6 ms·

The renewable energy revolution is happening faster than you think

32 points by elorant 3y ago

Caduceus1 3y ago
https://archive.is/hNrhy https://archive.is/hNrhy
more_corn 3y ago
There’s a crap-ton of money to be made in renewable energy.
- uni_rule 3y ago
  There's also a crap tonne of money to be made in not doing shit and making "dirty" energy. Perhaps there's just a crap tonne of money to be made in energy.
pasttense01 3y ago
No it's not. The key measure to look at is how much carbon is dumped into the atmosphere each year. If there was a renewable energy revolution this number would be going down. Instead it is going up each year (except for the Covid recession). https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_620_original_image/public/2023-05/CO2_emissions_vs_concentrations_1751-2022.png?itok=uaha91YU https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_widt...
- bilal4hmed 3y ago
  can you provide a link to the CO2 being dumped increasing ?
  - xnx 3y ago
    https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-co2-emissions-from-energy-combustion-and-industrial-processes-1900-2022 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-co2-em...
    - bilal4hmed 3y ago
      awesome, thank you
- sottol 3y ago
  I'm hopeful that our emissions rates have "momentum" and that we're seeing the start of a deceleration and then quick decline and it'll start slow but accelerate quickly.
perrygeo 3y ago
> unprecedented scale and speed of decarbonisation in many countries And yet carbon emissions still increased by ~1% last year [1]. As it has for decades. It's gone from greenwashing to outright lies. The atmosphere doesn't care about your political successes, or the relative percentage of energy sources, or the economics of renewables - only absolute tonnage of CO2e. This is a great example of the "shifting metrics" fallacy. Instead of measuring the thing that matters, you measure the progress of the proposed solution and claim success regardless of meeting the original goal. We need to demand better from journalists. > It is even looking like we may soon see the beginning of the end for fossil fuels Counterpoint: renewables absolutely require fossil fuels for mining, transport, manufacturing, installation, maintenance and recycling. Solar panels and wind turbines cannot provide the energy to deploy new panels or turbines, not even as a demonstration, let alone at a scale that would "end" fossil fuels. In a very concrete and objective sense, these technologies are not at all "renewable" - they're an effective mechanism to extend the energy output of a barrel of oil, not to replace it. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2022 https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2022
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  The rate of increase is negative, and has been since ~2015. It's like a massive ship -- if you apply the engines in reverse you still keep moving forward for quite a long time. Yes, we should be reversing a lot harder than we are, but we are reversing. > renewables absolutely require fossil fuels for mining, transport, manufacturing, installation, maintenance and recycling. That's not true. Producing cement from limestone releases carbon and the production of steel requires carbon, but there are alternative processes for both in development. Pretty much everything else you mentioned just requires energy and/or heat, energy which can be provided by electricity either directly or indirectly via hydrogen or synthetic fuels. If a CAT 793 can run on electricity, anything can. P.S. using 2022 numbers is disingenuous. I could show you 2021 numbers which tell a completely different story. 2021+2022 numbers are far more indicative.
  - perrygeo 3y ago
    We're not reversing, we're not even slowing down, we're pulling our foot off the accelerator slightly. Reducing the 2nd derivative is better than nothing but it's blatantly false to claim an "unprecedented scale and speed of decarbonisation". Yes, all those processes require heat and energy. That's the point. How do you intend to distribute that energy across the global supply chain without a dense liquid fuel? It's never been done (though it is theoretically possible). Once we have renewables that can build other renewables without a drop of oil in the process, that's the beginning of a plan to end fossil fuels. I'm hopeful but all I can say is - prove it and we have something to talk about. Beyond that, it's a hypothetical.

32 points by elorant 3y ago

Caduceus1 3y ago

https://archive.is/hNrhy https://archive.is/hNrhy

more_corn 3y ago

There’s a crap-ton of money to be made in renewable energy.

uni_rule 3y ago
There's also a crap tonne of money to be made in not doing shit and making "dirty" energy. Perhaps there's just a crap tonne of money to be made in energy.

pasttense01 3y ago

No it's not. The key measure to look at is how much carbon is dumped into the atmosphere each year. If there was a renewable energy revolution this number would be going down. Instead it is going up each year (except for the Covid recession). https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_620_original_image/public/2023-05/CO2_emissions_vs_concentrations_1751-2022.png?itok=uaha91YU https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_widt...

bilal4hmed 3y ago
can you provide a link to the CO2 being dumped increasing ?
- xnx 3y ago
  https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-co2-emissions-from-energy-combustion-and-industrial-processes-1900-2022 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-co2-em...
  - bilal4hmed 3y ago
    awesome, thank you
sottol 3y ago
I'm hopeful that our emissions rates have "momentum" and that we're seeing the start of a deceleration and then quick decline and it'll start slow but accelerate quickly.

perrygeo 3y ago

> unprecedented scale and speed of decarbonisation in many countries And yet carbon emissions still increased by ~1% last year [1]. As it has for decades. It's gone from greenwashing to outright lies. The atmosphere doesn't care about your political successes, or the relative percentage of energy sources, or the economics of renewables - only absolute tonnage of CO2e. This is a great example of the "shifting metrics" fallacy. Instead of measuring the thing that matters, you measure the progress of the proposed solution and claim success regardless of meeting the original goal. We need to demand better from journalists. > It is even looking like we may soon see the beginning of the end for fossil fuels Counterpoint: renewables absolutely require fossil fuels for mining, transport, manufacturing, installation, maintenance and recycling. Solar panels and wind turbines cannot provide the energy to deploy new panels or turbines, not even as a demonstration, let alone at a scale that would "end" fossil fuels. In a very concrete and objective sense, these technologies are not at all "renewable" - they're an effective mechanism to extend the energy output of a barrel of oil, not to replace it. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2022 https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2022

bryanlarsen 3y ago
The rate of increase is negative, and has been since ~2015. It's like a massive ship -- if you apply the engines in reverse you still keep moving forward for quite a long time. Yes, we should be reversing a lot harder than we are, but we are reversing. > renewables absolutely require fossil fuels for mining, transport, manufacturing, installation, maintenance and recycling. That's not true. Producing cement from limestone releases carbon and the production of steel requires carbon, but there are alternative processes for both in development. Pretty much everything else you mentioned just requires energy and/or heat, energy which can be provided by electricity either directly or indirectly via hydrogen or synthetic fuels. If a CAT 793 can run on electricity, anything can. P.S. using 2022 numbers is disingenuous. I could show you 2021 numbers which tell a completely different story. 2021+2022 numbers are far more indicative.
- perrygeo 3y ago
  We're not reversing, we're not even slowing down, we're pulling our foot off the accelerator slightly. Reducing the 2nd derivative is better than nothing but it's blatantly false to claim an "unprecedented scale and speed of decarbonisation". Yes, all those processes require heat and energy. That's the point. How do you intend to distribute that energy across the global supply chain without a dense liquid fuel? It's never been done (though it is theoretically possible). Once we have renewables that can build other renewables without a drop of oil in the process, that's the beginning of a plan to end fossil fuels. I'm hopeful but all I can say is - prove it and we have something to talk about. Beyond that, it's a hypothetical.