3 ms·

Global numbers from last year: "A record 260 gigawatts (GW) of new renewable energy capacity was added worldwide in 2020, up 50% from the year before, ... Cumu

by geenew 5y ago

Global numbers from last year: "A record 260 gigawatts (GW) of new renewable energy capacity was added worldwide in 2020, up 50% from the year before, ... Cumulatively, installed global renewable generation capacity amounted to 2,799 GW at the end of 2020, including hydropower. .. The share of renewables in energy generation worldwide now stands at nearly 30%, according to the International Energy Agency and other sources."[1] [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/record-260-gw-new-renewable-energy-capacity-added-2020-research-2021-04-06/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/record-260-gw-new-re... edit: removed a reference to wiki for global energy production (wiki is in TWh, not TW)

igravious 5y ago
> Global numbers from last year: […] in 2020 eh? did you mean to say the year before last? According to https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy the energy mix in renewables in 2020 was, in order: Hydropower: 4355.04 Wind: 1590.19 Solar: 844.39 Others, inc. bioenergy: 702.89 To me it seems like the renewables story is as much about mega-dam hydropower and bioenergy as it is about wind and solar pv.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  Yeah, it's the data we had last year, collected on the year prior to the report. Last time I looked, nobody compiled the 2021 data yet. The thing to notice is that hydropower is growing very slowly. It is the largest share of the total, but nearly all the growth is due to wind and solar. And if you look at the growth rates, wind and solar grow by absurd amounts (with no indication of slowing down) where everything else has a normal growth or decline.
  - igravious 5y ago
    Yes, you're correct in everything you say -- it's a matter of what is emphasised and what is downplayed. a) I guess I was pointing out that a lot of people tout big renewable numbers when a good deal of those numbers currently include (1) hydropower (some of the mega projects have drawn a lot of controversy, as I'm sure you know, from displacing people to changing ecosystems to causing resource conflicts with those downstream of the mega-dam) and (2) bioenergy (we should be using fertile soil to grow food crops). b) Wind and solar are variable outputs whereas every other widely used energy tech is predictable (if you ignore resource wars). So wind and solar must always include a discussion of batteries (batteries are not "green") or peaker plants (which are either coal or nat-gas or nuclear). c) Wind and solar are so new we still haven't figured out the whys and wherefores of dealing with the waste materials when they reach the end of their lifecycle. d) Power density of hydro is terrible: https://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/PowerDensity_Final120815.pdf https://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/PowerDensity_Final120815.pd... So as wind and solar scale there are a bunch of challenges that will have to be overcome for them to become proven technologies the way fossil fuels are.

by geenew 5y ago

igravious 5y ago

> Global numbers from last year: […] in 2020 eh? did you mean to say the year before last? According to https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy the energy mix in renewables in 2020 was, in order: Hydropower: 4355.04 Wind: 1590.19 Solar: 844.39 Others, inc. bioenergy: 702.89 To me it seems like the renewables story is as much about mega-dam hydropower and bioenergy as it is about wind and solar pv.

marcosdumay 5y ago
Yeah, it's the data we had last year, collected on the year prior to the report. Last time I looked, nobody compiled the 2021 data yet. The thing to notice is that hydropower is growing very slowly. It is the largest share of the total, but nearly all the growth is due to wind and solar. And if you look at the growth rates, wind and solar grow by absurd amounts (with no indication of slowing down) where everything else has a normal growth or decline.
- igravious 5y ago
  Yes, you're correct in everything you say -- it's a matter of what is emphasised and what is downplayed. a) I guess I was pointing out that a lot of people tout big renewable numbers when a good deal of those numbers currently include (1) hydropower (some of the mega projects have drawn a lot of controversy, as I'm sure you know, from displacing people to changing ecosystems to causing resource conflicts with those downstream of the mega-dam) and (2) bioenergy (we should be using fertile soil to grow food crops). b) Wind and solar are variable outputs whereas every other widely used energy tech is predictable (if you ignore resource wars). So wind and solar must always include a discussion of batteries (batteries are not "green") or peaker plants (which are either coal or nat-gas or nuclear). c) Wind and solar are so new we still haven't figured out the whys and wherefores of dealing with the waste materials when they reach the end of their lifecycle. d) Power density of hydro is terrible: https://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/PowerDensity_Final120815.pdf https://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/PowerDensity_Final120815.pd... So as wind and solar scale there are a bunch of challenges that will have to be overcome for them to become proven technologies the way fossil fuels are.