6 ms·

I am always (plesantly) suprised to see just how high the amount of renewables are. It really is quite contrary to the naratives - on both sides of the debate.

I am always (plesantly) suprised to see just how high the amount of renewables are. It really is quite contrary to the naratives - on both sides of the debate. Huge progress has been made over not that long a timeline, if nothing more than diversifying the sources of power. More can be done but it is impressive all the same.

jdthedisciple 4y ago
Don't forget this is only electrical tough. This has been pretty well known in my country at least. However, the full picture isn't so glamorous once you take all energy types into account. But I agree with you that generally too much panic is being created.
- shapefrog 4y ago
  Many people are saying, "but it is only electricity". Of course, however, is there anything where the conversion has been from electic to petrol / gas / coal? My car is going electic, my bolier is going electric. This isnt new, it has been the path of travel for a while now. Unless Nvidia has really f'd up their calculations my 5090 graphics card isnt going to be coal powered.
  - jdthedisciple 4y ago
    That's fine for your home, but not when you extend your gaze to where all those items are actually produced: Industries.
  - exact_string 4y ago
    I think the point of "But it is only electricity" means that _currently_ the situation is not as good as one might think based on electricity production.
    - shapefrog 4y ago
      To quote from elsewhere. “Coal-fired power stations emit over 10 Gt of carbon dioxide each year,[4] about one fifth of world greenhouse gas emissions, so are the single largest cause of climate change” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-fired_power_station https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-fired_power_station The counter factual; if the 60% of electricity coming form wind or sunshine at this instant was from coal, then 10 Gt of carbon dioxide each year becomes 20/30/40/50 Gt of carbon dioxide each year and global emmisions are significantly more than what they are now. Purely hypothetical, but it is where we were.
- maccard 4y ago
  > But I agree with you that generally too much panic is being created. Unfortunately without the panic we wouldn't have even gotten where we are. The last decade's progress has been excellent, but there was 20 years of stagnation before that. The latest nuclear plant that was opened in the UK was in 1995, and we've not successfully built another since. Meanwhile gas plants have served their entire lifecycle and been decommissioned in that time frame, and are still actively being built (but thankfully no longer planned). > However, the full picture isn't so glamorous once you take all energy types into account Why not? Electricity is one of the biggest of energy, and is growing as transport (which is the second largest source of energy usage) is electrifying. Cleaning our electricity sources and moving our largest polluters to electricity is a great path forward. Theres no silver bullet here but what we're doing is pretty much the biggest impact we can make. We should have done it 20 years ago, and we should be doing it quicker now though. The next biggest source of emissions is from agriculture, mostly from deforestation and oversimplifying for the sake of an internet comment, if the EU, China and the US just ate less beef, that problem would mostly solve itself.
Matumio 4y ago
That's also my impression, there is a lot of progress these days. Though, to protect that optimism, don't look up the annual world CO2 emissions.
- shapefrog 4y ago
  > don't look up the annual world CO2 emissions. They look bad, but certainly the rate of badness is nowhere close to what it once was - if post pandemic emissions are not horrific, then you can make the case that the upward trend is broken.
Krasnol 4y ago
Hard to imagine how far Germany could have been today if they weren't trapped for 16 years by a party which did everything it could to stop renewable expansion. Crippling the national industry and selling it out to China this way.
- jussij 4y ago
  I suspect that might b the same story in a few other countries around the world. Here in Australia, we had a decade of these 'climate wars'.
  - Krasnol 4y ago
    I'm sure it is and it will continue to be since renewable energy has become some "evil tool" of the eco/leftist-conspiracy for the international-anti-intellectual bubble.
  - parminya 4y ago
    Time didn't stop in the pandemic. The 2007 election was fought on the topic of a carbon transition. It's at least a decade and a half, and the anti-transition side hasn't given up yet so it's still ongoing. If the Andrews government is returned it may be the beginning of the end with their proposal for a renewables oriented renewed SEC, but it won't be the end for the country as a whole.
spaniard89277 4y ago
It's still too little too late. In Spain we still burn a lot of gas. In the last 12m gas was the main source of electricity. And then it's everything which isn't electricity. For a more clear picture, look for sankey diagrams like this one [1], which shows how electricity is actually a small part of the equation. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/sankey/energy/sankey.html?geos=ES&year=2020&unit=KTOE&fuels=TOTAL&highlight=_&nodeDisagg=1111111111111&flowDisagg=true&translateX=87.39673226353602&translateY=311.6731276264046&scale=0.7578582832552005&language=EN https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/sankey/energy/sankey.htm...
- shapefrog 4y ago
  > It's still too little too late. Thats what the activist blockading my commuter train was hysterically screaming too. When you are packed 3 deep and 3 high on an electic train being screamed at that you are personally destroying the planet (by taking this train to work?) it brings the climate wars home.
  - moooo99 4y ago
    > When you are packed 3 deep and 3 high on an electic train being screamed at that you are personally destroying the planet (by taking this train to work?) it brings the climate wars home. Had the displeasure of meeting some of those activists as well. While I don't support their means of protest (in Germany the constantly glue themselves onto the street) I understand their message. However, considering the activists blocked a packed tram line that is powered exclusively by renewables, I'm not sure if they themselves understand the issues completely.
    - shapefrog 4y ago
      Gluing yourself to a tram or the street in 2022 is having zero (positive) effect. The transition from fossil fuel to electrictiy and clean forms of electricity has been happening for a decade plus now - maybe the greenpeacer of the late 90's can legitimately claim credit. No policy maker is seeing these activists at work and changing their mind about anything. The offshore wind farm opening in 2023 is not a product of that activist gluing themselves to something, and the one planned for 10 years from now is not either. The train, towards clean electricity and near zero oil is in motion, has been for quite some time, and the only question is how fast it is travelling. I would love to see it move faster, and certainly anyone actually pulling the strings of investment are looking at a coventional power plant vs renewables and throwing their money at renewables faster than people can take it. It is only amongst the chattering masses and everyone having their voice heard on twitter that there is much debate.
melling 4y ago
There are only 8500 coal power plants in the world generating 20% of all emissions. “Coal-fired power stations emit over 10 Gt of carbon dioxide each year,[4] about one fifth of world greenhouse gas emissions, so are the single largest cause of climate change” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-fired_power_station https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-fired_power_station Half of them were built in the past 20 years? And we subsidize the industry. “In 2020 the coal industry was subsidized $US18 billion” I’m always surprised that we haven’t replaced all of them with green energy.
- badpun 4y ago
  Why are you surprised?
  - melling 4y ago
    Because it seems like such an obvious problem to solve. 100Gt of emissions every decade. Coal is also quite polluting and no one wants to live near a coal energy plant. Those 8500 plants actually move the needle and accelerate climate change by a significant amount.
    - headsoup 4y ago
      I only guess because renewables don't yet provide a solid base load power guarantee around the clock in all weather types. The obvious solution is not having so much demand, but we all want to have that cake and eat it.
      - melling 4y ago
        We are half a century into the climate change problem. How about some better answers? It appears we’ve completely missed the initial goals and will experience a larger temperature increase. 100 million barrels of oil a day. Fossil fuels producing 84% of our energy needs. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/20/bp-review-new-highs-in-global-energy-consumption-and-carbon-emissions-in-2019/amp/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/20/bp-review-ne...

