Renewable Energy Growth Rate Jumped 45% Worldwide In 2020; IEA Sees 'New Normal'

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Despite pandemic-induced supply chain challenges and construction delays, renewable capacity additions in 2020 expanded by more than 45% from 2019, and broke another record. An exceptional 90% rise in global wind capacity additions led the expansion. Also underpinning this record growth was the 23% expansion of new solar PV installations to almost 135 GW in 2020.

The exceptional level of renewable energy capacity additions is expected to be maintained, with 270 GW becoming operational in 2021 and 280 GW in 2022. This expansion exceeds the record-level annual capacity additions of 2017-2019 by over 50%, such that renewables are expected to account for 90% of total global power capacity increases in both 2021 and 2022. 

2019= 192GW

2020= 278GW

https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-2021/renewable-electricity

Edited May 13, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[RichieRich216 + 454]

Anything the IAE says I would take with a grain of salt! They are as corrupt as the Democrats…..

[RichieRich216 + 454]

IEA* fucking iPhone touch pad….😂😂

[Boat + 1,315]

90% of new electrical capacity over the next two years shows the Paris Accords are working. Replacing existing FF capacity will be much more expensive. And there is still the affordable grid storage problem. The promise of such a huge market has many more brains and capital chasing that golden market.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

I know these stupid shit greenies never graduated from High School, but Shit, these Dumbos can't even do a percentage equation...

45% increase.... and they use a number of 280GW and the word TO... Lets see, via English language...

X + X*45% = 280GW 

X = 280/1.45 = 190GW is what these idiots was installed before 2020,  with a delta of ~90GW

• Uh, Wind power alone in 2019 installed capacity was over 600GW
• Hydro is over 1000GW
• Solar 500GW
• Geo ~...
• Biomass another ~100GW

Lets see, 2200GW * 45% is ... ~1000GW, not 280GW even if they screwed up and meant total capacity of 280GW

Even if you only go by solar/wind and ignore hydro, biomass etc, then ~1100GW/280GW is ~25%, not 45%...

[turbguy + 1,401]

21 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I know these stupid shit greenies never graduated from High School, but Shit, these Dumbos can't even do a percentage equation...

45% increase.... and they use a number of 280GW and the word TO... Lets see, via English language...

X + X*45% = 280GW 

X = 280/1.45 = 190GW is what these idiots was installed before 2020,  with a delta of ~90GW

• Uh, Wind power alone in 2019 installed capacity was over 600GW
• Hydro is over 1000GW
• Solar 500GW
• Geo ~...
• Biomass another ~100GW

Lets see, 2200GW * 45% is ... ~1000GW, not 280GW even if they screwed up and meant total capacity of 280GW

Even if you only go by solar/wind and ignore hydro, biomass etc, then ~1100GW/280GW is ~25%, not 45%...

Still somewhat impressive.  That's about 90 nuc plants of capacity (not output, capacity).  Given a 30% capacity factor for renewables, that's about 30 nuc plants.

I suspect at a FRACTION of the cost of 30 nuc plants.

Edited May 12, 2021 by turbguy

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I know these stupid shit greenies never graduated from High School, but Shit, these Dumbos can't even do a percentage equation...

45% increase.... and they use a number of 280GW and the word TO... Lets see, via English language...

X + X*45% = 280GW 

X = 280/1.45 = 190GW is what these idiots was installed before 2020,  with a delta of ~90GW

• Uh, Wind power alone in 2019 installed capacity was over 600GW
• Hydro is over 1000GW
• Solar 500GW
• Geo ~...
• Biomass another ~100GW

Lets see, 2200GW * 45% is ... ~1000GW, not 280GW even if they screwed up and meant total capacity of 280GW

Even if you only go by solar/wind and ignore hydro, biomass etc, then ~1100GW/280GW is ~25%, not 45%...

Yes, the article got it wrong. It is the growth rate that increased by 45%, not installed capacity. Will fix.

