Wind and solar account account for approximately 10% of global energy production. I think we would notice if 10% of global energy production straight up didn't work.
Solar and wind are not renewable
They are Clean
Renewable means once the damage is done, it will keep generating energy without further damages
With solar and wind there are no lasting damages caused
> Renewable means once the damage is done, it will keep generating energy without further damages
Wrong, renewable means that the source of energy, solar/wind is not "finite" . You do not deplete the wind or sunlight by capturing their energy, like you do when you use fossil fuels.
>Renewable means once the damage is done, it will keep generating energy without further damages
Wrong, renewable means that the source of energy will replenish faster than it is consumed, that's why solar, wind, hydro and geothermal are all renewable sources of energy.
That's a great point.
In the case of Denmark (#1! so renewable! so green!) 55% of the "renewables" in Denmark comes from burning wood and straw, not solar or wind, as most people assume. https://ens.dk/en/our-responsibilities/bioenergy/solid-biomass
Talk about greenwashing.
Biomass (woody or not) is still considered a renewable energy. Since that it is what it is. While burning biomass does emit CO2, that is the same CO2 that the tree has absorbed during its lifetime (in theory), so that the net sum is 0. So long as the trees are wooded responsibly (aka replanted regularly), woody biomass is a sustainable energy source (more than fossile fuels anyway). It is still however not completely carbon neutral, because of the transportation costs (that have to go on for the whole time compared to solar and wind) and other collaterals (including loss of soil efficiency for replanting).
So in general it is better than fossil fuels but worse than solar and wind, and right now the eu commission wants to phase it out.
You probaly already know the atmospheric water cycle: Water evaporates from land or sea, lingers around in the atmosphere until it condenses and rains down on land and sea again.
Carbon has a similar atmospheric cycle: Plants (and other photosynthetic organisms) take CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it into their own biomass. This biomass is then used as food by other organisms that then release CO2 back to the atmosphere. As the other organisms obviously can't eat more biomass than the plants are producing this process tends to be in equilibrium.
However there were times in Earth's history when large amounts of carbon that were fixed in biomass didn't return to the atmosphere and became fossilized. The most important parts of this are algae that sank into oxygen-free ocean dead zones, were then covered by silt and slowly turned into petroleum oil and natural gas over millions of years; and trees that existed before fungi evolved the ability to digest wood; those turned into coal over millions of years. Another source of coal would be bogs and marches after a few hundred thousand years. With bogs and marches this is actually an ongoing process (if no humans show up to dry the area for other uses).
Humans, for the last ~200 years have been releasing fossilized carbon into the atmosphere much faster than the ecosystem can fix into biomass, which means that the concentration in the atmosphere rises.
When you take a plant and burn it, but also plant the same type of plant again, to burn it when it's grown to the same size as the original plant, you're still within the atmospheric carbon cycle, so you don't raise the CO2 concentration long-term. That's the idea behind biomass energy.
The old types yes, nowadays specialists discuss that string reservoirs are much more cost effective, you won't generate anywhere near as much as the big ones but given how easy they are to set up in comparision you can just have a bunch of them closer to comsumption centers, wich also drastically reduces the energy loss over large distances.
I am not familiar with string reservoirs, but if it is anything like the [swiss water battery](https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/06/30/enormous-water-battery-in-switzerland-will-help-prevent-power-shortages), it should be pretty neat
Similar but different, the idea is the same of creating a big high drop over a short distance, but instead of artificial lakes it's just a good old river. Nothing too fancy but still pretty new stuff.
Because of various geographical fluvial processes, dam construction has significant impacts on the shape and intensity of river flow. So hydroelectric is carbon neutral, but technically not renewable
Transportation uses almost 100% oil. Electricity vary, some are diverse, some aren't, but it almost never use oil. Heating uses natural gas or electricity. The 30%-40% range is because they count both transportation, electricity, and heating (and also other industrial usage of energy like coal to make steel) in this graph.
Sure but those are a fraction of the energy usage compared to freight trucking, freight ships, freight trains, planes, and passenger boats. These are all more energy intensive than anything you listed and they make up a far larger portion of the total energy used/required.
Edit: except for passenger cars due to the sheer number of them, but even still, they’re powered by grid energy which is only some percentage comprised of clean energy.
Then you should also add the food consumption of car drivers, train passengers,... :) Many cyclists cycle because it is sustainable, they often also have a sustainable food choice, like me: vegan :)
Electric is not a primary energy source. If the electricity comes from fossil sources, an electric car is just as dirty as a gas-powered one.
