The Ten Countries With the Cleanest Energy

January 27, 2011

With the second day of the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting well underway, clean energy use is at the top of mind for attendees — with a day full of sessions at Davos focused on improving energy efficiency worldwide. And the transformation imagined is staggering. Here at home, clean energy proponents are suggesting 80 percent of U.S. energy could come from clean sources by 2035. And on Jan. 19th, the Energy Policy journal released a study suggesting that 100 percent of worldwide energy could be clean by 2030 if the right steps were taken.

So how close are we to achieving this goal?

Not very, unless you’re Iceland, which gets 80.6 percent of its power from clean, non-CO2-creating sources, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

At a not-so-close second is Sweden, with 46.2 percent of its energy from clean sources, and third is France, with 45.6 percent. Fourth was Norway (43.2%) and Switzerland came in fifth (40.9%).

Granted, these rankings are using the IEA’s definition of clean energy, which includes energy that does not produce carbon dioxide when generated. It incorporates energy from hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal, solar, and wind, among others. Our rankings do not include developing nations because their energy usage and production statistics are sometimes not as standardized as those in developed nations, making side-by-side comparisons difficult.

What do these nations have in common? They’re either small in population (Iceland’s heavy clean-energy generation meets the needs of 300,000 people total) or they’re heavily reliant on nuclear, as with France. Their latest plans reportedly even call for expanding with futuristic underwater nuclear facilities.

Despite a January announcement from the Chinese government that 26 percent of its energy came from clean sources, China did not make the list as that figure has not yet had a chance for corroboration by the IEA.

With a great deal of time being spent at Davos studying success stories — and how they might be used as models around the world — we take a look at the top ten clean energy countries in our infographic below.

Taking notes: Click the graphic to enlarge.

*Read more WEF stories on GE Reports


This entry was posted in Ecomagination, Energy, Graphics, Innovation, Other, Renewables, Stories, WEF and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Stevan Collins

    In regard to the figures are you including Nuclear energy as a ‘clean’ energy source?
    Given the waste product that would seem unlikely but according to Frances leading energy provider it produces 78% of the country’s energy through this method. Somehow the numbers do not quite add up… Perhaps a reference to a source would be useful. If you are counting it as a clean energy source surely Coal and Oil are just as clean, they just produce a different but still harmful chemical which can also be captured and hidden somewhere.

  • Charles Bagnal

    The article suggests that clean energy includes sources that do not contribute to the release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. If that is what is intended, then it is not correct to include geothermal or hydro on the list of clean energy sources. Geothermal plants release large amounts of carbon dioxide that can exceed even the quantities released in coal combustion. Hydroelectric plants involve flooding to create a large, permanent reservoir behind the dam. If the flooded land was previously forested, as is often the case, the land is generally cleared (deforestation), which represents lost absorption of carbon dioxide of the same order of magnitude as is released in the burning of natural gas. If the land is not cleared, the reservoir will contribute annual emissions on the order of 25 times this amount from rotting vegetation.

  • Tyler

    Not sure if this measure of clean energy includes oil for transportation and industrial use, but it would seem to be focused on electrical energy generation. If so, the figure for Canada is dead one. Canada gets at least 58 per cent of its electricity from non-emitting sources — a combination of nuclear, hydroelectric, wind and solar. Based on that we would be second only to Iceland.

  • Niall

    Its odd that Ireland would not be on there.

  • Mark Vermilyea

    Stevan is right, the numbers may be confusing – France’s 78% is a number quoted for the fraction of electricity from nuclear, not the fraction of total energy usage (nuclear is closer to 17% of that). The 78% might be an overestimate – this link has a good explanation of the differences: http://energypriorities.com/entries/2007/05/france_78_nuclear.php
    Happy reading, and good thinking!

  • Chris

    What (or do I mean Watt?) is a “kilotonne” of energy?

  • Keith

    Stevan…
    Nuclear counts as a clean energy source because of two reasons:
    1) The volume of waste is exponentially lower than any coal or gas generation
    2) Most of the waste is actually reusable
    Nuclear is by far the most effective of energy acquisition, as you can tell by France’s numbers. 28.5 million people get energy, compared to 1-2 million at best for other countries not using nuclear. The waste products from the entire history of France’s nuclear program are stored in a building the size of a football field. Try cramming all our waste C02 from coal & gas in a building that small.

  • M.E. Cerulo

    In answer to Chris’ question:

    One kilotonne of energy is equivalent to the energy that is released by 1000 metric tons of chemical high explosive, or TNT, calculated at the rate of 1000 calories per gram. This can be verified by a web search of scientific and engineering sites.

  • Jim Bridgens

    We need newer, cleaner, better energy sources, yes…when the time is right, from the free market. I only speak of the united States market, of course, but we need to end government subsidies for all energy sources, and let the free market sort out what is cost-effective and best. I fail to see how throwing government (Tax paying citizens’ money) to coerce utilities and municipalities to buy alternate energy sources will help us reach the long-term goal of future energy needs. Will we will see many abandoned clean energy sources when subsides run out? I think so.

