[thomaszander]

As reported by a lobbying company. Not all numbers you read on the Internet are true.

Here is another lobbying company that has nice numbers too;

https://www.nvde.nl/nvdeblogs/hernieuwbare-energie-voor-het-...

> Het verbruik van hernieuwbare energie is in 2020 met bijna 20% gestegen. Daarmee is hernieuwbare energie nu goed voor ruim 11% van ons totale energieverbruik. De groei zit vooral in de sterke stijging van wind en zon, en in meer inzet van vaste biomassa.

Which states that the TOTAL renewable energy is 11%, with biomass being the majority.

Now, both sources can't be right, can they?

[ZeroGravitas]

It actually says renewable is over 11% of total energy. Total in this context often means "not just electricity generation" and the mention of biogas suggests they're talking about that but I don't read Dutch so hard to be sure. But jumping between those numbers is a common way to make a point seem stronger/weaker as required, the first link is very specifically talking about electrical energy consumed, so the two numbers are compatible depending on various definitions.

It lines up neatly with your initial 1% claim for example, except you specifically claim that it's 1% of electrical generation, not total energy.

Worth noting too that switching to renewables and electrifying actually reduce total energy, as more than half of it wasted as heat from combustion of fuels. Another popular statistical trick to make switching to renewables seem impossible.

[scotty79]

Wouldn't the lobbying company be incentivised to give lower numbers to show more money is needed?

Besides... Is CBD Statline really a lobbying group or are you just guessing that such groups are involved because it fits your narrative?