6 ms·

Report: World trending to hit 50% renewables, 11% coal by 2050

58 points by okket 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sgt101 8y ago
Not enough. We need to go faster if we can't get down further.
tim333 8y ago
The 50% point at 2050 seems very late. Renewables are becoming cheaper already and on present trends will be noticeably cheaper in say 5 years (2023) and then there's not much problem cracking ahead. Already "Renewable energy now makes up nearly third of all electricity generated in UK" https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-renewable-energy-third-electricity-generated-wind-solar-panel-any-other-forms-mentioned-coal-a8122921.html https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-renewable-energ...
- Retric 8y ago
  Don't worry, linked graph shows 64% renewable energy generation. 48% Wind / Solar, ~2% other, and ~14% Hydro. I know bad reporting is common, but this is ridiculous.
  - civilitty 8y ago
    You can mine the materials, fabricate, and deploy solar panels or wind turbines without significantly impacting ecology (even when drastically increasing shade in deserts) but dams completely change the landscape and flow of water with consequences reaching as far as tidal pools and tributaries fed by rivers that are damed hundreds of miles away. It's becoming more and more common to exclude hydro from the list of renewable energy sources because the ecological impact of dams is huge and largely irreversible - something that has only begun to enter popular conscience (at least in California) over the last few decades. The point of renewable energy is to avoid exhausting natural resources at an unsustainable rate and that includes ecological diversity.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      Worse (if I understand correctly): There really aren't many good sites for dams that are still unused. I mean, there was a proposal back in the 1950s/1960s for two dams in the Grand Canyon whose sites are still unused, but I'm pretty sure that those dams will continue to be unbuilt, no matter how much electricity they could generate.
    - Retric 8y ago
      I don't see how existing dams are going to harm biological diversity any more than they already have. So, that argument seems excessive. More directly, solar may be more harmful to the environment than nuclear. Renewable means something specific, pretending it must be good for the environment has noting to do with it.
      - roryisok 8y ago
        > solar may be more harmful to the environment than nuclear. Wow. What?
        Retric 8y ago
        Nuclear can be very self contained. They both take quite a bit of mining, but solar needs more land area. Sure, rooftops works for single family homes, but that does not scale for high rises. Unlike Wind you can't grow crops under solar, so you end up changing habitats that would have been untouched. Granted, if you fuck it up Nuclear can cause more problems. But most of it's issues are for Humans with our longer lifespans and higher cancer risks. Just look at all the wildlife in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. And, the area around Fukushima is rapidly turning into wilderness.
        tim333 8y ago
        You can grow crops under solar sometimes http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2017/12/doubling-up-crops-with-solar-farms-could-increase-land-use-efficiency-by-as-much-as-60/ http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2017/12/doubling-up-crop...
lacker 8y ago
It seems pretty dubious to project this out 32 years. I find it more enlightening to look at some of the data this is based on. For example, official US government figures for historical energy consumption: https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_6.pdf https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_6.pdf You can see that even in the past 15 years, there were several inflection points that were probably unpredictable beforehand. Coal went from flat to declining, natural gas went from flat to increasing, petroleum rose then fell again, renewables were flat before rising up to a current rate of 11% of US energy consumption. I'm rooting for renewable energy here and the future does seem bright. But any sort of high-level prediction that claims to project out for 32 years just isn't the right way to analyze.
- rossdavidh 8y ago
  Hear, hear. In fact, anyone who can disregard the history of past predictions (in energy or almost anything else) so much as to bother with a 32-years-out prediction, seems untrustworthy. Also, unlikely to persuade anyone of anything. It's a pretty well-known feature of human psychology that distant prospects don't motivate us the way they should. Actually, maybe the unreliability of long-term predictions is part of why we evolved to be like that...
  - killjoywashere 8y ago
    Just finished reading that chapter of the The Black Swan. True, the 32-year year number is useless, but the slope is probably still good for the next couple of years. Of course the negative uncertainties still dominate. The more interesting question is how do you expose yourself to the positive uncertainties involved (e.g. a carbon negative power technology)? This requires investment in research in parallel with your infrastructure investments.
- moorhosj 8y ago
  We would need to look at world energy consumption to make a proper comparison, no?
- sandworm101 8y ago
sremani 8y ago
From what ever little I know, this is the most optimistic and best case scenario and the central assumption of the report seems to be we are going to get a battery miracle and that will make S&W much more practical for day round and year round production and consumption cycle. From the report: Germany sees rapid change to 2025 with coal and gas generation falling 29%, nuclear phased-out and renewables topping 70% of generation. ---------------------------------------------- Germans are burning more coal than Pre-Fukushima days and Munich is 48N latitude.. good luck with Solar. That production efficiency from massive solar installation thus far is not that impressive.
- civilitty 8y ago
  The increases in coal consumption are lagging indicators because the regulatory process for building a new one starts at about 5-10 years before it is powered up. Technological progress and changing economies of scale in solar, natural gas, and wind have done a real number on energy investments over the last few decades. You're looking at the consequences of investment decisions made 10-20 years before it was obvious how fast solar/wind would reach parity with coal or how plentiful a much cleaner fuel like natgas would become.
  - sremani 8y ago
    That is why I picked 7 year time line of Germany. Of the 33% renewable in Germany 7% comes from biomass that is a free for all definition that includes at times burning wood. Right now, Biomass is 7% compared to 6% of Solar. Germany is known to have massive solar (read it.. not from there). From 33% to 70% in span of 7 years - that is something. I am not rooting against it, if that is the impression my post gave. My point is the report is too good to be true.

