for wind & solar. Why doesn't BP count that in their data?
And when they're giving wind/solar a giant boost for supposed efficiency, why not CCGT & ultra-supercritical coal which are ~1.8X more efficient than conventional coal/nuclear? That's a far more significant difference than the wind/solar/hydro one. Where is that in the BP data?
And fuel use. Heavy crude is largely distilled into diesel, kerosene, heating oil and bunker oil. Whereas light crude is largely converted into light distillates, largely gasoline. The heavy distillates are typically burned at 2-4X the efficiency of light crude, in diesel engines and furnaces. Where is that difference in the BP data?
And wind & solar must be increasingly stored to be used. That storage has typical round trip efficiencies of from 30% to 85%. And the long distance intermittent transmission of wind & solar has high losses of ~10%. This will all become more and more significant. Where is that in the BP data?
And wind/solar have very high embodied energy, mostly imported from Chinese coal energy. That is contained in all the vast grid infrastructure needed for wind & solar, including the long distance transmission and storage. That only adds to grid infrastructure, it is not replacing grid infrastructure. Where is that in the BP data?
And wind/solar requires buffering with fast spooling electricity sources, mostly OCGT. Otherwise much more efficient & cost effective CCGT would be used. It also economically favors the low cost, low efficiency power sources like diesel and OCGT. Where is that in the BP data?
Also it is very convenient how BP effectively divides the REAL well documented primary thermal energy of nuclear by 1.2X in their scam. Do you think BP will change that as more high temperature, high efficiency NPPs come online? Answer: No.
Are those factors (2.6 and 1.2) the energy efficiency trick?
See my comment above.