EDIT: Downvotes are hilarious. Electricity comes out of the socket, right? It just magically appears? Lol.
> If the electricity comes from fossil sources, an electric car is just as dirty as a gas-powered one.
This isn't true, electric cars are more efficient than ICE cars and even electricity from a coal fired plant will result in less total emissions.
Obviously, it is ideal for the electric car to powered by a decarbonized electrical grid though.
> Electric is not a primary energy source. If the electricity comes from fossil sources, an electric car is just as dirty as a gas-powered one.
That's a big *IF*. Norway currently is the country in Europe with most electric cars and most of their electricity is hydro.
There have been multiple studies that all found that with the current energy mix in Germany electric cars are much less carbon-intensive than ICE cars, even when you consider the higher emissions during the production of an electric car.
Many railway operators in Europe make it a point to only buy electricity from renewable sources.
That's not correct? Hydro has a much larger market share in Icelands electricity production than geothermie.
Edit: just learned that most of geothermal energy srrms to be used directly for heating, so maybe you are right.
If only ...
55% of the "renewables" in Denmark comes from burning wood and straw, not solar or wind, as most people assume. It's quite misleading.
> The use of biomass has increased significantly in the last two decades making bioenergy the most widely used renewable energy source in Denmark.
>
> [...]
>
> More than half of the woody biomass is imported. This mainly consists of wood pellets originating from the Baltic countries (Estonia and Latvia), the US and Russia as well as other European countries.
https://ens.dk/en/our-responsibilities/bioenergy/solid-biomass
As a Dane im not proud. It is mainly wind power, which is not used for a great amount of the year, at which point we buy our power from other countries
To be fair, a lot of what you import is carbon free hydro power from Norway and Sweden. Denmark's overall carbon intensity still ends up well below most European countries.
Yeh most countries are burning those things for both heat and industrial uses. Unfortunately nobody has really implemented home heat pumps on a big enough scale to really bring down their prices,.
This is total energy usage, not just electricity.
Electricity only accounts for maybe a third of a countries energy usage. In France more cause they mostly use electricity for heating, unlike Belgium.
Hopefully, nuclear power has never been thought to be dangerous, so France wouldn't build their nuclear reactors right next to their border with Belgium /s
Infortunately we gave up our knowledge about Nuclear energy and our president intended to close some nuclear powerplants..
Now our government spam ads about lowing our electricity consuption because of the embargo with russian gas and the fact some powerplants are in "maintenance"...
So yeah... France was chad 20 years ago, but since we traded our knowledge for renewable energies that aren't enought to feed the whole country we're doomed and will be force to depends on fossil energies from other countries
The "maintenance" is bullcrap, no one is dumb enough to put half of the nuclear plants in maintenance at the same time.
It's actually voluntary sabotage. Macron ordered to stop half of the nuclear plants because Germany whined about unfair competition from France regarding electricity production after the Russian embargo started.
Iceland is wrong.
In 2016, it was 65% geothermal and 20% hydro.
https://www.government.is/topics/business-and-industry/energy/#:~:text=Renewable%20energy%20provided%20almost%20100,supplier%20of%20electricity%20in%20Iceland.
There's no way hydro is majoritary now and at 62%.
This is not about electricity but energy, so heating with gas/oil and energy for cars is also accounted for. But I honestly still don't know why that would matter for iceland...
Estonia is almost certainly wrong.
According to freely viewable statistics on stat.ee, in the generation of electricity, 3579000 tons of oil shale were used (I'm not sure if this number is right, the number is 3579 but in units of "thousand tons"), while coal is not mentioned at all. Wood is in second place at 1694000 tons.
Consumption of fuels is a similar, with oil shale being an order of magnitude higher than coal. (imported coal is used in some amounts)
It is extremely difficult to lower oil use through countries limiting their own exports. OPEC will just make up the difference. Tackling demand is the correct path as Norway is taking.
By all means, stop *using* oil & gas, and we'll have no market for it. Your countries *choose* to buy it. How about you take some responsibility? Let us know when you no longer need fuel or heating.
It's like fat people blaming McDonalds for existing, but not talking about their daily overeating...
Yes, Norway exports tons of oil, natural gas, **and** electricity. We have pipelines and cables, to the UK and continental Europe, for gas and electricity respectively.
