World passes 30% renewable electricity milestone for the first time, decline of fossil inevitable
BlackLaZoR@kbin.run to 
euronews.com
A decline in fossil fuel power is now ‘inevitable’, the report's authors say.
BlackLaZoR@kbin.run to BlackLaZoR@kbin.run to
Finally some good news.
the bad news is:
at first that sounds great but what that really means is fossil fuel use is still increasing; that 30% figure does not tell the whole story.
If the data is correct, these are the last years of fossil growth - from now on, renewables will be outpeacing the growing demand
if their interpretation of the data is correct. we'll see.
Took the words out of my mouth. Though having over 70% renewables by 2030 feels like a stretch to me. Certainly would be great but I have my doubts. Maybe only my inner pessimist speaking.
It's a stretch but not a massive one - I think 2035 is more realistic. Solar deployments double around every 3 years so it'll double by 2027 and quadruple by 2030 and so on unless some limiting factor is reached
You might want to do some basic math on the current rates at which renewable energy and global energy demand is growing.
The world burned 140,000 TWh worth of fossil fuels last year, a new record because global energy demand is still growing faster than total new renewable generation.
Let’s say we built an island of floating PV panels in the ocean large enough to generate that much energy.
It would be the 8th largest country in the world.
No we’re not going to hit 70% by 2035 even assuming it maintains exponential growth, not even close.
That doesn't seem correct. If you assume 250kwh per square meter per year, it sums to something linke 500000km2 or 700x700km square. And in the hottest regions it's more like 500kwh per m2 per year
Not sure where you’re getting 250kwh/m2/year from. If it was one contiguous solid panel maybe you could achieve that and then you’d be correct it would be about 560,000 km2. Or roughly the size of France.
But you need to leave space between the panels in a solar farm for them to be at the optimal angle without casting shadows on each other. Real world solar farms have much lower density than that.
The density can vary significantly, our hypothetical solar island could be anywhere from the 6th to the 50th largest country but regardless we’re still talking about something in the area of a trillion individual solar panels.
Assuming money isn’t the limiting factor (which it isn’t in most countries) we don’t have anywhere close to the ability to manufacture and deploy that many panels by 2030 or 2035.
Assuming we maintain exponential growth of both wind and solar (doubtful) we’re still a least two decades away from eliminating fossil fuel electricity generation never mind meeting the 2-3x generation capacity needed to transition transportation and other consumers of fossil fuels over to electricity.
Renewables growth has shattered estimates before, you never know, but the transition is not happening any where near as fast as people seem to think.
I took solar irradiance where I live (around 1000kwh per year) and assumed 25% panel efficiency
For electricity alone this should be doable. 560000km2 number assumes total replacement of all fossil fuels in all usecases. Electricity production is considerably smaller than that
Pretty achievable with a 200% carbon tax
Fossil fuels would have declined even more if it wasn't for the fossil fuel's anti-nuclesr campaign.
... let's just celebrate a win, okay. No need to cast shadow on who scored in who's own goal
is it a win tho fossil fuel usage is still rising, the way renewable energy is being deployed in capitalist countries is that they are just another path for exploitation not a replacement for fossil fuels.
Why is that?
Fossil fuel consumption for electricity generation in the US has been decreasing along with the increase in renewable generation capacity, so what you're saying is false
Here's a source
YeaH, even the US is moving toward renewables and there are some highlights like steel production, but way too slowly, way too many lowlights, like peak fossil fuel production and export. That data shows we’re heading in the right direction, but all too slowly, we may not keep the pace, and could even see future growth in fossil fuels, all else being equal.
I know it’s a reflection of data predictability but I’m especially frustrated they don’t see EVs getting above 30% of the fleet. I hear Biden trying to be encouraging, but this data shows us nebpver meeting his 2030 goal for transportation
Or the subsidies on fossil…
Nuclear is expensice as shit tho, you can get way more energy from renewables with that money
Money isn't the limiting factor though.
There’s plenty of money waiting to be spent on green electricity projects that’s bottlenecked by grid connections, permitting, panel and turbine manufacturing, rare element supply chains and host of other factors slowing down how quickly we can build new renewable capacity.
Also the typical LCOE cost comparison approach doesn’t factor in the cost of grid connections, which is lower for a nuclear power plant than it is for an equivalent capacity of renewables. Nuclear is still more expensive on average, but the difference isn’t as clear cut and there a cases where nuclear might be cheaper in the long run.
Everytime nuclear comes up on Reddit/Lemmy we always seem to argue whether nuclear or renewables is better choice like it’s a choice between the two. Both nuclear and renewables are slam dunk choices compared to fossil fuels on every metric if you factor in even an overly optimistic case analyisis of the financial impacts of climate change. (Nevermind giving considerations of the humanatarian impact.)
80+% of our planet’s energy still comes from burning fossil fuels. Renewables have been smashing growth records year over year for a long time now and yet we haven’t even reached the point where we’re adding new renewables capacitiy faster than energy demand is increasing. We’re still setting new records annually for total fossil fuel consumed. Hell we haven’t even gotten to the point where we stopped building new Coal-fired power stations yet.
