Renewable Energy Production Beat Fossil Fuels in Europe (theverge.com) 146
Renewable energy became the biggest source of electricity in the European Union in 2020, beating fossil fuels for the first time. Germany and Spain also hit that milestone individually last year -- so did the UK, which officially left the EU in January 2020. From a report: Renewables powered 38 percent of electricity in the EU last year, according to a report released today by energy think tanks Ember and Agora Energiewende. That gives renewable energy a narrow lead over fossil fuel-fired generation, which accounted for 37 percent of Europe's electricity. The remaining quarter comes from nuclear energy.
The rise of renewables is good news for the health of the planet. Still, renewable energy will need to grow at an even faster rate to stave off a future with more climate change-induced disasters. "Renewables overtaking fossils is an important milestone in Europe's clean energy transition. However, let's not be complacent," Patrick Graichen, director of Agora Energiewende, said in a statement. "Post-pandemic recovery [programs] need to go hand-in-hand with accelerated climate action."
The rise of renewables is good news for the health of the planet. Still, renewable energy will need to grow at an even faster rate to stave off a future with more climate change-induced disasters. "Renewables overtaking fossils is an important milestone in Europe's clean energy transition. However, let's not be complacent," Patrick Graichen, director of Agora Energiewende, said in a statement. "Post-pandemic recovery [programs] need to go hand-in-hand with accelerated climate action."
Turns out the fossil fuel guys were liars (Score:4, Informative)
Huh. Turns out the fossil fuel guys were liars the whole time. Who would'a thunk. Remember when they said that you can't run an economy on renewables? That was a lie the whole time. Turns out you can, just fine.
Re: (Score:1)
How are they liars when most the energy comes from fossil fuel? It's 80% fossil if more than electricity is considered. Sure, someday, but that day is not today nor 10 years from now.
Renewables or Carbon Free? (Score:3)
There is a big difference. Particularly with the French nuclear program. It is the latter that is important, not the former.
Re: (Score:2)
FTA: Renewables powered 38 percent of electricity in the EU last year[...] That gives renewable energy a narrow lead over fossil fuel-fired generation, which accounted for 37 percent of Europe's electricity. The remaining quarter comes from nuclear energy.
Another excuse down the drain...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How can any one give such à purile comment à +5 informative !!
* Renewables aren't always available
* So you need a backup source of energy to replace the renewables when they aren't being produced
* That could be a stored energy source for periods when excess renewable energy is produced, but there is nowhere near enough of that to help
* So any power grid with significant renewable energy use, needs thermal power plants that are idle when the renewables are produced but can take up the load otherwis
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Just ask a neighbour. Which is why the EU was developed....
Re: (Score:3)
30% renewable is fine when the other 60% comes from stable baseload sources such as fissile and nuclear.
Then let's do that.
No need. We already are. (Score:2)
30% renewable is fine when the other 60% comes from stable baseload sources such as fissile and nuclear.
Then let's do that.
FTA: Renewables powered 38 percent of electricity
Base Load is a myth (Score:2, Informative)
It's just a line of propaganda cooked up by the fossil fuel industry.
https://cleantechnica.com/2016... [cleantechnica.com]
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/k... [nrdc.org]
https://energypost.eu/dispelli... [energypost.eu]
https://www.pembina.org/blog/b... [pembina.org]
In short, energy experts agree: modern energy grids do not need "fissile and nuclear" (Assuming you mean fossil not fissile) to provide stable electricity. Only the fossil fuel industry and its shills continue to push this outdated idea. We have plenty of energy storage technologies that, combined with renewab
Re: (Score:3)
We have plenty of energy storage technologies that, combined with renewables, are still cheaper than nuclear or fossil fuels.
Which technologies are those? I looked through all your links and didn't see them.
