Ooopsy. Most of Europe’s Energy Came From Renewable Sources in 2020

And once again....

We can see that virtue signaling and narrative is what counts as facts to liberals.
Truth is what feels good. Facts are something you lie about to make what you want to be true... true.

Even with something so easily disproved as this, something that makes them look so stupid... it doesn't matter... they will repeat the headline nevertheless.
 
So 'impossible' but so QUICK!
I mean, they don't even have as easily used terrain as our much sunnier land.

But they/the headline probably should have said "the biggest component of energy," Not "most."

The brown part is wood.
3BDC2E89-89E3-4CD3-82CD-B4C01BE67F82.jpeg

If a tree falls in a forest—and then it’s driven to a mill, where it’s chopped and chipped and compressed into wood pellets, which are then driven to a port and shipped across the ocean to be burned for electricity in European power plants—does it warm the planet?

Most scientists and environmentalists say yes: By definition, clear-cutting trees and combusting their carbon emits greenhouse gases that heat up the earth.

 
Last edited:
So 'impossible' but so QUICK!
I mean, they don't even have as easily used terrain as our much sunnier land.

But they/the headline probably should have said "the biggest component of energy," Not "most."

That wouldn't be correct either. They burn diesel in cars and natural gas in their furnaces during their cold winters.
 

Ooopsy. Most of Europe’s Energy Came From Renewable Sources in 2020​


What an inaccurate headline.

More of Europe's Electricity Came From Renewable Sources Than From Fossil Fuels in 2020........

Accurate headline
 
So 'impossible' but so QUICK!
I mean, they don't even have as easily used terrain as our much sunnier land.

But they/the headline probably should have said "the biggest component of energy," Not "most."

The brown part is wood.
View attachment 489719
If a tree falls in a forest—and then it’s driven to a mill, where it’s chopped and chipped and compressed into wood pellets, which are then driven to a port and shipped across the ocean to be burned for electricity in European power plants—does it warm the planet?

Most scientists and environmentalists say yes: By definition, clear-cutting trees and combusting their carbon emits greenhouse gases that heat up the earth.

There's something about this post I don't quite follow. This is a chart of energy production by fuel source. Yet you have it labeled as energy DEMAND. I have tried to locate this graphic but without paying for the report, the views available on the IEA website do not display page numbers and I have not found it in the 2020 WEA under Energy Demand or Energy Production. If you have some other method of getting to the context of this graphic, I would really like to see it. I do not that this seems to be a product of famous AGW minimizer Bjorn Lomborg. who has some experience as director of the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute but, by training, is a political scientist.

The reason for seeing the context is that if I look to see what portion of the current EU electrical generation comes from renewable sources, I get 38%. That is a very significant deviation from this chart. So, how about an active link to this graphic?
 
I live in UK. Not sure if that's still in Europe as I believe we had some kind of contretemps with them a year ago :dunno: Anyway, can confirm that most of MY energy in 2020 came from either bacon or sausage sandwiches :eek2yum: Hope this helps...
 
So 'impossible' but so QUICK!
I mean, they don't even have as easily used terrain as our much sunnier land.

But they/the headline probably should have said "the biggest component of energy," Not "most."

The brown part is wood.
View attachment 489719
If a tree falls in a forest—and then it’s driven to a mill, where it’s chopped and chipped and compressed into wood pellets, which are then driven to a port and shipped across the ocean to be burned for electricity in European power plants—does it warm the planet?

Most scientists and environmentalists say yes: By definition, clear-cutting trees and combusting their carbon emits greenhouse gases that heat up the earth.

There's something about this post I don't quite follow. This is a chart of energy production by fuel source. Yet you have it labeled as energy DEMAND. I have tried to locate this graphic but without paying for the report, the views available on the IEA website do not display page numbers and I have not found it in the 2020 WEA under Energy Demand or Energy Production. If you have some other method of getting to the context of this graphic, I would really like to see it. I do not that this seems to be a product of famous AGW minimizer Bjorn Lomborg. who has some experience as director of the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute but, by training, is a political scientist.

