A solar power farm is considered successful if it generates slightly more than 20% of its total capacity annually. This is because there is no sunlight at night and reduced light on cloudy days.
In contrast, a gas-fired power station is deemed effective if it produces over 60% of its total capacity each year. This is feasible because such power stations can operate with a consistent gas supply all day, year-round. Various technical factors account for why it’s 60% rather than 100% of total capacity.
Essentially, a gas plant utilizes about twice the capacity of a wind farm and three times that of a solar farm.
To understand energy production, focus on the statistics for the share of total electricity production annually.
Electricity and Energy
Misleading statement: âWind and solar energy had a 40% share in energy use in our country last yearâ.
Often, people confuse total electricity use with total energy use. What is meant here is that wind and solar accounted for 40% of electricity generation. However, countries use fossil fuels for various purposes besides generating electricity, such as:
Oil combustion for transportation
Fossil fuels for industrial heating
Fossil fuels for building heating
In most countries, electricity accounts for about a quarter to a third of all energy consumption. The rest is primarily used for transport, industry, and heating buildings.
To combat climate change, we must shift to electricity for nearly all transportation, industrial heating, and building heating. Transitioning to 100% renewable energy in most countries will require approximately three to four times our current electricity capacity, not considering economic growth.
Therefore, if wind and solar contributed 40% to electricity production last year, their share in total energy production was roughly 10% to 13%.
âRenewable Energy Sourcesâ
Misleading statement: â50% of electricity production in our country last year came from renewable energy sources.â
Many interpret this to mean that half of the electricity came from wind and solar. However, when official bodies calculate renewable energy statistics, they typically include nuclear energy, hydropower, and biomass combustion.
While these energy sources have their challenges, the key point is that significant growth in nuclear, hydropower, or biomass is unlikely. Most new renewable energy is expected to come from wind and solar.
Breaking down the statistics, most ‘renewable energy’ is derived from nuclear, hydropower, or biomass, with wind and solar contributing a smaller portion.
Exaggerating the Numbers
These misleading claims can lead to significant exaggerations. For instance, if it’s stated that 50% of a country’s electricity comes from ‘renewable energy’, only 16% might actually be from solar and windâcommonly thought of as renewable.
In this scenario, electricity production only constitutes 25% of total energy use, meaning solar and wind contribute just 4% to total energy consumption.
This indicates a considerable journey ahead.
The Declining Cost of Renewables
Misleading statement: âThe price of wind and solar has fallen dramatically in the last ten years, making them cheaper than gas. This is why most new energy investments will be in solar and wind.â
The initial claim is accurate; wind and solar have indeed become cheaper than gas. It was expected that this price drop would boost investment in these sectors. However, investment decreased instead.
Two factors contributed to this: firstly, as prices dropped, so did potential profits. Investors prefer high profits, which come from selling expensive products, leading to reduced investment.
Secondly, the expansion of solar and wind was previously driven by government subsidies to private companies operating these farms. When environmentalists highlighted that solar and wind were cheaper than fossil fuels, governments stopped subsidies to avoid perceived wasteful spending.
As a result, solar and wind companies, previously enjoying guaranteed high profits, faced smaller and less secure profits, reducing investment.
According to Brett Christophers in The Price is Wrong: Why Capitalism Won’t Save the Planet, this reflects a quirk of capitalism.
A solution lies in reducing reliance on private investment. With solar and wind being cheaper, government ownership of electricity companies could yield more energy for less expenditure.
Jobs and Job-Years
Governments often exaggerate their contributions to renewable energy using employment figures. There are two ways to count jobs.
For instance, if new solar and wind farms in Ohio require 50,000 workers, it can be reported as 500,000 job-years if the project lasts ten years. However, by omitting ‘job-years’ and stating 500,000 jobs, many assume this means 500,000 new workers.
This method was initially used in the United States but has now spread globally.
Spending Hundreds of Billions
In the U.S., when announcing government spending, totals for the entire duration of the law are used. Hearing a large number, people often believe it’s for the next year.
For instance, in 2022, the Biden administration passed what was touted as the largest climate bill, totaling $783 billion. However, this amount was spread over ten years, equating to $78.3 billion annually.
This ten-year plan only lasted two years before being canceled after a change in administration.
Examining the Detailed Budget
Focusing on Biden’s major budget, only $128 billion of the $783 billion was allocated to renewable energy, the grid, and batteries.
Spread over ten years, this amounts to $12.8 billion annually. This allocation was also canceled two years later following the administration change.
China
Misleading statement: âThe future is secure because China is leading the world in renewable energy initiatives.â
In 2000, China’s CO2 emissions were 2.87 tonnes per person. By 2024, this figure had increased to 8.86 tonnes per person, whereas the European Union had 5.66 tonnes per person in the same year.
Rising Grid Costs
While the cost of solar and wind energy continues to decrease, grid expenses are rising.
The electrical grid encompasses the network that collects, centralizes, and distributes electricity.
As solar and wind usage increases, so does the need for grid investment. Traditional fossil fuel power plants are large and few, whereas solar and wind farms are numerous, leading to higher costs.
Old grids had to maintain balance between electricity supply and demand to avoid system failures. Despite the need for balance in new grids, the variability of solar and wind energy and multiple supply points necessitate larger, smarter, and more complex grids.
Significant funds are needed for electricity storage solutions, primarily batteries. Although battery prices are falling, overall grid and storage costs are rising.
Finding reliable statistics on new grid construction costs is challenging, but it’s substantial, potentially representing a third of renewable energy costs.
Some countries manage rising costs by delaying new wind and solar grid connections, with waiting lists spanning years.
Percentage Shares
Misleading statement: âFour years ago, solar and wind constituted 8% of total electricity production. Now, they account for 16%. That’s an 8% increase in four years.â
Initially impressive, it’s important to consider how much total electricity production has grown over the past four years.
Even if the share of solar and wind doubles, fossil fuel consumption may still rise because electricity demand grows faster than renewable energy development.
When noticing a rise in solar and wind’s percentage share, check statistics on fossil fuel emissions.
Percentage Shares (Part Two)
Another aspect of percentage shares is that increases often refer only to electricity generation.
However, as discussed, this doesn’t address fossil fuel emissions from transportation, industry, and building heating.
Energy Intensity
Some governments pledge to boost energy intensity, which measures energy output per unit of fuel, like a barrel of oil or a ton of coal.
Energy intensity rises annually in all countries due to productivity gains.
Business as Usual
Misleading statement: âWe will cut emissions to 50% below “Business as Usual” by 2035.â
âBusiness as usualâ projects emissions growth if trends continue. So, if a country’s emissions might increase by 200 million tons of CO2 by 2035 without intervention, a promise to cut that by 100 million tons means actual emissions will rise by 100 million tons by 2035.
The Whole Bundle of Tricks
To summarize, while those making misleading statements aren’t lying, they are deceiving since their statements don’t mean what they seem to imply. They are aware of this, which equates to dishonesty.
Many who repeat these misleading statistics are unaware they’re misleading and aim to inspire.
They also emphasize that renewable energy is crucial for saving the planet. They’re correct, which is why it’s essential to present the truth about renewable energy.
This Author
Jonathan Neale is the author of Fight the Fire: Green New Deals and Global Climate Jobs – Get a free copy now. He is also co-author with Nancy Lindisfarne of Why Men? A Global History of Violence and Inequality.
