3 ms·

1. The global energy crisis of 2021-2023 was, er, global. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_energy_crisis_(2021–2023) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_e

1. The global energy crisis of 2021-2023 was, er, global. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_energy_crisis_(2021–2023) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_energy_crisis_(2021–202... Here a summary of the regional effects in, er, all parts of the world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_effects_of_the_2021–2023_global_energy_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_effects_of_the_2021–2... Including the US, including Asia and Africa and Europe. Hence "global energy crisis". It's kind of obvious from the name. 2. The site is correct about wind turbine blades whereas you are wrong. In fact, blades currently cannot be recycled, whereas the largest part by mass, the base, could be but routinely is not. So only a small part of a wind turbine is actually recycled. Applying your own standard, which you incorrectly applied to this site, should we now ignore everything else you write? 3. So a bunch of mostly advocacy sites trying to convince us that the higher prices that are invariably happening at the same time as we put in intermittent renewables are hand-wavingly but obviously caused by something else entirely. Riiiight. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... "...which challenges the economic sanity of 100% intermittent renewable targets." And of course you still haven't provided any "proof" that the chart, which is so "easily disproven", is actually wrong. Because you can't. Because that's empirical data across many countries and across time, none of which was addressed, never mind challenged by the stuff you posted. 4. The Chinese are massively investing in everything that produces electricity, including huge numbers of coal plants. They also just dropped some of their subsidies for PV, which resulted in the bottom falling out of that market, and massive layoffs. https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/renewable/chinas-solar-giants-face-massive-workforce-cuts-amid-industry-crisis/123036233 https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/renewable/c... "Solar panel installations in China fell precipitously in June..." https://www.semafor.com/article/07/29/2025/chinas-solar-installations-drop https://www.semafor.com/article/07/29/2025/chinas-solar-inst... Nothing to see here, move along! Oh, and China invests massively in nuclear, currently approving about 10 plants a year, rate increasing, plants that they build in around 5 years. And please don't make the usual mistake of confusing installed capacity with actual power delivery. Well, that actually works for nuclear, because of capacity factors usually in the 90% range, but not for wind and solar. In Germany, intermittent renewables actually produced less power than three years ago, despite a massive increase in capacity. Capacity factors are dropping, partly because of unfavorable weather (yikes!), partly because all the favorable locations are already gone. And partly because at this point, what we are building is overcapacity, IIRC correctly we already have 3x the maximum power usage installed. This overcapacity is almost entirely useless, as it has to be curtailed when sun and wind are cooperating, and still doesn't provide any electricity when they are not.

_aavaa_ 1y ago
> Here a summary of the regional effects in, er, all parts of the world Have you read the summary? (Or even the IEA link I posted?) Because the shock in every single one of those countries was because of fossil fuel prices/shortages or climate change, not renewables. > In fact, blades currently cannot be recycled, whereas the largest part by mass, the base, could be but routinely is not. Hence the bad faith arguments and misinformation. Suddenly there’s all this care about lack of recyclability when it comes to clean energy, but not a care in the world about the pollution put into the air by fossil fuels. Or the coal ash from coal plants. Or electronic waste. Or municipal waste. Of course there are no such concerns since this isn’t a serious argument. It’s put forth by people who already have their conclusions (renewables bad) and are looking for any reason to believe this. Wind and solar produce a fraction of the amount of waste that fossil fuel sources produce per unit of energy created, and produce a minuscule amount of waste in absolute terms. As for wind turbine blades, they are inert composites. Bury them and move on, they are about as best case scenario for garbage as we can get. > which challenges the economic sanity of 100% intermittent renewable targets. A) Don’t move the goal posts. We aren’t talking about 100% intermittent renewables. And B) did you read the paper you posted or simple find the first one that confirms your biases? I’ll quote: “The LFSCOE are defined as the costs of providing electricity by a given generation technology, assuming that a particular market has to be supplied solely by this source of electricity plus storage” Advocates of renewable energy are not advocating for using a single source, I.e. just solar and no wind nor hydro, or solely wind, or solely hydro. This paper attempts to show that it is uneconomical to pursue a plan nobody is arguing for. > Solar panel installations in China fell precipitously in June … to 15GW. They installed only 16% of Germany’s total capacity in a single day. Why did it fall so much? Per your own linked article: because a subsidy ran out last month which always causes demand to be pulled forward. It is the April and May number who are out of norm, per the graph you sent. The June numbers are in line with last year’s. Nothing to see here indeed. > Oh, and China invests massively in nuclear, currently approving about 10 plants a year, rate increasing, plants that they build in around 5 years. And yet is behind on it’s nuclear target by 5 years [2] while it’s wind/solar/hydro are growing exponentially, far ahead of target and each one produces >2x more energy every year than nuclear [3]. Pointing to them and saying that nuclear is the way to go is not only not supported by the data, but is actively refuted. > In Germany, intermittent renewables actually produced less power than three years ago, despite a massive increase in capacity. A great way to misrepresent the fact. In Germany, all sources of electricity produced less energy than they did 3 years ago. Germany simply used less power. [1] > overcapacity So what? The sun shines and the wind blows for free, it costs nothing. If the plant is economical with this overcapacity, even before adding storage, I don’t see what the problem is. > This overcapacity is almost entirely useless, as it has to be curtailed when sun and wind are cooperating Another tired point. Install storage. Increase demand side flexibility. People already use time-of-day prices in many parts of the world. Incentivize them to use it when it’s more plentiful. [0]: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/renewables-wast https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/renewables-wast [1]: https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/germany/ https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/germany/ [2]: https://cleantechnica.com/2024/12/27/china-hits-ev-target-10-years-early-still-hasnt-reached-2020-nuclear-target/ https://cleantechnica.com/2024/12/27/china-hits-ev-target-10... [3]: https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/china#electricity-mix https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/china#electricity-...