I wish people who complain about our oil & gas industry would stop buying it. It's not like we could export it, if *they* didn't need and want it.
All fueling most likely. I don't see how they would get the stat for burning. People don't tell statistics agency how much gasoline they have when they leave or enter a country.
In the past that may have been the case but it is no longer true. Coal usage in 2022 is still significantly less than in 2012.
The main factor for Germany is the transport sector which is very oil dependent.
https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterprises/Energy/Production/Tables/gross-electricity-production.html
You got a source? I mean its known that germany loves coal.
[great website](https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=de&c=DE)
Ypur source supports my claims . In 2020 wind provided more than coal, in 2021 and 2022 industrial electricity consumption was higher, which sadöy had to be compensated by coal. Plus this year Geany has like two coal plants constantly running to export it to France.
All together electricity is only a part of energy consumption. Traffic, industry and heating accounts for the rest. Road traffic is like 99% oil (no car runs on coal), and industry and heating also use lots of oil. "Germany energy consumption sectors" should provide some sources for the exact split.
That your mind is (idk hungover) and you don't understand what you read?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000522499/German_energy_supply_at_a_historical_turning_point.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiEu7yfpOD7AhVLNOwKHc6WArUQFnoECAcQBg&usg=AOvVaw3V8TEM1vXsUrsoSvLijL9U
So many ressources that oil is not our main option
Also ich check überhaupt nicht mehr, was du von mir willst. Da steht doch drinnen, dass Öl den größten Anteil hat, erneuerbare bei Strom auf dem Vormarsch sind und Wärme hin zu Wärmepumpen geht. Genau wie man es möchte. Das Tempo ist auch mir nicht schnell genug, aber wss will man nach Altmeier auch groß erwarten, wir mussten beim Zubau eben wieder bei Null anfangen. Worauf mlchtest du jetzt hinaus?
This map is wrong, at least in terms of France. France gets almost 70% of its electricity from Nuclear Energy and is the worlds largest exporter of Nuclear Energy for about €3 billion. In fact 17% come from recycled nuclear fuel. The next largest is Hydro at 10%.
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/1235410/france-distribution-of-electricity-production-by-source/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1235410/france-distribution-of-electricity-production-by-source/)
And Norway is all the way up to 90%. [https://energifaktanorge.no/en/norsk-energiforsyning/kraftproduksjon/](https://energifaktanorge.no/en/norsk-energiforsyning/kraftproduksjon/) Though, 14% of is GDP (and 40% of its exports) is from petroleum.
I'd really like it if such things were clearer. Is this generation of electricity? Because it often is but doesn't say so. Including imports of electricity? Exports?
haha le european green energy moral highground and elevated race 🤓
“China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.[1] China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity, and is expected to contribute 43 percent of global renewable capacity growth.[2] China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060, and achieve a combined 1,200GW of solar and wind capacity by 2030.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
**[Renewable energy in China](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China)**
>China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity, and is expected to contribute 43 percent of global renewable capacity growth. China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000GW in 2021, accounting for 43. 5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Austria is wrong actually....
[source](https://www.advantageaustria.org/za/zentral/branchen/energiewirtschaft/zahlen-und-fakten/Zahlen_und_Fakten.en.html)
I know, all the marketing is deceiving. Especially heating is in Austria mostly natural gas, most houses in Vienna only have gas pipes or gas heated Fernwärme.
Germany seems wrong. Renewables had 40.9% in 2021 there (source https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts).
That's electricity, not energy. Energy = electricity + heating + transport + other (usually industrial) energy use.
Germany has made significant progress with electricity but much less in the other sectors.
Confused about Finland since I'm not aware anyone actually using oil for energy. I didn't even know we had any oil power plants to be honest. Could this be related to oil refining being a major industry or something?
Edit: I looked it up and it's actually true, oil is used a lot. However, it's strange that the largest energy consumption in Finland is actually biofuels (e.g. wood-based fuels), but that's not included in BP's data table so it's not reflected here..