The people who argue that “we don’t need nuclear, renewabes are cheaper and faster” you’re missing the reality of sheer quantity of energy needed. We can’t build enough new renewables fast enough to save us regardless of how much money is invested. There aren’t enough sources of the raw materials needed to make that happen quickly enough, we can’t connect them to the grid quickly enough, we cant build new factories for solar panels and wind turbines fast enough. Yes, we will undoubetly continure to accelerate our new renewables projects at a record setting paces each year but it’s not enough, it’s not even close. Even our most optimistic , accelerated projections don’t put us anywhere close to displacing fossil fuel consumption in the next 10-20 years.
We need to stop arguing over which is better. We need to do it all.
But we do have to choose, there's only so much money available. Of course nuclear is better than fossil fuels but there's just no point in wasting all that money on it that could have instead gone into renewables. I also don't get your argument about the quantity of energy needed because that was exactly my point, with a set amount of money, you get way more energy out of renewables than fossil fuels. And building renewables is way faster than building nuclear power plants. It takes 15 years, at best, to build a nuclear power plant.
Here's a chart of the cost of different energy sources from wikipedia:
Here's how Germany is doing after shutting down all nuclear power plants.
Here you can see how fast Germany is currently building renewable energy, so apparently it is possible to it this fast.
France is a country that uses a lot of nuclear power. Here's an article that shows how expensive that is.
Are we replacing infrastructure or are we just adding capacity?
What is this number if you exclude China?
Adding capacity. Fossil fuel usage is still growing.
They are ultimately going to wind up as one and the same. We need to add more capacity before we can rid ourselves entirely of fossil fuel. Using grid power for things like HVAC, cooking, and electric vehicles means those devices get more CO2 efficient as the grid generation gets more efficient.
According to this source, largely unchanged. China's a touch above the average, but relies heavily on fossil fuel, with a large share of that being very dirty coal. Its campaign to install renewables is encouraging, though.
I feel like Chinas carbon emissions will just disappear suddenly. Yeah, they’re using way too much coal, and still growing with fossil fuels, but consider their growth in renewables. The good thing about dictatorships is that it’s possible to build out renewables faster than the rest of the world combined, but among the many bad parts is you’re not balancing supply with demand. There’s no way they don’t suddenly have a huge glut of power and have to decide what to shut down permanently
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Energy think tank Ember found that major growth in wind and solar helped push global electricity production past this milestone in 2023.
Its authors say that this rapid growth has brought the world to a crucial turning point where fossil fuel generation starts to decline.
“You also have the invasion of Ukraine which increased the sense of urgency around transitioning to clean power and getting off relying on fossil fuels - not just coal but also gas, and particularly from Russia.
Plans were put in place to help individual member states reach renewable energy targets and deploy technologies at a national scale.
“Certainly you can't ignore that there was some demand [based] impact on the decrease in use of fossil fuels, but also there was a significant role of wind and solar replacing it.”
Normally this would have meant that the clean energy capacity added around the world last year would have caused fossil fuel generation to drop by 1.1 per cent.
The original article contains 796 words, the summary contains 162 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
good bot
This article is about global electricity production, not all energy combined. This is an important nuance, as much energy consumption uses fossil fuels directly, namely cars, many (older) house or industrial processes. Only a small fraction of this is electricity, and in the grander scheme, the "renewable" part is only a fraction: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption.
So, while this is a step in the good direction, it is only a very small one.
@BlackLaZoR@BlackLaZoR@kbin.run would you mind updating the title to reflect this?
EVs should pass 20% of the market share this year, and with their sales steadily increasing, I wouldn't be surprised if the global EV market share passes 50% before the end of the decade, so the faster we get electricity production 100% renewable, the more removing ICE vehicles will be effective
I have updated the title. I do believe however that in the context of exponential growth of renewable energy this isn't a massive difference
Indeed https://www.artberman.com/blog/lets-stop-arguing-about-an-imaginary-energy-transition/
Trump: "Hold my beer!"
Excellent news.
It really needs to mention the US, though. I know this is about Europe, and trying to celebrate good news, and you’re probably tired of us making everything about the US, but we’ve “earned” our place in any article about climate change or carbon emissions.
My country deserves to be named and shamed for lagging in something so critical. It needs to be nagged continuously to catch up. It needs to be reminded of the impact it has made and continues to make. There are still so many people who don’t believe it’s real or don’t think it will impact them and don’t care who it does impact, so many both politicians and constituents who can’t look beyond their immediate desires.
Who the helll thought a minority of renewables sufficient?
Where are you getting this from?
30% its in the title
Right, but I don’t see anything in the title or the article itself about 30% being “sufficient.” To the contrary, the article quotes Sarah Brown, energy think tank Ember’s European program director:
This article is a celebration of a milestone that was crossed for the first time, no mention of 30% being sufficient. You’re assigning meaning that’s not there.
My point is that they are horrendously failing us because 30% is nowhere near where we need to be
Which wasn't what the article was claiming, hence your post being a strawman
We should still be very actively condemning this and working to evict these failures from office. We can't afford this inaction
It is, by definition, not inaction. However I agree that change is too slow.
"sufficient". Where did you get THAT from?
Their job is to pass legislation that is sufficient to curb the climate catastrophe. This shows that they are woefully incapable of doing their job
Firstly the article does not say that 30% is sufficient. Secondly, this was always going to be a journey. We don't get to near 100% without first going through 30%. The article wasn't saying 30% is enough it was saying that the trajectory is positive.
This is a trajectory of mass death. It is not positive
It used to be SFA now it's 30% number go up is positive
Holy Strawman, Batman!