World Will Miss Target of Tripling Renewable Electricity Generation By 2030, IEA Says 65
AmiMoJo shares a report: The world is off track to meet the goal of tripling renewable electricity generation by 2030, a target viewed as vital to enable a swift global transition away from fossil fuels, but there are promising signs that the pace of progress may be picking up.
Countries agreed last December on a tripling of renewable power by the end of this decade. But few have yet taken concrete steps to meet this requirement and on current policies and trends global renewable generation capacity would only roughly double in developed countries, and slightly more than double globally by 2030, according to an analysis by the International Energy Agency.
Governments should include targets and policies on renewables in their national action plans for the climate (called nationally determined contributions, or NDCs), which are a requirement under the Paris agreement, the IEA found. Many currently fail to do so, even though vast increases in renewable power are essential to meeting the treaty's aspiration of limiting temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
The IEA, the gold standard for global energy research, analysed the domestic policies and targets of nearly 150 countries, and found they would result in about 8,000GW of renewable energy capacity by 2030. That amount is about 70% of what is necessary to reach 11,000GW of capacity, the amount needed for the tripling goal agreed at the Cop28 UN climate summit in Dubai last year.
Countries agreed last December on a tripling of renewable power by the end of this decade. But few have yet taken concrete steps to meet this requirement and on current policies and trends global renewable generation capacity would only roughly double in developed countries, and slightly more than double globally by 2030, according to an analysis by the International Energy Agency.
Governments should include targets and policies on renewables in their national action plans for the climate (called nationally determined contributions, or NDCs), which are a requirement under the Paris agreement, the IEA found. Many currently fail to do so, even though vast increases in renewable power are essential to meeting the treaty's aspiration of limiting temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
The IEA, the gold standard for global energy research, analysed the domestic policies and targets of nearly 150 countries, and found they would result in about 8,000GW of renewable energy capacity by 2030. That amount is about 70% of what is necessary to reach 11,000GW of capacity, the amount needed for the tripling goal agreed at the Cop28 UN climate summit in Dubai last year.
Re:Whose target? (Score:5, Interesting)
It was agreed at COP28 in December.
While your country may suck, many democracies have mechanisms to enforce this kind of thing. For example, most European countries make such pledges legally binding on the government, with citizens able to sue if they aren't doing enough to meet them. It's far from perfect but it does have a positive effect.
Re: (Score:3)
We do too but it's called Ratification under Article 2, section 2, clause 2 of the US Constitution. COP28, Paris blah blah has not been ratified by the US Senate.
These agreements are therefore not binding on the US in law.
Presidents can negotiate whatever but to make it stick it has to be ratified by the Senate. The Paris Accords were "non-binding" because Obama knew he wouldn't get it past the Senate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It was agreed at COP28 in December.
But... who agreed, and exactly what authority did they have to agree to it?
COP28 was a conference, that's what the "C" stands for. Did anybody attending have any authority to set policy?
Re: (Score:2)
Who did your country send to make the agreement?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is an interesting premise, wasn't there some sort of movie about that a few years ago?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Whose target? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who set the target of tripling renewable electricity generation by 2030, and who, if anybody, agreed to this?
Anybody can "set a target." But unless the target is set by somebody with some authority to make a plan to achieve it, it's not meaningful.
It's just bullshit. They agreed to this 5 months ago but few have taken concrete steps?
OMG no concrete steps in 5 months? Well, I'm shocked I tell you.
Here's the reality. After they flew in on their private jets and enjoyed a week of steak, hookers, wine, and blow, they signaled their virtue and left for home, confident in the knowledge that whatever they agreed to doesn't cost them a dime. They aren't actually responsible for any of it. And they can't wait for the next conference where they can tsk tsk about the inaction, get their fix, and signal their virtue again.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Can we now focus on reducing emissions?
Potential for negative trends in profits. Denied.
+1.5C is a goner (Score:5, Informative)
even though vast increases in renewable power are essential to meeting the treaty's aspiration of limiting temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
+1.5C is gone. +2C is also almost sure to be exceeded, unless all countries:
- massive deployment of clean energy: countries must invest heavily in nuclear, solar, and wind energy.
- electrification: transitioning to electric power for transportation, heating, and industrial processes is crucial.
- promoting sobriety: reducing consumption and waste across sectors is essential.
To give you an idea of the efforts needed: meeting the +2C target by 2050 necessitates annual emission reductions equivalent to what occurred during the COVID lockdown—every year, stacked on top of each other.
Re: (Score:2)
We can pull off massive cuts in emissions like that, but the political will to take that opportunity isn't there.
The tragedy is that China has grasped it and is installing more renewables than the rest of the world combined, by quite a large margin. And instead of also taking the opportunity to massively boost manufacturing and jobs for installers, we just whine about them "dumping" and how it's all so unfair.
