12 ms·

Renewable Energy Boomed In 2020

choeger 5y ago
There is a chart in there that says that 33% of municipal buses are already electrified. I cannot believe it. Did China secretly electrify its whole fleet?
- hannob 5y ago
  Not secretly, but yes. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/03/municipal-buses-lead-electrification-effort/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/03/municipal-buses-lead-...
  - choeger 5y ago
    > This is exactly what happened in China which is home to 98 percent of the world's electric buses. More than 500,000 have been introduced to Chinese streets in a coordinated effort by the Chinese government, while very few are in operation in other countries. So there are only about 1.5M buses in operation world-wide? Germany operates around 80k. If that is somewhat representative for the EU as a whole, and I have no reason to doubt it, there should be around 400-500k buses here alone. This would leave only 500k buses for the rest of the world, which I find hard to believe. On the other hand it might not be off by some orders of magnitude...
    - dx034 5y ago
      From my experience, a lot of buses in Africa and East Asia are run by private companies or individuals, not municipalities. So the number could very well be correct.
    - toyg 5y ago
      The key is probably the word "municipal". Most of the UK for example has public buses, but they are not run by local authorities - only the ones in London are.
perfunctory 5y ago
> China alone responsible for 80 percent of global annual installations between 2019 and 2020. This will be the opening sentence in the history books describing the decline of the western powers. US & EU really need to get their act together if they want to remain relevant.
- contriban 5y ago
  Can this really be solved? If "China" decides to take action, it can do so without opposition, with billions of dollars, with megaprojects that span thousands of kilometers, even. Their huge high-speed rail is another example. Can the US do that? Or even the EU? It will cost more, it will take longer, and it will be smaller. This is, IMHO, why China tops all of the charts lately. The democratic, federal west simply cannot compete on scale.
  - pydry 5y ago
    The US and EU could in theory but it would take time and deprioritization of corporate profits. The appetite isn't really there.
  - private_equity 5y ago
    It's more about intent instead of blockage from opposition. We conveniently pass the buck to opposition because it is easy to do so. There is opposition but where is it when $$$ are poured into unnecessary wars? When the taxes are increased? When scam happens?
  - pjc50 5y ago
    The UK alone spent £372bn on covid response: https://www.nao.org.uk/covid-19/cost-tracker/ https://www.nao.org.uk/covid-19/cost-tracker/ It is, fundamentally, a choice. The UK has been cutting off megaproject funding since the APT (and before): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Passenger_Train https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Passenger_Train But it's not just a government choice, it's a choice of whole echelons of society. There are plenty of people who still get paid if the megaproject fails. We've seen a lot of that in the COVID response; pretty much every minister has been accused of routing hundreds of millions to their mates for items that were never delivered. (To me, the unique thing about WW2 was that it forced the UK out of complacency and into employing diverse talent as a matter of raw necessity, because suddenly it was no longer possible to buy your way out of it as an individual. Suddenly the establishment would let a woman fix the Spitfires, a gay man break the codes, and nobody complained about all the Poles coming over here defending our country.)
nxpnsv 5y ago
A little off topic. When I need and google for it Statista very often pop up and won't let me see the data. Like stock photo sites with image search. Not a fan.
jnsaff2 5y ago
But who would put it into context how much faster it needs to happen? The quickest numbers I found are that total renewables energy production is about 7000TWh/year. Whereas global primary energy consumption is 160,000TWh/year. So a lot more needs to happen a lot faster.
- choeger 5y ago
  Does it, though? The 200-300GW of capacity should translate to 200-600TWh/year of generated energy. That's a 5-10% growth of yearly generated renewable energy. If we can keep it at 5% yoy, it will take 112 years to replace that total energy consumption. At 10% it would take about 60 years. I don't think it would be smart to bet on a linear-only growth. If course, a 100+ year exponential growth might be too optimistic. But I think we did not see the end of the hocky stick so far. We also need to consider that we're talking about a global infrastructure project, so timescales of centuries are to be expected. Whoever thinks we could replace our global energy consumption completely within a couple of decades needs to reconsider.
  - edhelas 5y ago
    At a constant energy consumption… https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth104/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth104/files/Unit2/Mod8/Earth104Mod8fig4.png https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth104/sites/www.e-educati...
    - choeger 5y ago
      Naturally. The thing here is that renewable energy can be very cheap. So we might see a stark increase in energy usage in the next decades fueled entirely by abundant renewable energy. The question then is whether this will accelerate the overall switch to renewables or not. It could be that oil and gas will become much cheaper due to price pressure or much more expensive because their infrastructure doesn't pay off anymore.
  - crispyporkbites 5y ago
    > Whoever thinks we could replace our global energy consumption completely within a couple of decades needs to reconsider. It will take a long time because it will take a long time! So don’t even try! No - it is entirely up to humans to decide how long it takes.
Proven 5y ago
irrelevant factoid
jussij 5y ago
The death nail for non-green energy going forward is two fold. 1. Green energy is getting cheaper year on year and in some cases it's now cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives. 2. At some point in time the younger generation will revolt against their 'climate change denying governments' and just vote them out. When that happens a price will be put on carbon and that will wipe out the remaining fossil fuel participants. However, while I'm too old to worry about the effects of climate change, I still have to apologize to the younger generation. In the next 10 years very little action will be taken on climate change and when that action finally comes, I fear it will come too late. Even though we have had many decades of warnings we ignored all the signs. So the sad reality is, while we had a chance to tackle the issue, we just ignored the problem and absolved our responsibility to future generations. The reality is my generation, my older generation have let you down, only because we don't give a shit about your future. That is both depressing and disappointing. I'm sorry the adults, my generation, were left wanting :(
- toyg 5y ago
  I don't know how old you are, but the sad fact is that the tipping point was basically in the '80s and '90s, when most people reading this were not even teenagers. The world as a whole woke up to the problem when it was effectively already too late, because the scientific method wants proof and proof can only come after the process runs. There is absolutely no point in reasoning in terms of guilt and apologies. Edit: some commenters seem to think I'm trying to blame scientists. I'm trying not to blame anyone, because things just take time and that's what it is. What I'm trying to say is that reasoning in terms of guilt is pointless and counterproductive, because it just antagonises people.
  - ArnoVW 5y ago
    Not sure that we can blame the eggheads for this one. The "Limits to Growth" report was published in 1972. I remember people talking about it in my teens (80s). At some point, everyone has to take their individual responsibility and accept that the scientific community did it's job, and that it's not their job to make society move. That's on all of us. Moreover, it sure does seem like we have passed a tipping point. Whether it is the tipping point remains to be seen. From a societal point of view, I think it is not a good idea to communicate "we're too late to fix anything" as it seems clear that this will lead to a total abandonment of any effort. The best moment to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The second-best moment is "now". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
rogerthat_au 5y ago
Interestingly, this demand is being felt in terms of increased prices of solar panels. Solar modules are currently trading at 15-20% higher (relative to end of last year) due to high demand and raw material shortage. This is further exacerbated by shipping and container issues. The long term downward price pressure has been incredibly helpful but we need more capacity and raw material for the downward price pressure to continue relative to increase in demand. (Source - from our own procurement at www.de.energy)
DayDollar 5y ago
I would love to see another metric. How much of their money entrenched interests (coal-plants,nuclear, grid-provider) had to invest into holding back solar. One could compute the point of collapse from that.

