Could Someone Give Me Insights on the Future of Renewable Energy?

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

1 hour ago, markslawson said:

I won't bother to reply to any more grumbles. Leave it with you.
 

Greatly appreciated.

 

[Ron Wagner + 709]

Learn to look at claims of new renewable energy schemes with a lot of skepticism. Their dreams may be worthwhile, but only if they work. Oil, natural gas and LNG are very strong and proven leaders in energy. Hydro does not always have enough rain to depend on, but is fairly dependable. Ethanol is very valuable as an additive but is demeaned by many. Propane is important in rural areas around the world. 

Keep in mind that Wind and Solar are subsidized and old nuclear plants are too. A lot of money ends up in politicians coffers so that they can get approval. A lot of renewables dreams have ended up in bankruptcies. 

Just be an objective researcher. It is one thing to dream and it is another thing to make dreams turn into reality. Renewables need to pass the cost benefit test. Do not buy into the climate change claims unless you see billionaires stop buying coastal mansions and building new hotels nearby. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 4/21/2024 at 3:27 AM, Ron Wagner said:

Learn to look at claims of new renewable energy schemes with a lot of skepticism. Their dreams may be worthwhile, but only if they work.

I agree any energy project needs to be objectively viewed.

However you cannot deny what has already been achieved so far with fully operational renewable installations, such as below.

In 2022, China installed roughly as much solar photovoltaic capacity as the rest of the world combined, then went on in 2023 to double new solar installations, increase new wind capacity by 66 percent, and almost quadruple additions of energy storage.

china doubles its renewable energy - Google Search

And this is the tip of the iceberg for what China is planning.

And there's these in my own backyard.

Hornsea offshore wind farms - where are they? | Ørsted (hornseaprojects.co.uk)

[notsonice + 1,255]

Coal is doomed

 

Ecochump , China Green agenda is picking up speed.....vroom vroommmm

 

The country installed 45.7 gigawatts of photovoltaic panels in the first three months....The country also added 15.5 gigawatts of wind, 6.4 gigawatts of thermal, and 1.8 gigawatts of hydro power capacity in the first three months, the NEA said. 

 

Ecochump , you can bet the new solar, wind and hydro additions ( 63 GW vs your 6.4 for coal are going to decrease over all real output from coal plants......

10 to 1 in capacity additions for Carbon free sources ..............what a ratio.......

 

Backup coal is all you have left..........

 

Peak Coal has happened in China and China is just picking up speed in its Green Agenda

VROOOMMM VROOOOM

 

Global Times

China's Q1 new-energy power generation installation surges; 'overcapacity theory' fake: experts

China's installed capacity for power generation from clean-energy sources surged in the first quarter, which analysts attributed to growing...

.

5 hours ago

According to statistics released by China's National Energy Administration (NEA) on Monday, solar power installations totaled about 660 million kilowatts in the first quarter, increasing by 55 percent year-on-year. Wind power installations grew by 21.5 percent on a yearly basis, amounting to about 460 million kilowatts. 

 

EV Wind

Wind power and photovoltaic installations increase in China in the first quarter | REVE News of the wind sector in Spain ...

China's installed capacity for power generation from wind and photovoltaics rose in the first quarter, which analysts attributed to rising...

.

2 hours ago

 

Global Times

China’s energy sector sees robust capacity growth, led by new energy generation

China's National Energy Administration (NEA) on Mondy released data about the electricity industry in the first quarter this year,...

.

10 hours ago

 

Edited April 22 by notsonice

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

10 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I agree any energy project needs to be objectively viewed.

However you cannot deny what has already been achieved so far with fully operational renewable installations, such as below.

In 2022, China installed roughly as much solar photovoltaic capacity as the rest of the world combined, then went on in 2023 to double new solar installations, increase new wind capacity by 66 percent, and almost quadruple additions of energy storage.

china doubles its renewable energy - Google Search

And this is the tip of the iceberg for what China is planning.

And there's these in my own backyard.