Here is the IEA report https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-2021/renewable-electricity

Edited May 12, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

14 hours ago, RichieRich216 said:

Anything the [IEA] says I would take with a grain of salt! They are as corrupt as the Democrats…..

Yes, you must understand where their data comes from and what they do with it. They are basically just accountants. They get their data from governments for past years. That's what you are seeing in this report. If you think the governments are providing incorrect data, then you should not trust the IEA past data.  For different reports that do forward projections, IEA makes three projections: "business as usual", projections based on current government policies, and projections based on government goals to meet the Paris accords.  They don't much make up their own projections. IEA's projections (e.g., the ones they made in 2015) have consistently fallen short of the actual build-out of renewable resources.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Growth *rate* up 45%? I have no way of knowing if that's impactful without more numbers. 

[RichieRich216 + 454]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Yes, you must understand where their data comes from and what they do with it. They are basically just accountants. They get their data from governments for past years. That's what you are seeing in this report. If you think the governments are providing incorrect data, then you should not trust the IEA past data.  For different reports that do forward projections, IEA makes three projections: "business as usual", projections based on current government policies, and projections based on government goals to meet the Paris accords.  They don't much make up their own projections. IEA's projections (e.g., the ones they made in 2015) have consistently fallen short of the actual build-out of renewable resources.

So does the GAO and how many times have they backtrack!

[surrept33 + 609]

The IEA tends to be backwards looking. Depending on the environment, this may make future forecasting less accurate because the trend may lead to economies of scale and more investments.

Others, like BNEF, tend to be forwards looking. Depending on the environment, this may may make the impact of current investments less accurate if there is diminishing marginal returns from investments. 

Both have pros and cons. The IEA (and EIA) tends to track what actually happened, and the BNEF tries to look at the impact of R&D and the like on what is likely to happen in the future. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

16 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I know these stupid shit greenies never graduated from High School, but Shit, these Dumbos can't even do a percentage equation...

45% increase.... and they use a number of 280GW and the word TO... Lets see, via English language...

X + X*45% = 280GW 

X = 280/1.45 = 190GW is what these idiots was installed before 2020,  with a delta of ~90GW

• Uh, Wind power alone in 2019 installed capacity was over 600GW
• Hydro is over 1000GW
• Solar 500GW
• Geo ~...
• Biomass another ~100GW

Lets see, 2200GW * 45% is ... ~1000GW, not 280GW even if they screwed up and meant total capacity of 280GW

Even if you only go by solar/wind and ignore hydro, biomass etc, then ~1100GW/280GW is ~25%, not 45%...

Rate of growth is a very misleading figure when the base is very low, as it is. Fossil fuels will continute to be the leaders around the world for many decades. The propaganda will become obvious to all sensible people. Then the insanity supported by corrupt governments will cause votes to switch. How many Electric vehicles will you see on the road in your lifetime? What percentage of large vehicles? What will supply their electricity? 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Growth *rate* up 45%? I have no way of knowing if that's impactful without more numbers. 

The growth rate has not increased in the last three years. It has remained the same as I read it. Am I wrong?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

The growth rate has not increased in the last three years. It has remained the same as I read it. Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes you are wrong. 

The graph show that in the last three years the rate of growth is roughly equal each year. That is not an increase in the Rate of Growth. It is an increase in the growth overall. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

The graph show that in the last three years the rate of growth is roughly equal each year. That is not an increase in the Rate of Growth. It is an increase in the growth overall. 

Look at the dates below the bars. Or perhaps actually read the report

[ronwagn + 6,290]

24 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes you are wrong. 

So 2022 is an estimate. Then the growth rate is dropping but is expected to recover next year. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

25 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

So 2022 is an estimate. Then the growth rate is dropping but is expected to recover next year. 

2021 is also an estimate because, you know, the year is less than half over.

