6 Cleared up, added counterargument; added conclusion based on counterargument
source | link

NoNO, wind(or YES dependent on the definition of primary energy) as answer to the claim: "Wind power does not account for less than half a percent of total global energy usage in 2014."

The wording of the report (from Jordys answer)indicates that they compared electrical output of renewables to the energy contents of combustibles. Putting these on the same graph iscan be wrong bydepending on the definitionsdefinition of primary energy which they refer to.

The caveat of this answer is that it is based on the definition of primary energy. The authors should have mentioned it, if they made the analysis while regarding the difference between primary and secondary energy for renewables. As they didn't, they most likely used the less favourable definition of primary energy with regard to renewables.

PrimarySupporting claims based on primary and secondary energy definitions (NO as answer)

Non-Fuel based primary energy would be the input to the system, not the generated useful energy. For wind turbines this would be the energy contained in the wind, a perfect wind turbine can only get around 60% of the winds energy (Betz's law). For solar we have around 15-20% conversion efficiency. Therefore the primary energy of renewables is many times higher than the listed numbers.

Secondary energy (1,3) is the energy of energy carriers, these are for example fuels and electricity. Fuel can be an input for electricity generation, so even there are subclasses regarding the quality of the secondary energy. (Oil would be primary, gasoline a secondary energy in some regards, even though we don't use all of the energy in gasoline either)

Conclusion

The graphs compare apples to oranges. Primary wind power should get a factor of 2-4, solar power a factor of 5-8 and hydro should also get some factor (but this is more difficult to figure out). I'm not sure how they calculated biomass, so I won't go into that.

The graphs are representing primary energy according to an outdated definition, as renewables are wrongfully represented by their secondary energy.

I see no indication in their report that they addressed the issue of defining primary energy with regards to renewables.

It seems that they used coals primary energy correctly, as opposed to the secondary electrical energy created by the power plants.

Counterargument (YES as answer)

Additional referencesCaveat: Thermal energy from the sun heats buildings passively.

Conclusion

No as answer

The graphs compare apples to oranges. Primary wind power should get a factor of 2-4, solar power a factor of 5-8 and hydro should also get some factor (but this is more difficult to figure out). I'm not sure how they calculated biomass, so I won't go into that.

The graphs are representing primary energy according to an outdated definition, as renewables are wrongfully represented by their secondary energy.

I see no indication in their report that they addressed the issue of defining primary energy with regards to renewables.

Yes as answer

The definition of primary energy is taken according to 3. By this definition the graph is correct.


References:

No, wind power does not account for less than half a percent of total global energy usage in 2014.

The wording of the report (from Jordys answer)indicates that they compared electrical output of renewables to the energy contents of combustibles. Putting these on the same graph is wrong by the definitions of primary energy which they refer to.

The caveat of this answer is that it is based on the definition of primary energy. The authors should have mentioned it, if they made the analysis while regarding the difference between primary and secondary energy for renewables.

Primary and secondary energy

Non-Fuel based primary energy would be the input to the system, not the generated useful energy. For wind turbines this would be the energy contained in the wind, a perfect wind turbine can only get around 60% of the winds energy (Betz's law). For solar we have around 15-20% conversion efficiency.

Secondary energy (1,3) is the energy of energy carriers, these are for example fuels and electricity. Fuel can be an input for electricity generation, so even there are subclasses regarding the quality of the secondary energy. (Oil would be primary, gasoline a secondary energy in some regards, even though we don't use all of the energy in gasoline either)

Conclusion

The graphs compare apples to oranges. Primary wind power should get a factor of 2-4, solar power a factor of 5-8 and hydro should also get some factor (but this is more difficult to figure out). I'm not sure how they calculated biomass, so I won't go into that.

The graphs are representing primary energy according to an outdated definition, as renewables are wrongfully represented by their secondary energy.

I see no indication in their report that they addressed the issue of defining primary energy with regards to renewables.

It seems that they used coals primary energy correctly, as opposed to the secondary electrical energy created by the power plants.

Counterargument

Additional references:

NO, (or YES dependent on the definition of primary energy) as answer to the claim: "Wind power does not account for less than half a percent of total global energy usage in 2014."

The wording of the report (from Jordys answer)indicates that they compared electrical output of renewables to the energy contents of combustibles. Putting these on the same graph can be wrong depending on the definition of primary energy.

