Fossil Fuels Supplied 86% of Global Energy in 2025: REPORT
https://www.canadaaction.ca/fossil-fuels-account-for-86-percent-of-global-energy-supply-2025-report
https://www.canadaaction.ca/fossil-fuels-account-for-86-percent-of-global-energy-supply-2025-report
27 Comments
Anarchitect@lemmy.zip · 13 pts · 32d
Dropped 1% every two years is pretty good , in 200 years we will be weaned off the ff /s
Another way to look at it is we used the most fossil fuels of any year in history in 2025 with the total energy use increase
fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com · 0 pts · 31d
How much of that is AI driven? If we didn't have AI what is our trend?
fake_meows@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 31d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve
AI has literally almost no effect. You can't see any effect from different political or environmental policies, new technology, innovation, economic cycles etc.
All the stuff that people seem to think matters is completely irrelevant on this issue.
fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com · 1 pts · 31d
Um, I don't believe you.
fake_meows@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 31d
Well, like, try this one on for size:
If every single personal vehicle on earth was an electric vehicle, this is only like 6-8% of global emissions.
FARMS are like 5X more emissions.
I'll leave it as an exercise in critical thinking about why you hear about the solution to climate change being to switch to EVs and not to eliminate food. However, switching to EVs leaves 95% of pollution still happening...
In your personal life, 70% of your personal carbon usage is stuff like your housing, furniture, clean water, food, clothing, shopping etc. Like all the non transport stuff is the lions share of pollution.
The USA electric grid is 1400 terawatts.
The world power usage is 19,000 terawatts around 85% of which is fossil.
So all USA electric is around 7% of global power.
Let's say power fof datacenters doubles USA electricity AND that its 100% fossil.
New global power supply 20,300 tw. New fossil fuel share goes from 16,300 to 17,700 TW of fossil which is like a 9% increase.
I'm giving you very generous assumptions here...
If you had an entire complex system, it's possible that power gets saved somehow somewhere also, but let's keep it simple
But yes, for a small state or county, power usage could double which seems like a huge jump. At a global level and against our total energy background usage/this is like barely registering.
crozilla@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 32d
Pretty sure that publication is pro-fossil fuels in general. Their funding page is suspiciously light on details.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 31d
For how many people?
eleitl@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 31d
The complete technosphere of this planet.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 30d
So...about 15%?
eleitl@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 30d
No. 100% of 8.3 billion people and their primary energetic footprint.
imeansurewhynot@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 32d
Fewer fossil fuels each year as renewables explode, as the article explains.
eleitl@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 32d
No, more fossils in netto terms, because total energy use is growing.
imeansurewhynot@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 32d
No, that's gross energy, not net. There's a consistently shrinking percent of fossil fuels being used overall because of the massive amount of renewables being installed annually.
fake_meows@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 31d
There is more relative growth in renewables but fossil fuels grew also. Fossil fuels are not shrinking in use, they are growing in absolute terms.
The growth of JUST natural gas was almost the same as the growth in all renewables.
imeansurewhynot@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 31d
Sort of, but the relative percentage of fossil fuels shrinking determines the maximum growth of fossil fuels.
Even though all energy use is going up, there's a consistently shrinking percentage of fossil fuels being used overall because of the massive amount of renewables being installed constantly.
Renewables will continue pushing out fossil fuels because renewables are more economically efficient.
fossil fuels are shrinking in use, renewables are overtaking them every day. tipping point occurred a few years ago.
Anarchitect@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 31d
Sir please try to think harder, "we can keep explaining it to you, but we can't understand it for you". What data are you looking at where fossil fuel use is shrinking as a total quantity being burned each year which is the relevant metric for the biosphere.
If I eat 1 cookie on day one and +1 cookie extra with each day so that on day 30 I eat 30 cookies per day and keep ramping up , it don't matter if the total weight of my broccoli intake is going up 2 grams per day from a base of 1 gram per day . The cookies will still wreck me
fake_meows@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 31d
My pants are shrinking. This belt is smaller. My second derivative of broccoli is my diet.
imeansurewhynot@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 31d
Yes, making up an unrelated scenario with different math brings you to a different result.
Fortunately for everyone else, your imagination has no bearing on the shrinking amount of fossil fuels relative to renewables.
eleitl@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 31d
Please demonstrate the fraction of fossils shrinking on this graph https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy
imeansurewhynot@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 31d
An irrelevant graph to the article and question. No...how about this:
Same website, but a relevant graph demonstrating the constant reduction of fossil fuels relative to sustainable fuels.
eleitl@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 31d
Please learn the difference between primary energy demand and electricity generation before commenting here.
fake_meows@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 31d
Not in the slightest. If the world suddenly decides to, fossil fuels can ramp up even faster.
The observed historical trend is in no sense deterministic. There is simply no connection between the two graphs.
https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Thought experiment: Imagine a 1000% sales tax on solar panels starting in 2028. Solar panel sales tank. According to your argument, the maximum growth of fossil fuels is detemined by solar panel sales, so fossil fuels will also decrease?
Classic economic theory states that (Jevons paradox) solar panels make fossil fuels cheaper by demand-side market forces and will increase demand and usage, which is exactly what we are seeing. The all time maximum fossil fuels use is happening right now.
imeansurewhynot@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 31d
yes, if you imagine the data does not show what it's showing, then it shows something different.
luckily for the rest of us, you're wrong and fossil fuels are shrinking while renewables are growing.
Anarchitect@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 31d
A shrinking percent is not a shrinking total amount when energy use is climbing faster than the shrink . We are using MORE fossil fuels each year
imeansurewhynot@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 31d
yes, the very large and steadily decreasing amount of fossil fuels.
you know how the quarter you're holding looks as big as the sun if you libe the two up?
guess what? the quarter isn't actually that big, you have to understand perspective to reconcile their sizes.
this should help you understand: big big smelly gas now, but their big big number gets small small every day.
stop staring at the sun.
fake_meows@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 31d
The AMOUNT is not shown on this graph. AMOUNT, the definition of the word: "total quantity".
You are looking at a graph that compares fossil fuel GROWTH to renewables GROWTH. There are two independent functions, and the comparison of the two growth curves is called the first derivative or the rate of change. You are looking at the change rate, not the amount.
If you had two cars leaving a start line at different times, both cars can be accelerating at the same time, right?
If the car in the second position was catching up to the first car, it would be accelerating more than the first car and growing speed. This is your graph.
However, just because car #2 is accelerating faster than car #1, this doesn't mean any of the following :
One of those things might be true, but the acceleration of car #2 has zero bearing on what's going on with the speed or acceleration of car #1. None of this is on your graph.
We need to look at car #1 in another INDEPENDENT way to see what it's doing. You cannot tell what it is doing purely from a relationship to car #2.
You are currently making the argument that says that since car #2 is catching up due to faster acceleration, this means car #1 is in reverse. Absolutely wrong, sorry. This is not logical.