Hornsea offshore wind farms - where are they? | Ørsted (hornseaprojects.co.uk)

Hornsea is a perfect example of what Ron Said.  No one cares about political dreams, but rather the ACTUAL cost and if it provides power when YOU want the power, not when the wind blows.  People like Rob mr salesman are BIG on waving of the hands and ZERO math and always act affronted when asked for basic math.

Beware snake oil salesmen and their brain dead no think sycophants. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

13 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Hornsea is a perfect example of what Ron Said.  No one cares about political dreams, but rather the ACTUAL cost and if it provides power when YOU want the power, not when the wind blows.  People like Rob mr salesman are BIG on waving of the hands and ZERO math and always act affronted when asked for basic math.

Beware snake oil salesmen and their brain dead no think sycophants. 

Wow you really only have insults left dont you!

Again you spout rubbish without trying to use any brain cells, and you back up the rubbish you spout with........ drum roll.

yep absolutely nothing yet again!

"if it provides power when YOU want power" havent you realised that we always "want" power and therefore it provides power!

As you can see below over the last year in the UK wind was the largest contributor to power generation.

 

By the way on your grand plan for tunnels instead of roads for cars, how did your math work out for you? Hmmm not so clever that one was it?

Edited April 23 by Rob Plant

[Ron Wagner + 709]

On 4/22/2024 at 5:17 AM, Rob Plant said:

I agree any energy project needs to be objectively viewed.

However you cannot deny what has already been achieved so far with fully operational renewable installations, such as below.

In 2022, China installed roughly as much solar photovoltaic capacity as the rest of the world combined, then went on in 2023 to double new solar installations, increase new wind capacity by 66 percent, and almost quadruple additions of energy storage.

china doubles its renewable energy - Google Search

And this is the tip of the iceberg for what China is planning.

And there's these in my own backyard.

Hornsea offshore wind farms - where are they? | Ørsted (hornseaprojects.co.uk)

I hear that more coal is being burned by China, India, and other countries than ever before, but they are not buying it from Russia. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FfIfvcM7So From Joe Blogs:

China and India stop buying coal from Russia. 

Worldwide coal usage is now higher than ever before, if I heard this right. Apparently we will not be buying cheap chinese cars so their economy does not have much hope in sight. 

Edited April 24 by Ron Wagner

[pfarley@bigpond.net.au + 42]

On 4/18/2024 at 12:52 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

China wishes it achieved a capacity factor or 33% on their wind turbines... By their OWN published numbers It is 25% capacity factor.  Average capacity factor in the USA  even with all those ancient wind turbines is ~40%.  All new wind turbines have a capacity factor ~50%.   Europe has an average capacity factor of ~30%-->35%(region dependent of course) in their wind turbines where their new ones achieve 40% or so.  Only a few RARE new ocean placement wind turbines in Europe have now hit 50%. 

Solar is a joke anywhere not named a desert, but at least those in the tropic zone have a chance.  The problem?  Winter, or seasonal rainy season for several months dropping output by at least 2/3 from whatever it was before.  What is humorous is the Middle east with all its oil actually could go Solar along with Australia of course as they can average 10 hours of sun a day so "only" HAHAHAHA need battery backup of 20 hours or so. Of course you need more due to a thing called storms... but hey, one can dream of utopia right...

"Solar is a joke outside of a desert" 12.2% of Germany's electricity last year vs 10.2% from gas. Even Denmark got 9.2% from solar vs 5.9% from gas. Didn't realise Germany and Denmark were deserts.

Solar in the US over the last 12 months has exceeded hydro, and wind and solar combined have exceeded coal. 

Globally solar output is on track to exceed nuclear power output late this year or early next year, while wind and solar combined will surpass gas power generation sometime in 2027 

[turbguy + 1,544]

These renewable power projects all have common problems.

They are the same problems that fossil or nuclear generation face.

1. FINANCING.

All of these projects require substantial funds to plan, permit, construct, start-up, and commission before paying off the mortgage.  Nuclear is very good at financing, but the unanticipated cost overruns can be massive, multiple times the original budget.  Fossil projects are somewhat better at staying close to budget.

Renewable power ain't cheap at first, even though those capital cost can be higher in a $/Kw basis than fossil .  When you consider that most renewable systems require zero fuel, practically zero water (sans hydro), produce zero operating wastes to dispose of, and require less "heads per MWh generated", the mortgage payoff occurs faster.

