Monday, February 25, 2013


From Nature

Not zero and growing


KAP said...

If geothermal is renewable, nuclear is too. Geothermal is nuclear, after all.

crf said...

Where did Nature get the data from?

crf said...

And this is energy used total, not just electricity use?

Martin Vermeer said...

> Geothermal is nuclear, after all.

The jury's still a bit out on that one: condensation heat from the growing inner core may contribute.

BTW fossil fuels are renewable too, just very, very slowly

Anonymous said...

Not to be too picky, but the non-hydro bit should really be labelled "biomass/waste and other renewables"

Anonymous said...

At least the Finnish figures are plain wrong. The 2011 figures for total energy is as follows: Hydro and Wind 3%, Wood Fuels 22%, Peat 6% (As is probably known, opinions on peat's supposed renewability are strictly divided.)

The wind portion must be vanishingly small as only 1% of electricity is produced by wind. Solar does not even show on the official statistics.

What is growing is the share of ground sourced heat pumps, as well over 50% of new homes in Finland now have one, and this must have been included in the 3% share of "Others".

-Another Anonymous Finn

J Bowers said...

The 2010 publication, Iel Energy Law in Finland, says, "hydro power generation currently accounts for approximately 20% of Finland's total electricity generation, corresponding to 13.2 TWh2 annually."


Anonymous said...

J Bowers: it's simple - the total energy consumption of a country <> the electricity consumption of the same.

In terms of electricity the 2011 situation for Finland was as follows:

from which we get:

Hydro: 17%
Wind 1%
Forest industry pulping and process wastes: 7%
Other wood-based fuels 7%
Other renewables: 1%
Peat 7%

-- Another (still anonymous) Finn.

J Bowers said...

@ Another Anonymous Finn: You said earlier that hydro and wind combined was 3%.

Anonymous said...

J Bowers, please be advised that there are two sets of energy statistics, and I think this fact applies equally to all countries.

One set consists of the ENTIRE energy consumption, including such rather major things such as liquid fuels for traffic and heat, and the like.

The other set consists of ELECTRICITY which means the fraction of all energy that is converted into electrical current for the private consumers and industry, and this usually equals both the losses and the real fraction billed by the utilities. Overall, this will naturally be smaller in quantity than the first set.

The national statistical agencies maintain BOTH sets of data, and furthermore, they are not directly comparable. For practical examples kindly see my posts above.

Thus, no discrepancy between the datasets I presented, but the Nature data here is wrong by a large margin in any case. I might see how much they have actually erred on the Swedish data.

- yours ever anonymous Finn

Anonymous said...

As shares of primary energy production, the situation in Denmark 2011:

Hydro: negligable
Wind: 3.9%
Biomass: 9.3%

Anonymous said...

"Sveriges totala energitillförsel
Fördelad på energislag*, 2010, TWh"

'Total energy supply in Sweden breakdown by energy type, 2010, TWh.'

Biofuels, including peat 17%
Hydro power 8%
Heat Pumps in district heating 0.6%
Wind power 0.4%

-- The 1 & same anonymous Finn.

Anonymous said...

For completeness, I addded the electricity breakdown for Sweden, 2011:

Hydro 45%
Wind 4.1%
Combined heat & power (CHP) production, in district heating: 7%
CHP, in industry 4.0%

CHP energy source is not specified, but in practice these would come predominantly from renewable sources, just as in Finland. Statistics on this is found separately at diagram #26
The same source also contains a Nordic production mix diagram.