jdthedisciple 4y ago

Don't forget this is only electrical tough. This has been pretty well known in my country at least. However, the full picture isn't so glamorous once you take all energy types into account. But I agree with you that generally too much panic is being created.

shapefrog 4y ago
Many people are saying, "but it is only electricity". Of course, however, is there anything where the conversion has been from electic to petrol / gas / coal? My car is going electic, my bolier is going electric. This isnt new, it has been the path of travel for a while now. Unless Nvidia has really f'd up their calculations my 5090 graphics card isnt going to be coal powered.
- jdthedisciple 4y ago
  That's fine for your home, but not when you extend your gaze to where all those items are actually produced: Industries.
- exact_string 4y ago
  I think the point of "But it is only electricity" means that _currently_ the situation is not as good as one might think based on electricity production.
  - shapefrog 4y ago
    To quote from elsewhere. “Coal-fired power stations emit over 10 Gt of carbon dioxide each year,[4] about one fifth of world greenhouse gas emissions, so are the single largest cause of climate change” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-fired_power_station https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-fired_power_station The counter factual; if the 60% of electricity coming form wind or sunshine at this instant was from coal, then 10 Gt of carbon dioxide each year becomes 20/30/40/50 Gt of carbon dioxide each year and global emmisions are significantly more than what they are now. Purely hypothetical, but it is where we were.
maccard 4y ago
> But I agree with you that generally too much panic is being created. Unfortunately without the panic we wouldn't have even gotten where we are. The last decade's progress has been excellent, but there was 20 years of stagnation before that. The latest nuclear plant that was opened in the UK was in 1995, and we've not successfully built another since. Meanwhile gas plants have served their entire lifecycle and been decommissioned in that time frame, and are still actively being built (but thankfully no longer planned). > However, the full picture isn't so glamorous once you take all energy types into account Why not? Electricity is one of the biggest of energy, and is growing as transport (which is the second largest source of energy usage) is electrifying. Cleaning our electricity sources and moving our largest polluters to electricity is a great path forward. Theres no silver bullet here but what we're doing is pretty much the biggest impact we can make. We should have done it 20 years ago, and we should be doing it quicker now though. The next biggest source of emissions is from agriculture, mostly from deforestation and oversimplifying for the sake of an internet comment, if the EU, China and the US just ate less beef, that problem would mostly solve itself.

Matumio 4y ago

That's also my impression, there is a lot of progress these days. Though, to protect that optimism, don't look up the annual world CO2 emissions.

shapefrog 4y ago
> don't look up the annual world CO2 emissions. They look bad, but certainly the rate of badness is nowhere close to what it once was - if post pandemic emissions are not horrific, then you can make the case that the upward trend is broken.

Krasnol 4y ago

Hard to imagine how far Germany could have been today if they weren't trapped for 16 years by a party which did everything it could to stop renewable expansion. Crippling the national industry and selling it out to China this way.

jussij 4y ago
I suspect that might b the same story in a few other countries around the world. Here in Australia, we had a decade of these 'climate wars'.
- Krasnol 4y ago
  I'm sure it is and it will continue to be since renewable energy has become some "evil tool" of the eco/leftist-conspiracy for the international-anti-intellectual bubble.
- parminya 4y ago
  Time didn't stop in the pandemic. The 2007 election was fought on the topic of a carbon transition. It's at least a decade and a half, and the anti-transition side hasn't given up yet so it's still ongoing. If the Andrews government is returned it may be the beginning of the end with their proposal for a renewables oriented renewed SEC, but it won't be the end for the country as a whole.

spaniard89277 4y ago

It's still too little too late. In Spain we still burn a lot of gas. In the last 12m gas was the main source of electricity. And then it's everything which isn't electricity. For a more clear picture, look for sankey diagrams like this one [1], which shows how electricity is actually a small part of the equation. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/sankey/energy/sankey.html?geos=ES&year=2020&unit=KTOE&fuels=TOTAL&highlight=_&nodeDisagg=1111111111111&flowDisagg=true&translateX=87.39673226353602&translateY=311.6731276264046&scale=0.7578582832552005&language=EN https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/sankey/energy/sankey.htm...

shapefrog 4y ago
> It's still too little too late. Thats what the activist blockading my commuter train was hysterically screaming too. When you are packed 3 deep and 3 high on an electic train being screamed at that you are personally destroying the planet (by taking this train to work?) it brings the climate wars home.
- moooo99 4y ago
  > When you are packed 3 deep and 3 high on an electic train being screamed at that you are personally destroying the planet (by taking this train to work?) it brings the climate wars home. Had the displeasure of meeting some of those activists as well. While I don't support their means of protest (in Germany the constantly glue themselves onto the street) I understand their message. However, considering the activists blocked a packed tram line that is powered exclusively by renewables, I'm not sure if they themselves understand the issues completely.
  - shapefrog 4y ago
    Gluing yourself to a tram or the street in 2022 is having zero (positive) effect. The transition from fossil fuel to electrictiy and clean forms of electricity has been happening for a decade plus now - maybe the greenpeacer of the late 90's can legitimately claim credit. No policy maker is seeing these activists at work and changing their mind about anything. The offshore wind farm opening in 2023 is not a product of that activist gluing themselves to something, and the one planned for 10 years from now is not either. The train, towards clean electricity and near zero oil is in motion, has been for quite some time, and the only question is how fast it is travelling. I would love to see it move faster, and certainly anyone actually pulling the strings of investment are looking at a coventional power plant vs renewables and throwing their money at renewables faster than people can take it. It is only amongst the chattering masses and everyone having their voice heard on twitter that there is much debate.

melling 4y ago

There are only 8500 coal power plants in the world generating 20% of all emissions. “Coal-fired power stations emit over 10 Gt of carbon dioxide each year,[4] about one fifth of world greenhouse gas emissions, so are the single largest cause of climate change” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-fired_power_station https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-fired_power_station Half of them were built in the past 20 years? And we subsidize the industry. “In 2020 the coal industry was subsidized $US18 billion” I’m always surprised that we haven’t replaced all of them with green energy.

badpun 4y ago
Why are you surprised?
- melling 4y ago
  Because it seems like such an obvious problem to solve. 100Gt of emissions every decade. Coal is also quite polluting and no one wants to live near a coal energy plant. Those 8500 plants actually move the needle and accelerate climate change by a significant amount.
  - headsoup 4y ago
    I only guess because renewables don't yet provide a solid base load power guarantee around the clock in all weather types. The obvious solution is not having so much demand, but we all want to have that cake and eat it.
    - melling 4y ago
      We are half a century into the climate change problem. How about some better answers? It appears we’ve completely missed the initial goals and will experience a larger temperature increase. 100 million barrels of oil a day. Fossil fuels producing 84% of our energy needs. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/20/bp-review-new-highs-in-global-energy-consumption-and-carbon-emissions-in-2019/amp/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/20/bp-review-ne...