There is a chart in there that says that 33% of municipal buses are already electrified. I cannot believe it. Did China secretly electrify its whole fleet?

hannob 5y ago
Not secretly, but yes. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/03/municipal-buses-lead-electrification-effort/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/03/municipal-buses-lead-...
- choeger 5y ago
  > This is exactly what happened in China which is home to 98 percent of the world's electric buses. More than 500,000 have been introduced to Chinese streets in a coordinated effort by the Chinese government, while very few are in operation in other countries. So there are only about 1.5M buses in operation world-wide? Germany operates around 80k. If that is somewhat representative for the EU as a whole, and I have no reason to doubt it, there should be around 400-500k buses here alone. This would leave only 500k buses for the rest of the world, which I find hard to believe. On the other hand it might not be off by some orders of magnitude...
  - dx034 5y ago
    From my experience, a lot of buses in Africa and East Asia are run by private companies or individuals, not municipalities. So the number could very well be correct.
  - toyg 5y ago
    The key is probably the word "municipal". Most of the UK for example has public buses, but they are not run by local authorities - only the ones in London are.

perfunctory 5y ago

> China alone responsible for 80 percent of global annual installations between 2019 and 2020. This will be the opening sentence in the history books describing the decline of the western powers. US & EU really need to get their act together if they want to remain relevant.

contriban 5y ago
Can this really be solved? If "China" decides to take action, it can do so without opposition, with billions of dollars, with megaprojects that span thousands of kilometers, even. Their huge high-speed rail is another example. Can the US do that? Or even the EU? It will cost more, it will take longer, and it will be smaller. This is, IMHO, why China tops all of the charts lately. The democratic, federal west simply cannot compete on scale.
- pydry 5y ago
  The US and EU could in theory but it would take time and deprioritization of corporate profits. The appetite isn't really there.
- private_equity 5y ago
  It's more about intent instead of blockage from opposition. We conveniently pass the buck to opposition because it is easy to do so. There is opposition but where is it when $$$ are poured into unnecessary wars? When the taxes are increased? When scam happens?
- pjc50 5y ago
  The UK alone spent £372bn on covid response: https://www.nao.org.uk/covid-19/cost-tracker/ https://www.nao.org.uk/covid-19/cost-tracker/ It is, fundamentally, a choice. The UK has been cutting off megaproject funding since the APT (and before): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Passenger_Train https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Passenger_Train But it's not just a government choice, it's a choice of whole echelons of society. There are plenty of people who still get paid if the megaproject fails. We've seen a lot of that in the COVID response; pretty much every minister has been accused of routing hundreds of millions to their mates for items that were never delivered. (To me, the unique thing about WW2 was that it forced the UK out of complacency and into employing diverse talent as a matter of raw necessity, because suddenly it was no longer possible to buy your way out of it as an individual. Suddenly the establishment would let a woman fix the Spitfires, a gay man break the codes, and nobody complained about all the Poles coming over here defending our country.)

