Renewables Growth Rate Insufficient To Reach 2030 Target, Says IRENA (reuters.com) 49
The world risks missing a goal to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030 as the current growth rate is inadequate, a report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) showed on Thursday. From a report: A U.N. climate change conference in Dubai last year set a goal of tripling renewable energy capacity worldwide by 2030 to more than 11 terawatts (TW). Countries have to submit new or updated climate target commitments every five years after 2020 so next year they have to include revised ambitions for 2030. About 473 gigawatts (GW) of capacity was added last year, representing a 14% increase from the year before and the largest annual growth since 2000, IRENA said in a report. To meet the target, the world will have to add renewables capacity at a minimum 16.4% rate annually to 2030. However, if last year's 14% increase rate continues, the 11 TW target will be 1.5 TW short. Further reading: World Will Miss Target of Tripling Renewable Electricity Generation By 2030, IEA Says.
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
After seeing the power outages that areas of Texas has, with parts of Houston will without power, I have second thoughts about an EV. Gas pumps stayed going because fuel stations had backup generators, but barring EV charge areas with their own generators, finding a place to charge an EV in a power outage may not be doable, and you can't just go to the garage and pull out a 5 gallon fuel can of preserved gas to throw in the tank.
EVs are great, but they all but require a grid that has a high uptime. This i
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is to upgrade your grid to better than 3rd world level, so you don't have regular outages. In Europe we don't suffer from them. The last one around here was over 20 years ago, and lasted a few hours.
If it's really an issue, why not just get a generator? If the gas pumps are still working you can fuel it. Sounds like you need one for the power outages anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
The solution is to upgrade your grid to better than 3rd world level, so you don't have regular outages. In Europe we don't suffer from them. The last one around here was over 20 years ago, and lasted a few hours.
If it's really an issue, why not just get a generator? If the gas pumps are still working you can fuel it. Sounds like you need one for the power outages anyway.
I'd suggest solar with battery backup instead. Screw the fuel pumps. This would allow for EV charging like normal. Generators need a lot more maintenance than most realize.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that generators get stolen. For example, in Houston, someone will bring a lawn mower, fire it up, so it sounds like there is engine noise, cut the chains off someone's generator, and finally, yank the power cord just before it goes onto a vehicle and taken off to be sold for meth. Even if you have high-test chains, someone will just cut the handles on the generator and be off with it in no time.
Re: (Score:2)
And the 12 months aren't neither the fiscal, nor calendar year, but from pre-winter to pre-winter (October here), making all the held excess go null just as days shorten enough to actually need the grid, right?
That's how it's done here.
The thing is that power grids and power plants have fixed existential costs, and having a super complicated grid as "backup when the sun don't shine" isn't viable societally and economically.
Also Utilities are greedy bastards.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you pay a fee to be connected to the grid?
If so, it might be cheaper to go off-grid. It sounds like you have plenty of space to triple your solar capacity, so you could add a battery to store that energy for the evenings. It depends what your winters are like, and how you heat your home, but it might be possible. You can also add insulation to help with the heating.
I've been looking at doing it for a while, but the rules around disconnections are a pain. They aren't content to just remove the fuse so tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a win for everyone - it's a loss for anyone who cannot afford solar panels for their home or who does not own their home. There is a fixed cost to the electric grid. That means that to recoup that fixed cost in the face of rooftop solar, delivery rates have to go up as you are distributing that cost across fewer kWh sold. The current system is essentially a subsidy for those with the means and enough capital to install rooftop solar at the expense of those that don't.
It would be much fairer to u
Impressed we're that close (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm actually surprised that we're that close to being on target to reach the 2030 goal.
It says that to meet the target, the world will have to add renewables capacity at a minimum 16.4% rate annually, and last year we were at 14% increase from the year before. Pretty close.
Re: (Score:2)
The target is far too low. That is why it is reachable without massive efforts. This also nicely shows that the worst effects of climate change will _not_ be avoided because the human race is incapable of doing so.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks to one country (Score:1)
I'm actually surprised that we're that close to being on target to reach the 2030 goal.
Because last year, one single country installed as much solar panels as the *rest of the entire world* did in the same period. And that one year's installation is more than all of the US's past installation since the dawn of time.
That single country is not the USA. That single country is China. That's why you, presumably looking from America, was surprised, because US media did not tell you about this.
Meanwhile, the US is busy raising tariffs on solar panels to put a bumper on the installation rate.
Thanks to NOT JUST one country (Score:2)
I'm actually surprised that we're that close to being on target to reach the 2030 goal.
Because last year, one single country installed as much solar panels as the *rest of the entire world* did in the same period. And that one year's installation is more than all of the US's past installation since the dawn of time. That single country is not the USA. That single country is China.
Although it's true that China is greatly expanding their solar installation [they're expanding all of their energy production], you're incorrect in implying that therefore the US is not.
A record 31 gigawatts (GW) of solar energy capacity was installed in the U.S. in 2023, a roughly 55% increase from 2022 installations. [citation] [wri.org]
That's why you, presumably looking from America, was surprised, because US media did not tell you about this.
Correct that the US media is not emphasizing the record increase in solar installations in the US.
Meanwhile, the US is busy raising tariffs on solar panels to put a bumper on the installation rate.
Very controversial. On the one hand, the US does not want to support Chinese indus
Re: (Score:2)
Even the 2030 goal is still going to result in major changes to climate, and massive upheaval and people are forced to move around. Not to mention the economic damage, both from direct losses and from the knock-on effects.
