Why do people keep showing graphs of primary energy when it is a misleading metric? Why do people keep showing graphs of primary energy when it tells us nothing about the energy we need or use? The reason is because primary energy exaggerates the role of fossil fuels, biomass and nuclear in the energy supply, so supporters of fossil fuels in particular, like to show primary energy as a way to diminish progress that clean, renewables, such as wind and solar, have made. First, what is primary energy? For coal, oil, gas, biomass, and uranium, it is the energy in the chemical bonds of these fuels. For wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro, it is the energy in the actual electricity produced. Here is why primary energy is misleading. When coal is burned for electricity, two-thirds of coal’s primary energy is lost as waste heat. As such, coal requires three times the primary energy as wind or solar to produce the exact same electricity. Biomass and uranium also require three times the primary energy as wind and solar for electricity. Thus, graphs comparing primary energies of fuels by year show huge fossil-fuel primary energies and tiny wind and solar primary energies. The appropriate metric to use in such graphs is end-use energy. This is the energy directly used by a consumer. It equals primary energy minus the energy lost in converting primary energy to end-use energy, including the energy lost due to waste heat and transmission and distribution. Thus, for coal-electricity, end-use energy is the actual electricity from the coal, after waste heat and transmission and distribution losses are removed. As such, it is comparable, one-for-one, with the end-use electricity from wind and solar. In sum, do not believe graphs that show primary energy. They only mislead about the role of renewables in an energy transition. More info web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/… youtube.com/shorts/LwYjaD1Zm…

The final vaccine construct for Rose was designed by Grok