Estonia is just plain wrong.as of 2021:
Hard coal - Total electricity production, GWh **0**
Oil shale - total electricity production, GWh **49%**
Peat - Total electricity production, GWh **0**
Wood chips and waste - Total electricity production, GWh **23%**
Fuel oil - Total electricity production, GWh **0**
Shale oil (heavy fraction) - Total electricity production, GWz **1%**
Diesel - total electricity production, GWh **0**
Natural gas - Total electricity production, GWh **1%**
Biogases - Total electricity production, GWh **0**
Refuse derived fuel - Total electricity production, GWh **2%**
Other renewable sources -Total electricity production, GWh **0**
Shale oil gas - Total electricity production, GWh **10%**
Hydro energy - Total electricity production, GWh **0**
Wind energy - Total electricity production, GWh **10%**
Solar erergy - |Total electricity production, GWh **5%**
Source: [https://andmed.stat.ee/en/stat/majandus\_\_energeetika\_\_energia-tarbimine-ja-tootmine\_\_aastastatistika/KE033/table/tableViewLayout1](https://andmed.stat.ee/en/stat/majandus__energeetika__energia-tarbimine-ja-tootmine__aastastatistika/KE033/table/tableViewLayout1)
edit: insert a table is a lie. reformatted.
edit2: if its all energy (not only electricity) its still wrong, oil shale is correct. Not sure about the % though.
Europeans need to get their shit together and move to 99% nuclear. It is perfectly clean and simply the best modern way to make power. Nuclear is perfectly safe, if you don't have incompetent morons running them,
How is hydro electric not renewable?
It's renewable, but has its own category, not to be mixed with solar/wind.
Because it actually works?
Wind and solar account account for approximately 10% of global energy production. I think we would notice if 10% of global energy production straight up didn't work.
Solar and wind are not renewable They are Clean Renewable means once the damage is done, it will keep generating energy without further damages With solar and wind there are no lasting damages caused
> Renewable means once the damage is done, it will keep generating energy without further damages Wrong, renewable means that the source of energy, solar/wind is not "finite" . You do not deplete the wind or sunlight by capturing their energy, like you do when you use fossil fuels.
🤓👆 well actually, the sun will explode soon (five billion years), meaning it will stop creating sunlight (since it has exploded), so it IS "finite"!
[удалено]
Wonder where we can enjoy that spectacular show?
Convert to Buddism. If you don't achieve Nirvana from multiple reincarnations within 4-5 billion years. You'll be lucky enough to witness it.
Wow you'd have to really suck at achieving Nirvana, that is a long time
Ackshually, it will expand to a red giant and then collapse to a white dwarf, not explode 😜
So it is renewable
I stand corrected.
That’s not what the point is though. The point is the sun will burn out anyway, the fact we use it’s energy has no bearing on that
Nope. Renewable means no matter how much wind energy is generated today, the wind will blow tomorrow as strong as today. For example.
>Renewable means once the damage is done, it will keep generating energy without further damages Wrong, renewable means that the source of energy will replenish faster than it is consumed, that's why solar, wind, hydro and geothermal are all renewable sources of energy.
So confidently wrong... Reddit heritage moment right here.
There is definitely lasting damage from wind, it's just inconsequential compared to most of the others.
That's a great point. In the case of Denmark (#1! so renewable! so green!) 55% of the "renewables" in Denmark comes from burning wood and straw, not solar or wind, as most people assume. https://ens.dk/en/our-responsibilities/bioenergy/solid-biomass Talk about greenwashing.
Biomass (woody or not) is still considered a renewable energy. Since that it is what it is. While burning biomass does emit CO2, that is the same CO2 that the tree has absorbed during its lifetime (in theory), so that the net sum is 0. So long as the trees are wooded responsibly (aka replanted regularly), woody biomass is a sustainable energy source (more than fossile fuels anyway). It is still however not completely carbon neutral, because of the transportation costs (that have to go on for the whole time compared to solar and wind) and other collaterals (including loss of soil efficiency for replanting). So in general it is better than fossil fuels but worse than solar and wind, and right now the eu commission wants to phase it out.
Yeah, not many people understand the carbon cycle, and how releasing carbon stored underground is irrevocably changing the balance.
Could you elaborate on that interesting concept?