Re: (Score:2)
https://scholar.google.com/sch... [google.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I read through your links. It says there is no renewable + storage solution that is cheaper than natural gas. We need new/improved technology to get there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When was the last time the entire UK renewables sector was idled due to no light and no wind for a week? North Sea offshore wind is exceptionally reliable, and it's a major source of renewables for the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people really don't know how to use Moderation. Troll? Lol
Re: (Score:2)
They know exactly how to use moderation... they abuse it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, fair enough. Important to call out the bad faith actors.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So I tried various permutations of "UK wind power anticyclone" and related keywords, and the best I could come up with is some bullshit from the House of Lords (politicians, not scientists). There was one scientific-ish paper by the Sustainable Development Commission from 2005 that had this to say on the subject of anticyclones:
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
Took 30 seconds to find.
Re: (Score:2)
"It happened many times last year"
[provides single link to something that happened 2 years ago]
Okay then?
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not your nanny, go learn to use google you plank.
Re: (Score:2)
You made a claim, framing it as if this was a huge problem in just the past year where chaos and strife ensued because the winds stopped. Nowhere is this in evidence. You cite one example, which obstinately is not in the past year, and despite all that the article still has the byline that it was the second greenest summer on record.
You'd think that if anticyclones were a serious problem there would be no shortage of articles ranting about it. Fuck knows there's no shortage of news outlets that are against
Re: (Score:3)
1. The article is from 2018, not 2020.
2. Let's compare what you said with what the article said.
You said: "Any time theres a stable anti cyclone over the country wind generation drops through the floor. It happened many times last year, google it."
The article said: "Duncan Burt, director of operations at National Grid, said: “We have seen a slight decrease in wind over the summer" "
You are clearly over-blowing (geddit?) the problem
Re: (Score:2)
I googled it. No links at all for this happening last year. If you'd care to share any links yourself, go right ahead. You were awfully confident, so I'm sure it'll be easy-peasy for you to back up your claim with, say 3 to 5 link.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't google very hard did you pal? Perhaps you need a refresher course.
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I understand why you might enjoy living in the past, but last year was not in fact 2018. It was 2020. Well done you!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that fossil fuels are no longer being created, no matter the time scale, because of the way dead organisms decompose. Apparently fossil fuel deposits date from a time before the enzyme required to fully decompose dead organisms evolved.
Re: (Score:2)
I think some peat bogs are still slowly turning into coal as they're too acidic and lack oxygen to decompose.
Strictly speaking, peat itself can be considered a fossil fuel as well.
YeahBut... (Score:2)
While true, peat bogs probably don't scale all that well. :-)
On the topic of decomposition, I also remember the idea that termites had not yet evolved.
Re: (Score:2)
Termites I believe are dependent on their gut micro-flora to decompose cellulose, so related to needing bacteria/fungi to evolve to break down cellulose.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that it wasn't that long ago that peat was more widely burned for heat and cooking, mostly in Ireland.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Economies already run on renewables. Why you lie so much?
Name one.
Meh, Canada's renewables is already 67% (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Canada has slightly fewer people than the state of California (38 million Canadians versus nearly 40 million Californians), and 20x the land mass (10 million sq KM vs half-million sq KM in California).
Re: Highlights 'renewable' impact (Score:2)
The renewable is 'hydro electric', you know, dams. One of the largest is Baie James in Quebec the construction of which made Quebec a real player in the hydro market.
Question: how much woodland has to be flooded to make a Baie James?
Answer: 11,500 square kilometers. But it's okay no humans were displaced except some First Nations people. Mostly it was just trees and animals.
Renewables? Always ask what is not being mentioned in the cost.
error (Score:1)
Surely we in the UK left the EU in January 2021....
Re: (Score:2)
Good job Europe! (Score:1, Informative)
Forget the planet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, moving away from coal is good no matter why you do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, moving away from coal is good no matter why you do it.
Depends on your perspective. In a rich and advanced country you can move from coal to nuclear or solar or wind or whatever and pay a little premium for the peace of mind that you are Captain Planet, saving all of humanity.
But for the majority of humans who don't live in those countries, and the millions and millions who have no electricity, and rely on burning twigs and animal poo for survival, and whose only hope of stepping out of hunger and poverty is the newly available cheap coal based energy, taking
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like the only two choices are dung and coal, though, is it? Plenty of renewables projects in developing world economies. No reason why they can't choose to skip outdated tech the same way they have for mobile vs fixed line.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like the only two choices are dung and coal, though, is it? .
