<
https://medium.com/@jan.rosenow/have-we-been-duped-by-the-primary-energy-fallacy-167f53c58961>
"Whenever I post something on renewable energy on social media it never takes
long for negative comments to arrive in my feed. One type of comment I get
frequently is from people who share a chart showing global primary energy
demand over the last 200 years. They say “Look at the vast amount of fossil
fuels we use. We will never be able to replace them with renewable energy, look
how tiny their contribution is.” The suggestion is that we will need to replace
all of that primary energy with renewable energy and that it would be
impossible to do. Because of that we should just accept that we need fossil
fuels forever.
I tend to differ. Here’s why:
Simply put, we don’t need to replace all of the energy inputs into the energy
system as long as can deliver the same services more efficiently. The
commentators showing primary consumption graphs have fallen for the primary
energy fallacy, a term coined by Paul Martin. This fallacy arises when
comparing energy sources based on their primary energy consumption, often
overlooking fundamental differences in efficiency and utility."
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
