I'm not sure if you (or EIA) got this right. We must differentiate heat (thermal) energy from electric (work) energy. EIA's "primary" and "secondary" energy descriptions are not so clear. It typically takes 3 kWh (heat) to make 1 kWh (work). Solar and wind generate electric energy (work). Perhaps the other sources are all heat energy. You need to make them comparable.
Thank you for your questions, Robert. I agree that there are some areas to debate on methodology, but it’s certainly not just simply overlooked by the EIA. Hope this helps.
1. All my information used in the analysis was directly from the EIA report from the two tables as referenced in the report.
2. The spread between fossil fuels and nuclear versus wind and solar are many magnitudes different. We are talking about petroleum, for example, being 20 to 30 larger than wind or solar, so we can debate methodology, but recognize that the scale is drastically different and even a 100% error would not be significant.
3. Your questions center on electricity which is ~25% of the GHG emissions so we need to look at total energy to be meaningful if you believe in the CO2 narrative. Also, just from a general energy perspective, we must recognize that electricity generation is not all inclusive. So yes, I was looking at Total Primary Energy Consumption.
4. This is well documented and here is the debate: Renewables are more complex to evaluate, especially noncombustible sources (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal). Since these don’t rely on combustion, the EIA historically used the fossil fuel equivalency approach, estimating the Btu equivalent by renewables based on the heat rate of fossil fuel plants. In September 2023, the EIA switched to the captured energy approach, which uses a constant conversion factor (3,412 Btu/kWh) to reflect the direct energy output of electricity from renewables. Now, go back above to point #2.
Good chart! They've decided to simply equate 1 kWh(electric) as 3412 BTU (thermal). They could have said so instead of referring to their MER report with weird wording like 'heat content of electricity'. The black/gray box looks about right, with 32,8 quad in, 13.5 quad out, seemingly 41% conversion efficiency. Thermal to electric is typically about 33%, though CCNG can reach 60%, and solar and wind are 100%, creating the 41% number.
The right side, end use sector, shows similar inputs measured in quads, but the electricity quads are ~3X more valuable than the heat quads.
I'm not sure if you (or EIA) got this right. We must differentiate heat (thermal) energy from electric (work) energy. EIA's "primary" and "secondary" energy descriptions are not so clear. It typically takes 3 kWh (heat) to make 1 kWh (work). Solar and wind generate electric energy (work). Perhaps the other sources are all heat energy. You need to make them comparable.
Thank you for your questions, Robert. I agree that there are some areas to debate on methodology, but it’s certainly not just simply overlooked by the EIA. Hope this helps.
1. All my information used in the analysis was directly from the EIA report from the two tables as referenced in the report.
2. The spread between fossil fuels and nuclear versus wind and solar are many magnitudes different. We are talking about petroleum, for example, being 20 to 30 larger than wind or solar, so we can debate methodology, but recognize that the scale is drastically different and even a 100% error would not be significant.
3. Your questions center on electricity which is ~25% of the GHG emissions so we need to look at total energy to be meaningful if you believe in the CO2 narrative. Also, just from a general energy perspective, we must recognize that electricity generation is not all inclusive. So yes, I was looking at Total Primary Energy Consumption.
4. This is well documented and here is the debate: Renewables are more complex to evaluate, especially noncombustible sources (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal). Since these don’t rely on combustion, the EIA historically used the fossil fuel equivalency approach, estimating the Btu equivalent by renewables based on the heat rate of fossil fuel plants. In September 2023, the EIA switched to the captured energy approach, which uses a constant conversion factor (3,412 Btu/kWh) to reflect the direct energy output of electricity from renewables. Now, go back above to point #2.
5. There is a good flow chart for this discussion in the same monthly energy report at https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/total_energy_spaghettichart_2024.pdf The information on the following page after the diagram explains the methodology that EIA is using.
Good chart! They've decided to simply equate 1 kWh(electric) as 3412 BTU (thermal). They could have said so instead of referring to their MER report with weird wording like 'heat content of electricity'. The black/gray box looks about right, with 32,8 quad in, 13.5 quad out, seemingly 41% conversion efficiency. Thermal to electric is typically about 33%, though CCNG can reach 60%, and solar and wind are 100%, creating the 41% number.
The right side, end use sector, shows similar inputs measured in quads, but the electricity quads are ~3X more valuable than the heat quads.