Let's see, a solar array, an inverter, fusebox, cabling and sockets, an electric oven, whats that about $5000? Compared to a piece of coal at a few cents? For the millions in poverty earning a $1 day who live in box made of scrap?
No reason why they can't choose to skip outdated tech the same way they have for mobile vs fixed line.
You're still living in the land of the rich. 3 billion people don't have a phone, a mobile tower doesn't help them in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When young I lived a few miles outside of downtown LA. I remember weeks or longer in the summer where my eyes were burning and had a bit of a problem breathing. I too now have asthma.
Then the damned progressives passed anti-smog laws and cleared up over 90% of the problems. I'm no longer free to breathe smog any more. It's enough to make me cry, but now it's much harder.
Re: (Score:2)
Only 90%? That's less than 100% so it wasn't worth doing at all!
Even 100% is for losers. Ask any coach or motivational speaker, 110% is the absolute minimum required.
Re: (Score:2)
Only 90%? That's less than 100% so it wasn't worth doing at all!
Even 100% is for losers. Ask any coach or motivational speaker, 110% is the absolute minimum required.
My guru tells me that I only need to do 1% better than the next guy to win, so I always aim for 111%. You 110% guys are losers!
Renewable electric production varies a bit w/ loca (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to remember that during the last summer, Germany, not a sunny country by any means, produced so much solar sourced electricity, they were giving it away. Not sure what happened when the sun went down.
You are talking about brief moments when Germany spontaneously generated more electricity then it needed at that particular moment. Germany always has, and always will, for the for seeable future, rely on non-solar electricity generation.
Re: (Score:2)
For example:
2014 - https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
2012 - https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Germany hit 50% renewables in 2020, and it is not just because of the coronavirus epidemic, because in 2019 renewables were responsible for 46% of the electrical power generation.
Title is wrong (Score:2)
Should read: "Renewable Electricity Production Beat Fossil Fuels in the European Union"
1. Energy encompasses more than electricity. The majority of the EU's transport is still running on fossil fuels.
2. There's more to Europe than the EU.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe most of the railroad network is electrified and used quite a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
2. There's more to Europe than the EU.
That depends [wikipedia.org].
Europe is a continent [...] Europe may also refer to:
Clear-cutting forests for "renewable" fuel (Score:2)
The switch to "renewable" fuels in Europe has not been as ecologically sound as one would think. For instance, because wood is classified as renewable, it's okay to clear-cut Estonian forests and burn them for fuel [theguardian.com]. Never mind that CO2 is only sequestered if it stays in the biomass and is not burned...
Re: (Score:2)
Estonian forests have been cut for many years, even before switching to renewables has been planned. I remember Estonia in the early 1990s. Visited the country a decade later and was shocked by the tree loss.
Re: (Score:2)
BEWARE!! Record high power prices in Spain (Score:3, Insightful)
Having renewable energy is all well and good, but this winter in Spain we are having record high prices for electricity. Turns out when the weather is bad wind turbines and solar panels don't produce energy, and hydropower is severelly affected as well.
Growth in renewable energy is not sustainable (Score:2)
Renewable energy takes too much land, labor, and materials to ever replace fossil fuels. The rate at which we are building renewable energy energy production is not keeping up with growth in demand. Reductions in CO2 emissions is only from natural gas replacing coal. We won't get to zero CO2 emissions without nuclear power. All we are doing now is delaying tactics until people get comfortable with the idea of more nuclear fission power. Once the realization sets in that we can only maintain our standar
Re:Subsidy (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments around the world literally fight wars to secure fossil fuel reserves. Governments spend trillions of dollars every year subsidizing fossil fuels.
Don't talk to me about money from the state.
Re: Subsidy (Score:3)
We are a net exporter of refined petroleum products. But we are a net importer of crude oil. That trend has been going on since long before Trump joined. The only big change he made was to allow the US to export crude oil more freely and not just refined products, taking away American jobs, but improving our import/export ratios without having to build more refineries.