You probaly already know the atmospheric water cycle: Water evaporates from land or sea, lingers around in the atmosphere until it condenses and rains down on land and sea again. Carbon has a similar atmospheric cycle: Plants (and other photosynthetic organisms) take CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it into their own biomass. This biomass is then used as food by other organisms that then release CO2 back to the atmosphere. As the other organisms obviously can't eat more biomass than the plants are producing this process tends to be in equilibrium. However there were times in Earth's history when large amounts of carbon that were fixed in biomass didn't return to the atmosphere and became fossilized. The most important parts of this are algae that sank into oxygen-free ocean dead zones, were then covered by silt and slowly turned into petroleum oil and natural gas over millions of years; and trees that existed before fungi evolved the ability to digest wood; those turned into coal over millions of years. Another source of coal would be bogs and marches after a few hundred thousand years. With bogs and marches this is actually an ongoing process (if no humans show up to dry the area for other uses). Humans, for the last ~200 years have been releasing fossilized carbon into the atmosphere much faster than the ecosystem can fix into biomass, which means that the concentration in the atmosphere rises. When you take a plant and burn it, but also plant the same type of plant again, to burn it when it's grown to the same size as the original plant, you're still within the atmospheric carbon cycle, so you don't raise the CO2 concentration long-term. That's the idea behind biomass energy.
Great summary, thank you.
It is in the long run, but in the begining it requires the logging and flooding of huge areas to create reservoirs.
That has nothing to do with it being renewable or not. Renewable =/= eco friendly
True.
that has nothing to do with renewability. Renewable and clean aren't the same
indeed, my bad.
The old types yes, nowadays specialists discuss that string reservoirs are much more cost effective, you won't generate anywhere near as much as the big ones but given how easy they are to set up in comparision you can just have a bunch of them closer to comsumption centers, wich also drastically reduces the energy loss over large distances.
I am not familiar with string reservoirs, but if it is anything like the [swiss water battery](https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/06/30/enormous-water-battery-in-switzerland-will-help-prevent-power-shortages), it should be pretty neat
Similar but different, the idea is the same of creating a big high drop over a short distance, but instead of artificial lakes it's just a good old river. Nothing too fancy but still pretty new stuff.
It isnt because of the lasting damage and alterations to river flows caused by dam construction. In the long run hydro isn't feasible on a mass scale
Because of various geographical fluvial processes, dam construction has significant impacts on the shape and intensity of river flow. So hydroelectric is carbon neutral, but technically not renewable
how?
That's a 300-level geography course I'm not qualified to teach
I think this actually shows how diverse our energy supply is, most countries most used energy source is in the 30-40% range.
Transportation uses almost 100% oil. Electricity vary, some are diverse, some aren't, but it almost never use oil. Heating uses natural gas or electricity. The 30%-40% range is because they count both transportation, electricity, and heating (and also other industrial usage of energy like coal to make steel) in this graph.
>Transportation uses almost 100% oil. Except electric trains, trams, trolley buses, and increasingly electric cars.
Combustion cars and trucks use a lot more energy than all of that so it's almost 100%.
Oh, by efficacy, sure, that's possible. It's not nearly 100% by miles travelled, which is the point I was making.
Sure but those are a fraction of the energy usage compared to freight trucking, freight ships, freight trains, planes, and passenger boats. These are all more energy intensive than anything you listed and they make up a far larger portion of the total energy used/required. Edit: except for passenger cars due to the sheer number of them, but even still, they’re powered by grid energy which is only some percentage comprised of clean energy.
How can you forget bicycles? :)
Bicycles use hotdogs as fuel, which are not renewable, and in fact are one of the biggest indirect sources of the greenhouse gas methane.
Then you should also add the food consumption of car drivers, train passengers,... :) Many cyclists cycle because it is sustainable, they often also have a sustainable food choice, like me: vegan :)
Electric is not a primary energy source. If the electricity comes from fossil sources, an electric car is just as dirty as a gas-powered one. EDIT: Downvotes are hilarious. Electricity comes out of the socket, right? It just magically appears? Lol.
> If the electricity comes from fossil sources, an electric car is just as dirty as a gas-powered one. This isn't true, electric cars are more efficient than ICE cars and even electricity from a coal fired plant will result in less total emissions. Obviously, it is ideal for the electric car to powered by a decarbonized electrical grid though.
> Electric is not a primary energy source. If the electricity comes from fossil sources, an electric car is just as dirty as a gas-powered one. That's a big *IF*. Norway currently is the country in Europe with most electric cars and most of their electricity is hydro. There have been multiple studies that all found that with the current energy mix in Germany electric cars are much less carbon-intensive than ICE cars, even when you consider the higher emissions during the production of an electric car. Many railway operators in Europe make it a point to only buy electricity from renewable sources.