nxpnsv 5y ago

A little off topic. When I need and google for it Statista very often pop up and won't let me see the data. Like stock photo sites with image search. Not a fan.

jnsaff2 5y ago

But who would put it into context how much faster it needs to happen? The quickest numbers I found are that total renewables energy production is about 7000TWh/year. Whereas global primary energy consumption is 160,000TWh/year. So a lot more needs to happen a lot faster.

choeger 5y ago
Does it, though? The 200-300GW of capacity should translate to 200-600TWh/year of generated energy. That's a 5-10% growth of yearly generated renewable energy. If we can keep it at 5% yoy, it will take 112 years to replace that total energy consumption. At 10% it would take about 60 years. I don't think it would be smart to bet on a linear-only growth. If course, a 100+ year exponential growth might be too optimistic. But I think we did not see the end of the hocky stick so far. We also need to consider that we're talking about a global infrastructure project, so timescales of centuries are to be expected. Whoever thinks we could replace our global energy consumption completely within a couple of decades needs to reconsider.
- edhelas 5y ago
  At a constant energy consumption… https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth104/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth104/files/Unit2/Mod8/Earth104Mod8fig4.png https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth104/sites/www.e-educati...
  - choeger 5y ago
    Naturally. The thing here is that renewable energy can be very cheap. So we might see a stark increase in energy usage in the next decades fueled entirely by abundant renewable energy. The question then is whether this will accelerate the overall switch to renewables or not. It could be that oil and gas will become much cheaper due to price pressure or much more expensive because their infrastructure doesn't pay off anymore.
- crispyporkbites 5y ago
  > Whoever thinks we could replace our global energy consumption completely within a couple of decades needs to reconsider. It will take a long time because it will take a long time! So don’t even try! No - it is entirely up to humans to decide how long it takes.

Proven 5y ago

irrelevant factoid

jussij 5y ago

The death nail for non-green energy going forward is two fold. 1. Green energy is getting cheaper year on year and in some cases it's now cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives. 2. At some point in time the younger generation will revolt against their 'climate change denying governments' and just vote them out. When that happens a price will be put on carbon and that will wipe out the remaining fossil fuel participants. However, while I'm too old to worry about the effects of climate change, I still have to apologize to the younger generation. In the next 10 years very little action will be taken on climate change and when that action finally comes, I fear it will come too late. Even though we have had many decades of warnings we ignored all the signs. So the sad reality is, while we had a chance to tackle the issue, we just ignored the problem and absolved our responsibility to future generations. The reality is my generation, my older generation have let you down, only because we don't give a shit about your future. That is both depressing and disappointing. I'm sorry the adults, my generation, were left wanting :(

toyg 5y ago
I don't know how old you are, but the sad fact is that the tipping point was basically in the '80s and '90s, when most people reading this were not even teenagers. The world as a whole woke up to the problem when it was effectively already too late, because the scientific method wants proof and proof can only come after the process runs. There is absolutely no point in reasoning in terms of guilt and apologies. Edit: some commenters seem to think I'm trying to blame scientists. I'm trying not to blame anyone, because things just take time and that's what it is. What I'm trying to say is that reasoning in terms of guilt is pointless and counterproductive, because it just antagonises people.
- ArnoVW 5y ago
  Not sure that we can blame the eggheads for this one. The "Limits to Growth" report was published in 1972. I remember people talking about it in my teens (80s). At some point, everyone has to take their individual responsibility and accept that the scientific community did it's job, and that it's not their job to make society move. That's on all of us. Moreover, it sure does seem like we have passed a tipping point. Whether it is the tipping point remains to be seen. From a societal point of view, I think it is not a good idea to communicate "we're too late to fix anything" as it seems clear that this will lead to a total abandonment of any effort. The best moment to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The second-best moment is "now". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

rogerthat_au 5y ago

Interestingly, this demand is being felt in terms of increased prices of solar panels. Solar modules are currently trading at 15-20% higher (relative to end of last year) due to high demand and raw material shortage. This is further exacerbated by shipping and container issues. The long term downward price pressure has been incredibly helpful but we need more capacity and raw material for the downward price pressure to continue relative to increase in demand. (Source - from our own procurement at www.de.energy)

DayDollar 5y ago

I would love to see another metric. How much of their money entrenched interests (coal-plants,nuclear, grid-provider) had to invest into holding back solar. One could compute the point of collapse from that.