The reason for seeing the context is that if I look to see what portion of the current EU electrical generation comes from renewable sources, I get 38%. That is a very significant deviation from this chart. So, how about an active link to this graphic?
You don’t generate energy without demand.
Now.
Why is ‘green’ energy dirtier than fossil fuels?

 
So 'impossible' but so QUICK!
I mean, they don't even have as easily used terrain as our much sunnier land.

But they/the headline probably should have said "the biggest component of energy," Not "most."

The brown part is wood.
View attachment 489719
If a tree falls in a forest—and then it’s driven to a mill, where it’s chopped and chipped and compressed into wood pellets, which are then driven to a port and shipped across the ocean to be burned for electricity in European power plants—does it warm the planet?

Most scientists and environmentalists say yes: By definition, clear-cutting trees and combusting their carbon emits greenhouse gases that heat up the earth.

There's something about this post I don't quite follow. This is a chart of energy production by fuel source. Yet you have it labeled as energy DEMAND. I have tried to locate this graphic but without paying for the report, the views available on the IEA website do not display page numbers and I have not found it in the 2020 WEA under Energy Demand or Energy Production. If you have some other method of getting to the context of this graphic, I would really like to see it. I do not that this seems to be a product of famous AGW minimizer Bjorn Lomborg. who has some experience as director of the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute but, by training, is a political scientist.

The reason for seeing the context is that if I look to see what portion of the current EU electrical generation comes from renewable sources, I get 38%. That is a very significant deviation from this chart. So, how about an active link to this graphic?
You don’t generate energy without demand.
Now.
Why is ‘green’ energy dirtier than fossil fuels?

One does not normally specify what fuel will be used with the energy we consume. We might favor this or that but we all just use whatever come out of the outlet. So, again, can you provide an active lnik to that "EU Energy Demand" graphic of yours just above? Or at least either better directions or a more complete copy and paste so we might see the origin of those numbers and why they differ so much from search results now.
 
Last edited:
So 'impossible' but so QUICK!
I mean, they don't even have as easily used terrain as our much sunnier land.

But they/the headline probably should have said "the biggest component of energy," Not "most."

The brown part is wood.
View attachment 489719
If a tree falls in a forest—and then it’s driven to a mill, where it’s chopped and chipped and compressed into wood pellets, which are then driven to a port and shipped across the ocean to be burned for electricity in European power plants—does it warm the planet?

Most scientists and environmentalists say yes: By definition, clear-cutting trees and combusting their carbon emits greenhouse gases that heat up the earth.

There's something about this post I don't quite follow. This is a chart of energy production by fuel source. Yet you have it labeled as energy DEMAND. I have tried to locate this graphic but without paying for the report, the views available on the IEA website do not display page numbers and I have not found it in the 2020 WEA under Energy Demand or Energy Production. If you have some other method of getting to the context of this graphic, I would really like to see it. I do not that this seems to be a product of famous AGW minimizer Bjorn Lomborg. who has some experience as director of the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute but, by training, is a political scientist.

The reason for seeing the context is that if I look to see what portion of the current EU electrical generation comes from renewable sources, I get 38%. That is a very significant deviation from this chart. So, how about an active link to this graphic?
You don’t generate energy without demand.
Now.
Why is ‘green’ energy dirtier than fossil fuels?

One does not normally specify what fuel will be used with the energy we consume. We might favor this or that but we all just use whatever come out of the outlet. So, again, can you provide an active lnik to that "EU Energy Demand" graphic of yours just above? Or at least either better directions or a more complete copy and paste so we might see the origin of those numbers and why they differ so much from search results now.
You don’t believe almost all EU renewable energy is from wood?

Fine. I’m used to you Leftards denying reality.
 
I did find that a little surprising. I am not surprised, however, that you won't provide a good link to these data as I think they're either from a trash source or you just manufactured them yourself.
 
So 'impossible' but so QUICK!
I mean, they don't even have as easily used terrain as our much sunnier land.

But they/the headline probably should have said "the biggest component of energy," Not "most."

Renewable at a very heavy price.
Saw a post this morning on FB showing hundreds of electric Uber cars in France rusting in a field because the cost to replace the batteries is higher than the original cost of the vehicle.
FB removed it of course.