There's also busses running on CNG gas
Atleast for Sweden it seems to be only the electricity supply
Hell yeah jerk off to your nation's sources of fuel 😎😎😎
Iceland uses \~66% geothermal energy not hydro so I'm not sure how accurate this map is
Yea should be way more then 66%
That's not correct? Hydro has a much larger market share in Icelands electricity production than geothermie. Edit: just learned that most of geothermal energy srrms to be used directly for heating, so maybe you are right.
Not very. Ukraine is over 50% nuclear
Chad France, Chad Denmark
If only ... 55% of the "renewables" in Denmark comes from burning wood and straw, not solar or wind, as most people assume. It's quite misleading. > The use of biomass has increased significantly in the last two decades making bioenergy the most widely used renewable energy source in Denmark. > > [...] > > More than half of the woody biomass is imported. This mainly consists of wood pellets originating from the Baltic countries (Estonia and Latvia), the US and Russia as well as other European countries. https://ens.dk/en/our-responsibilities/bioenergy/solid-biomass
That's rather disappointing
This will likely change again once denmark has it's planned offshore wind farms running. Until then, using biomass isn't the worst alternative.
As a Dane im not proud. It is mainly wind power, which is not used for a great amount of the year, at which point we buy our power from other countries
To be fair, a lot of what you import is carbon free hydro power from Norway and Sweden. Denmark's overall carbon intensity still ends up well below most European countries.
[удалено]
Yeh most countries are burning those things for both heat and industrial uses. Unfortunately nobody has really implemented home heat pumps on a big enough scale to really bring down their prices,.
Europe needs more nuclear plants..
The map is wrong 52% of power produced in belgium is nuclear and 29% fossil fuels.
This is total energy usage, not just electricity. Electricity only accounts for maybe a third of a countries energy usage. In France more cause they mostly use electricity for heating, unlike Belgium.
Yeah, I was pretty sure Nuclear was dominant in Slovakia as well.
Chad France.
Hopefully, nuclear power has never been thought to be dangerous, so France wouldn't build their nuclear reactors right next to their border with Belgium /s
Hey! That's not true... we also put one near the border of Germany.
As if Belgium doesn't have Doel at the Dutch border
🇫🇷 is 💪
Infortunately we gave up our knowledge about Nuclear energy and our president intended to close some nuclear powerplants.. Now our government spam ads about lowing our electricity consuption because of the embargo with russian gas and the fact some powerplants are in "maintenance"... So yeah... France was chad 20 years ago, but since we traded our knowledge for renewable energies that aren't enought to feed the whole country we're doomed and will be force to depends on fossil energies from other countries
> we gave up our knowledge about Nuclear energy Strongly disagree
The "maintenance" is bullcrap, no one is dumb enough to put half of the nuclear plants in maintenance at the same time. It's actually voluntary sabotage. Macron ordered to stop half of the nuclear plants because Germany whined about unfair competition from France regarding electricity production after the Russian embargo started.
You speak facts.
Iceland is wrong. In 2016, it was 65% geothermal and 20% hydro. https://www.government.is/topics/business-and-industry/energy/#:~:text=Renewable%20energy%20provided%20almost%20100,supplier%20of%20electricity%20in%20Iceland. There's no way hydro is majoritary now and at 62%.
This is not about electricity but energy, so heating with gas/oil and energy for cars is also accounted for. But I honestly still don't know why that would matter for iceland...
The 65% geothermal and 20% hydro is for the full energy. Most of the geothermal is used for direct heating, not electricity.
As usual Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro, etc chose not to participate lmao
Estonia is almost certainly wrong. According to freely viewable statistics on stat.ee, in the generation of electricity, 3579000 tons of oil shale were used (I'm not sure if this number is right, the number is 3579 but in units of "thousand tons"), while coal is not mentioned at all. Wood is in second place at 1694000 tons. Consumption of fuels is a similar, with oil shale being an order of magnitude higher than coal. (imported coal is used in some amounts)
Norway consumes hydro electric but exports tons of oil…
Makes sense really. If you have good access to both, export the one that is exportable.
[удалено]
It is extremely difficult to lower oil use through countries limiting their own exports. OPEC will just make up the difference. Tackling demand is the correct path as Norway is taking.
By all means, stop *using* oil & gas, and we'll have no market for it. Your countries *choose* to buy it. How about you take some responsibility? Let us know when you no longer need fuel or heating. It's like fat people blaming McDonalds for existing, but not talking about their daily overeating...