2. TRANSMISSION AND FUEL ACCESS

Any new generating facility needs a connection to the market.  The potential exception would be a facility built on (or near) a retired fossil facility, where the cost of connection is significantly reduced.

Many renewable projects tend to be located remotely to any existing transmission, and typically require building NEW connections.  Any new connections also requires planning, permitting, construction, start-up, commissioning, and capital.  

Even then, the connection of ANY new generating facility to existing transmission may be subject to congestion (limits on the existing transmission network).  

A new fossil facility requires a fuel supply.  Mine-mouth coal plants may just require a mile or three of bulk conveyors, which are not to expensive else they require a rail spur, or barge unloading facilities, or both (some small units, on the order of 5-10 MW, can use over-the-road trucks, but that is rare). Natural Gas fired plants require at least a large pipeline (and potentially fuel compressors, but that is also rare). 

Wind and solar don't bother with such fueling "stuff".

BTW, if you are ever involved with blow-downs on new gas pipelines, exercise EXTREME care, or stay well at a distance.

The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) attempts to take all of this into consideration.  The LCOE of Renewable projects typically are either at par, or well below, fossil and nuclear.  An exception would be sea-based wind facilities. Those are particularly capital intensive. 

Keep these issues in mind for any new fossil, nuclear, and renewable project.

 

 

 

Edited April 25 by turbguy

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

4 hours ago, pfarley@bigpond.net.au said:

"Solar is a joke outside of a desert" 12.2% of Germany's electricity last year vs 10.2% from gas. Even Denmark got 9.2% from solar vs 5.9% from gas. Didn't realise Germany and Denmark were deserts.

Solar in the US over the last 12 months has exceeded hydro, and wind and solar combined have exceeded coal. 

Globally solar output is on track to exceed nuclear power output late this year or early next year, while wind and solar combined will surpass gas power generation sometime in 2027 

Are you this dumb?  WHO, uh hem, WHO has the highest electricity prices in the world?  Germany/Denmark/UK because the STUPID fools have installed so much Solar etc, where the sun does NOT shine.  By nameplate value Germany has well over 80GW installed... They use ~60GW peak... They have 1.3X capacity and yet their HIGHEST ever total power produced was for a brief time last year.. 66% in HIGH SUMMER.   Newsflash 50 degrees north installing "solar" panels you have to be BRAIN DEAD. 

If Germany/Denmark etc were not STUPID fools, and PAID to have EVERY single panel installed in S. Spain with gargantuan HVDC power lines run north, they would have spent a FRACTION the cost and achieved the same result as now they would have had the infrastructure to try and achieve solar power. 

No one, uh hem, NO ONE, gives one shit what percentage of power comes from x,y, or z.  All they care about is PRICE

Its the economy stupid

[pfarley@bigpond.net.au + 42]

Generally, many supporters of the old order can't get their head around the new. This is true whether it was sail vs coal in ships, telegraph vs telegram etc. It is a particular problem where the old order is dominated by large companies whose whole history has been built on the old ways and many of the executives have spent many years in the industry and can't imagine their life without it.

Renewables present two challenges to these industries a) their technology and business model needs to be upended and b) the decentralised model of renewables means that the possibility of a large business ever achieving a dominant position in the industry even if it can make a successful transition is very low.

People like Mark Lawson love to highlight the current limitations of renewables, forgetting the compromises needed to make the old, centralised system work and the time it took to build it. The whole concept of Base Load is not the minimum 24/7 demand from customers that they like to claim. It is the minimum load to make nuclear, coal and combined cycle gas plants reliable and economic. Thus, we had "offpeak" power prices which are often below the cost of production, simply to keep the boilers warm. In many cases even that was not enough, so most of the pumped hydro schemes around the world were built to smooth the loads on nuclear and coal as Mr. Lawson should know. All Australia's existing pumped hydro schemes were built to support coal power. 

