Timeline for Did wind power supply less than half a percent of global energy in 2014?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 11, 2017 at 16:47 | history | edited | WalyKu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Cleared up, added counterargument; added conclusion based on counterargument
|
| May 11, 2017 at 16:37 | history | edited | WalyKu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Cleared up, added counterargument
|
| May 11, 2017 at 16:11 | history | edited | WalyKu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
References
|
| May 11, 2017 at 16:05 | history | edited | WalyKu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
References
|
| May 11, 2017 at 15:28 | history | notice added | Jamiec♦ | Theoretical Answer | |
| May 11, 2017 at 15:25 | history | edited | WalyKu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 458 characters in body
|
| May 11, 2017 at 15:15 | comment | added | dsollen | Do you have proof that these graphs are comparity primary to secondary energy? That is to say can you quote something in report Jordy linked to that proves that the non-renerable energy sources are looking at primary energy only and have not already translated all energy sources to secondary? After all in the case of power plants, a large percentage of power usage, it would be easier to find the electricity output of the plants then the primary power put into the plants so I would be assume I'm looking at secondary power from power plants unless explicitly told otherwise. | |
| May 11, 2017 at 15:15 | comment | added | Goose | @WalyKu but why do you think that? You say "I see no indication in their report that they properly addressed this (important) issue, so I must assume that they didn't.", but you also assume that they mixed primary and secondary in a way that makes solar look bad, if I'm understanding you correctly. Do you have a reason to think it was skewed in this way? Can you provide counter data? | |
| May 11, 2017 at 15:14 | comment | added | WalyKu | @dsollen thanks for the suggestion. I eilm try to addres it. | |
| May 11, 2017 at 15:11 | comment | added | dsollen | I would suggest you clean up this answer. I understand your complaint that your comparing primary energy to secondary, but you never explicitly state that, going straight from explaining the two defintions to saying the comparisons are unfair doesn't state why they are unfair. Even guessing what your intent was I still wasn't 100% certain of your intended argument until I saw your clarifying comments. Starting out by saying in the first sentence that the charts compare primary to secondary would clarify the complaint and make reading and understanding the intent of the answer much easier. | |
| May 11, 2017 at 15:03 | comment | added | WalyKu | @Goose my point is simply that they compare secondary energy to primary energy, or apples to oranges. | |
| May 11, 2017 at 15:02 | comment | added | WalyKu | @kingledion I like the rule that people shouldn't compare things if they don't have a valid way of comparing them. But I see where you are going. Also used by humans seems vague. | |
| May 11, 2017 at 15:01 | comment | added | Goose | This answer is terribly confusing. I'm not an expert on this so bare with me. I assumed that the graph is measuring power actually used (Secondary as I think you're calling it). If you believe that is not the case, can you explain why more clearly? | |
| May 11, 2017 at 14:58 | comment | added | WalyKu | @doppelgreener Primary and secondary energy should be dictionary definitions. Betzs's law is easily googleable, and it is basically something like Pythagoras theorem for wind power. The factors are dependent on the PV and wind turbines, I have no data on average efficiencies globally. | |
| May 11, 2017 at 14:57 | comment | added | kingledion | @JackAidley A valid complaint, but since the thermodynamic efficiency of every powerplant/car engine on Earth is highly variable, I don't think you can actually measure 'usable' energy from coal/oil. So there is a distortion, but it is what it is. On the plus side, the switch to renewables in the future will make it seem like total global energy usage is going down. | |
| May 11, 2017 at 14:54 | comment | added | Jack Aidley | @kingledion: right, but what appears to be happening here is that they're comparing the usable energy generated by the solar/wind supply to the total energy present in coal/oil/etc. This is apples-to-oranges. | |
| May 11, 2017 at 14:52 | comment | added | kingledion | Fuel diverted from the ground to a powerplant is used energy, whether it is going to waste heat or not. Wind that isn't turning a turbine blade, or sunlight that doesn't a PV cell isn't 'used' by humans. I understand your objection, but you can only measure what is used. | |
| May 11, 2017 at 14:50 | comment | added | doppelgreener | Do you have citations for any of these facts or figures? | |
| May 11, 2017 at 13:53 | review | First posts | |||
| May 11, 2017 at 16:23 | |||||
| May 11, 2017 at 13:51 | history | undeleted | WalyKu | ||
| May 11, 2017 at 13:50 | history | deleted | WalyKu | via Vote | |
| May 11, 2017 at 13:49 | history | answered | WalyKu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |