Our World Articles

Search... Latest About Donate

in Data by topic
All charts Sustainable Development Goals Tracker

COVID-19 vaccinations, cases, excess mortality, and much more Explore our COVID-19 data

Energy mix
Home Energy Energy mix

by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser

Reuse our work freely Cite this research

Energy By country Data explorer Energy access Production & Consumption Energy mix Electricity mix Fossil fuels Renewables Nuclear Transport

Energy production – mainly the burning of fossil fuels – accounts for

around three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions. Not only is
energy production the largest driver of climate change, the burning of
fossil fuels and biomass also comes at a large cost to human health: at
least five million deaths are attributed to air pollution each year.

The world therefore needs to shift away from fossil fuels to an energy
mix dominated by low-carbon sources of energy – renewable
technologies and nuclear power.

What does our energy mix look like today? What countries have the
‘cleanest’ energy mix? And are we making progress in shifting towards a
low-carbon energy system?

This article focuses on the breakdown of energy sources: how they vary
across the world and how this is changing over time.

In the energy domain, there are many different units thrown around –
joules, exajoules, million tonnes of oil equivalents, barrel equivalents,
British thermal units, terawatt-hours, to name a few. This can be
confusing, and make comparisons difficult. So at Our World in Data we
try to maintain consistency by converting all energy data to watt-hours.
We do this to compare energy data across different metrics and
sources.

Global primary energy: how has the mix changed over

centuries?

Today when we think about energy mixes we think about a diverse

range of sources – coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydropower, solar, wind,
biofuels. But If we look back a couple of centuries ago, our energy mixes
where relatively homogeneous. And the transition from one source to
another was incredibly slow.
 In the chart shown we see global primary energy consumption dating
back to the year 1800. This earlier data is sourced from Vaclav Smil’s
work Energy Transitions: Global and National Perspectives.1 Data from
1965 onwards comes from the latest release of BP’s Statistical Review of
World Energy.2

We see that until the mid-19th century, traditional biomass – the

burning of solid fuels such as wood, crop waste, or charcoal – was the
dominant source of energy used across the world. But with the
Industrial Revolution came the rise of coal; followed by oil, gas; and by
the turn of the 20th century, hydropower.

It wasn’t until the 1960s that nuclear energy was added to the mix.
What are often referred to as ‘modern renewables’ – solar and wind –
were only added much later, in the 1980s.

What Vaclav Smil – and other researchers studying these long-term

energy transitions across countries – highlights in his work is the slow
rate at which energy transitions have occurred in the past. The speed
Related chart: and scale of the energy transition we need today in switching from
fossil fuels to low-carbon energy is therefore a new challenge, very
Long-term energy transitions different from the past.
Long-term energy transitions, Portugal
Share of primary energy by source over the long-term, measured as the percentage of total energy consump on.
Primary electricity includes: hydropower, nuclear power, wind, photovoltaics, dal, wave and solar thermal and
geothermal (only figures for electricity produc on are included).
100% Primary
electricity

Natural Gas
80%

How do our long-term energy transitions look when we consider two additional
60%

1800 2021
Oil

40%

Coal
20%

elements: the work of humans and animals?

Water & Wind
Fuelwood
Animal muscle
Human muscle
0%
1856 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2008

Source: Joint Center for History and Economics, Harvard University and University of Cambridge. Energy History.
OurWorldInData.org/energy • CC BY

CHART TABLE SOURCES DOWNLOAD

Energy mix: what sources do we get our energy from?

Contents

Let’s look at our energy mix today, and explore what sources we draw
Energy consumption by source, World upon.
Primary energy consumption is measured in terawatt-hours (TWh). Here an inefficiency factor (the
'substitution' method) has been applied for fossil fuels, meaning the shares by each energy source give
a better approximation of final energy consumption. In the interactive chart shown we see the primary energy mix broken
down by fuel or generation source.
Change country  Relative

160,000 Other renewables Globally we get the largest amount of our energy from oil, followed by
Biofuels
Solar coal, gas, then hydroelectric power. As we look at in more detail below –
140,000 Wind
Hydropower “How much of global energy comes from low-carbon sources?” – the
120,000 Nuclear
Gas
global energy mix is still dominated by fossil fuels. They account for

100,000 more than 80% of energy consumption.