So no, the US did not reach energy independence under Trump, but the energy situation did continue to improve at the rate it had been, so he
Re: (Score:2)
taking away American jobs.
But unemployment also improved under Trump. Do you ever get sick of making up stories to cover over his achievements?
US did not reach energy independence under Trump
This says otherwise: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/h... [eia.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Donald Trump achieved energy independence for the US for the first time since WW2
US did not reach energy independence under Trump
This says otherwise: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/h... [eia.gov]
Don't you ever get tired of cherry-picking the facts so you can invent Trump achievements? That very graph shows the downward trend started almost 10 years before Trump got elected and continued at roughly the same rate after he got elected. So it's not like he played much of a role.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you ever get tired of cherry-picking the facts so you can invent Trump achievements?
Do you know what the word 'achieved' means?
The statement "Donald Trump achieved energy independence for the US for the first time since WW2" is factually correct, based on the presented data. I appreciate that these facts make you feel bad, but they remain facts regardless of what you believe.
That very graph shows the downward trend started almost 10 years before Trump got elected and continued at roughly the same rate after he got elected. So it's not like he played much of a role.
Trump promised that he would deliver energy independence, he created policy to increase domestic oil production and he delivered on that promise. That is a fact and no amount of TDS changes that fact.
Re: (Score:2)
They get build without money from the state already. Why do you think this will change in the future?
Re: (Score:1)
How much money has the US spent on securing oil supplies? It's one of the reasons that the mil budget is so large. Would we have really spent trillions in the middle east without oil? Maybe it would only have been in the billions, otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, oil is *one* of the reasons the budget is so large. I agree that there are other reasons that contribute to the large budget. But I still think we would not have spent so many of our own resources on the middle east if there were no strategic resources there.
Re: (Score:3)
Without oil, Iran Iraq and KSA would not have had the resources to attempt to build nuclear bombs in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Well Pakistan seems to have managed building them without any oil to mention. Hmm, actually 53rd in the world for oil production.
N. Korea doesn't seem to have many resources and still managed to build nukes.
S. Africa is another one, though they have lots of metals and decided it wasn't worth it and destroyed the few they had.
The big thing is motivation, Pakistan was motivated by India's nukes, N Korea feels threatened and S. Africa felt threatened.
Whether the middle east countries would ever have been motiv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is amazing the level of hatred that can exist between different sects of a religion, something that almost seems universal.
Re: (Score:2)
America wouldn't give a fuck about Israel or spend one cent on it except for its purpose in destabilising the middle east, and the only significant interest the USA has in destabilising the ME is control over oil. It's not about religion.
Sure, America has a lot of Old Testament heretics pretending to be Christian - but it has many more who are anti-semitic bigots...and many of the OT heretics are also anti-semitic because they've somehow convinced themselves that Jesus was an American white dude (dual-wiel
Re: (Score:2)
Maintaining the biggest military on earth is expensive, and we do it so we have the biggest club. Although China is nipping at our heals.
If you can call having one third the budget for a country with four times the population 'nipping'.
Actually the USA still has a higher military budget than the next ten largest military budgets combined [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"SA" is confusing by the way - South Africa also had a nuke program.
"KSA" (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) seems to be the more accepted acronym.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the same guy that tried really hard to start a war with Iran? Last I heard Iran is also middle east.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has bombed Iran a couple of times and ordered a murder of one of their generals, so there have been attacks and more than enough of a casus belli to start a war. It didn't escalate that far though because after the fuckup with the Ukrainian airliner Iran did not react to the provocations.
I don't have to invent shit because real life has plenty of examples, You, on the other hand, are one of the low information voters.
Re: (Score:2)
Believe me, it's not because he "looked funny or talked funny". We've had funny looking, funny talking presidents before.
We were headed down a path towards "energy independence" long before Trump and of course we've wanted to bring our troops home for a long time, but we never had an exit strategy. When Obama withdrew US troops from Iraq, Republicans including Trump and his supporters criticized him for allowing daesh to rise up even though neither he nor Bush were able to get a Status Of Forces Agreement
Re: (Score:2)
"The whole premise of interventionism is to avoid another WW2 which when you think about it is insane."
