Skip to content

Emily Gosden Spins The IEA’s Misleading Propaganda

October 26, 2016
tags:

By Paul Homewood 

 

image

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/25/global-renewable-power-capacity-overtakes-coal-as-500000-solar-p/

 

Dear little Emily really does not get it does she?

 

By Emily Gosden, Energy Editor ,

25 October 2016 • 7:01pm

Global renewable electricity capacity has overtaken coal to become the world’s largest installed power source for the first time, after a record-breaking year in which half a million solar panels were installed every day.

Some 153 gigawatts (GW) of renewable power capacity – more than the total generation capacity of Canada – was installed during the course of 2015, making it the fastest-growing electricity source, the International Energy Agency said.

This was primarily due to unprecedented expansion of solar and onshore wind, with two new wind turbines installed every hour in China, which was the “undisputable global leader of renewable energy expansion”.

As a result, worldwide renewable capacity hit 1,985 GW, or about 31pc of global power capacity, just pipping coal-fired power, which stands at 1,951 GW, the IEA said.

 

Solar panels in China

Half a million solar panels were installed every day last year, the IEA estimates Credit: China Daily

However, the actual amount of power produced by renewable electricity generators was still significantly lower than that from coal, accounting for 23pc of global power production, compared with almost 40pc from coal plants.

This is because power plants do not generate at their full capacity all the time, with sources like wind and solar able to generate at their maximum capacity only when the wind blows or the sun shines.

The IEA forecast that renewables expansion would continue apace, with 825 GW expected to be built by 2021 – 13pc more than the IEA had forecast just a year ago – “driven by policies aimed at enhancing energy security and sustainability”.

That should help boost the share of renewable power in the global electricity mix to 28pc by 2021, “rapidly closing the gap with coal” in the medium term, the IEA said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/25/global-renewable-power-capacity-overtakes-coal-as-500000-solar-p/ 

 

You would be forgiven for thinking that the world will soon be able to rely on little else but renewable energy! At least, until you’ve checked the actual facts anyway.

 

Despite all of the hype, last year renewable energy, excluding hydro, still only supplied 7% of the world’s electricity. This includes wind, solar, biomass and geo.

 

image

http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

 

Hydro electricity is shown separately for two very good reasons:

1) Most of it has been around for a number of years. A decade ago, for instance hydro supplied 16% of global electricity, just as it does now (although of course total output of both have risen).

2) There is very little scope worldwide for any more significant amounts of hydro capacity to be built.

 

For those pushing other forms of renewable energy, it is a common trick include hydro in total renewable output, in order to give the impression that wind and solar power are much more significant than they actually are.

 

The article then repeats the usual scam of talking about “capacity”, rather than “output”, although Emily Gosden does briefly touch on the issue further into the article. Nevertheless the headline and main section of the story will leave an extremely misleading impression on most people, many of whom won’t even bother to read to the end.

 

 

The IEA forecast that an extra 825 GW of renewable capacity will be built by 2021, yet, based on a realistic 15% capacity utilisation, this will only yield an extra 1084 TWh a year. Based on current electricity generation, this would increase renewables share from 7% to 11%. However, since it is likely that total generation will continue to grow, renewable share will be much less than that.

 

Unsurprisingly, the article is little more than a cut and paste of the IEA’s press release here. The IEA probably used to be an impartial source of energy data and projections. Unfortunately, for a while now, it has been politicised, and is no more than a pawn in the push for renewable energy and decarbonisation.

 

 

FOOTNOTE

 

 

Having taken another look at the BP figures, the reality that our dear little Emily alludes to, is that non hydro renewables contribution to global electricity generation has increased from 5.9% in 2014, to 6.7% last year.

Truly astounding, I am sure you would agree!!!!

21 Comments leave one →
  1. A C Osborn permalink
    October 26, 2016 6:33 pm

    She can get away with any old rubbish now that the Telegraph no longer has any comments.
    Nobody to contradict anything the warmists say.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      October 26, 2016 7:25 pm

      You beat me to it, ACO. I used to be active on DT Disqus and, if it was still available she would have been completely – ahem – disabused – of her thesis. But then, I doubt she ever read her comments: she can read reading, but not writing.

  2. Joe Public permalink
    October 26, 2016 6:53 pm

    For those pushing other forms of renewable energy, it is a common trick to include hydro in total renewable output, ……..

    But, but, but ……. the greenies now frown upon hydro, so surely they wouldn’t want to have their cake & eat it:

    “The Hydropower Methane Bomb No One Wants to Talk About”

    http://www.ecowatch.com/the-hydropower-methane-bomb-no-one-wants-to-talk-about-1882106648.html

    • AlecM permalink
      October 26, 2016 7:01 pm

      Just as with CO2, CH4 climate sensitivity is very near zero.

      • Joe Public permalink
        October 26, 2016 8:02 pm

        Yes. But using the greenies’ ‘own’ argument against them (counting hydro as a renewable), has a certain extra piquancy!