80,000
Coal How you can interact with this chart
60,000
On these charts you see the button Change Country in the bottom
40,000 left corner – with this option you can switch the chart to any other
Oil country in the world.
20,000
By ticking the ‘Relative’ box in the bottom left corner you can
0 switch to see each source’s share of the total.
1965 1980 1990 2000 2010 2021
Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy
OurWorldInData.org/energy • CC BY
Note: 'Other renewables' includes geothermal, biomass and waste energy.

1965 2021

CHART TABLE SOURCES DOWNLOAD

Related chart:

Primary energy consumption by source

Primary energy consumption by source, World
Primary energy is shown based on the ‘subs tu on’ method which takes account of inefficiencies in energy
produc on from fossil fuels.

Oil
50,000 TWh

Coal

40,000 TWh Gas

Explore the changes in primary energy source by source as a line chart [as opposed to a
30,000 TWh

20,000 TWh

stacked area].
Hydropower
10,000 TWh
Nuclear
Wind
Solar
Biofuels
Other renewables
0 TWh
1965 1980 1990 2000 2010 2021

Source: Our World in Data based on BP Sta s cal Review of World Energy OurWorldInData.org/energy • CC BY

In the charts here we see the breakdown of the energy mix by country. First with the
higher-level breakdown by fossil fuels, nuclear and renewables. Then with the specific
breakdown by source, including coal, gas, oil, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind and other
renewables (which include bioenergy, wave and tidal).

This is given in terms of per capita consumption. Using the toggle on the interactive
charts you can also see the percentage breakdown for each source using the ‘Relative’
tickbox.

1965 2021 1965 2021

CHART TABLE SOURCES DOWNLOAD CHART TABLE SOURCES DOWNLOAD

How much of global energy comes from low-carbon

sources?

Around three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions come from

the burning of fossil fuels for energy.3 To reduce global emissions we
need to shift our energy systems away from fossil fuels to low-carbon
sources of energy. We need to ‘decarbonize’.

How big is this challenge? How much of our energy currently comes
from low-carbon sources?

In the chart here we see the breakdown of global primary energy

consumption for 2019.4 

Before we look at the numbers, there are two points to note:

Here we take primary energy based on the ‘substitution method’ for

energy accounting. For those interested in energy accounting
methods, at the end of this post we look at comparisons of direct
versus substitution methods. The quick summary of it is that this
accounting method tries to account for the energy lost from the
inefficiencies in fossil fuel production and aims to provide the
appropriate comparison of how much more low-carbon energy
we would need to replace fossil fuels in the energy mix. It’s one of
the preferred accounting method used by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).5
These figures don’t include energy produced from traditional
biomass. This is because most international energy agencies –
such as BP, IEA or EIA – only track data on commercially-traded
 fuels. Traditional biomass – which are solid fuels such as wood,
crop residues and charcoal – can be a key source of energy for
people living at lower incomes, but it is challenging to quantify
and timely data is not available. Based on crude estimates from
earlier data I would expect it to currently account for an
additional 6% of global energy.

16% of global primary energy came from

low-carbon sources in 2019
We see that in 2019, almost 16% (15.7% to be precise) of global primary
energy came from low-carbon sources. Low-carbon sources are the sum
of nuclear energy and renewables – which includes hydropower, wind,
solar, bioenergy, geothermal and wave and tidal.6

11.4% came from renewables; and 4.3% came from nuclear.

Hydropower and nuclear account for most of our low-carbon energy:

combined they account for 10.7%. Wind produces just 2.2%, and solar
1.1% – but both sources are  growing quickly.

Despite producing more and more energy from renewables each year,
the global energy mix is still dominated by coal, oil, and gas. Not only
does most of our energy – 84% of it – come from fossil fuels, we
continue to burn more each year: total production has increased from
116,214 to 136,761 TWh in the last 10 years. 
We’ve seen the breakdown of the energy mix today. But this does tell us
about how it’s changing over time. Are we making progress in
decarbonization over time? We look at this question in a related post
here.

Which countries get the most energy from low-carbon

sources?

Globally, just 16% of primary energy (15.7% to be precise) came from

low-carbon sources – nuclear and renewables – in 2019. We are a long
way away from the goal to shift towards a low-carbon energy system.

But do some countries do much better than this? Do we have examples

of countries who are already paving the way towards a fossil-free
energy mix?

Which countries are doing better in low-

carbon energy production than the global
average?
In the interactive map here we see the world split into two categories:
countries which get more of their energy from low-carbon sources than
the global average of 15.7%; and those that get less.7 

What immediately stands out is that there is a reasonably strong East-

West divide: most Western economies get a larger share of energy from
low-carbon sources, and those in East get less. Of course this boundary
is not absolute: the Netherlands and Ireland, for example, are below the
global average.
This divide may be in part, due to differences in income: many richer
countries with a long history of fossil fuel-rich energy systems have
already shifted away from them.8 

For many poorer countries in our map, no data is shown. This is because
the BP Statistical Review of World Energy does not cover all countries
in the world – it relies on energy statistics from commercially-traded
fuels. This means traditional biomass burning – a dominant source of
energy at lower incomes are not included. Typically energy-related
emissions from low income countries are small because access to
energy – both electricity and modern cooking fuels – is low.

Which countries get the highest share of

energy from low-carbon sources?
We have a rough categorization of countries that are above and below
the global average. But let’s take a closer look at the numbers.

In the interactive map here we see the share of primary energy that
comes from low-carbon sources across countries.9

In 2019, Iceland got 79% of its energy from low-carbon sources. This
was the highest in the world. Most of this came from hydropower (55%)
but also other renewables – mainly geothermal energy (24%). You see
this breakdown in the interactive chart below. Using the “change
country” toggle you can switch to see the breakdown for other
countries.

But Iceland wasn’t the only country to get most of its energy from low-
carbon sources: Sweden (69%); Norway (66%) France (49%) and
Switzerland (49%) all got a large amount from nuclear or renewables.

Finland, and Brazil also had a high share – more than 40%. 

At the other end of the scale, some countries rely almost entirely on
fossil fuels. Many of the world’s oil-producing countries – Saudi Arabia,
Oman, and Kuwait – got less than 1% from low-carbon sources. 

Amongst the largest emerging economies, South Africa produced only

5% from low-carbon sources; India got 9%; and China, 15%. Brazil, as
we mentioned earlier, achieves a much higher share – 46% in 2019.

Globally, our progress in shifting towards a low-carbon economy has

been slow. That may leave us pessimistic about a path forward. But
some countries – often some of the world’s richest countries who have
high carbon footprints – show us that significant progress on
decarbonizing our energy systems is possible. They still have a long way
to go but are moving in the right direction.
Poorer countries face a bigger challenge: they must grow their
economies, giving their populations access to energy, healthcare and
alleviating poverty whilst avoiding the carbon-intensive pathways
today’s rich countries have taken. To do this, they need clean energy to
be cheap, undercutting fossil fuel alternatives. In this regard, the world’s
richest countries also have a role to play: the scale-up of low-carbon
energy should help to drive down costs. We have already seen this
effect with the rapid decline in solar prices in recent years.

Is the world making progress in decarbonizing energy?

Three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions come from the
burning of fossil fuels for energy.10 To tackle climate change, we need to
transition away from fossil fuels and decarbonize our energy systems.

The world got 15.7% of its energy from low-carbon sources – either
nuclear or renewables – in 2019.  How has this changed over time?

Does our track record give us reason to be optimistic that we can

quickly decarbonize?

In the chart we see the share of global energy that comes from low-
carbon sources. We’ve certainly made progress since half a century ago:
while the global consumption of energy increased 3.8-fold, the share of
low carbon sources has more than doubled. In the 1960s only 6% of our
energy came from renewables or nuclear [at this point in time it was
mainly the former, as we’ll see later].

But our rate of progress since the 1990s has been less impressive. By
1994 we were already getting 13.5% from low-carbon sources. Today –
25 years later – we’ve only increased this by two percentage points. It’s
moving in the right direction, but far too slowly – probably much more
slowly than many expect.

Fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables: how is

the global energy mix  changing?
In the chart we see the share of global energy that comes from fossil
fuels, renewables and nuclear. The sum of the top two is what we want
to increase. I’ve also summarised this breakdown in the table – noting
Low-carbon energy

each source’s’ share at various points in time since the 1970s. Year Fossil Fuels Renewables Nuclear
(Renewables + Nuclear)

Part of this slow progress is due to the fact that much of the gains made 1970 94% 6% 5.6% 0.4%
in renewables has been offset by a decline in nuclear energy.
1980 91.6% 8.4% 6% 2.4%
Renewables have been growing while nuclear has been rolled back.11
1990 88% 12% 6.4% 5.6%
Overall, this means that the combined share from low-carbon sources
2000 87% 13% 7% 6%
has increased by less than we might have expected. Having both
renewables and nuclear pulling in the same direction would certainly 2010 87% 13% 7.8% 5.2%

have helped. But it wouldn’t be enough: the rate of progress would still 2019 84.3% 15.7% 11.4% 4.3%
have been slow.

It’s the total amount of fossil fuels we burn

that matters – and we continue to burn more
each year
But, actually, we’re still fooling ourselves a bit in looking at this progress
through the lens of what share of our energy is low-carbon.

When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the atmosphere does not

care about shares, only absolutes. That is what ultimately determines
the amount of CO2 we emit, and the rate at which it accumulates in the
atmosphere.

Global energy consumption is not stagnant, but growing. And in the

past years it has been growing too quickly for renewables and nuclear
to keep up.

In the chart here we see primary energy consumption in absolute terms

for each source. We continue to produce more energy from fossil fuels –
particularly oil and gas – each year.12

Low-carbon energy is certainly growing across the world – undoubtedly

a sign of progress.

Decarbonization is happening. But not nearly fast enough.To achieve

the necessary progress that matters for the climate we need to see its
growth not only meet our new energy demands each year, but start
displacing existing fossil fuels in the energy mix at a much faster rate.
Energy consumption by source
IN THIS SECTION

Fossil fuels: what share of energy comes from fossil fuels?

Coal: what share of energy comes from coal?
Oil: what share of energy comes from oil?
Gas: what share of energy comes from gas?
Nuclear: what share of energy comes from nuclear?
Renewables: how much of our energy comes from renewables?
Hydropower: what share of energy comes from hydropower?
Solar: what share of energy comes from solar?
Wind: what share of energy comes from wind?

Fossil fuels: what share of energy comes from fossil fuels?

Fossil fuels are the sum of coal, oil and gas. Combined, they are the
largest source of global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). We
therefore want to shift our energy systems away from fossil fuels
Related content: towards low-carbon sources of energy.

This interactive map shows the share of primary energy that comes
Fossil fuels
from fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas summed together) across the world.
Explore our work on Fossil Fuels.

Three tips on how to interact with this map

By clicking on any country on the map you see the change over time
in this country.
By moving the time slider (below the map) you can see how the
global situation has changed over time.
You can focus on a particular world region using the dropdown
menu to the top-right of the map.

Coal: what share of energy comes from coal?

Coal has been a critical energy sources, and mainstay in global energy
production for centuries.

But it’s also the most polluting energy source: both in terms of the
amount of CO2 it produces per unit of energy, but also the amount of
local air pollution it creates. Moving away from coal energy is important
for climate change as well as human health.

This interactive map shows the share of primary energy that comes
from coal across the world.

Oil: what share of energy comes from oil?

Oil is the world’s largest energy source today. It is the dominant source
 of energy for the transport sector in particular.

This interactive map shows the share of primary energy that comes
from oil across the world.

Gas: what share of energy comes from gas?

Natural gas has, for decades, lagged behind coal and oil as an energy
source. But today its consumption is growing rapidly – often as a
replacement for coal in the energy mix. Gas is a major provider of
electricity production, and a key source of heat.

This interactive map shows the share of primary energy that comes
from gas across the world.

Nuclear: what share of energy comes from nuclear?

Nuclear energy – alongside hydropower – has been a key source of low-
carbon energy for many countries across the world in recent decades.
But there are large differences in the role of nuclear – some countries
Nuclear energy rely heavily on it for energy production; others produce no energy at all
Explore our work on Nuclear Energy. from it.

This interactive map shows the share of primary energy that comes
from nuclear across the world.

Renewables: how much of our energy comes from renewables?

Renewable energy is a collective term used to capture a number of
different energy sources. ‘Renewables’ typically includes hydropower,
solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and wave and tidal energy.
Renewable energy
Explore our work on Renewable Energy.
This interactive map shows the share of primary energy that comes
from renewables (the sum of all renewable energy technologies) across
the world.

The share of energy we get from individual renewable technologies –

solar, or wind, for example – are given in the sections below.

Hydropower: what share of energy comes from hydropower?

Hydroelectric power has been an influential low-carbon energy
technology for many countries for more than half a century. Globally, it
is still the largest source of renewable energy.
Related content
This interactive map shows the share of primary energy that comes
from hydropower across the world.
Hydropower generation
How is hydropower generation changing in absolute terms? Explore in more detail in our
work on Renewable Energy.
Solar: what share of energy comes from solar?
Solar energy is often referred to as a ‘modern renewable’ – a couple of
decades ago it made only a tiny contribution to global energy supply.
But in recent years it has
Related content
This interactive map shows the share of primary energy that comes
from solar technologies across the world.
Solar power generation
How quickly is solar production changing? Explore in more detail in our work on
Renewable Energy.

Wind: what share of energy comes from wind?

This interactive map shows the share of primary energy that comes
from wind (both onshore and offshore) across the world.

Related content
Three tips on how to interact with this map
By clicking on any country on the map you see the change over time
Wind power generation in this country.
How quickly is wind production changing? Explore in more detail in our work on
By moving the time slider (below the map) you can see how the
Renewable Energy.
global situation has changed over time.
You can focus on a particular world region using the dropdown
menu to the top-right of the map.

Year-to-year change: how is energy consumption by

source changing?

Direct vs. substituted primary energy: what are the

multiple ways of energy accounting?
Understanding the breakdown of our energy systems – how much
energy we get from coal, oil or gas, how much from nuclear, solar or
wind – is crucial. It allows us to compare energy mixes across the world;
track whether we are making progress on decarbonizing our energy
systems; and plan and manage demands for natural resources. 

But what seems like a simple exercise – adding up the produced energy
from all the different sources – is in fact not straightforward at all.
These difficulties result in different approaches for ‘energy accounting’
and present a different picture of the energy mix.

Below, we take a look at the two key methodologies applied to primary

energy accounting: ‘direct’ primary energy and primary energy via the
‘substitution method’. These methods are discussed (or debated) often,
but I couldn’t find particularly clear or simple explanations of how they
differ and what this means for understanding our energy mix. The aim
here is to fill that gap.

What’s important is to understand why there are two different

methods and how they affect our perspective on the energy mix.

Direct vs. substituted primary energy: what’s

the difference?
‘Primary energy’  refers to energy in its raw form, before it has been
converted by humans into other forms of energy like electricity, heat or
transport fuels. Think of this as inputs into an energy system: coal, oil or
gas before we burn them; or solar or wind energy before we convert
them to electricity.

When we are asking how much energy is consumed or what the

breakdown of the sources of energy is we are asking about primary
energy.

Here we look at two ways in which ‘primary energy’ is calculated: the

‘direct’ and the ‘substituted’ method. The simplest way to think of the
difference between these methods is that ‘direct’ primary energy does
not take account of the energy lost in the conversion of fossil fuels to
usable energy. The substitution method does attempt to correct for this
loss.

An example of the difference between ‘direct’

and ‘substituted’ energy
To understand why this distinction is important we need to first
consider the process of energy production.

When we burn fuel in a thermal power plant most of the energy we put
into the process is lost – primarily in the form of heat. Most fossil fuel
plants run with an efficiency of around 33% to 40%.13 The remaining
60% to 67% of energy is wasted as heat. This means for every unit of
energy that we can use, another two are wasted.

When we measure electricity  generation from renewables or nuclear

power, we’re measuring the direct  output, with no losses or waste to
consider.

Let’s take an example – shown in the graphic here. Imagine we have a

country that needs 100 terawatt-hours (TWh) of energy. We have three
different energy mixes: only fossil fuels; only renewable or nuclear
energy; and a mix of both. 

1. If we only rely on fossil fuels we need 263 TWh of energy input.

This is because only around 38% of these inputs are converted
into ‘useful’ energy.14 163 TWh is energy lost as heat.
 2. If we only rely on either renewable or nuclear energy these
losses do not occur – the quantity of electricity generated is the
same quantity we can use. So we only need 100 TWh.

3. If we rely on renewables/nuclear and fossil fuels it depends on

the mix: let’s say we produce 50 TWh from renewables or nuclear
sources. We need another 50 TWh from fossil fuels. But to
produce the additional 50 TWh from fossil fuels, we actually need
132 TWh, because we lose 82 TWh as heat [50 TWh / 0.38 = 132
TWh]. Combined, we need 182 TWh of energy input [50 TWh from
renewables/nuclear + 50 TWh ‘useful’ fossil fuel energy + 82 TWh
wasted].

Based on this example we can understand the difference between

direct primary energy and the substitution method. 

Let’s take the third scenario – a mixture of fossil fuels and low-carbon
energy – and see how the low-carbon share differs between the two
methods. This is shown in the figure.

From the direct method we get 50 TWh / 182 TWh = 27%. From the
substitution  method we get 50 TWh / 100 TWh = 50%.

I find it helpful to think of the distinction as:

Low-carbon’s share in direct primary energy = % of total

primary energy consumption (including all of the inefficiencies of
fossil fuel production)

Low carbon’s share in substituted primary energy = % of useful

energy (once we subtract all of the wasted energy in the burning
of fossil fuels)

What effect does our choice of accounting

method have on the breakdown of the global
energy mix?
A question many want the answer to is, how much of our energy comes
from low-carbon sources? How close are we to getting rid of fossil fuels?

As we now know, it depends on whether we’re using the direct or

substitution method. In the chart here we show the breakdown of the
global primary energy mix in 2019 to compare the two methods.15

As we should expect from the example we worked through, when we

calculate the share of energy from low-carbon sources via the
substitution method we get a higher figure: 16% vs. only 7% from the
direct method. When we strip away the differences in efficiencies
between the sources, both renewables and nuclear make a larger
contribution. 

In the interactive charts you can also compare each source’s share of
energy based on the two methods. Using the “change country” button
in the bottom-left of each chart, you can also see this for different
countries.

Most sources tend to prefer and report on the substitution method (or
a similar approach – the ‘physical content’ method – which we don’t
discuss here but which gives similar results) rather than the direct
method. The substitution method is also the preferred approach of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), for example.16

How do we convert from direct to

substituted primary energy?
At Our World in Data we get most of our energy data from BP; each Conversion factors applied in converting renewable and nuclear electricity outputs to primary energy17
year it publishes its Statistical Review of World Energy report. It applies
the substitution method to its primary energy data [you can read its
methodology here].

How does it convert from direct primary energy – that we can measure
– into the substitution breakdown? 

In the schematic explanation above, we looked at calculating the share

of energy from low-carbon energy sources by comparing it with the
amount of useful energy (subtracting the wasted energy) from fossil
fuels.

But we can also do the opposite of this to get the same result. In fact,
this inverse approach is what is most commonly applied by BP and
others who use the ‘substitution method’. So, instead of assuming fossil
fuels have the same efficiency as renewables/nuclear, we do the
opposite: we assume renewables/nuclear are as inefficient as fossil
fuels. We calculate the equivalent amount of fossil fuels that would be
required to produce the amount of electricity we get from non-fossil
based sources.

So, let’s say we produce 100 TWh of electricity from wind. And we
assume the efficiency of a fossil fuel plant is 38%. We would convert
this wind electricity into ‘input-equivalent’ primary energy by dividing
by this efficiency [100 / 0.38 = 263 TWh]. This would be the amount of
primary energy that would be required from fossil fuels to produce the
same amount of electricity as wind.

We should note that this conversion is used as an approximation – a

standard ‘efficiency’ factor is applied across-the-board. But we know
that some power plants have a slightly lower or higher efficiency and it
can change over time. In fact, BP changed its methodology in its 2020
assessment to reflect this change over time. Previously it assumed a
38% efficiency factor consistently. But it now applies a ‘time-
dependent’ model to build in improvements over time. Changes in this
conversion factor are summarised in the table below.
The substitution method gives us a more accurate understanding of
how low-carbon energy is competing with fossil fuels. For this reason:
when we look at the breakdowns of energy mix on Our World in Data we
have tried wherever possible to use primary energy measured by the
substitution method.

Explore more of our work on Energy

Explore all the metrics – energy production, electricity Get an overview of energy for any country on a single Download our complete dataset of energy metrics on
consumption, and breakdown of fossil fuels, renewable page. GitHub. It’s open-access and free for anyone to use.
and nuclear energy.
 See how access to electricity and clean cooking fuels vary Explore long-term changes in energy production and How much of our energy comes from fossil fuels,
across the world. consumption across the world. renewables and nuclear energy? See the breakdown of the
energy mix.

Explore the breakdown of the electricity mix and how this See the long-term changes in coal, oil and gas production How quickly are countries scaling up the production of
is changing. and consumption. renewable technologies? Explore the data.

Explore the long-term changes in nuclear energy Explore trends in transport technologies and emissions
production across the world. across the world.

Endnotes
1. Vaclav Smil (2017). Energy Transitions: Global and National Perspectives.