We should move to a war footing, mass produce windmills and solar panels, and install them everywhe
Re: (Score:2)
We should move to a war footing, mass produce windmills and solar panels, and install them everywhere there is space.
If we are serious about reducing emissions, we should both mass deploy solar/wind, and also keep deploying nuclear plants. That makes even more sense if you move to a war footing.
By the way, this is exactly what China is doing: installing more renewables than the rest of the world combined, AND building more nuclear plants than the rest of the world combined. I know you like to leave that part out, because it doesn't fit your narrative, but hey, reality is reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is too slow to build, but the main problem is that most countries can't build it. We need global solutions, otherwise all the nations for which they don't work will just carry on emitting massive amounts of CO2 like we did. Telling them they can't have a Western lifestyle isn't going to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is too slow to build
That's your opinion. Not that of China or ~half of European countries.
Especially since you are the one about moving to a war footing, which may be a good idea because we won't have to be slown down by your demonstrations, FUD and other NIMBY lawsuits.
the main problem is that most countries can't build it
Most countries can, and want to. Telling them they are "too dumb" to have it isn't going to work.
Also, China is already exporting its nuclear building capacity in other countries.
We need global solutions, otherwise all the nations for which they don't work will just carry on emitting massive amounts of CO2 like we did.
Agreed. We need global solutions that work. Decarbonized grids made up of nuclear/
Re: (Score:2)
The delays to nuclear in Europe are nothing to do with demonstrations or NIMBYs. Plants built on existing nuclear sites, with all the legal issues resolved decades ago, all the infrastructure already in place, still take 20 years to build.
Part of it is because every country insists on doing it themselves, meaning they have to make all the parts domestically for security and political reasons. Part of it is because they are simply difficult to build.
By the way, the reason most countries can't have nuclear is
Re: (Score:2)
such things take decades to build up safely.
In your imaginary world. In reality, China has shown the world how it can still be done in the 21st century. And the reason is not because Chinese engineers are better than ours.
Plants built on existing nuclear sites, with all the legal issues resolved decades ago, all the infrastructure already in place, still take 20 years to build.
Prototypes do (like the EPR). And even in the case of EPR (Flamanville, Hinkley Point C...) the main reasons for the delays were regulatory (like how in the middle of the construction phase of Hinkley Point C, the regulatory panel decided to impose new norms after facing pressures from NIMBY groups).
By the way, the reason most countries can't have nuclear is not because they are "too dumb" as you assume, it's because having nuclear would mean needing to build a nuclear industry and regulatory system.
And? They are too dumb to build a
Re: (Score:1)
Even China takes 5-7 years per plant, and we have no idea how much that is really costing them. Or how safe they are, for that matter. Many of the delays in Europe are due to contractor screw-ups that need to be fixed.
Actually the main delay to Hinkley Point C, which isn't included in the 20 year build time, was finding someone willing to actually do it. They tried everyone, and in the end only convinced EDF to do it with Chinese investment. It's extremely unattractive from a commercial point of view, and t
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try of rewriting history to match your narrative. Too bad we can't do that with CO2 emissions, the problem would be so much easier to solve.
FYI, Hinkley Point C is very attractive from a commercial point of view. Even with the increased costs coming from regulation changes, it will generate a steady flow of revenue for years to come (3x compared to the cost, adjusted for inflation).
'Day After Tomorrow' 20 years on (Score:2)
https://www.theguardian.com/fi... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.theguardian.com/fi... [theguardian.com]
We haven't actually seen it, we're just reporting it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
As long as it weakens China (Score:1)
Re: But Nuclear is too slow \s (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh, do go fuck yourself with that little minds bullshit. It takes only a very small amount of intellect to figure out that as the least cost-effective means of producing electricity without ongoing CO2 emissions, nuclear is dead. Yet, you cannot muster even that much. There are a number of decarbonization strategies compatible with intermittently produced energy, and that energy will be far cheaper if produced without nuclear, meaning (in deference to your level of intelligence) that we can produce far more
Re: But Nuclear is too slow \s (Score:1)
OK coward. Run along and play with the other cowards now, kthxbye.
Re: But Nuclear is too slow \s (Score:4, Informative)
It's not an accurate comparison. They are leaving out a shitload of relevant information. If he ever has anything valid to say you'll know from the collective surprise of the rest of slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
If he ever has anything valid to say you'll know from the collective surprise of the rest of slashdot.
Oh, the irony of that sentence.
Re: But Nuclear is too slow \s (Score:3)
Check his history and check mine and see which slashdot is more impressed by. Only a scant few nuclear playboys buy his crap. The rest can do math.
Compare France to Germany in ways other than the provided statistics and you may be enlightened.
Re: (Score:2)
Check his history and check mine and see which slashdot is more impressed by. Only a scant few nuclear playboys buy his crap.
