Hacker News Reader

> "Even with optimistic assumptions, the International Energy Agency estimates that, by 2035, we will produce just 2.4 percent of our energy from wind and 0.8 percent from solar." Seriously, [citation needed].

Okay, so I actually looked it up, and your hunch is correct. According to the International Energy Agency's "World Energy Outlook 2012":

"A steady increase in hydropower and the rapid expansion of wind and solar power has cemented the position of renewables as an indispensable part of the global energy mix; by 2035, renewables account for almost one-third of total electricity output.", [1], page 6

Also, from their FAQ[2]:

> How much of the world's energy comes from renewable sources?

"In 2009, the world relied on renewable sources for around 13.1% of its primary energy supply, according to IEA statistics. Renewables accounted for 19.5% of global electricity generation and 3% of global energy consumption for road transport in the same year."

So it looks like the Slate article is grossly misleading.

[1] http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication...

[2] http://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/renewableenergy/

Not sure if those statements are in disagreement. Hydropower could easily be the missing 30%, especially with Chinese hydro-power increases. The original statement only referenced solar and wind.

If that's the case, then it's grossly misleading. Only quoting numbers for some of the renewable energy sources while decrying all renewable energy sources (because the ones that you left out don't support your argument)?

It's not really misleading, as he explicitly quoted data for solar and wind.

That aside, very few renewable energy advocates are pro hydro dams - that ugly duckling of renewable energy who is never at the table but does all the job.

Well, hydro doesn't directly rely on the carbon cycle, but to be reliably practical, you need to build a reservoir, which usually absorbs lots of land already in use either by people or other denizens of nature, everybody seems to fight them when planners start planning.

Lomborg is right here. This graph (2.7, page 2) shows IEA projecting 3-4% of 2035 primary energy to be "other renewables" (including wind, solar, and geothermal, by their definition). Biomass (wood burning in the 3rd world) is much larger.

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2011/key_...

There's no discrepancy. Renewable electricity may be 1/3rd of the 2035 electricity supply, in that forecast; but wind and solar are only a fraction of renewable electricity, and electricity is only a fraction of energy. Dams are also renewable electricity. And non-electric energy (oil fuels) are even larger than electricity.

(I'm still looking for the actual numbers (a lot of the IEA publications are paid-access); I'll update this comment when I find them).

(edit: tables are here starting on page 544: http://www.scribd.com/doc/72512781/World-Energy-Outlook-2011)

Yes, but given the context of "renewable energy sources", it is misleading use of information at best.

The focus of the article is almost entirely on electricity. It's fairly misleading to quote those statistics in terms of total energy consumption when the rest of the article only discusses electricity production.

The focus of the article was actually Earth Hour, and how useless it really is. The whole damn article lurches from one disaster to another.

Incidentally, he's definitely right that Earth Hour doesn't really do anything to help climate change. No argument from me there. It's a Sydney Morning Herald publicity stunt.

Wind farms in Northern Europe likely wouldn't break even without government subsidies. The maintenance of turbines, especially off-shore ones, is very expensive. They are also quite pricey per unit for relatively humble power output.

> governments are introducing carbon taxes to take into account the impact of sources that produce carbon in the atmosphere

That doesn't make the other sources less expensive. It makes the current sources more expensive. If this were a zero sum "game", great. However, more money chasing less efficient energy sources means less money chasing more efficient and less carbon intensive energy sources such as nuclear.

That doesn't make sense. A carbon tax allows for the development of nuclear energy, as it should reduce overall costs as less carbon is emitted in the atmosphere.

I fail to see how you jump from the assertion that there are less efficient energy to the conclusion that more efficient energy sources will be ignored because of a carbon tax.

Keep in mind that all of these discussions tend to jump between definitions of Energy. For instance he may have been quoting total energy usage, which includes things like fuel for cars, while you may be thinking of electricity usage.

Similarly there are several categories of consumption, which can also be used to skew numbers one way or the other.