2 deleted 3 characters in body
source | link

TL;DR Yes, their are numbers that can be interpreted that way, but it is doubtful that any conclusion can be derived from these numbers.


I would like to expand upon the excellently formatted answer of Jordy, werewhere the original articles' first two diagrams are accurately quoted without further context.

We have a question where the title is "Did wind power supply less than half a percent of global energy in 2014?" and the question body is mostly a quote from The Spectator, that appears derisive of wind energy.

Since the question body contains such a quote, it seems worthwhile to not only find out whether some numbers allow such an interpretation, but also whether the numbers that allow this interpretation make sense when comparing wind energy to the rest of the energy in these numbers.


We first have to find out what energy"energy" is being talked about. The paper quoted uses "Total Primary Energy Supply Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES)(TPES)" in the first two presented graphs that are also presented in the answer above.

I can find a definition of TPES on the OECD iLib:

TPES equals production plus imports minus exports minus international bunkers plus or minus stock changes.

... based on the calorific content of the energy commodities and a common unit of account. The unit of account adopted is the tonne of oil equivalent (toe) which is defined as 107 kilocalories (41.868 gigajoules). This quantity of energy is, within a few per cent, equal to the net heat content of one tonne of crude oil. ...

Unfortunately, I haven't yet been able to find out how e.g. wind or hydro power get derived their TPES. What the heck is the "calorific content" of wind or solar electric power supposed to be? (Highly appreciated if anyone could edit that in here.)


To put the numbers into further perspective, the item Biofuels is clarified in the paper:

Due to its widespread non-commercial use in developing countries (i.e. residential heating and cooking), solid biofuels/charcoal is by far the largest renewable energy source, representing 66.2% of global renewables supply (Figure 2).


So what we have here is a Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES) pie chart. This includes all the worlds energy production(?), including some measure of an estimation of the "calorific content" of all the charcoal used in all the world developing countries.

And yes, for the OECD's definition of the TPES value of wind power, wind power contributes less that 0.5% of global TPES.

Inhowfar there is a logical conjunction between Wind turbines are neither clean nor green"Wind turbines are neither clean nor green" and "they provide zero global they provide zero globalenergyenergyTPESTPES" eludes me however.

I think the answer of WalyKu has some merit here: Even if we only take the raw numbers into account, it is not quite unlikely that we compare apples to oranges.

TL;DR Yes, their are numbers that can be interpreted that way, but it is doubtful that any conclusion can be derived from these numbers.


I would like to expand upon the excellently formatted answer of Jordy, were the original articles' first two diagrams are accurately quoted without further context.

We have a question where the title is "Did wind power supply less than half a percent of global energy in 2014?" and the question body is mostly a quote from The Spectator, that appears derisive of wind energy.

Since the question body contains such a quote, it seems worthwhile to not only find out whether some numbers allow such an interpretation, but also whether the numbers that allow this interpretation make sense when comparing wind energy to the rest of the energy in these numbers.


We first have to find out what energy is being talked about. The paper quoted uses Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES) in the first two presented graphs that are also presented in the answer above.

I can find a definition of TPES on the OECD iLib:

TPES equals production plus imports minus exports minus international bunkers plus or minus stock changes.

... based on the calorific content of the energy commodities and a common unit of account. The unit of account adopted is the tonne of oil equivalent (toe) which is defined as 107 kilocalories (41.868 gigajoules). This quantity of energy is, within a few per cent, equal to the net heat content of one tonne of crude oil. ...

Unfortunately, I haven't yet been able to find out how e.g. wind or hydro power get derived their TPES. What the heck is the "calorific content" of wind or solar electric power supposed to be? (Highly appreciated if anyone could edit that in here.)


To put the numbers into further perspective, the item Biofuels is clarified in the paper:

Due to its widespread non-commercial use in developing countries (i.e. residential heating and cooking), solid biofuels/charcoal is by far the largest renewable energy source, representing 66.2% of global renewables supply (Figure 2).


So what we have here is a Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES) pie chart. This includes all the worlds energy production(?), including some measure of an estimation of the "calorific content" of all the charcoal used in all the world developing countries.

And yes, for the OECD's definition of the TPES value of wind power, wind power contributes less that 0.5% of global TPES.

Inhowfar there is a logical conjunction between Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero globalenergyTPES eludes me however.

