Energy being expensive and trickier to source is good news ... for renewables
- Reference: 1670433310
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/12/07/renewables_will_become_largest_energy/
- Source link:
Renewable investments will account for 90 percent of new global electricity generation over the next five years, the IEA [1]predicts . By 2027, the agency believes the world will add as much renewable power – 2,400GW – as the entire current power capacity of China.
The IEA said two major factors caused it to revise its forecasts upward: Russia's invasion of Ukraine and resulting European energy worries, and new policies in China, the United States and India it said gives those countries more favorable conditions for renewable investment.
[2]
According to the IEA's [3]Renewables 2022 report, fossil fuel disruptions in the EU have caused energy prices to skyrocket, improving the competitiveness of solar and wind power in those regions.
[4]
[5]
Due to fears that Russia may further endanger European energy security, the IEA said renewables will double their rate of expansion on the continent in the next five years, though it predicts renewable growth rates will be somewhat slowed by sluggish growth among transportation and heating sectors.
China, the US, and India are all predicted to double their renewable expansion rates over the next five years as well. The IEA said the three will collectively account for two-thirds of global renewable growth, with China alone accounting for nearly half of new global renewable capacity between now and 2027.
[6]
The IEA cites China's 14th Five Year Plan, which was announced late last year, as the basis for a 35 percent upward revision in China's renewable expansion rate. As Chinese incentives have made utility-scale renewables cheaper than coal electricity, the renewable adoption rate has accelerated to the point where the IEA believes China will reach its 2030 green power goals by 2025.
The US has the Inflation Reduction Act to thank for its upward forecast, which the IEA said has given the US "unprecedented long-term policy visibility for wind and solar projects," while the agency said solar PV auctions have led to considerable competition in the renewables space.
Will it be enough to meet climate goals?
"The world is set to add as much renewable power in the next 5 years as it did in the previous 20 years," said IEA executive director Fatih Birol. However, he added, "continued acceleration is critical to help keep the door open to limiting global warming to 1.5°C."
If the world is going to be able to meet the IEA's calls for net zero emissions by 2050, renewable investment still needs to increase by an additional 60 percent, the report found. Luckily, the IEA also modeled an accelerated scenario that adds 25 percent more renewable power to its predictions, which it said at the very least "move[s] the world closer to a pathway" to reaching net zero by 2050.
The accelerated case assumes the same scenarios, but with advanced economies taking steps to tackle challenges hampering current rates of growth, like regulatory and permitting issues, and pushing renewable expansion more rapidly into heating and transportation.
[7]Rolls-Royce, EasyJet fire up first hydrogen-fueled jet engine
[8]Massive energy storage system goes online in UK
[9]Now's your chance, AI, to do good. Protect endangered eagles from wind turbines
[10]Bill Gates' green investments to shift from tackling climate change to mitigating impacts
For developing countries, the IEA said governments would need to address weak grid infrastructure, a lack of access to affordable financing and addressing policy and regulatory uncertainties. Globally, everyone would be required to address supply chain issues, [11]expand grids and improve energy flexibility.
If those challenges were addressed, an additional 3,000 GW of renewable capacity could be added on top of what's already been forecasted, the IEA said, but even that'll still just put us back within reaching distance of goals, not meet them.
[12]
"This faster increase would significantly narrow the gap on the amount of renewable electricity growth that is needed," the IEA said.
Narrow, mind you, not close. ®
Get our [13]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.iea.org/news/renewable-power-s-growth-is-being-turbocharged-as-countries-seek-to-strengthen-energy-security
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Y5EbEAs1ILMV-xIhn1XaMQAAAAg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2022
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y5EbEAs1ILMV-xIhn1XaMQAAAAg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Y5EbEAs1ILMV-xIhn1XaMQAAAAg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y5EbEAs1ILMV-xIhn1XaMQAAAAg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/29/rollsroyce_easyjet_hydogen_engine/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/24/uk_battery_energy_storage/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/21/germany_ai_eagles_turbines/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/26/gates_green_investment_refocus/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/21/us_13b_electric_grid/
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Y5EbEAs1ILMV-xIhn1XaMQAAAAg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: In before . . .
I'll just leave this here-
https://gridwatch.co.uk/Wind
Last Month-
minimum: 0.249 GW maximum: 16.742 GW average: 9.513 GW
Problem is still that it's not a like-for-like comparison. Coal generation can be turned up & down, wind does it's own thing. See also-
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/12/07/labour-target-net-zero-electricity-by-2030/
Labour’s bold plan for net-zero carbon emissions from power by 2030 is unachievable. It will require adding around 90 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity, building transmission lines from Scotland and the East of England (where the wind is) to southern England (where most of the demand is), and adding about 32 terawatt-hours (equivalent to the supply of about eight million homes) worth of new base load to deal with what the Germans call dunkelflaute, when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.
Wind and solar simply can't deliver 90GW consistently, reliably and especially cheaply. Also note how the units change from GW to TWh, and there's only enough base load for 8m homes. UK has around 25m, plus hospitals, schools, businesses etc. And domestic energy usage is going to increase as heating, cooking and transport is forced to electrify. The 32TWh translates to only 3GW of dependable power, and won't replace the generation we're losing as our nuclear and remaining coal power stations close down.
You see conspiracy theories. I see the engineering, economic and basic physics problems that Labour's 'bold plan' simply ignore. But then there has been a huge amount of lobbying done to convince politicians that this will work, and won't just generate even more collosal windfall profits for the lobbyists and their clients.