  • Tara

    All I know is I put solar panels on my house 9 months ago for electricity and domestic hot water heating and, not only haven’t I had a bill for about 9 months (except the $4 hook up fee) but, I’ve actually got a kWh credit from our utility (from all the energy I’ve been pumping in to the grid when I’m not using it)…and while a coal industry employee might be out of a job, they could re-train (continuous improvement) like industries re-tool and transfer to the solar industry.

  • Pete Frazier

    Of all the comments, Tara’s shows what each homeowner, apartment complex, office buildings, etc. must do.

    Smaller is better.

    Oh, by the way Denmark was not included. in the top 10 clean energy countries. This is a terrible mistake. I saw a broadcast on PBS here in the US that shows how dramatically this country has reduced its carbon foot-print.

    Here’s a link that you should read:http://www.energy.siemens.com/co/pool/hq/energy-topics/living-energy/downloads/essay_decarbonisation_of_denmark.pdf

  • Charles Bagnal

    The reason Denmark does not appear on the clean energy list is that 80% of Danish energy consumption comes from fossil fuels. Further, of the 20% due to renewable energy, 80% of that comes from the burning of wood, straw and waste. Only 4% of Danish energy demand is emission-free.

  • Tara

    In response to Jim Bridgens’ post 1/28/11 at 9:18 am, an optimized free market is not just free of government subsidies but is also operating under total cost accounting principles. Apart from ending government subsidies for clean energy, we also need to ensure that all other energy sources (such as coal etc.) are total accounting for their costs. For example, if coal produces acid rain that destroys other needed resources, the cost of acid rain should become part of the total cost of coal. This thought process is along the lines of ‘if my dog bites you, I should be responsible for your medical bills’. Ensuring that the owner of the root cause of the defect is responsible for the correction guarantees with the highest probablility, the most effective solution. Some people may ask “But how does one put a cost on acid rain?” One way to put a cost on acid rain is to determin the cost of what it would be to eliminate acid rain (i.e. the cost to correct the defect)…which may be scrubbers or some other method. Eliminate government subsidies, totally account for costs, and let the fittest survive.

  • Sean Gannon

    I’m the site editor — thanks for reading. Regarding a couple of the early questions on where the numbers came from — they are the official figures from the International Energy Agency and represent the amount of clean energy consumption. Percentages include consumption of domestic sources and consumption of imported sources. So, 50% of a country’s domestic production might be clean, but if it imports non-clean energy its clean energy consumption would be much lower. Hope that helps.

  • Jamie

    According to Wikipedia, New Zealand was 73% clean in 2009 (this article reports only 25.9%). According to a Canadian Government website, Canada is 74% clean (61% hydro, 1% wind/solar, and 12% nuclear) (this article reports only 20.9%). Why are these numbers so much different than those in the image.

    Am I missing something really obvious here?

  • Sean Gannon

    I’m the site editor. I was asked yesterday how we arrived at our rankings, given a different set of rankings appear on the World Bank website. In reviewing our chart, we have accidentally left out some key information. Our list excludes developing countries because their energy usage and production statistics are sometimes not as standardized as those in developed nations, making side-by-side comparisions sometimes difficult or misleading. As a result, we have replaced and updated the graphic, and noted the change in the body of the story. Our apologies for the errors — and our thanks to the reader who pointed it out to us.

  • Charles Bagnal

    The reason for differences between the IEA numbers and those others have reported is that the IEA numbers relate to total energy mix. You will get very different numbers if you only look at that portion of total energy provided by electricity. Canada and New Zealand are good examples. Both have large fractions of clean energy sources used to generate electricity, but there are substantial total energy needs that are not currently provided by electricity, like the transportation sector.

  • Fernando Ortega

    I’m also surprised about the ranking. Just published by the Spanish Grid Operator Authority (Red Electrica de España), the percentage of carbon-free electricity generation along 2010 was 54% when adding hydro+nuclear+wind+solar (150 TWh). Total CO2 emissions by the rest of sources of electrical generation in Spain in 2010 where 57 MTn so the carbon-free generation contributed to a reduction in the range of 68 MTn, that would be the second largest figure after France.

    http://www.ree.es/sistema_electrico/pdf/infosis/Avance_REE_2010.pdf

  • Bryan Elliott

    Why “kilotonnes”?

    For refereence, a “kilotonne” of energy is equivalent to the energy in 1 kilotonne of TNT, about 4.18 TeraJoules, or about 1.62 GigaWatt-hours (GWh). 1 GWh is about as much as a nuclear plant puts out in an hour.

    kT’s have a pretty destructive connotation, given that they’re usually used to measure the yield of bombs. The choice to use them to describe clean energy seems – well, it seems like a stupid decision.