I think the answer of WalyKu has some merit here: Even if we only take the raw numbers into account, it is not quite unlikely that we compare apples to oranges.

TL;DR Yes, their are numbers that can be interpreted that way, but it is doubtful that any conclusion can be derived from these numbers.


I would like to expand upon the excellently formatted answer of Jordy, where the original articles' first two diagrams are accurately quoted without further context.

We have a question where the title is "Did wind power supply less than half a percent of global energy in 2014?" and the question body is mostly a quote from The Spectator, that appears derisive of wind energy.

Since the question body contains such a quote, it seems worthwhile to not only find out whether some numbers allow such an interpretation, but also whether the numbers that allow this interpretation make sense when comparing wind energy to the rest of the energy in these numbers.


We first have to find out what "energy" is being talked about. The paper quoted uses "Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES)" in the first two presented graphs that are also presented in the answer above.

I can find a definition of TPES on the OECD iLib:

TPES equals production plus imports minus exports minus international bunkers plus or minus stock changes.

... based on the calorific content of the energy commodities and a common unit of account. The unit of account adopted is the tonne of oil equivalent (toe) which is defined as 107 kilocalories (41.868 gigajoules). This quantity of energy is, within a few per cent, equal to the net heat content of one tonne of crude oil. ...

Unfortunately, I haven't yet been able to find out how e.g. wind or hydro power get derived their TPES. What the heck is the "calorific content" of wind or solar electric power supposed to be? (Highly appreciated if anyone could edit that in here.)


To put the numbers into further perspective, the item Biofuels is clarified in the paper:

Due to its widespread non-commercial use in developing countries (i.e. residential heating and cooking), solid biofuels/charcoal is by far the largest renewable energy source, representing 66.2% of global renewables supply (Figure 2).


So what we have here is a Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES) pie chart. This includes all the worlds energy production(?), including some measure of an estimation of the "calorific content" of all the charcoal used in all the world developing countries.

And yes, for the OECD's definition of the TPES value of wind power, wind power contributes less that 0.5% of global TPES.

Inhowfar there is a logical conjunction between "Wind turbines are neither clean nor green" and "they provide zero global energyTPES" eludes me however.

I think the answer of WalyKu has some merit here: Even if we only take the raw numbers into account, it is not quite unlikely that we compare apples to oranges.

1
source | link

TL;DR Yes, their are numbers that can be interpreted that way, but it is doubtful that any conclusion can be derived from these numbers.


I would like to expand upon the excellently formatted answer of Jordy, were the original articles' first two diagrams are accurately quoted without further context.

We have a question where the title is "Did wind power supply less than half a percent of global energy in 2014?" and the question body is mostly a quote from The Spectator, that appears derisive of wind energy.

Since the question body contains such a quote, it seems worthwhile to not only find out whether some numbers allow such an interpretation, but also whether the numbers that allow this interpretation make sense when comparing wind energy to the rest of the energy in these numbers.


We first have to find out what energy is being talked about. The paper quoted uses Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES) in the first two presented graphs that are also presented in the answer above.

I can find a definition of TPES on the OECD iLib:

TPES equals production plus imports minus exports minus international bunkers plus or minus stock changes.

... based on the calorific content of the energy commodities and a common unit of account. The unit of account adopted is the tonne of oil equivalent (toe) which is defined as 107 kilocalories (41.868 gigajoules). This quantity of energy is, within a few per cent, equal to the net heat content of one tonne of crude oil. ...

Unfortunately, I haven't yet been able to find out how e.g. wind or hydro power get derived their TPES. What the heck is the "calorific content" of wind or solar electric power supposed to be? (Highly appreciated if anyone could edit that in here.)


To put the numbers into further perspective, the item Biofuels is clarified in the paper:

Due to its widespread non-commercial use in developing countries (i.e. residential heating and cooking), solid biofuels/charcoal is by far the largest renewable energy source, representing 66.2% of global renewables supply (Figure 2).


So what we have here is a Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES) pie chart. This includes all the worlds energy production(?), including some measure of an estimation of the "calorific content" of all the charcoal used in all the world developing countries.

And yes, for the OECD's definition of the TPES value of wind power, wind power contributes less that 0.5% of global TPES.

Inhowfar there is a logical conjunction between Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero globalenergyTPES eludes me however.

I think the answer of WalyKu has some merit here: Even if we only take the raw numbers into account, it is not quite unlikely that we compare apples to oranges.