186558428_2054308258077265_9170670491022067658_n.jpg
 
I did find that a little surprising. I am not surprised, however, that you won't provide a good link to these data as I think they're either from a trash source or you just manufactured them yourself.


Biomass currently represents almost 60% of the EU’s renewable energy, more than solar and wind power combined, according to the EU’s statistical office, Eurostat.

And even though wind and solar are growing fast, countries such as Austria, Denmark, Finland, Latvia and Sweden would be unable to achieve their 2020 renewable energy targets without biomass, experts say.



LOL!
 
Good to see this idiotic thread revived... just as a reminder how clueless people are to make a thread like this in the first place that is so OBVIOUSLY wrong.

:lol:
 
I did find that a little surprising. I am not surprised, however, that you won't provide a good link to these data as I think they're either from a trash source or you just manufactured them yourself.
Agreed, Leftard Politico is a crap source.
Have a 5 year old show you how to do a search on the internet to a site of your liking.
BTW,
The IEA said while biomass emits more CO2 than coal per unit of energy….
 
So 'impossible' but so QUICK!
I mean, they don't even have as easily used terrain as our much sunnier land.

But they/the headline probably should have said "the biggest component of energy," Not "most."

Renewable at a very heavy price.
Saw a post this morning on FB showing hundreds of electric Uber cars in France rusting in a field because the cost to replace the batteries is higher than the original cost of the vehicle.
FB removed it of course.

View attachment 490254

I found 5 copies on Twitter. Why would Facebook remove this picture?
 
So 'impossible' but so QUICK!
I mean, they don't even have as easily used terrain as our much sunnier land.

But they/the headline probably should have said "the biggest component of energy," Not "most."

Renewable at a very heavy price.
Saw a post this morning on FB showing hundreds of electric Uber cars in France rusting in a field because the cost to replace the batteries is higher than the original cost of the vehicle.
FB removed it of course.

View attachment 490254

I found 5 copies on Twitter. Why would Facebook remove this picture?
Because it either doesn't adhere to their community standards or some factchecker issued a counter statement. I shared the story....but it disappeared from my recorded posts on my profile.
 
So 'impossible' but so QUICK!
I mean, they don't even have as easily used terrain as our much sunnier land.

But they/the headline probably should have said "the biggest component of energy," Not "most."

Renewable at a very heavy price.
Saw a post this morning on FB showing hundreds of electric Uber cars in France rusting in a field because the cost to replace the batteries is higher than the original cost of the vehicle.
FB removed it of course.

View attachment 490254

I found 5 copies on Twitter. Why would Facebook remove this picture?
Because it either doesn't adhere to their community standards or some factchecker issued a counter statement. I shared the story....but it disappeared from my recorded posts on my profile.
I'm no FB guru, but don't they put a comment on posts with such problems explaining what they are doing? That's what they did when Trump lied.
 
So 'impossible' but so QUICK!
I mean, they don't even have as easily used terrain as our much sunnier land.

But they/the headline probably should have said "the biggest component of energy," Not "most."

Renewable at a very heavy price.
Saw a post this morning on FB showing hundreds of electric Uber cars in France rusting in a field because the cost to replace the batteries is higher than the original cost of the vehicle.
FB removed it of course.

View attachment 490254

I found 5 copies on Twitter. Why would Facebook remove this picture?
Because it either doesn't adhere to their community standards or some factchecker issued a counter statement. I shared the story....but it disappeared from my recorded posts on my profile.
I'm no FB guru, but don't they put a comment on posts with such problems explaining what they are doing? That's what they did when Trump lied.
Uh....there's specific difference between an opinion.....and a lie. Mkay.
They labeled every opinion Trump had as a lie simply because they never agreed with him on anything.....he was the enemy.
Who gives a shit that Biden lies about everything....EXTREMELY BIG THINGS THAT EFFECT OUR LIVES!!! The border's closed....wear your mask....I haven't been vaccinated....Black people can't get online.....what that $4 trillion is really going to be spent on.....etc.
The media decided they needed to point out Trump exaggerations or inaccuracies because he forgot the number of Muslims that were celebrating 911 and where they were when they did it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top