CNBC Misleads on Renewable Energy

renewable-chartCNBC viewers are being snookered.

The business news network featured an article in the “Sustainable Energy” section of its Website that proclaimed: “Renewables surged past coal in 2015 to become world’s biggest source of electricity: IEA.”

In reading that headline, one might get the impression that wind turbines and solar panels produced more electricity last year than coal. But the fine print actually reveals a very different picture.

The opening paragraph of the article by “Freelance digital reporter” Anmar Frangoul gives a clue as to the sleight of hand being used. Frangoul cites the International Energy Agency (IEA) as reporting that “Renewable energy moved past coal in 2015 to become the biggest source of global electricity capacity.” The key word there is “capacity.”

What’s noteworthy is that capacity is far different from actual production. The average wind turbine has a maximum rated capacity of roughly 2 megawatts. That means, if the wind is blowing between 26-56 mph, the turbine can spin up to its peak generating capacity. In such moments, the wind turbine can produce its full 2 megawatts.

However, wind turbines, like solar panels, offer only intermittent power generation. Wind turbines can only produce power when there is sufficient wind—and when they are not shut down due to cold weather, repairs, or high winds. And solar panels only produce electricity during periods of direct sunlight. Thus, while a wind turbine can have a maximum capacity of 2 megawatts, its typical output may often be far less, or even 0 megawatts (on a windless day).

In contrast, and as the IEA itself notes, coal provided 40.8 percent of worldwide power generation in 2014. The renewables that Frangoul crows about—defined by the IEA as “geothermal, solar, wind, heat, etc.”—produced only 6.3 percent of all power.

Thus we see some of the misleading language in the CNBC article.

Frangoul talks about renewables producing 23 percent of world power generation in 2015—which is only possible when hydropower’s robust 16.4 percent is added to renewables’ paltry 6.3 percent share. And while the IEA says that “renewables represented more than half the new power capacity around the world” in 2015, one has to remember their frustrating intermittency. Wind turbines only generate roughly 20 percent of their installed capacity, and solar panels yield an even more meager 10 percent.

So, while Frangoul is happy to tout all of this new power plant construction, one has to consider that it represents investments that will often sit idle.

Such imprudence might seem naive. But the IEA astutely notes that “renewable power expanded at its fastest-ever rate in 2015, thanks to supportive government policies.”

Indeed, it is these very subsidies that have triggered a rush to wind and solar, despite abundant evidence of their limitations. It would be interesting, then, for reporters like Frangoul to further examine these much-touted renewable projects, and see if “capacity” actually meets expectations.

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (6)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    This article is typical of the misinformation driving away traditional MSM consumers .
    Another way to look at the real impact of bird blenders and solar panels is to look at
    the energy inputs to build them including$$ Billions in government ordered tax payer subsidies . Of course the fewer the facts the stronger the opinions . Thanks I will get
    a range of opinions and information from various sources and form my own opinions
    no matter the bullying nonsense from Climate clowns and fraudulent claims of settled science .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Steven Capozzola

      |

      Amber, well said, as always. And the subsidies part is the kicker–tons of money being spent in unreliable energy infrastructure.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    The fallacy of wind turbines is revealed with simple arithmetic.

    5 mW wind turbine, avg output 1/3 nameplate, 20 yr life, electricity @ wholesale 3 cents per kwh produces $8.8E6.
    Installed cost @ $1.7E6/mW = $8.5E6. Add the cost of standby CCGT for low wind periods. Add the cost of land lease, maintenance, administration.

    Solar voltaic and solar thermal are even worse.

    The dollar relation is a proxy for energy relation. Bottom line, the energy consumed to design, manufacture, install, maintain and administer renewables appears to exceed the energy they produce in their lifetime.

    Without the energy provided by other sources these renewables could not exist.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Steven Capozzola

      |

      Thanks, Dan. You’ve succinctly summarized the great problem.

      Ironically, renewables are being offered as this miraculous panacea…

      Reply

  • Why I Became a Climate Skeptic. | CAP Media

    |

    […] a presumed switchover to wind and solar generation overlooks the glaring deficiencies of both forms of power. Wind and solar are inherently intermittent forms of electricity production […]

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.