In the late 1990's German nuclear operators published ads saying that the German grid could not absorb more than 1.5% wind power. This year-to-date Germany has one of the most reliable grids in the world and has supplied over 29% of demand from wind and of course zero from nuclear. It does import about 1.5% of its electricity but it is building new wind and solar fast enough to overcome the deficit by next year. Coal, gas and nuclear output combined have fallen from 55.2% of electricity in 2019 to 36.2% this year so there is a slight mismatch. Further Scandinavian countries have excess renewable capacity so despite declining nuclear output in Sweden, Germany is favouring imports of clean power rather than imports of coal and gas to fuel its own power plants. As renewables in other countries are also increasing, Germany may choose to continue importing power for the next few years and thus reduce coal and gas consumption even faster than it would by its own efforts. Danish wind and Swedish/Norwegian hydro is much cheaper than American LNG or South African coal. 

As for the speed of transition, it took global nuclear power 45 years to go from supplying 40 TWh/y to 2,700 TWh, it took wind and solar 17 years. Further nuclear power has virtually stopped growing. Final 2023 figures are not available, but they are unlikely to exceed 2006 when 2,740 TWh was supplied by nuclear power. Wind and solar will be around 4,000 TWh (Electricity Data Explorer | Open Source Global Electricity Data | Ember (ember-climate.org).

Many people claim that India and China are paying lip service to renewables but between them they are installing 60% of the world's wind and solar. In the last 15 months China has installed more wind and solar than the US has ever installed, and India is catching up to Germany. Between India and China, they are buying more than 50% of the world's electrified transport, particularly trains, trucks, busses and 2 and 3 wheelers which are much better value for decarbonisation than private cars, which are the Western face of transport electrification. 

Many opponents of renewables confuse primary energy demand with energy needs or energy services. Only about 15-20% of the energy in oil at the bottom of a well ends up delivering power at the wheel of a vehicle and about 25% of the energy in coal delivers lighting to customers. Even if solar is coupled with a battery, about 90% of the energy generated from the solar system and 85% of the output from windfarms ends up delivering useful energy. Further some of the energy delivered from fossil fuels is double counted. The energy used to refine and deliver liquid fuels is counted as useful work, 40% of global shipping is moving fossil fuels around, energy from gas cooking has to be offset by fume extraction systems and air conditioning in kitchens. The conventional wisdom is that primary energy demand is 3-4 times that of the energy services (heat, light, transport). In practice in a fully electrified economy energy demand per unit of GDP could be less than 25% of the peak use a decade ago.

Finally, coal, gas and oil used to be very much cheaper than they are now, so energy efficiency makes financial sense. Consequently, we don't have to build twenty times as much wind and solar as we have now. There are estimates that a fully electrified world would have living standards close to what we have now in the West with half the electricity the world generates now. 

 

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

No one, uh hem, NO ONE, gives one shit what percentage of power comes from x,y, or z.  All they care about is PRICE

Its the economy stupid

That is not true, some people actually care about the environment or at least want to look like they do.

You can pay a little more to have your share of energy come from green sources.  Then your business can put a little logo up showing the electricity is from renewable sources.  Is it more ego driven, or virtue signalling than actual concerns for the environment, maybe. Does the reason matter? 

Clearly some people do care enough that it is not only about price.  My current provider (pun intended) charges $0.02 CND extra/KWh for 100% renewable.

https://www.epcor.com/products-services/encor/green-energy/Pages/default.aspx

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

2 hours ago, pfarley@bigpond.net.au said:

 There are estimates that a fully electrified world would have living standards close to what we have now in the West with half the electricity the world generates now. 

 

Yes, using less power is always the better option.  We can never make "enough" power.  The more we make the more people will use.  The world wastes huge amounts of power.  If we got rid of some bitcoin mines and stopped producing so many damn weapons we could close several power plants easy.

 

[pfarley@bigpond.net.au + 42]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

No one, uh hem, NO ONE, gives one shit what percentage of power comes from x,y, or z.  All they care about is PRICE

Its the economy stupid

Its the economy stupid, you are right.

German companies are signing long term contracts for solar power at 5-7c/kWh. Try building a new gas plant and supplying power at that price 

It is why China is installing so much wind and solar because it provides energy for half the cost of coal and nuclear.

Denmark's GDP per person is 20% higher than the US, without nuclear, without hydro and with very little coal and gas. Their government is running a trade and budget surplus, and debt to GDP of less than 30%, they are a net exporter of electricity. 

Denmark and Germany tax energy use and therefore use half as much per dollar of GDP as the US. Danes have less than 1/10th of the lost time per customer as US customers and despite higher prices, typically spend less on energy than US customers because they don't waste it.  The US has a budget deficit of 7% of GDP, a trade deficit and debt to GDP of over 100%. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

2 hours ago, pfarley@bigpond.net.au said:

Its the economy stupid, you are right.

German companies are signing long term contracts for solar power at 5-7c/kWh. Try building a new gas plant and supplying power at that price 

It is why China is installing so much wind and solar because it provides energy for half the cost of coal and nuclear.

Denmark's GDP per person is 20% higher than the US, without nuclear, without hydro and with very little coal and gas. Their government is running a trade and budget surplus, and debt to GDP of less than 30%, they are a net exporter of electricity. 

Denmark and Germany tax energy use and therefore use half as much per dollar of GDP as the US. Danes have less than 1/10th of the lost time per customer as US customers and despite higher prices, typically spend less on energy than US customers because they don't waste it.  The US has a budget deficit of 7% of GDP, a trade deficit and debt to GDP of over 100%. 

Great response! Glad there is another member of this community that does research and doesnt rely on opinion but has an open mind to the world around him/her.

Also glad there is an Aussie on here to challenge Mark Lawson's somewhat skewed view of the world.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

6 hours ago, pfarley@bigpond.net.au said:

Its the economy stupid, you are right.

German companies are signing long term contracts for solar power at 5-7c/kWh. Try building a new gas plant and supplying power at that price 

It is why China is installing so much wind and solar because it provides energy for half the cost of coal and nuclear.

Denmark's GDP per person is 20% higher than the US, without nuclear, without hydro and with very little coal and gas. Their government is running a trade and budget surplus, and debt to GDP of less than 30%, they are a net exporter of electricity. 

Denmark and Germany tax energy use and therefore use half as much per dollar of GDP as the US. Danes have less than 1/10th of the lost time per customer as US customers and despite higher prices, typically spend less on energy than US customers because they don't waste it.  The US has a budget deficit of 7% of GDP, a trade deficit and debt to GDP of over 100%. 

Stop the blatant lies.  No one is selling unsubsidiezed Solar at 5-->7c/kWh to normal businesses.  It is embarrassing to yourself. 

Uh, you mean Denmark is 20% lower GDP/Capita...  Suggest reading glasses...  PS: GDP is baloney.  PPP is closer to reality. 

Here is reality: Manufacturing base = Power usage = power/capita = Geopolitical power.  If you lose it, you get smashed around in this world. 

As for budget deficit... well, I am with you 100% and something my side of the aisle has been screaming about since the 80's, yet the other side doesn't give a shit and in fact the party unfortunately I have to vote for may as well be the other side as well regarding this topic.  USA is falling.  It will crater soon.  When?  Who knows.  Hard assets which produced a goods only is what matters ultimately.  Everyone has forgotten this. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

10 hours ago, pfarley@bigpond.net.au said:

Renewables present two challenges to these industries b) the decentralised model of renewables means that the possibility of a large business ever achieving a dominant position in the industry even if it can make a successful transition is very low.

 forgetting the compromises needed to make the old, centralised system work and the time it took to build it. The whole concept of Base Load is not the minimum 24/7 demand from customers that they like to claim. It is the minimum load to make nuclear, coal and combined cycle gas plants reliable and economic. Thus, we had "offpeak" power prices which are often below the cost

Oh boy...  Vast majority, Vast Majority of base load power is NOT even tabulated in electrical demand(you have a point about ancient tech, not allowed to be developed into decent power load following Nuclear though).  REAL base load power is supplied by Coal/NG/Oil in HEAVY industry directly as it is never converted into electricity, which you guys all BLATANTLY ignore.  These processes work 24/7/365.  Varrying their rates is minimal --> impossible economically

PS Combined Gas cycle... 0%--> 80% is less than 5-->7 minutes, and hits 50% in less than 2 minutes.  100% is generally around 12minutes.  Older models were ~45 minutes.  Latest GE model hits 60% in less than 60s.  Your Grand Daddy's stats are not reality.

10 hours ago, pfarley@bigpond.net.au said:

so most of the pumped hydro schemes around the world were built to smooth the loads on nuclear and coal as Mr. Lawson should know. All Australia's existing pumped hydro schemes were built to support coal power. 
 

Pumped Hydro, is still the largest batteries around the world and provides far MORE than load smoothing for nuclear.  Hydro is base load frequency stability control and has ability to START the grid from a black out is WHY pumped hydro was built and should CONTINUE to be built around the world in places that did NOT already HAVE large rivers and hydro dams.  Or on rivers that are HIGHLY seasonal.  Had nothing to do with nuclear and in fact were built BEFORE nuclear existed.  As for built for coal?  You could have a partial point there, but my previous reasons come first.  Cold START from black out and frequency/voltage control. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

10 hours ago, pfarley@bigpond.net.au said:

Many opponents of renewables confuse primary energy demand with energy needs or energy services. Only about 15-20% of the energy in oil at the bottom of a well ends up delivering power at the wheel of a vehicle and about 25% of the energy in coal delivers lighting to customers. Even if solar is coupled with a battery, about 90% of the energy generated from the solar system and 85% of the output from windfarms ends up delivering useful energy. Further some of the energy delivered from fossil fuels is double counted. The energy used to refine and deliver liquid fuels is counted as useful work, 40% of global shipping is moving fossil fuels around, energy from gas cooking has to be offset by fume extraction systems and air conditioning in kitchens. The conventional wisdom is that primary energy demand is 3-4 times that of the energy services (heat, light, transport). In practice in a fully electrified economy energy demand per unit of GDP could be less than 25% of the peak use a decade ago.

NO ONE CARES about ANYTHING you typed. 

What is the PRICE of transportation?  What is the Price to Refiine a ton of steel? 

NO ONE CARES about ANYTHING you typed. 

So called "renewables" are INCREASING those costs and therefore no one without government corruption behind them cares. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

10 hours ago, pfarley@bigpond.net.au said:

As for the speed of transition, it took global nuclear power 45 years to go from supplying 40 TWh/y to 2,700 TWh, it took wind and solar 17 years. Further nuclear power has virtually stopped growing. Final 2023 figures are not available, but they are unlikely to exceed 2006 when 2,740 TWh was supplied by nuclear power. Wind and solar will be around 4,000 TWh (Electricity Data Explorer | Open Source Global Electricity Data | Ember (ember-climate.org).

What a load of ignorant spewing garbage.  There were literally thousands of Nuclear projects that were being built and ALL came to a screeching STOP after 3 mile island and last nail was Chernobyl.  After which every government STOPPED all funding to nuclear R&D and stopped ALL private companies from researching it either. 

Nuclear is dirt cheap.  Its nothing but concrete and old tech steam turbines.  The lawsuits etc etc etc regulations are horrifically expensive and SLOOOOOOOW. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

10 hours ago, pfarley@bigpond.net.au said:

Many people claim that India and China are paying lip service to renewables but between them they are installing 60% of the world's wind and solar. In the last 15 months China has installed more wind and solar than the US has ever installed, and India is catching up to Germany. Between India and China, they are buying more than 50% of the world's electrified transport, particularly trains, trucks, busses and 2 and 3 wheelers which are much better value for decarbonisation than private cars, which are the Western face of transport electrification.

Uh, India is DIRECT subsidizing 40% all solar installations under 3kw and 20% subsidy of cost for anything under 10kW....  Why you have seen the explosion of small residential solar. 

And WHY are they doing so?  They do not have oil/NG... and India actually has solar potential unlike China.  LIkewise what is majority of that solar for?  Residential refrigeration which chills during day and during night stays cold + a couple small batteries so each house can have 1 or 2 lights on and a TV. 

What they both are doing right is going balls to the wall REFINING minerals which the USA/EU pretends is not their problem and magically appears and the world should kiss their feet and continue to supply them with refined minerals---> just because.

Edited April 25 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

On 4/15/2024 at 6:36 AM, Rob Plant said:

Rich

See below for latest trends on energy mix and forecasts

Renewables - Energy System - IEA

The renewable breakthroughs in tech are too numerous to note here, I suggest research each sector, solar, wind, hydro, wave, geothermal, hydrogen, nuclear fission and fusion etc etc

Youll be aware that many countries will be banning ICE vehicles and there are many incentives to "go green" both for Joe public and also industry. ESG like it or loathe it will also play a part.

Obviously COP (conference of the parties) is now naming and shaming those countries that break their pledges on climate change but are driving change slowly. Political pressure from Western countries in particular is a factor and probably why China (the main polluter) is doing things like this now.

How China Became the World’s Leader on Renewable Energy - Yale E360

China expects to achieve its 2030 wind and solar ambitions ahead of schedule in 2025 | AFRY

China’s MASSIVE Desert Project Is About To Change The World - Undecided with Matt Ferrell (undecidedmf.com)

Hope some of this helps.

China is increasing dependence on coal and oil.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

On 4/23/2024 at 6:05 AM, Rob Plant said:

Wow you really only have insults left dont you!

Again you spout rubbish without trying to use any brain cells, and you back up the rubbish you spout with........ drum roll.

yep absolutely nothing yet again!

"if it provides power when YOU want power" havent you realised that we always "want" power and therefore it provides power!

As you can see below over the last year in the UK wind was the largest contributor to power generation.

 

By the way on your grand plan for tunnels instead of roads for cars, how did your math work out for you? Hmmm not so clever that one was it?

Rob, you are a fine one to talk.

"Wow you really only have insults left dont you!"

I could use the same description of your blurbs.

 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

3 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

China is increasing dependence on coal and oil.

China has been increasing the share of non-fossil fuels in its electricity generation, but coal remains a predominant source. In 2020, China generated 4,775 TWh from coal-fired power plants, a 63% share of China's electricity generation. In 2000, coal accounted for 77% of China's electricity generation (992 TWh).

Does a 14% drop in the energy mix really mean that China is more dependent on coal now than in 2020???

I dont think so!

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Rob, you are a fine one to talk.

"Wow you really only have insults left dont you!"

I could use the same description of your blurbs.

 

That wasnt to you it was to Footinmouth who constantly insults in pretty much every post, so it was time for a little back in his direction!

[notsonice + 1,255]

On 4/25/2024 at 3:03 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Are you this dumb?  WHO, uh hem, WHO has the highest electricity prices in the world?  Germany/Denmark/UK because the STUPID fools have installed so much Solar etc, where the sun does NOT shine.  By nameplate value Germany has well over 80GW installed... They use ~60GW peak... They have 1.3X capacity and yet their HIGHEST ever total power produced was for a brief time last year.. 66% in HIGH SUMMER.   Newsflash 50 degrees north installing "solar" panels you have to be BRAIN DEAD. 

If Germany/Denmark etc were not STUPID fools, and PAID to have EVERY single panel installed in S. Spain with gargantuan HVDC power lines run north, they would have spent a FRACTION the cost and achieved the same result as now they would have had the infrastructure to try and achieve solar power. 

No one, uh hem, NO ONE, gives one shit what percentage of power comes from x,y, or z.  All they care about is PRICE

Its the economy stupid

No one, uh hem, NO ONE, gives one shit what percentage of power comes from x,y, or z.  All they care about is PRICE?????

only if you live in a trailer park and you have problems coming up with cash to buy cigs, beer or pot.

for the other 75 percent of the population....living without air pollution or living with clean drinking water on a planet that is not a garbage dump or is roasting with heat wave after heat wave does matter.

 

I take it you are in the minority of Americans that resides in a trailer park.

About three-quarters of Americans support U.S. participation in international efforts to reduce the effects of climate change. Americans offer broad support for international engagement on climate change: 74% say they support U.S. participation in international efforts to reduce the effects of climate change.Aug 9, 2023

 

What the data says about Americans' views of climate change