_aavaa_ 1y ago

> Here a summary of the regional effects in, er, all parts of the world Have you read the summary? (Or even the IEA link I posted?) Because the shock in every single one of those countries was because of fossil fuel prices/shortages or climate change, not renewables. > In fact, blades currently cannot be recycled, whereas the largest part by mass, the base, could be but routinely is not. Hence the bad faith arguments and misinformation. Suddenly there’s all this care about lack of recyclability when it comes to clean energy, but not a care in the world about the pollution put into the air by fossil fuels. Or the coal ash from coal plants. Or electronic waste. Or municipal waste. Of course there are no such concerns since this isn’t a serious argument. It’s put forth by people who already have their conclusions (renewables bad) and are looking for any reason to believe this. Wind and solar produce a fraction of the amount of waste that fossil fuel sources produce per unit of energy created, and produce a minuscule amount of waste in absolute terms. As for wind turbine blades, they are inert composites. Bury them and move on, they are about as best case scenario for garbage as we can get. > which challenges the economic sanity of 100% intermittent renewable targets. A) Don’t move the goal posts. We aren’t talking about 100% intermittent renewables. And B) did you read the paper you posted or simple find the first one that confirms your biases? I’ll quote: “The LFSCOE are defined as the costs of providing electricity by a given generation technology, assuming that a particular market has to be supplied solely by this source of electricity plus storage” Advocates of renewable energy are not advocating for using a single source, I.e. just solar and no wind nor hydro, or solely wind, or solely hydro. This paper attempts to show that it is uneconomical to pursue a plan nobody is arguing for. > Solar panel installations in China fell precipitously in June … to 15GW. They installed only 16% of Germany’s total capacity in a single day. Why did it fall so much? Per your own linked article: because a subsidy ran out last month which always causes demand to be pulled forward. It is the April and May number who are out of norm, per the graph you sent. The June numbers are in line with last year’s. Nothing to see here indeed. > Oh, and China invests massively in nuclear, currently approving about 10 plants a year, rate increasing, plants that they build in around 5 years. And yet is behind on it’s nuclear target by 5 years [2] while it’s wind/solar/hydro are growing exponentially, far ahead of target and each one produces >2x more energy every year than nuclear [3]. Pointing to them and saying that nuclear is the way to go is not only not supported by the data, but is actively refuted. > In Germany, intermittent renewables actually produced less power than three years ago, despite a massive increase in capacity. A great way to misrepresent the fact. In Germany, all sources of electricity produced less energy than they did 3 years ago. Germany simply used less power. [1] > overcapacity So what? The sun shines and the wind blows for free, it costs nothing. If the plant is economical with this overcapacity, even before adding storage, I don’t see what the problem is. > This overcapacity is almost entirely useless, as it has to be curtailed when sun and wind are cooperating Another tired point. Install storage. Increase demand side flexibility. People already use time-of-day prices in many parts of the world. Incentivize them to use it when it’s more plentiful. [0]: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/renewables-wast https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/renewables-wast [1]: https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/germany/ https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/germany/ [2]: https://cleantechnica.com/2024/12/27/china-hits-ev-target-10-years-early-still-hasnt-reached-2020-nuclear-target/ https://cleantechnica.com/2024/12/27/china-hits-ev-target-10... [3]: https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/china#electricity-mix https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/china#electricity-...