Have we been duped by the primary energy fallacy?
Whenever I post something on renewable energy on social media it never takes long for negative comments to arrive in my feed. One type of comment I get frequently is from people who share a chart showing global primary energy demand over the last 200 years. They say “Look at the vast amount of fossil fuels we use. We will never be able to replace them with renewable energy, look how tiny their contribution is.” The suggestion is that we will need to replace all of that primary energy with renewable energy and that it would be impossible to do. Because of that we should just accept that we need fossil fuels forever.
Simply put, we don’t need to replace all of the energy inputs into the energy system as long as can deliver the same services more efficiently. The commentators showing primary consumption graphs have fallen for the primary energy fallacy, a term coined by Paul Martin. This fallacy arises when comparing energy sources based on their primary energy consumption, often overlooking fundamental differences in efficiency and utility.
Primary energy refers to the total energy content of natural resources before any conversion processes, such as coal, oil, or renewable electricity. The fallacy occurs when people equate high primary energy inputs with energy services. Measuring energy systems purely on primary energy inflates the perceived contribution of fossil fuels while underestimating renewables’ efficiency and untapped efficiency potentials through electrification.