One simple way to demonstrate the fraud is to ask why customers on 'Renewable' tariffs have had the same massive price hikes as everyone else. If their energy is 'renewable' why has the price of gas inflated their bills so dramatically?
On a personal note
The talk in the media is mainly about government level policy which has little good trickle-down benefit to the average household user. I concentrate on being as selfish as I can. I'm slowly putting together zero-export systems so I'm insulated from whatever compromised government program gets adopted and foisted on the proles. I just finished troubleshooting a misbehaving 310W solar panel that I purchased for $25. It turns out that whatever the previous owner did, he managed to damage a pair of cells at the top of one chain. I'll have those bypassed later today and be generating power with that panel tomorrow. I won't get 310W out of it, but for $25, 100W would still be a good deal. I'll get more than 100W for sure. Knowing how to fix things is a good skill.
Yes please more unstable energy!
Another 'problem' with renewables I've recently heard of - when the wind blows then the wind doth blow. Windfarms produce 'free' energy by the bucket load. The energy markets turn round and say hey stop sending us so much energy, spot price dives (sometimes negative) so the wind farm owners get a pittance for their energy but consumers momentarily happy. Then the wind stops, prices go up, wind farm owners get a pretty penny per unit now, times almost 0 produced units.
Once again, the energy crisis isn't completely down to Putin, it's just been helped along by Putin thanks to terrible 'green' (aren't nuclear fuel rods /radioactive things often portayed as glowing green? :) decisions. Hint hint shutting down nuclear reactors early, deciding Russia's a great place to rely on for (almost?) 100% of your gas supplies.
You could say it's like you've been driving your car for 30 years and never had an accident, so why carry around the weight of seatbelts that serve no purpose. Get rid of the airbags while you're at it (explosives are dangerous afterall). You've been warned they do serve a purpose even if you don't perceive any use from them. Then unfortunately a moose (the 4 legged creature) runs out in front of you and you plow straight into her. You go splat thanks to lack of seatbelts and airbag, but if it wasn't for Mrs Moose you'd be fine!
The energy markets turn round and say hey stop sending us so much energy, spot price dives (sometimes negative) so the wind farm owners get a pittance for their energy but consumers momentarily happy.
Actually, it's worse than that. See-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grid_(Great_Britain)#Constraint_payments
So they get paid millions for a service that should be worth zero. If there's no demand, there should be no payment. Costs of those constraint payments are just added to our energy bills. National Grid Plc is of course a for-profit company, and not for-consumers, so there's zero incentive for it to reduce costs when it has a monopoly.
How much electricity ?
How much electricity do renewables provide the UK on a calm winters night ? (Hint wind zero solar zero!!)
The current UK peak electricity demand is around 50GW - hydroelectric generation can provide under 2GW of this demand and biomass can provide just over 4GW. This leaves 44GW of generation needed from other sources. On a calm winters night there is no other renewable power available so conventional generation (nuclear, gas, coal, oil) have to provide the power.
If UK governments were sensible and far sighted (pigs will fly in formation first!!), then the majority of UK generation would now be nuclear. However given the idiots in charge over the last 50 years, the UK needs enough gas fired power station capacity to make up for a worst case shortfall from wind generation. The various "green" incentives (eg the tax on carbon emissions and the preferential pricing given to wind generation) are making gas fired generation less and less profitable. The companies that operate the gas fired power stations will only continue to do so if they make a profit from them. The UK could easily find itself at the mercy of the wind if the "green" incentives make gas fired generation unprofitable.
(A note - assuming no further reductions in greenhouse emissions then by 2100 the sea level may rise by 60cm (2 feet) and the average global temperature may rise by 2C. To lessen this small change which would barely affect the UK, the UK is expected to spend 100s of billions of pounds in the various "green" measures. (The difference between the UK doing nothing and the UK doing its maximum to reduce greenhouse emissions would be less than 0.1C on the global average temperature - the UK only emits 1.1% of the worlds greenhouse gases.))
Re: How much electricity ?
"(The difference between the UK doing nothing and the UK doing its maximum to reduce greenhouse emissions would be less than 0.1C on the global average temperature - the UK only emits 1.1% of the worlds greenhouse gases.)"
Oy that's Sweden's job to punish their citizens such that should Sweden's emissions be 0 then the overall difference to the global emissions would be lost in the error bars. Ideas like the plastic bag tax because plastic ends up in the ocean and kills the fishes. When was the last time you threw your plastic bags in the ocean? Or just threw them in the nature i.e, not in the rubbish or recycling where they don't end up in the ocean. Sounds green on paper, actual difference? 0.
Re: How much electricity ?
> How much electricity do renewables provide the UK on a calm winters night ? (Hint wind zero solar zero!!)
Even on a sunny winters day solar can be at the bugger all level. Our system is able to make 8kW. Today's been as fine as a December's day gets and I'm not sure we've topped 500W, total production for the day 2.5kWh.
Re: How much electricity ?
Saw a post on the faceache from a company claiming to be building a fence of vertical solar panels at FRA airport, so as to reduce shading and the impact to the flora and fauna. Seriously?!?! Waste the resources to build a perfectly capable solar panel, then nobble it by mounting it vertically. Why not use fewer solar panels, mounted correctly to get the same equivalent power, thus needing less panels and shading the same amount of area. Point being if you're panel isn't creating shade then it's not collecting energy.
IEA
.. has stopped being useful, and now produces on-message articles.
In before . . .
. . . the usual suspects appear with their long-winded froth-mouthed rants about the "Greens," how global warming is a Communist liberal hoax manufactured by *cough* "globalists," and how renewable energy is unsustainable, with a side helping of jabs at "Greta."
We get it, guys, give it a rest.