The caveat of this answer is that it is based on the definition of primary energy. The authors should have mentioned it, if they made the analysis while regarding the difference between primary and secondary energy for renewables. As they didn't, they most likely used the less favourable definition of primary energy with regard to renewables.

Supporting claims based on primary and secondary energy definitions (NO as answer)

Non-Fuel based primary energy would be the input to the system, not the generated useful energy. For wind turbines this would be the energy contained in the wind, a perfect wind turbine can only get around 60% of the winds energy (Betz's law). For solar we have around 15-20% conversion efficiency. Therefore the primary energy of renewables is many times higher than the listed numbers.

Secondary energy (1,3) is the energy of energy carriers, these are for example fuels and electricity. Fuel can be an input for electricity generation, so even there are subclasses regarding the quality of the secondary energy. (Oil would be primary, gasoline a secondary energy in some regards, even though we don't use all of the energy in gasoline either)

Counterargument (YES as answer)

Caveat: Thermal energy from the sun heats buildings passively.

Conclusion

No as answer

The graphs compare apples to oranges. Primary wind power should get a factor of 2-4, solar power a factor of 5-8 and hydro should also get some factor (but this is more difficult to figure out). I'm not sure how they calculated biomass, so I won't go into that.

The graphs are representing primary energy according to an outdated definition, as renewables are wrongfully represented by their secondary energy.

I see no indication in their report that they addressed the issue of defining primary energy with regards to renewables.

Yes as answer

The definition of primary energy is taken according to 3. By this definition the graph is correct.


References:

5 Cleared up, added counterargument
source | link

The caveat of this answer is that it is based on the wording and lack of mentiondefinition of methodologyprimary energy. The authors should have mentioned it, if they made the analysis while regarding the difference between primary and secondary energy for renewables.

Primary energy (1,3) is the energy contained in a fuel. So to speak the released heat in perfect combustion. Unburnt fuel is part of many energy conversion cycles. It is not the generated useful energy.

Secondary energy (1,3) is the energy of energy carriers, these are for example fuels and electricity. Fuel can be an input for electricity generation, so even there are subclasses regarding the quality of the secondary energy. (Oil would be primary, gasoline a secondary energy in some regards, even though we don't use all of the energy in gasoline either)

The graphs are bad at representing primary energy according to an outdated definition, as renewables are wrongfully represented by their secondary energy.

I see no indication in their report that they properly addressed this (important)the issue, so I must assume that they didn't of defining primary energy with regards to renewables.

I'm not sure ifIt seems that they even used coals primary energy orcorrectly, as opposed to the secondary electrical energy created by the powerplantspower plants.


 

Non linked references:

Counterargument

Hall, Carl W., and George W. Hinman. DictionaryA claim arguing that the definition of Energy. Marcel Dekker, 1983.primary energy is pages 222,240usually as probably envisioned by the authors of the Energy Report, from Ref 3:

The primary energy is transformed to secondary energy in the form of electrical energy or fuel, such as gasoline, fuel oil, methanol, ethanol, and hydrogen. The primary energy of renewable energy sources, such as sun, wind, biomass, geothermal energy, and flowing water is usually equated with either electrical or thermal energy produced from them.

Report on Photovoltaics by the German Frauenhofer Institute for solar energy systems, slide 6 Additional references:

  1. Hall, Carl W., and George W. Hinman. Dictionary of Energy. Marcel Dekker, 1983. pages 222,240

  2. Report on Photovoltaics by the German Frauenhofer Institute for solar energy systems, slide 6

  3. Demirel, Yaşar. Energy: production, conversion, storage, conservation, and coupling. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. Chapter 2

The caveat of this answer is that it is based on the wording and lack of mention of methodology. The authors should have mentioned it, if they made the analysis while regarding the difference between primary and secondary energy.

Primary energy is the energy contained in a fuel. So to speak the released heat in perfect combustion. Unburnt fuel is part of many energy conversion cycles. It is not the generated useful energy.

Secondary energy is the energy of energy carriers, these are for example fuels and electricity. Fuel can be an input for electricity generation, so even there are subclasses regarding the quality of the secondary energy. (Oil would be primary, gasoline a secondary energy in some regards, even though we don't use all of the energy in gasoline either)

The graphs are bad at representing primary energy, as renewables are represented by their secondary energy.

