Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World Will Miss Target of Tripling Renewable Electricity Generation By 2030, IEA Says

Comments Filter:
  • +1.5C is a goner (Score:5, Informative)

    by sonlas ( 10282912 ) on Tuesday June 04, 2024 @11:33AM (#64522403)

    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.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      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

      • 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.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          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.

          • 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/

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              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

              • 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

                • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  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

                  • 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).

  • The disaster flick is riddled with inaccuracies, cliches, and gusts of machismo. But with its global climate catastrophe, it feels more relevant than ever

    https://www.theguardian.com/fi... [theguardian.com]

  • Missing this target is OK.
  • 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.

What sin has not been committed in the name of efficiency?

Working...