People are impressed by your history? At least playboys like mine
The rest can do math.
I doubt it since you can't seem to grasp that 53 is less than 400
Compare France to Germany in ways other than the provided statistics and you may be enlightened.
We're talking about g CO2 per kWh.
Re: (Score:2)
Check his history and check mine and see which slashdot is more impressed by.
Checked both your history. He has more comments flagged as Insightful than you. Also, your comments more often than not lack any sources/data, unlike his. You also seem to rant a lot and to base your comments on irrational fears and emotions.
Compare France to Germany in ways other than the provided statistics and you may be enlightened.
I actually lived in both countries, and can still say I prefer France over Germany. Which ways do you want to compare? Be specific. We can talk about food for instance, but I doubt it has any relevance to the topic at hand.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an accurate comparison
It is an accurate comparison though. And an objective one.
Let me repeat it:
- Antinuclear Germany - 400 g CO2 per kWh after spending 500 billion euros on renewables
- Pronuclear France - 53 g CO2 per kWh and have been there for decades.
Germany decisions were base on political compromises and irrational fears. France's ones were based on science and facts.
There are no good points given at the end of the exercise to the countries that deployed xx% of renewables. Only the results matter: the emissions in terms o
Re: (Score:2)
They are leaving out a shitload of relevant information.
You mean excuses and equivocation? The atmosphere does not care about those.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You provided so many facts in your reply that it is hard to cite one. Oh... Wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet there are zero examples of a country deep decarbonizing with just solar and wind. Zero. The math is on my side. You care more about fossil fuel companies making more money.
Opposing nuclear energy is a religion to you.
Re: (Score:2)
France went nuclear for its electricity. Germany went and still remains with coal, gas and renewables. So, you are right, from a CO2 production point of view, France wins. From a CO2 point of view, would we have been in a better position had Germany kept it's nuclear power up or expanded. Almost certainly.
This tells you about the past not the future. The question is which strategy from this point forward will reduce both or either of those values fastest.
France plans to expand it's renewables and invest in
Re: (Score:2)
Going forward it is important to view what works and what doesn't. There are zero examples of a country that has deep decarbonized with just wind and solar. Zero. Now if you had one example I would be willing to change my position.
Just for the record I support renewables as well. They are a great supplemental energy source. Solar and wind intermittency means they cannot power our society by themselves. Building out only solar and wind will reduce carbon emissions till a point, and we need to be lowe
Zero examples (Score:2)
There are zero examples of a country that has deep decarbonized with just wind and solar. Zero.
Please check out Tony Seba and his think tank, RethinkX. He convinced me that the future will belong to renewable power: SWB (solar, wind, and battery).
This never worked before because the necessary batteries were science fiction. This is no longer the case. The necessary batteries exist and will be built and installed faster and faster in the near future.
It will take a lot of batteries: according to models by
Re: (Score:2)
96 hours of batteries worldwide is huge. 4 hours of storage to cover the evening peak is still something we still haven't achieved even in smaller locals. My state, California, is attempting just that but we only have a fraction of what it is needed. I would argue that 12 hours is not going to be achievable in time to mitigate climate change even with sodium ion batteries. Certainly not 96 hours. I would be happy to be proven wrong though.
And I can see some time decades from now being able to meet the
Re: (Score:2)
96 hours of batteries worldwide is huge.
In 1904, paving all the roads and parking lots and high-speed freeways would have seemed huge. Yet that happened.
The batteries make money for the power companies, so they buy and deploy them as fast as possible. And Tesla has two factories (so far!) that can build 40 GWh per year when fully ramped, and I expect many more such factories (not just from Tesla).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tony Seba predicts that the USA could build a complete SWB renewable power system in a decade if we make an effort. I haven't checked his models but I believe him.
The biggest problem with nuclear power is that there are legions of people who will pay lawyers to sue and sue. You couldn't build a barn quickly with constant interruptions, let alone nuclear power plants. So, for good or ill, we will have less nuclear power than we might.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the way you have framed your question, makes me feel that any answer it is open to the non-true Scotsman fallacy.
There are no examples of any country which have deep decarbonized at all, let alone with just wind and solar. However, there are grids which are approaching 100% renewable mainly with wind and solar; I think the leading contender here is the South Australia grid. Most of their power is solar or wind already; their remaining gas power stations are there for their grid forming capabilities, r
IEA misses projections (Score:2)
This is the same IEA that famously missed projections of solar installations every year for 15 years. I wouldn't place much stock in it. The US went from 313.3 to 341.7 GW of renewables capacity in the last 12 months. At that rate the 6.5 years to the end of 2030 gets us to 526.3 GW. However, installations are expected to increase in the next few years to more like 50 GW per year, which would get us to 666 GW, nearly a doubling.