2. Note that this data presents primary energy consumption via the ‘substitution method’. The ‘substitution method’ – in comparison to the ‘direct method’ – attempts to correct for the inefficiencies (energy
wasted as heat during combustion) in fossil fuel and biomass conversion. It does this by correcting nuclear and modern renewable technologies to their ‘primary input equivalents’ if the same quantity of energy
were to be produced from fossil fuels.

3. The remaining quarter comes from industrial processes (such as cement production), agriculture, land use change and waste.

4. This is based on primary energy data published annually in BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy.

5. Krey V., O. Masera, G. Blanford, T. Bruckner, R. Cooke, K. Fisher-Vanden, H. Haberl, E. Hertwich, E. Kriegler, D. Mueller, S. Paltsev, L. Price, S. Schlömer, D. Ürge-Vorsatz, D. van Vuuren, and T. Zwickel, 2014:
Annex II: Metrics & Methodology. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C.
Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

6. The emissions from these sources are not necessarily zero – the mining of materials, production, maintenance and decommissioning of these technologies may produce some carbon, but per unit of  energy this
is  very small relative to fossil fuels.

Schlömer S., T. Bruckner, L. Fulton, E. Hertwich, A. McKinnon, D. Perczyk, J. Roy, R. Schaeffer, R. Sims, P. Smith, and R. Wiser, 2014: Annex III: Technology-specific cost and performance parameters. In: Climate
Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona,
E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

7. This breakdown of primary energy is based on the ‘substitution method’ which corrects for the inefficiencies in energy production from fossil fuels, and is a better representation of low-carbon energy’s share of
‘useful energy’. For an in-depth discussion and comparison of different ways of accounting for energy production, see our explainer.

8. In this related chart you can see how the share of primary energy from low-carbon sources relates to average income – GDP per capita. This relationship is by no means clear-cut: many rich countries get very
little energy from low-carbon sources; and poorer countries get a high share. But overall we see that more rich countries tend to lie above the dotted global average line than countries at lower incomes.

9. This breakdown of primary energy is based on the ‘substitution method’ which corrects for the inefficiencies in energy production from fossil fuels, and is a better representation of low-carbon energy’s share of
‘useful energy’. For an in-depth discussion and comparison of different ways of accounting for energy production, see our explainer.

10. The remaining quarter comes from industrial processes (mainly cement production), agriculture, land use change and waste.

11. This is even clearer when we focus in on global electricity production: nuclear declined by almost as much as renewables gained.

12. This is also very clear when we look at the year-on-year change in energy consumption by source; this is calculated as the amount of energy produced this year relative to the last, so a positive number means
that source is growing; a negative means it decreased. [If you click  the ‘play’ button on the bottom timeline of the year-on-year change chart you can see how fossil fuel consumption continues to grow each year].

13. This can vary from plant-to-plant, and by fuel type. We look in more detail at the assumed efficiencies of power plants later.

14. We can calculate this by dividing our 100 TWh demand by 0.38.

15. This is based on data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy; it considers only commercially-traded fuels, so traditional biomass is not included.

16. Krey V., O. Masera, G. Blanford, T. Bruckner, R. Cooke, K. Fisher-Vanden, H. Haberl, E. Hertwich, E. Kriegler, D. Mueller, S. Paltsev, L. Price, S. Schlömer, D. Ürge-Vorsatz, D. van Vuuren, and T. Zwickel, 2014:
Annex II: Metrics & Methodology. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C.
Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
17. BP Statistical Review of World Energy, Definitions and Exploratory Notes (2020)

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this topic page, please also cite the underlying data sources. This topic page can be cited as:

Hannah Ritchie, Max Roser and Pablo Rosado (2022) - "Energy". Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from:
'https://ourworldindata.org/energy' [Online Resource]

BibTeX citation

@article{owidenergy,

author = {Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser and Pablo Rosado},

title = {Energy},

journal = {Our World in Data},

year = {2022},

note = {https://ourworldindata.org/energy}

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any
medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our
documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Donate now
Help us do this work by making a donation.

About Latest work Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in

Contact All charts Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You
have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium,
Feedback
Twitter provided the source and authors are credited. All the software and code
Jobs
Facebook that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the
Funding permissive MIT license. All other material, including data produced by
Instagram
How to use third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the
GitHub
Donate license terms from the original third-party authors.
RSS Feed
Privacy policy
Please consult our full legal disclaimer.

Our World In Data is a project of the Global Change Data Lab,

a registered charity in England and Wales (Charity Number
1186433).