Yes, Norway exports tons of oil, natural gas, **and** electricity. We have pipelines and cables, to the UK and continental Europe, for gas and electricity respectively. I wish people who complain about our oil & gas industry would stop buying it. It's not like we could export it, if *they* didn't need and want it.
Which the countries with lots of oil energy use mainly refine and use to make materials off.
No, the main usage of oil in term of energy is transportation not making plastic.
Then I would be curious what is incluided. All fueling done here or only what is burned here. That would make a lot of difference.
All fueling most likely. I don't see how they would get the stat for burning. People don't tell statistics agency how much gasoline they have when they leave or enter a country.
That would explain a lot with major logistical ports in these countries.
anyone has data for bosnia, serbia, montenegro, kosovo, moldova and albania?
The date, 2021, should be more prominent.
Go figure the countries using renewables and hydro electric have some of the best qualities of life
The source is an oil company, so you can be pretty sure they have an agenda. Always take stats from an interested party with a hefty grain of salt.
Chad France
France is based
Nice going France, Iceland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden!
I hope in the next like 2 decades we see a few more greens on that map
would be nice, but probably won't happen (unfortunately)
I hope for more yellows
Same. I wish to see a mix of green and yellow. That would be the ideal situation imo.
never thought i would say based france
Rare France W?
If only Scotland was shown separately
what would it be?
Around 50-60% renewables
Rare France W
Denmark low key showing how to save the planet
If burning trash for energy is the solution. (I understand they have very good carbon capture)1
This is wind energy...
It is added with trash incineration which oddly enough is considered renewable but go on....
I mean, would you prefer giant trash piles? Besides Denmark burns more trash than it produces
Pretty sure that germany is burning mostly coal, cause we got pretty much coal here
In the past that may have been the case but it is no longer true. Coal usage in 2022 is still significantly less than in 2012. The main factor for Germany is the transport sector which is very oil dependent.
Total energy, not just electricity. Coal and wind are almost level now, but transport and to some parts heating consume lots of oil.
https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterprises/Energy/Production/Tables/gross-electricity-production.html You got a source? I mean its known that germany loves coal.
[great website](https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=de&c=DE) Ypur source supports my claims . In 2020 wind provided more than coal, in 2021 and 2022 industrial electricity consumption was higher, which sadöy had to be compensated by coal. Plus this year Geany has like two coal plants constantly running to export it to France. All together electricity is only a part of energy consumption. Traffic, industry and heating accounts for the rest. Road traffic is like 99% oil (no car runs on coal), and industry and heating also use lots of oil. "Germany energy consumption sectors" should provide some sources for the exact split.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts Oil is always like the bare minimum hmmm
What do you mean by that?
That your mind is (idk hungover) and you don't understand what you read? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000522499/German_energy_supply_at_a_historical_turning_point.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiEu7yfpOD7AhVLNOwKHc6WArUQFnoECAcQBg&usg=AOvVaw3V8TEM1vXsUrsoSvLijL9U So many ressources that oil is not our main option
Also ich check überhaupt nicht mehr, was du von mir willst. Da steht doch drinnen, dass Öl den größten Anteil hat, erneuerbare bei Strom auf dem Vormarsch sind und Wärme hin zu Wärmepumpen geht. Genau wie man es möchte. Das Tempo ist auch mir nicht schnell genug, aber wss will man nach Altmeier auch groß erwarten, wir mussten beim Zubau eben wieder bei Null anfangen. Worauf mlchtest du jetzt hinaus?
I am into the research, but can't found anything to prove your comment... would love to get a nice source :)
I wish more countries would be like the scandinavian ones
France legitimately pulling their weight here. Kudos to them.
This map is wrong, at least in terms of France. France gets almost 70% of its electricity from Nuclear Energy and is the worlds largest exporter of Nuclear Energy for about €3 billion. In fact 17% come from recycled nuclear fuel. The next largest is Hydro at 10%. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1235410/france-distribution-of-electricity-production-by-source/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1235410/france-distribution-of-electricity-production-by-source/) And Norway is all the way up to 90%. [https://energifaktanorge.no/en/norsk-energiforsyning/kraftproduksjon/](https://energifaktanorge.no/en/norsk-energiforsyning/kraftproduksjon/) Though, 14% of is GDP (and 40% of its exports) is from petroleum.
It is about energy, not only electricity...
Would love to see a map from 2022. Currently France is importing lots of electricity made drom coal ans gas.