I highly recommend you try reading and not just looking at the pretty pictures.  I'll help you out. Here is the first sentence from my post and the first sentence from the report:

21 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Despite pandemic-induced supply chain challenges and construction delays, renewable capacity additions in 2020 expanded by more than 45% from 2019,

 

Edited May 12, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

8 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Growth *rate* up 45%? I have no way of knowing if that's impactful without more numbers. 

What numbers do you need that aren't in the post or report? I added some numbers to the post.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

What numbers do you need that aren't in the post or report? I added some numbers to the post.

Simple reasons. It's easy to deceive people with percentages.

"This COVID variant is 150% more deadly than what we've seen"

Translation: Death rate goes from 0.1% to 0.25%

EDIT: Yep you added numbers that contextualize the percentage. It doesn't look very extreme to me. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by KeyboardWarrior

[turbguy + 1,401]

While you may have a different take, this is what extreme looks like:

 

[Boat + 1,315]

31 minutes ago, turbguy said:

While you may have a different take, this is what extreme looks like:

 

Looks like a couple of extreme spikes in death to me. So sad much of those spikes could have been avoided.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

11 hours ago, RichieRich216 said:

So does the GAO and how many times have they backtrack!

Yep, IEA  basically has to backtrack on its renewable installation estimates every year. In retrospect, every single year's projections have been serious underestimates. This happens because they forecast based on the assumption that renewables growth will reflect government policy. Instead, it is driven by economics. The following graphic is from:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/exceptional-new-normal-iea-raises-growth-forecast-for-wind-and-solar-by-another-25

jections

 

[markslawson + 1,042]

On 5/12/2021 at 11:27 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

This expansion exceeds the record-level annual capacity additions of 2017-2019 by over 50%, such that renewables are expected to account for 90% of total global power capacity increases in both 2021 and 2022. 

 

32 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Yep, IEA  basically has to backtrack on its renewable installation estimates every year. In retrospect, every single year's projections have been serious underestimates.

Guys, sorry to rain on your parade yet again, but you didn't look closely at the material did you? The vast bulk of the increases in renewables in the IEA reckoning occurs in China - maybe almost three quarters - which is, as has been pointed out in other threads in this site, also binge building coal fired power plants - far more than it could ever possible need for the foreseeable future. In both cases the trend would be driven by internal party politics, not economics or any market reality. It is a characteristic of the Chinese system if one province has a project then the party bosses in other provinces/states must also have a similar project in order to look good to the bosses in Beijing. That is the way to get promotion. Vietnam also accounts for a slice. Why Vietnam? As is pointed out by this article and as is the case in China, the Vietnamese power grid cannot absorb the surge in renewables without additional serious investment. The surge is explained in this article and before Dan gets excited note the big incentive in feed-in tariffs offered to renewables. Its a government policy thing, its not nothing to do with the market as such. That leaves the US and, again, I contend that the US surge is driven by policy not markets or economics. Hope that clarifies matters for you.  

[Boat + 1,315]

4 hours ago, markslawson said:

 

Guys, sorry to rain on your parade yet again, but you didn't look closely at the material did you? The vast bulk of the increases in renewables in the IEA reckoning occurs in China - maybe almost three quarters - which is, as has been pointed out in other threads in this site, also binge building coal fired power plants - far more than it could ever possible need for the foreseeable future. In both cases the trend would be driven by internal party politics, not economics or any market reality. It is a characteristic of the Chinese system if one province has a project then the party bosses in other provinces/states must also have a similar project in order to look good to the bosses in Beijing. That is the way to get promotion. Vietnam also accounts for a slice. Why Vietnam? As is pointed out by this article and as is the case in China, the Vietnamese power grid cannot absorb the surge in renewables without additional serious investment. The surge is explained in this article and before Dan gets excited note the big incentive in feed-in tariffs offered to renewables. Its a government policy thing, its not nothing to do with the market as such. That leaves the US and, again, I contend that the US surge is driven by policy not markets or economics. Hope that clarifies matters for you.  

Can you show me a chart of increased Chinese consumption of coal? I have heard rumors of this surge in coal consumption but have not seen that rise in any of the typical organizations that track it.