58 points by okket 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

sgt101 8y ago

Not enough. We need to go faster if we can't get down further.

tim333 8y ago

The 50% point at 2050 seems very late. Renewables are becoming cheaper already and on present trends will be noticeably cheaper in say 5 years (2023) and then there's not much problem cracking ahead. Already "Renewable energy now makes up nearly third of all electricity generated in UK" https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-renewable-energy-third-electricity-generated-wind-solar-panel-any-other-forms-mentioned-coal-a8122921.html https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-renewable-energ...

Retric 8y ago
Don't worry, linked graph shows 64% renewable energy generation. 48% Wind / Solar, ~2% other, and ~14% Hydro. I know bad reporting is common, but this is ridiculous.
- civilitty 8y ago
  You can mine the materials, fabricate, and deploy solar panels or wind turbines without significantly impacting ecology (even when drastically increasing shade in deserts) but dams completely change the landscape and flow of water with consequences reaching as far as tidal pools and tributaries fed by rivers that are damed hundreds of miles away. It's becoming more and more common to exclude hydro from the list of renewable energy sources because the ecological impact of dams is huge and largely irreversible - something that has only begun to enter popular conscience (at least in California) over the last few decades. The point of renewable energy is to avoid exhausting natural resources at an unsustainable rate and that includes ecological diversity.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Worse (if I understand correctly): There really aren't many good sites for dams that are still unused. I mean, there was a proposal back in the 1950s/1960s for two dams in the Grand Canyon whose sites are still unused, but I'm pretty sure that those dams will continue to be unbuilt, no matter how much electricity they could generate.
  - Retric 8y ago
    I don't see how existing dams are going to harm biological diversity any more than they already have. So, that argument seems excessive. More directly, solar may be more harmful to the environment than nuclear. Renewable means something specific, pretending it must be good for the environment has noting to do with it.
    - roryisok 8y ago
      > solar may be more harmful to the environment than nuclear. Wow. What?
      - Retric 8y ago
        Nuclear can be very self contained. They both take quite a bit of mining, but solar needs more land area. Sure, rooftops works for single family homes, but that does not scale for high rises. Unlike Wind you can't grow crops under solar, so you end up changing habitats that would have been untouched. Granted, if you fuck it up Nuclear can cause more problems. But most of it's issues are for Humans with our longer lifespans and higher cancer risks. Just look at all the wildlife in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. And, the area around Fukushima is rapidly turning into wilderness.
        tim333 8y ago
        You can grow crops under solar sometimes http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2017/12/doubling-up-crops-with-solar-farms-could-increase-land-use-efficiency-by-as-much-as-60/ http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2017/12/doubling-up-crop...

lacker 8y ago

It seems pretty dubious to project this out 32 years. I find it more enlightening to look at some of the data this is based on. For example, official US government figures for historical energy consumption: https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_6.pdf https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_6.pdf You can see that even in the past 15 years, there were several inflection points that were probably unpredictable beforehand. Coal went from flat to declining, natural gas went from flat to increasing, petroleum rose then fell again, renewables were flat before rising up to a current rate of 11% of US energy consumption. I'm rooting for renewable energy here and the future does seem bright. But any sort of high-level prediction that claims to project out for 32 years just isn't the right way to analyze.

rossdavidh 8y ago
Hear, hear. In fact, anyone who can disregard the history of past predictions (in energy or almost anything else) so much as to bother with a 32-years-out prediction, seems untrustworthy. Also, unlikely to persuade anyone of anything. It's a pretty well-known feature of human psychology that distant prospects don't motivate us the way they should. Actually, maybe the unreliability of long-term predictions is part of why we evolved to be like that...
- killjoywashere 8y ago
  Just finished reading that chapter of the The Black Swan. True, the 32-year year number is useless, but the slope is probably still good for the next couple of years. Of course the negative uncertainties still dominate. The more interesting question is how do you expose yourself to the positive uncertainties involved (e.g. a carbon negative power technology)? This requires investment in research in parallel with your infrastructure investments.
moorhosj 8y ago
We would need to look at world energy consumption to make a proper comparison, no?
sandworm101 8y ago

sremani 8y ago

From what ever little I know, this is the most optimistic and best case scenario and the central assumption of the report seems to be we are going to get a battery miracle and that will make S&W much more practical for day round and year round production and consumption cycle. From the report: Germany sees rapid change to 2025 with coal and gas generation falling 29%, nuclear phased-out and renewables topping 70% of generation. ---------------------------------------------- Germans are burning more coal than Pre-Fukushima days and Munich is 48N latitude.. good luck with Solar. That production efficiency from massive solar installation thus far is not that impressive.

civilitty 8y ago
The increases in coal consumption are lagging indicators because the regulatory process for building a new one starts at about 5-10 years before it is powered up. Technological progress and changing economies of scale in solar, natural gas, and wind have done a real number on energy investments over the last few decades. You're looking at the consequences of investment decisions made 10-20 years before it was obvious how fast solar/wind would reach parity with coal or how plentiful a much cleaner fuel like natgas would become.
- sremani 8y ago
  That is why I picked 7 year time line of Germany. Of the 33% renewable in Germany 7% comes from biomass that is a free for all definition that includes at times burning wood. Right now, Biomass is 7% compared to 6% of Solar. Germany is known to have massive solar (read it.. not from there). From 33% to 70% in span of 7 years - that is something. I am not rooting against it, if that is the impression my post gave. My point is the report is too good to be true.