I see no indication in their report that they properly addressed this (important) issue, so I must assume that they didn't.

I'm not sure if they even used coals primary energy or the secondary electrical energy created by the powerplants.


 

Non linked references:

Hall, Carl W., and George W. Hinman. Dictionary of Energy. Marcel Dekker, 1983. pages 222,240

Report on Photovoltaics by the German Frauenhofer Institute for solar energy systems, slide 6

The caveat of this answer is that it is based on the definition of primary energy. The authors should have mentioned it, if they made the analysis while regarding the difference between primary and secondary energy for renewables.

Primary energy (1,3) is the energy contained in a fuel. So to speak the released heat in perfect combustion. Unburnt fuel is part of many energy conversion cycles. It is not the generated useful energy.

Secondary energy (1,3) is the energy of energy carriers, these are for example fuels and electricity. Fuel can be an input for electricity generation, so even there are subclasses regarding the quality of the secondary energy. (Oil would be primary, gasoline a secondary energy in some regards, even though we don't use all of the energy in gasoline either)

The graphs are representing primary energy according to an outdated definition, as renewables are wrongfully represented by their secondary energy.

I see no indication in their report that they addressed the issue of defining primary energy with regards to renewables.

It seems that they used coals primary energy correctly, as opposed to the secondary electrical energy created by the power plants.

Counterargument

A claim arguing that the definition of primary energy is usually as probably envisioned by the authors of the Energy Report, from Ref 3:

The primary energy is transformed to secondary energy in the form of electrical energy or fuel, such as gasoline, fuel oil, methanol, ethanol, and hydrogen. The primary energy of renewable energy sources, such as sun, wind, biomass, geothermal energy, and flowing water is usually equated with either electrical or thermal energy produced from them.

Additional references:

  1. Hall, Carl W., and George W. Hinman. Dictionary of Energy. Marcel Dekker, 1983. pages 222,240

  2. Report on Photovoltaics by the German Frauenhofer Institute for solar energy systems, slide 6

  3. Demirel, Yaşar. Energy: production, conversion, storage, conservation, and coupling. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. Chapter 2

4 References
source | link

No, wind power does not account for less than half a percent of total global energy usage in 2014.

The wording of the report (from Jordys answer)indicates that they compared electrical output of renewables to the energy contents of combustibles. Putting these on the same graph is wrong by the definitions of primary energy which they refer to.

The caveat of this answer is that it is based on the wording and lack of mention of methodology. The authors should have mentioned it, if they made the analysis while regarding the difference between primary and secondary energy.


Primary and secondary energy

Primary energy is the energy contained in a fuel. So to speak the released heat in perfect combustion. Unburnt fuel is part of many energy conversion cycles. It is not the generated useful energy.

Non-Fuel based primary energy would be the input to the system, not the generated useful energy. For wind turbines this would be the energy contained in the wind, a perfect wind turbine can only get around 60% of the winds energy (Betz's law). For solar we have around 15-20%solar we have around 15-20% conversion efficiency.

Secondary energy is the energy of energy carriers, these are for example fuels and electricity. Fuel can be an input for electricity generation, so even there are subclasses regarding the quality of the secondary energy. (Oil would be primary, gasoline a secondary energy in some regards, even though we don't use all of the energy in gasoline either)

Conclusion

The graphs compare apples to oranges. Primary wind power should get a factor of 2-4, solar power a factor of 5-8 and hydro should also get some factor (but this is more difficult to figure out). I'm not sure how they calculated biomass, so I won't go into that.

The graphs are bad at representing primary energy, as renewables are represented by their secondary energy.

I see no indication in their report that they properly addressed this (important) issue, so I must assume that they didn't.

I'm not sure if they even used coals primary energy or the secondary electrical energy created by the powerplants.


Exaggerated alternative data (just to make a point)

Primary solar energy heats the earth during the whole year, if we assume that heating needs(relative to the avg temperature of space of a few Kelvin) are met by solar power, we get about 99.9+% (didn't calculate it actually) of the primary energy in solar.


Non linked references:

  1. Hall, Carl W., and George W. Hinman. Dictionary of Energy. Marcel Dekker, 1983. pages 222,240

Hall, Carl W., and George W. Hinman. Dictionary of Energy. Marcel Dekker, 1983. pages 222,240

Report on Photovoltaics by the German Frauenhofer Institute for solar energy systems, slide 6

No, wind power does not account for less than half a percent of total global energy usage in 2014.