Exactly the reason for the MAD doctrine. And, fwiw, it has worked up to this point, for good or bad.
1. Nukes have not been used since WWII. I'd say good.
2. It has produced the world we live in, which is messed more than any time in history. I'd say, yeah, that's what I thought when I was young, when I personally had little history, and I hadn't learned as much history as I know now.
Re: (Score:2)
It's much more than preventing another world war.
Terrorism in Somalia doesn't matter much to Americans, but terrorism often tends to spill out of countries where it's not contained. Think of them as "Terrorists Without Borders"
And like clockwork, hotels are already being bombed. Nine killed in hotel attack in Somali capital: police [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
but terrorism often tends to spill out of countries where it's not contained.
Only when you don't have strong border control and good foreign intelligence. The non-interventionist strategy requires strong borders, hence why Trump also pushed for them. I know CNN like to make it a race issue to manufacture hysteria, but the strategy was consistent.
hotels are already being bombed
And? Are you willing to risk your life to go over and sort it out? Why do you expect others to do that on your behalf?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? You bring up CNN as if it's a magic wand to defend Trump.
I see it all the time on internet forums, especially on Fox. "Go back to CNN" is a very common retort. I haven't had cable in years and even when I did, CNN was not my preferred cable "news" network - Fox actually was.
Isolation will only allow our foes, like China, to flourish and replace us as the world's superpower. Even Muslim nations are afraid to speak out against the genocide which they are committing in Xinjiang. Do you want th
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? You bring up CNN as if it's a magic wand to defend Trump.
I see it all the time on internet forums, especially on Fox. "Go back to CNN" is a very common retort. I haven't had cable in years and even when I did, CNN was not my preferred cable "news" network - Fox actually was.
What a strange response. My original comment was in reference to CNN using the racism narrative to avoid discussing actual policy position, then you ran with that instead of the talking policy thus demonstrating the point?
Isolation will only allow our foes, like China, to flourish and replace us as the world's superpower. Even Muslim nations are afraid to speak out against the genocide which they are committing in Xinjiang.
China flourished the most under Obama. I lived in Hong Kong at the time and saw the shift first hand. in 2007 they were an aspirational developing nation, by 2016 they were a global superpower. They have militarily strategic partnerships throughout Asia, the Pacific and Indian oceans, and
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're only going to play one note, that's a good note to play. Reducing greenhouse emissions is about the best thing you can do for humanity right now. Along with wearing a mask for the next 4 months or so.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's not even accurate as an attack line, either. Renewables reduce all sorts of emissions alongside CO2e: particulates, NOx, SOx etc.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's not even accurate as an attack line, either. Renewables reduce all sorts of emissions alongside CO2e: particulates, NOx, SOx etc.
When they work they're great. But try making steel or concrete with renewables though. Or try mining the raw materials and the moving them were you need to use them with renewables.
They have a place, but let's not pretend they solve all problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did I claim they did? That's a very strange non sequitur.
I don't even know where you're going with the point about steel. Are you trying to comment on the relative proportions of the market owned by BOFs vs EAFs? Or is it some point about the challenge of decarbonisation for steel production more generally? Or something else?
Similarly, I've no idea what point you're wanting to make about concrete, which has been decarbonising substantially over the last decade, for example with the introduction of GGB
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, we didn't instantaneously switch from whale oil to petroleum. Likewise ICE powered equipment will still be used while its replacements are built. For mining it's been going on for a while now.
2013 Electric underground [oemoffhighway.com]
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know this? Have you properly investigated the alternatives?
Re: (Score:2)
You are comparing with Germany, who have a lot of extra expenses in their bills due to the phasing out of coal and nuclear—especially nuclear is ridiculously expensive to decommission. They are basically rebuilding their entire power production system at breakneck speed. In Norway we already had renewables (mostly hydro) from the get-go, and our power costs are much lower, in the range 0.04 €/kWh [nordpoolgroup.com], last year being on average below 0.01 €/kWh (but 2020 was weird in many ways).
Fact is, wind and