37 ms·
Primary energy consumption is the right metric here, since it's a 1:1 accounting of inputs to HB, chemical manufacture, and fuels for vehicles. Not a whole lot
by pfdietz 2y ago
Primary energy consumption is the right metric here, since it's a 1:1 accounting of inputs to HB, chemical manufacture, and fuels for vehicles. Not a whole lot of electrical input there.
In any case, the amount is small compared to society as a whole, and today's energy intensive agriculture could be sustained even with entirely renewable inputs, although at a cost. It's a small problem compared to shifting the larger economy off fossil fuels.
- floatrock 2y agoNot saying it's not the right metric, I'm saying the "1.9% to agriculture" number isn't including fertilizers, chemicals, or supply chains so the food isn't rotting in your silo. It does include fuel for tractors on the farm though.
- pfdietz 2y agoI believe it IS including those. From the link: "Large amounts of natural gas are required in the manufacturing of fertilizer and pesticide, so these amounts are categorized as indirect energy consumption on farms. Overall, about three-fifths of energy in 2016 used in the agricultural sector was consumed directly on-farm, while two-fifths were consumed indirectly in the form of fertilizer and pesticides."
- floatrock 2y agoIt's ambiguous, so I regret posting the link. Usually in energy accounting, "indirect" means "accounting puts it into a different category, but we acknowledge that other category wouldn't be making it if the demand for them wasn't here in this category and we differentiate it so we don't double-count it". Scope 1 vs Scope 2 & 3 in carbon-reporting land, if you will. Combining primary and indirect energy is possible, I suppose, but it's not how it's usually done? So I gave a shit link, emissions reporting is dead for at least the next 4 years, and so none of this matters anyways cause we're just burning our way into prosperity for the foreseeable future.