The wording of the report (from Jordys answer)indicates that they compared electrical output of renewables to the energy contents of combustibles. Putting these on the same graph is wrong by the definitions of primary energy which they refer to.

The caveat of this answer is that it is based on the wording and lack of mention of methodology. The authors should have mentioned it, if they made the analysis while regarding the difference between primary and secondary energy.


Primary and secondary energy

Primary energy is the energy contained in a fuel. So to speak the released heat in perfect combustion. Unburnt fuel is part of many energy conversion cycles. It is not the generated useful energy.

Non-Fuel based primary energy would be the input to the system, not the generated useful energy. For wind turbines this would be the energy contained in the wind, a perfect wind turbine can only get around 60% of the winds energy (Betz's law). For solar we have around 15-20% conversion efficiency.

Secondary energy is the energy of energy carriers, these are for example fuels and electricity. Fuel can be an input for electricity generation, so even there are subclasses regarding the quality of the secondary energy. (Oil would be primary, gasoline a secondary energy in some regards, even though we don't use all of the energy in gasoline either)

Conclusion

The graphs compare apples to oranges. Primary wind power should get a factor of 2-4, solar power a factor of 5-8 and hydro should also get some factor (but this is more difficult to figure out). I'm not sure how they calculated biomass, so I won't go into that.

The graphs are bad at representing primary energy, as renewables are represented by their secondary energy.

I see no indication in their report that they properly addressed this (important) issue, so I must assume that they didn't.

I'm not sure if they even used coals primary energy or the secondary electrical energy created by the powerplants.


Exaggerated alternative data (just to make a point)

Primary solar energy heats the earth during the whole year, if we assume that heating needs(relative to the avg temperature of space of a few Kelvin) are met by solar power, we get about 99.9+% (didn't calculate it actually) of the primary energy in solar.


Non linked references:

  1. Hall, Carl W., and George W. Hinman. Dictionary of Energy. Marcel Dekker, 1983. pages 222,240

No, wind power does not account for less than half a percent of total global energy usage in 2014.

The wording of the report (from Jordys answer)indicates that they compared electrical output of renewables to the energy contents of combustibles. Putting these on the same graph is wrong by the definitions of primary energy which they refer to.

The caveat of this answer is that it is based on the wording and lack of mention of methodology. The authors should have mentioned it, if they made the analysis while regarding the difference between primary and secondary energy.


Primary and secondary energy

Primary energy is the energy contained in a fuel. So to speak the released heat in perfect combustion. Unburnt fuel is part of many energy conversion cycles. It is not the generated useful energy.

Non-Fuel based primary energy would be the input to the system, not the generated useful energy. For wind turbines this would be the energy contained in the wind, a perfect wind turbine can only get around 60% of the winds energy (Betz's law). For solar we have around 15-20% conversion efficiency.

Secondary energy is the energy of energy carriers, these are for example fuels and electricity. Fuel can be an input for electricity generation, so even there are subclasses regarding the quality of the secondary energy. (Oil would be primary, gasoline a secondary energy in some regards, even though we don't use all of the energy in gasoline either)

Conclusion

The graphs compare apples to oranges. Primary wind power should get a factor of 2-4, solar power a factor of 5-8 and hydro should also get some factor (but this is more difficult to figure out). I'm not sure how they calculated biomass, so I won't go into that.

The graphs are bad at representing primary energy, as renewables are represented by their secondary energy.

I see no indication in their report that they properly addressed this (important) issue, so I must assume that they didn't.

I'm not sure if they even used coals primary energy or the secondary electrical energy created by the powerplants.


Exaggerated alternative data (just to make a point)

Primary solar energy heats the earth during the whole year, if we assume that heating needs(relative to the avg temperature of space of a few Kelvin) are met by solar power, we get about 99.9+% (didn't calculate it actually) of the primary energy in solar.


Non linked references:

Hall, Carl W., and George W. Hinman. Dictionary of Energy. Marcel Dekker, 1983. pages 222,240

Report on Photovoltaics by the German Frauenhofer Institute for solar energy systems, slide 6

3 References
source | link
    Notice added Theoretical Answer by Jamiec
2 added 458 characters in body
source | link
    Post Undeleted by WalyKu
    Post Deleted by WalyKu
1
source | link