We need a moon-shot for this. An international moon-shot that recognizes that now is not the time for tariffs and patents, now is the time to be mass producing stuff to reach net zero, and making sure everyone has access to it.
China installing twice as much (Score:3)
China is installing twice as much renewable energy (solar and wind) as the rest of the world put together.
They will benefit from lots of cheap energy while the rest of us will be stuck paying for expensive fossil fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
China is installing twice as much renewable energy (solar and wind) as the rest of the world put together.
They will benefit from lots of cheap energy while the rest of us will be stuck paying for expensive fossil fuel.
... you are in for a bit of a shock when you get the construction and subsidies bills for the Nuclear powerplants.
Re: (Score:2)
This is wind and solar, not nuclear.
Re: China installing twice as much (Score:1)
Actually it's wind and solar... and nuclear... and coal... and anything else than can make a watt. China is electrifying a nation where portions of the population still cook with wood over pit fires. It's a very different animal to an established economy, and given they're still running a pseudo command economy where they're trying to dump solar panels as an economic weapon I'd expect them to continue to install them as a way to sop up overflow.
Re: (Score:2)
It's wind and solar.
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, they also have a lot of aging coal plants reaching end of life. So some percentage of those new plants are replacing ones going out of service. I couldn't find an exact number in the sea of articles excoriating them for the gross number instead of looking at net coal capacity growth though. There's only so fast they can build wind and solar and in the meanwhile they can't let other areas go dark and they still need base load for new areas they are electrifying as well.
I'm not a fan of China's
Re: (Score:2)
China is installing twice as much renewable energy (solar and wind) as the rest of the world put together. They will benefit from lots of cheap energy while the rest of us will be stuck paying for expensive fossil fuel.
Ah, the benefits of an authoritarian government that can simply "make it so". Ironically, if the U.S. gets one in 2025, looks like we'll go the other way 'cause "drill, drill, drill" -- even though the U.S. already produces more oil than any other country [worldometers.info] -- and because the former President and Project 2025 [project2025.org] -- written by many people in, and supporters of, the former administration -- condemns renewable sources of energy.
Re: (Score:2)
While obviously we don't want a CCP style authoritarian non-democratic government, we do need to massively reform planning laws and infrastructure building in many developed nations.
The UK is a great example. It's hard to build anything because of the way the planning system works, and because NIMBYs always object. There are good reasons to object in many cases, e.g. house builders don't put in any infrastructure like schools and doctor's surgeries, but those can be resolved by planning reform that simply r
Re: (Score:2)
China is installing twice as much renewable energy (solar and wind) as the rest of the world put together.
Not only that, but 6 years ago China pledged a renewable energy target for 2030. They are on track to hit that target this year and their present project list shows no sign of slowing down.
How about a degrowth rate (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if Comcast ran the electricity supply, they'd cap excessive users fast.
Comcast's general internet access plans are flat monthly rate. right? Poor comparison.
If Comcast could they would run their ISP the same as a power utility and charge for every meg.
No they wouldn't (Score:1)
It's why the Southwest is currently enforcing strict water regulations on people while California grows a shit ton of water intensive crops and Arizona only just now stop letting Saudi Arabia pump unlimited water to grow alfalfa that was only being grow
Re: (Score:2)
I think you described a microcosm of the entire global warming issue. People are demanded to give up their vehicles, live in cells, and "eat ze bugs", all the while we are seeing insanely more energy demand by businesses mining cryptocurrency, doing AI number crunching or other stuff. If the focus changes to where the problem actually lies, we will actually see that 1.5 to 2 degree temperature rise start getting mitigated. Otherwise, it will keep increasing.
Re: How about a degrowth rate (Score:2)
Not if they were charging for ever byte.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear is not "renewable".
Re: (Score:2)
Nor would we even break ground starting construction before 2030 even if we sanctioned projects today.
Or... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We really need to do it retroactively about 120 years ago, and delay our industrialization a bit while we figure out solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and storage.
That of course is impossible, so we have to do what we can today. And until we're at 100% renewable or closed-carbon-loop fuels, we should be trying to do more.
Of course it will be missed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You are trying to avoid saying nuclear, but often nuclear isn't particularly good on emissions. It needs fuel, and the plant itself is a large industrial process. Lots of concrete to build.
The more important factor is cost. We could have the perfect, zero emission energy source, but it wouldn't help if hardly anyone could afford it. Especially developing nations need lower cost options that can displace coal and gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of concrete to build.
Unlike wind...
Re: (Score:2)
Wind does use a lot of concrete, it's true. Not so much solar. Reducing it is an on-going effort, but generally the CO2 savings elsewhere more than outweigh it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SMRs use much more concrete. Because each reactor is smaller, but still requires a lot of plumbing, the overall space needed per Watt is higher. You need a bigger containment building, and now your containment building also needs to have a large pool of water that NuScale's designs require.
They also produce more waste per Watt, so you need a larger spent fuel storage pool as well.
Re: Of course it will be missed. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What SMRs? The only people even close to maybe building prototypes are NuScale, and theirs require a large pool of water.
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, nearly all, if not all, SMRs, will be in the ground. Why can they do this? because they are SMALL.....
Third, MULTIPLE companies are gearing up to make these NOW.
Terrapower has broken ground in Wyoming and is actively being constructed. [terrapower.com]
Final permit application was sent in March and pre-approval was done enough for building the non-nuclear back-end. [utilitydive.com]
The R&D for this is being done just a few miles from where I am siting right now (along wi