Despite Efforts to Emphasize Its Contributions, Green Energy Doesn't Amount to Much and Isn't That Green
The Energy Information Administration under Joe Biden has been more politically correct than in the past and every effort is made to emphasize the contributions of renewables.
Despite Efforts to Emphasize Its Contributions, Green Energy Doesn't Amount to Much and Isn't That Green
JUL 8
The Energy Information Administration under Joe Biden has been more politically correct than in the past and every effort is made to emphasize the contributions of renewables. Whenever a chart depicting energy use by fuel source is presented there is always a companion chart breaking down green energy sources, which, until you dig into the data, gives the impression renewables are far more important than they really are. Most of the RTOs do the same thing. It’s all part of an act as I see it.
Nonetheless, there is some valley in the renewables breakdown. It shows how pitifully paltry the green energy contribution is after billions and billions and decades and decades of subsidies to prop it all up.
Here are the two charts of which I speak, both of which appeared in a July 3rd Today In Energy post:
One’s first reaction is to imagine green energy is coming on strong, as it now exceeds coal ad nuclear energy.contributions. But, look more closely. Renewables still only represented 8.8% of the total or 8.245 quadrillion Btus, in 2023, according to this table from the EIA that is the apparent source of the data.
And, curiously, the table, unlike the lower chart, appears to lump together wood with biofuels (from plants, algae, animal waste, etc.) as “biomass."
But, the chart relies upon additional data and breaks it out, indicating a little less than 2.0 quadrillion or roughly one-fifth of green energy comes from burning wood, which produces more of nearly every emission than coal. Wood provides about twice the Btus of energy consumed in the U.S.than solar does and a third more than wind.
So, not all green energy is that green. Plants such as switchgrass are a major bio-fuel source, of course, and they theoretically sequester enough carbon to make them net-zero. But, there’s a caveat from this study:
About 96% of these biofuels can meet the Renewable Fuel Standard (60% reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions compared with conventional gasoline…
Furthermore, 73%–75% of these biofuels are carbon-negative (GWI less than zero) due to enhanced soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration. However, simulations indicate that SOC levels would fail to increase and even decrease on the 11% of lands where SOC stocks [are already high], leading to carbon intensities greater than gasoline. Results highlight the strong climate mitigation potential of switchgrass grown on marginal lands as well as the needs to avoid carbon rich soils such as histosols and wetlands and to ensure that productivity will be sufficient to provide net mitigation.
Switchgrass only makes on poorly productive land, in other words, and once the ground is saturated with carbon, its worse than gasoline for carbon! That’s a rosy green picture!
And, one more thing. Here’s the actual contributions of each form of energy consumed by U.S. residents in 2023, according to the EIA table (bear in mind much of the biomass is very smoky wood):
Add geothermal, solar, hydro (and no one wants to build dams), wind, and biomass (minus about 1.8 quadrillion Btus for dirty wood) and you have, at most, 6.4 quadrillion of arguably green energy, which is a lousy 6.8% or so of the energy consumed after decades and trillions spent pushing this stuff on us to reward grifters and power-seekers.
#EnergyConsumption #Wood #Emissions #FossilFuels #Biomass #Oil #Natural Gas