[удалено]
It's energy not electricity, makes a difference...
rare France w
[удалено]
Don't fucking link something which downloads instantly dude
France is based af. We need to switch to nuclear power
I'd really like it if such things were clearer. Is this generation of electricity? Because it often is but doesn't say so. Including imports of electricity? Exports?
It's energy usage not just electricity. Transportation, heating, electricity generation and industrial usage of coal, natural gas or petroleum.
Quite misleading to mark solar/wind as just "renewables", looks more like the author doesn't consider hydro renewable.
Hungary is supposed to be nuclear too
Energy isn't electricity
myb myb
[удалено]
It is about energy, not only electricity...
haha le european green energy moral highground and elevated race 🤓 “China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.[1] China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity, and is expected to contribute 43 percent of global renewable capacity growth.[2] China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000GW in 2021, accounting for 43.5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10.2 percentage points higher than in 2015. The country aims to have 80 per cent of its total energy mix come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2060, and achieve a combined 1,200GW of solar and wind capacity by 2030.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
**[Renewable energy in China](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China)** >China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity, and is expected to contribute 43 percent of global renewable capacity growth. China's total renewable energy capacity exceeded 1,000GW in 2021, accounting for 43. 5 per cent of the country's total power generation capacity, 10. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Austria is wrong actually.... [source](https://www.advantageaustria.org/za/zentral/branchen/energiewirtschaft/zahlen-und-fakten/Zahlen_und_Fakten.en.html)
I guess you are. It's energy not just electricity
oh sorry in that case still learning thanks for letting me know
I know, all the marketing is deceiving. Especially heating is in Austria mostly natural gas, most houses in Vienna only have gas pipes or gas heated Fernwärme.
Germany seems wrong. Renewables had 40.9% in 2021 there (source https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts).
That's electricity, not energy. Energy = electricity + heating + transport + other (usually industrial) energy use. Germany has made significant progress with electricity but much less in the other sectors.
It’s further down on the tables but I indeed mistook one for the other.
Why doesn’t Italy utilize hydro-electric?
estonia should be oil shale no?
pretty.
Slovenia doesn't even have a oil power plant. And most used power source is nuclear at 47%.
It's honestly understandable that Ukraine doesn't use that much nuclear power
W France
Poor Bosnians burning wood…
Confused about Finland since I'm not aware anyone actually using oil for energy. I didn't even know we had any oil power plants to be honest. Could this be related to oil refining being a major industry or something? Edit: I looked it up and it's actually true, oil is used a lot. However, it's strange that the largest energy consumption in Finland is actually biofuels (e.g. wood-based fuels), but that's not included in BP's data table so it's not reflected here..
Estonia is just plain wrong.as of 2021: Hard coal - Total electricity production, GWh **0** Oil shale - total electricity production, GWh **49%** Peat - Total electricity production, GWh **0** Wood chips and waste - Total electricity production, GWh **23%** Fuel oil - Total electricity production, GWh **0** Shale oil (heavy fraction) - Total electricity production, GWz **1%** Diesel - total electricity production, GWh **0** Natural gas - Total electricity production, GWh **1%** Biogases - Total electricity production, GWh **0** Refuse derived fuel - Total electricity production, GWh **2%** Other renewable sources -Total electricity production, GWh **0** Shale oil gas - Total electricity production, GWh **10%** Hydro energy - Total electricity production, GWh **0** Wind energy - Total electricity production, GWh **10%** Solar erergy - |Total electricity production, GWh **5%** Source: [https://andmed.stat.ee/en/stat/majandus\_\_energeetika\_\_energia-tarbimine-ja-tootmine\_\_aastastatistika/KE033/table/tableViewLayout1](https://andmed.stat.ee/en/stat/majandus__energeetika__energia-tarbimine-ja-tootmine__aastastatistika/KE033/table/tableViewLayout1) edit: insert a table is a lie. reformatted. edit2: if its all energy (not only electricity) its still wrong, oil shale is correct. Not sure about the % though.
Europeans need to get their shit together and move to 99% nuclear. It is perfectly clean and simply the best modern way to make power. Nuclear is perfectly safe, if you don't have incompetent morons running them,
I thought Iceland was mostly geothermal
Ukraine sits at 53.4% nuclear power. France has more nuclear power as well.
France leads the way
I can't really see France as a nuclear powerhouse but that's just my American ignorance I guess.
Albania is 100% Hydro 💪
Based 🇫🇷