    • John F. Hultquist permalink
      October 26, 2016 8:50 pm

      The organic material is going to decompose whether it is in water or in or on soil or forest. Rates will vary. Initial filling of a reservoir is heavy on organic load. Still, if the dam is not there where does the material go to decompose? These “greenies” are dumb as stumps.

  3. October 26, 2016 6:54 pm

    Is there any agency that has not been politicised and is now just a propaganda instrument for the UN and thus climate change and renewable energy?

  4. AlecM permalink
    October 26, 2016 6:58 pm

    The fragrant Emily clearly lives in a land where the Sun does not set.

    La-la Land?

    • October 26, 2016 7:39 pm

      Perhaps “flagrant” instead of “fragrant”, Alec?

      • AlecM permalink
        October 27, 2016 8:31 am

        I prefer flagellant……..:o)

  5. October 26, 2016 7:26 pm

    Politicizafion of the Paris based IEA happened during 2009-2010. It was a response to IPCC AR4 in 2007 and an overreaction to a major study of large existing conventional oil fields published by IEA in 2008 that had very significant implications for oil. The saga and the evidence is laid out in essay IEA Facts and Fictions in ebook Blowing Smoke. Very first energy essay in the book. Sets the tone for don’t trust, verify.

  6. John F. Hultquist permalink
    October 26, 2016 8:43 pm

    Increasing the efficiency of the turbines and generators for hydro, or adding such where they are not there historically, is a better strategy than wind or solar.
    A large nearby dam began production in 1963. New equipment is 3% more efficient than the old.
    Wanapum Dam upgrades

  7. AndyG55 permalink
    October 26, 2016 9:03 pm

    I wonder how much coal wash burnt in making those panels ?

  8. October 26, 2016 10:32 pm

    ‘…with sources like wind and solar able to generate at their maximum capacity only when the wind blows or the sun shines.’

    No, only able to generate ANY capacity when the wind blows or the sun shines.

    Spot the difference Telegraph readers😐

    • NeilC permalink
      October 27, 2016 6:05 am

      Precisely. You can build 100% capacity with windmills and solar arrays, but get NO power.

      People like Ms Gosling are just ignorant.

      • AlecM permalink
        October 27, 2016 9:41 am

        That’s because they’re airheads indoctrinated by fake Climate Sceance. The classic case is Roger Harrabin who claims the GHE is exclusively caused by CO2, which is 1/25th [H2O].

        In reality, the water cycle and the fine details of IR self-absorption physics almost exactly compensate for any change in [CO2] by what is in effect, near infinite negative feedback on average (there will be some changes in dry regions).

        But to explain this to arrogant eejits like Harrabin, basking in their self-impotance, is near impossible unless applied to the head with a large mallet.

  9. October 27, 2016 10:10 am

    To be fair to Emily, and other journos today, they have the problem of having to be as up to date as all the competition, so have little time to do anything other than copy and paste press releases, but for a quality newspaper they should always follow the money and the politics, and put the counter-balancing point of view.

    It drives me nuts how broadcast news is used as a marketing tool by charities, activists and the public sector, all they have to do is have a press release, and the BBC will put it as lead item if they like it.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      October 27, 2016 12:51 pm

      Yes, journalism by press release. In this case it seems to be slavishly so. In others it is about 75% press release and quotes, and then 25% from an opposing source. No research by the journalist at all. Cost cutting accounts for a lot of it.

  10. Bloke down the pub permalink
    October 27, 2016 10:50 am

    Some 153 gigawatts (GW) of renewable power capacity – more than the total generation capacity of Canada – was installed during the course of 2015, making it the fastest-growing electricity source, the International Energy Agency said.

    This was primarily due to unprecedented expansion of solar and onshore wind, with two new wind turbines installed every hour in China, which was the “undisputable global leader of renewable energy expansion”.

    Have the Chinese started connecting their wind turbines to the grid yet? The last I heard, they were putting them up as fast as they could to comply with agreements to increase renewable capacity, but not connecting them as that would have destabilised their grid.

  11. Patsy Lacey permalink
    October 27, 2016 2:43 pm

    I would like to think that little Emily knows exactly what she is saying. Either that or the DT is joining the media race to the bottom. Why else would they feature pictures of Benedict Cumberbatch and his wife on Pages 1 and 2 two days in a row. Talented as Mr Cumberbatch undoubtedly is his image is more suited to the red top “celeb” following tabloids than a supposedly quality broadsheet.

  12. October 27, 2016 8:29 pm

    Hmm. You say:

    …non hydro renewables contribution to global electricity generation has increased from 5.9% in 2014, to 6.7% last year.

    To be fair, one should add the 11% of nuclear to this, since that’s the very best of both renewable and, if not in construction then at least in production, carbon-free. It’s arguable, but probably the 16% hydro as well. On this accounting, renewables are starting to look impressive, at 34%. We can start to relax.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: