Renewables Set to Overtake Coal by 2025

[Koldo]

That's true of any technology of course. But I take your point that there are areas of the world where one might not trust the authorities to run them competently and safely. The answer for them may be to buy in the electricity from those that do run them.

But if I can not trust the japanese, who can I trust? I see no one trustworthy.

 

[Bthoth]

A new report from the International Energy Agency says that electricity generation from renewable sources should reach almost 42% of total generation by 2025, overtaking coal as the leading source of powergen. World’s renewable energy capacity grew at record pace in 2023

Renewable capacity jumped in 2023 by a record amount. Apparently China alone installed more renewable capacity last year than the whole world did the year before. About 3/4 of the new capacity is solar. There are also record rates of growth of renewables in Europe, the USA and Brazil.

So a good news story for a change, to cheer up people of my son's generation especially.

Still little to no progress on displacing gas for home heating, I'm afraid, but the decarbonisation of electricity is a vital enabler of that, of course.

Coal to heat water, then turn a turbine is practically obsolete except to the businesses intent to maintain a central authority. It's why nuclear generation is still sought.

Solar offers a venue of decentralization and then if each household is required to maintain their own infrastructure a diversity of businesses can be created to support the hardware and education for homeowners and families.



ps....

NPR
https://www.npr.org › 2023/03/02 › china-is-building-si...



Mar 2, 2023 — China permitted more coal power plants last year than any time in the last seven years, according to a new report released this week.


China does not have the restrictions that the western countries do so building the centralized systems is still a profitable business model. And guess who, is selling them many of the key parts? USA

 

[exchemist]

Since I don't expect a massive worldwide energy transition to take place in the near future, I see ample time to develop energy storage solutions.

My initial post in this thread tells you that massive transition is already well under way. 2025 is next year.

 

[exchemist]

Coal to heat water, then turn a turbine is practically obsolete except to the businesses intent to maintain a central authority. It's why nuclear generation is still sought.

Solar offers a venue of decentralization and then if each household is required to maintain their own infrastructure a diversity of businesses can be created to support the hardware and education for homeowners and families.



ps....
NPR
https://www.npr.org › 2023/03/02 › china-is-building-si...



Mar 2, 2023 — China permitted more coal power plants last year than any time in the last seven years, according to a new report released this week.


China does not have the restrictions that the western countries do so building the centralized systems is still a profitable business model. And guess who, is selling them many of the key parts? USA

I think you raise a key point: decentralisation of generation. This is clearly the way things are going. One of the biggest challenges is reconfiguring the electricity grid.

 

[Bthoth]

I think you raise a key point: decentralisation of generation. This is clearly the way things are going. One of the biggest challenges is reconfiguring the electricity grid.

Decentralizing is about like emancipation from religious authority. Teach the people 'how to' and let the human capabilities flourish.

 

[Koldo]

My initial post in this thread tells you that massive transition is already well under way. 2025 is next year.

I think we are using the word 'massive' differently...

 

[Quintessence]

I feel uncomfortable hailing something like this as good news when it is still kicking environmental impact cans further down the road. That's not to say this transition is a bad thing, but it is not addressing the underlying issues - too many humans consuming too much stuff using too much energy.

We need fewer humans, consuming less stuff, using less energy. Period.

 

[exchemist]

Decentralizing is about like emancipation from religious authority. Teach the people 'how to' and let the human capabilities flourish.

Erm, not in this context, really. You need to plan centrally for the grid capacity and connections, so it can't be just a free-for-all. But it will be a different relationship between consumer and supplier, certainly, when people have solar panels on their rooftops and buy and sell electricity from and to the grid at different times of the day and night.

In the UK we may also find prices fall when we have windy weather at night. I think we could end up with variable pricing during the 24hr or even 7 day cycle, which will drive changes in consumption behaviour. Maybe future washing machines will come on in the night when the wind blows, to save us money.

 

[exchemist]

I feel uncomfortable hailing something like this as good news when it is still kicking environmental impact cans further down the road. That's not to say this transition is a bad thing, but it is not addressing the underlying issues - too many humans consuming too much stuff using too much energy.

We need fewer humans, consuming less stuff, using less energy. Period.

Fewer humans is what we will get once everyone has a decent standard of living. The population curves for just about every country show that. And energy use per head has plateaued and is starting to fall in many places.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I feel uncomfortable hailing something like this as good news when it is still kicking environmental impact cans further down the road. That's not to say this transition is a bad thing, but it is not addressing the underlying issues - too many humans consuming too much stuff using too much energy.

We need fewer humans, consuming less stuff, using less energy. Period.

Demographics will be taking care of this. Many nations are beginning to experience aging populations who generally consume less than younger populations.

 

[Revoltingest]

But if I can not trust the japanese, who can I trust? I see no one trustworthy.

Too many design decisions about reactors are political.
This is why the industry needs me to wield veto power.

 

[Quintessence]

Fewer humans is what we will get once everyone has a decent standard of living. The population curves for just about every country show that. And energy use per head has plateaued and is starting to fall in many places.

The problem is this planet can't support what the typical English speaker calls "a decent standard of living" and a functioning biosphere at the same time that permits other-than-human persons to flourish and exist as well. Remember this?

How many planets does it take to sustain your lifestyle?

As flawed and simplified as the footprint is, the principle stands - we'd need several more earths for this "decent [luxury] standard of living" to happen. Switching from one energy addiction to another doesn't address this. There is very little talk about reducing consumption and energy use just in general. Or even about putting a cork in the ridiculous notion of economies of perpetual growth.

Switching to renewables is an important step. But we should not kid ourselves into thinking it's the solution.

 

[exchemist]

The problem is this planet can't support what the typical English speaker calls "a decent standard of living" and a functioning biosphere at the same time that permits other-than-human persons to flourish and exist as well. Remember this?

How many planets does it take to sustain your lifestyle?

As flawed and simplified as the footprint is, the principle stands - we'd need several more earths for this "decent [luxury] standard of living" to happen. Switching from one energy addiction to another doesn't address this. There is very little talk about reducing consumption and energy use just in general. Or even about putting a cork in the ridiculous notion of economies of perpetual growth.

Switching to renewables is an important step. But we should not kid ourselves into thinking it's the solution.

It’s part of a solution to the most urgent environmental problem the planet faces, though. I feel it is important that we spread encouraging news when we have it, as further progress depends on morale. If one simply says wurr arrll doooomed, Corporal Frazer style, that’s a recipe for apathy and inaction, it seems to me.

 

[Bthoth]

Erm, not in this context, really.

Exactly in this context, decentralization is best for both topics.

You need to plan centrally for the grid capacity and connections, so it can't be just a free-for-all.

Sure if you want to maintain central authority (business). Eliminating that central control (business) will invoke both participation of the populations and invite ingenuity (newly created) methods.

But it will be a different relationship between consumer and supplier, certainly, when people have solar panels on their rooftops and buy and sell electricity from and to the grid at different times of the day and night.

Why go to a grid if onsite storage is possible even if just a subdivision with it's own storage capabilities.

In the UK we may also find prices fall when we have windy weather at night.

With all of the blow hards in the UK, that should be easy.

I think we could end up with variable pricing during the 24hr or even 7 day cycle, which will drive changes in consumption behaviour. Maybe future washing machines will come on in the night when the wind blows, to save us money.

Again, you return to business being a driver. I prefer innovation and need, to be the reasons not business nor fear. I could see a new generation learning how electricity works and creating novelty methods. For example: skip the battery storage idea and store with hydrolysis and store the H and O directly. Just to retain both sides of the break down in itself will improve functionality and return.

Although china does have a new style of chemical storage that reflected practically a zero loss and decomposition of reactants. When the model first came out about 15-20 yrs ago, I figured they had a game changer but then realized politics will stop it and sure enough now it hard to find any material on those chemical storage systems in china.

 

[Heyo]

Earthquakes happen very often in Japan. If the japanese didn't properly prepare for that I don't expect anyone else to do a better job. Now imagine unforeseeable circumstances. It is not a matter of 'if' a nuclear disaster will happen but 'when'. I have absolutely zero interest in nuclear powerplants because of this.

Nuclear power plants have a failure rate of 1 in 10,000 years. With 500 plants on Earth that makes one incident about every 20 years. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, just as planned.

 

[sayak83]

I feel uncomfortable hailing something like this as good news when it is still kicking environmental impact cans further down the road. That's not to say this transition is a bad thing, but it is not addressing the underlying issues - too many humans consuming too much stuff using too much energy.

We need fewer humans, consuming less stuff, using less energy. Period.

Well the PLAN is to kick the can down the road long enough that the problem resolves itself....as world population is projected to peak and then start to fall from 2080 onwards.
The fulcrum of the world will shift to Africa by 2050, so managing development there will be the key.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nuclear power plants have a failure rate of 1 in 10,000 years. With 500 plants on Earth that makes one incident about every 20 years. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, just as planned.

That doesn't include the other failures,
eg, Browns Ferry (a particularly egregious
bad design).

List of nuclear power accidents by country - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Heyo]

That doesn't include the other failures,
eg, Browns Ferry (a particularly egregious
bad design).

List of nuclear power accidents by country - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yep, I was only listing those cases with core melts and escape of active isotopes - which statistically should only happen once in 10,000 years - per power plant. The statistics is pretty bang on.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep, I was only listing those cases with core melts and escape of active isotopes - which statistically should only happen once in 10,000 years - per power plant. The statistics is pretty bang on.

I'd include any incident wherein
they lost control of the reactor.
But my brief perusal of the list showed
1 more meltdown, & several more near
meltdowns. So that 1/10k statistic could
easily have been worse.
And I didn't even consider military reactor
disasters.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What in the name of heaven does that have to do with renewable energy????!!!

If it isn't cheaper it's garbage.