World to Install Over One Trillion Watts of Clean Energy by 2023

[Sofia + 35]

In 2017, renewable sources generated 24% of the world’s electricity. By 2023, that total will rise to almost 30% with the addition of 1 trillion watts to renewable power generation. Renewables are expected to account for more than 70% of global electricity generation growth in 2023.

Renewables are forecast to rise by a fifth and meet 12.4% of the world’s total demand for energy by 2023, according to the IEA latest report on renewable energy.

Even in its more conservative central forecast, the agency predicts that global renewable energy capacity will grow by 1 terawatt, driven by a boom in solar installations and more accommodating government policy.

[jaycee + 348]

8 hours ago, Sofia said:

Even in its more conservative central forecast, the agency predicts that global renewable energy capacity will grow by 1 terawatt, driven by a boom in solar installations and more accommodating government policy.

I get tired of these renewable energy quotes stating the energy capacity as if it was something you can compare with conventional energy sources. To get 1 terawatt of installed power 24/7 you need 2 to 3 times that to compensate for the energy not being there when you want it. Batteries help but are not that 'green' plus you have power loss so again the energy provided is not as rated plus there is a large extra cost for the batteries. All obvious stuff but most of the public reading the renewable energy propaganda have no idea what a terawatt is never mind capacity factor.

Edited October 9, 2018 by jaycee

[DA? + 301]

I'd say this is real good news, especially when you look at the IEA's history in forecasting (although they no longer like to use that word as they are so bad at it) renewables growth (especially solar). If you extrapolate their previous errors that they have repeated year after year then to be nice say five times the amount they have estimated.

The great thing about renewable energy especially solar and on shore wind is it's cost has fallen so much you can over install to make up for cloudy or windless days. Add in smart systems, DC grids, hydro storage, truly up markets and so on.

As for the term "green", every action has an environmental impact, it's just going for one with the least harm, batteries aren't nearly as bad as many make out and are improving all the time. Added with renewable energies coming in a fraction of fossil fuel electricity then power loss isn't so important. Carnot, it's just science. 

[markslawson + 1,057]

S

23 hours ago, Sofia said:

In 2017, renewable sources generated 24% of the world’s electricity. By 2023, that total will rise to almost 30% with the addition of 1 trillion watts to renewable power generation. Renewables are expected to account for more than 70% of global electricity generation growth in 2023.

SP - Sofia - again with this endless misdirection. To have any credibility in these matters you have to separate hydro power from the other forms of renewables. The 24 per cent figure you quote is OBVIOUSLY mainly hydro. You sometimes see activists claim that 25 per cent of electricity generation in China is renewable. Sure. More than 80 per cent of that is hydro in place long before the Western obsession with wind and solar. Wind and solar's share of electricity generation is a few per cent at best, and that is unlikely to change, despite the IEA's hopeful forecasts. China, in particular, is building vast numbers of coal plants. See this story on a report released last week.  https://endcoal.org/2018/09/tsunami-warning/     The story points out that the capacity in the pipeline is comparable to the total coal powered capacity in the US, and much of it may not be needed. You will also find that new hydro capacity will dwarf the estimates for new wind and solar (again, not separated in your story).  

 

[Sofia + 35]

@markslawson, my intention was not to misdirect anyone. I just find these news interesting to read without pointing out that they are true or false and  wanted to hear opinion of other members of this community. It is always great to hear about this from someone who knows about this more than me. 

[markslawson + 1,057]

23 hours ago, Sofia said:

@markslawson, my intention was not to misdirect anyone. I just find these news interesting to read without pointing out that they are true or false and  wanted to hear opinion of other members of this community. It is always great to hear about this from someone who knows about this more than me. 

Okay, well fair enough, it occurred to me that this report has been discussed before in this forum, somewhere, and I looked at the IEA release back then. It just says renewables and you have to dig into the figures to work out what's going one. Its releases like this that makes me strongly suspect that the IEA has become green energy partisan. ..

[Danial Gable + 20]

What is even more classic is an outdated thinker conversing with new age intelligence. This conversation is a perfect example, and its not difficult to pick whos who. Anyone who questions the relevance of solar and wind is def post millennial, and grew up in oil coal and gas society. Using the IEA data is irrelevant . If you want to see for your self, do your own research, look closely at the direction society is going.  One should never apoligise for sharing important information.  Its unnecessary for someone to demand data for such a topic.    Solar, wind and hydro will dominate electricity generation. Those who know this are generally millennial age, and have a fresher approach, then someone who adamantly believes we are doomed.  Burning coal and nat gas will eventually fade away. Its as clear as day we are becoming carbon free society. And i can guarantee china will lead the way, on top of providing for 1.4 billion people

[NAPHTA + 33]

The problem has two ends. The other end is the consumption of energy, both by individual consumers and by industry. Those patterns and the enormous waste of energy today needs to be changed. A more expensive oil price is the most efficient tool to push people towards a more intelligent life style. Compare this with the oil crisis in the mid 70s and its impact on our energy consumption and development of more efficient engines. 

[DA? + 301]

6 hours ago, markslawson said:

Okay, well fair enough, it occurred to me that this report has been discussed before in this forum, somewhere, and I looked at the IEA release back then. It just says renewables and you have to dig into the figures to work out what's going one. Its releases like this that makes me strongly suspect that the IEA has become green energy partisan. ..

The IEA has year after year underestimated the rise of solar by a vast amount, hardly a green energy partisan.

[markslawson + 1,057]

17 hours ago, DA? said:

The IEA has year after year underestimated the rise of solar by a vast amount, hardly a green energy partisan.

Not really relevant.. they underestimated the result of stupid government policies. So did everyone else. But the release, if you look at it, is straight propaganda. I think the IEA has  been captured by green interests.

[markslawson + 1,057]

22 hours ago, Danial Gable said:

Solar, wind and hydro will dominate electricity generation. 

Silly baby boomer I may be but this statement is simply wrong. Hydro will play an increasing part, maybe, and gas will grab an increasing share of the market from coal, perhaps. But wind and hydro are doomed to be fringe players. Go and look at the link I have above to the Coal report from the tracker group Coal Swarm. China is building a huge number of coal stations.

 

On ‎10‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 10:18 AM, markslawson said:

https://endcoal.org/2018/09/tsunami-warning/  

India is also building them by the score, along with hydro.. They are going to dam half the Himalayas last I heard.

Also note that to get the contribution of wind and solar beyond, say 35 per cent or so in any grid is a HUGE undertaking. Some isolated grids have done it, after throwing vast sums of money at the problem. Countries like Denmark and Germany claim to have achieved this at times but basically they cheat - not least because they are part of a larger European network.

[DA? + 301]

I think some people here must be still thinking it's 2008 and solar and wind are oh so expensive and never could compete let alone become cheaper than fossil fuels. Just having the same perks as the fossil fuel world, solar and onshore wind are a load more cheaper than fossil fuels in many markets, even battery storage is cutting in. In the not to distant future in many parts of the world solar especially will become cheaper than just the fuel been burned alone, not including all the building costs, maintenance and so forth old style generators are inflicted with. Remember where most of the population of the world lives and how sunny those areas are.

Hydro in Asia has been strong lately but does have limitations geopolitical and even geology, building anything large in many parts of the Himalayas isn't easy when the ground just crumbs away and of course earth quakes. Hydro is also looking at becoming more of a pumped storage outfit, basically large batteries for when the renewables are producing such cheap energy.

How is it cheating been connected in to a large grid work?

I did look at the link to the IEA's news article and why is it "straight propaganda", maybe because it's not straight fossil propaganda these days?

Really take a look at how far the tech has moved on and cost's with renewables and other related tech's and where those trends take us. Yes the fossil fuel world is still strong governments still go for coal, not surprising with all the money going their way. Even in Australia that the government has been doing all it can to keep coal going isn't stopping renewables gaining quickly. That energy minister made himself look so unfit for his job with his comments on the large battery installed in SA.

The trends today are obvious if you look (if you dare), by 2025 it should be obvious, after that expect many of the companies that were slow on the uptake to go belly up. Living in this echo chamber that many do it's easy to tell yourself you are correct.    

[Rodent + 1,424]

2 hours ago, DA? said:

I think some people here must be still thinking it's 2008 and solar and wind are oh so expensive and never could compete let alone become cheaper than fossil fuels. Just having the same perks as the fossil fuel world, solar and onshore wind are a load more cheaper than fossil fuels in many markets, even battery storage is cutting in. In the not to distant future in many parts of the world solar especially will become cheaper than just the fuel been burned alone, not including all the building costs, maintenance and so forth old style generators are inflicted with. Remember where most of the population of the world lives and how sunny those areas are.

Hydro in Asia has been strong lately but does have limitations geopolitical and even geology, building anything large in many parts of the Himalayas isn't easy when the ground just crumbs away and of course earth quakes. Hydro is also looking at becoming more of a pumped storage outfit, basically large batteries for when the renewables are producing such cheap energy.

How is it cheating been connected in to a large grid work?

I did look at the link to the IEA's news article and why is it "straight propaganda", maybe because it's not straight fossil propaganda these days?

Really take a look at how far the tech has moved on and cost's with renewables and other related tech's and where those trends take us. Yes the fossil fuel world is still strong governments still go for coal, not surprising with all the money going their way. Even in Australia that the government has been doing all it can to keep coal going isn't stopping renewables gaining quickly. That energy minister made himself look so unfit for his job with his comments on the large battery installed in SA.

The trends today are obvious if you look (if you dare), by 2025 it should be obvious, after that expect many of the companies that were slow on the uptake to go belly up. Living in this echo chamber that many do it's easy to tell yourself you are correct.    

"Kyushu Electric Power Co. announced on Oct. 11 it will likely request a temporary halt to solar and wind power generation by other companies to avoid a large-scale blackout on Oct. 13 and 14, taking the first move of this kind in Japan except for remote islands."

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20181012/p2a/00m/0na/002000c

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, DA? said:

The trends today are obvious if you look (if you dare), by 2025 it should be obvious, after that expect many of the companies that were slow on the uptake to go belly up. Living in this echo chamber that many do it's easy to tell yourself you are correct. 

Many of us oil heads think this is the greatest statement ever.  If companies go belly up due to bad decisions: You Win!  Fantastic!  We'll be all in and the beer's on us!  Woohoo!

[NickW + 2,714]

On 10/10/2018 at 12:18 AM, markslawson said:

S

SP - Sofia - again with this endless misdirection. To have any credibility in these matters you have to separate hydro power from the other forms of renewables. The 24 per cent figure you quote is OBVIOUSLY mainly hydro. You sometimes see activists claim that 25 per cent of electricity generation in China is renewable. Sure. More than 80 per cent of that is hydro in place long before the Western obsession with wind and solar. Wind and solar's share of electricity generation is a few per cent at best, and that is unlikely to change, despite the IEA's hopeful forecasts. China, in particular, is building vast numbers of coal plants. See this story on a report released last week.  https://endcoal.org/2018/09/tsunami-warning/     The story points out that the capacity in the pipeline is comparable to the total coal powered capacity in the US, and much of it may not be needed. You will also find that new hydro capacity will dwarf the estimates for new wind and solar (again, not separated in your story).  

 

The bulk of the growth quoted will be wind and solar. 

Historically Hydro has been the main renewable but its growth potential is relatively slow now. Most of the decent sites already used. 

[markslawson + 1,057]

10 minutes ago, NickW said:

The bulk of the growth quoted will be wind and solar. 

Historically Hydro has been the main renewable but its growth potential is relatively slow now. Most of the decent sites already used. 

Actually no - although you're quite right that many of the good sites have been used, and also environmental approval processes delay hydro projects in Western countries by years, worldwide the growth of renewables is in hydro. That's from the IEA figures, but also the Australian government has agencies which collate information on power projects throughout Asia. Its even worse if you remember that hydro is a very high value power source - being both dispatchable and quick reaction - while wind and solar are very low value. It would be fair to say that in Western countries the bulk of the increase is in solar and wind.