The World Saw a Record 9.6% Growth In Renewables In 2022 (electrek.co) 133
By the end of 2022, global renewable generation capacity amounted to 3,372 gigawatts (GW), growing the stock of renewable power by 295 GW or 9.6%, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Renewables produced an overwhelming 83% of all power capacity added last year. Electrek reports: Renewable Capacity Statistics 2023, released today by IRENA, shows that renewable energy continues to grow at record levels despite global uncertainties, confirming the downward trend of fossil fuels. While many countries increased their renewable capacity in 2022, the significant growth of renewables is concentrated in Asia, the US, and Europe. IRENA reports that almost half of all new capacity in 2022 was added in Asia, resulting in a total of 1.63 terawatts (TW) of renewable capacity by 2022. China was the largest contributor, adding 141 GW to Asia's new capacity.
Renewables in Europe and North America grew by 57.3 GW and 29.1 GW, respectively. Africa saw an increase of 2.7 GW, slightly above 2021. Oceania continued its double-digit growth with an expansion of 5.2 GW, and South America had a capacity expansion of 18.2 GW. The Middle East recorded its highest increase in renewables on record, with 3.2 GW of new capacity added in 2022, an increase of 12.8%. Although hydropower accounted for the largest share of the global total renewable generation capacity with 1,250 GW, solar and wind continued to dominate new generating capacity. Together, both technologies contributed 90% to the share of all new renewable capacity in 2022. Solar led with a 22% (191 GW) increase, followed by wind, which increased its generating capacity by 9% (75 GW).
Renewables in Europe and North America grew by 57.3 GW and 29.1 GW, respectively. Africa saw an increase of 2.7 GW, slightly above 2021. Oceania continued its double-digit growth with an expansion of 5.2 GW, and South America had a capacity expansion of 18.2 GW. The Middle East recorded its highest increase in renewables on record, with 3.2 GW of new capacity added in 2022, an increase of 12.8%. Although hydropower accounted for the largest share of the global total renewable generation capacity with 1,250 GW, solar and wind continued to dominate new generating capacity. Together, both technologies contributed 90% to the share of all new renewable capacity in 2022. Solar led with a 22% (191 GW) increase, followed by wind, which increased its generating capacity by 9% (75 GW).
Incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing what happens if we actually get up and do something instead of sitting on computers and saying it'll never work.
Re:Incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing what happens if we actually get up and do something instead of sitting on computers and saying it'll never work.
It's Economics 101 at this point. If you're in the business of selling electricity, you can transition to renewable energy sources, no longer have to buy fossil fuels and yet still sell the resulting electricity at full market rates. It's basically like if Walmart could invest in Star Trek replicator technology to stock their stores.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The problem is that the fossil fuel suppliers don't want to give up their revenue stream, or write off all the investment they put into finding and extracting that fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the fossil fuel suppliers don't want to give up their revenue stream, or write off all the investment they put into finding and extracting that fuel.
Perhaps. But markets don't care about any of that.
The FF producers will have to cut their prices to compete and the highest-price producers will become unprofitable and shut down.
This is already happening. The highest-cost oil is offshore and Arctic, or even worse, offshore in the Arctic. Many offshore and Arctic projects have been canceled.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not only up to the markets though. Those fossil fuel companies spend a lot of money on lobbying.
Re: (Score:2)
Those fossil fuel companies spend a lot of money on lobbying.
The lobbying can work to get offshore areas opened for leasing, but that doesn't help if the leases aren't profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Lobbying is to legislators and govenrment officials. They also prosyletize to average people to try to get them to believe that renewables aren't reliabland that fossil fuels will last forever.
Re: Electric Vehicles (Score:2)
EVs are expected to be 13-14 million units this year, about 20% of world car sales. Once ICE production falls below ICE scrapping of old ones, petroleum demand will fall, no matter the suppliers want. Taking 20 years as a typical life of a car, world sales were 50 million a year back then. If EV sales get to 20 million, we will reach the tipping point and the ICE fleet will start declining.
As far as coal in the US, that is already down 60% for electricity, and the technology for steelmaking is shifting
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing what happens if we actually get up and do something instead of sitting on computers and saying it'll never work.
It's Economics 101 at this point. If you're in the business of selling electricity, you can transition to renewable energy sources, no longer have to buy fossil fuels and yet still sell the resulting electricity at full market rates. It's basically like if Walmart could invest in Star Trek replicator technology to stock their stores.
Renewables wouldn't be that much interesting without environmental regulations and carbon taxes.
So yes, the market works, but there need to be a price on pollution for it to work.
Allowing to pollute other's air for free is not a good idea and never will be.
Re: (Score:3)
It's amazing what happens if we actually get up and do something instead of sitting on computers and saying it'll never work.
Unfortunately we are very easy to please with big numbers. These sound good but it's a drop int he bucket compared to what we need.
Re: (Score:2)
These sound good but it's a drop int he bucket compared to what we need.
Not at all. This is big progress. 10% compounded will double renewables by 2030.
As solar and wind prices continue to fall, the installation pace will likely rise even faster.
Renewables are mostly replacing old, inefficient, and dirty generators. Coal, not gas, so there is a disproportionate reduction in CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
The solar supply chain is already building enough capacity to double last year's deliveries (to 400 GW/year), and has plans to expand to 1100 GW/year a few years farther out. Capacity doesn't equal production, since factories on the whole don't run at 100% all the time. But capacity has to be larger than demand, or you are leaving sales on the table.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. This is big progress. 10% compounded will double renewables by 2030.
Exactly. Compounded will double renewables by 2030. That should take us from "pathetically small" to "meh, but still widely missed the target".
Renewables are mostly replacing old, inefficient, and dirty generators.
And that's where you're wrong. The largest portion of renewable investment, especially in China isn't replacing any demand, it's addressing increased demand. China (and other parts of the world) very much replace existing demand with like for like energy systems. Which is what that favourite anti-China talking point of "OMG THEY ARE STILL BUILDING SOO MUCH COAL" is v
Re:Incredible (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that you've gone from being a nuclear shill to "global warming is not a global problem" shows your true colours.
Re:Incredible (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't know his posting history but you certainly seem to have missed the point of this post entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
MacMann always posts within minutes of any story even remotely related to energy going live, and always with pro-nuclear copy/paste arguments. That has lead many to suspect that MacMann, along with their numerous alt accounts, is a nuclear industry shill.
I have more bad news for MacMann. Energy companies are looking to build pumped storage in Scotland, with a view to not only offering short term energy storage, but shifting energy between seasons. Pump the water when there is plenty of wind and solar in the
Re: (Score:3)
MacMann ... is a nuclear industry shill.
I am skeptical that the nuclear industry is paying anyone to shill for nuclear energy on Slashdot.
A more plausible explanation is that MacMann is a typical Aspie who laser-focuses on one issue, and nuclear advocacy is his passion. His arguments are repetitive, and he appears to be immune to evidence that challenges his worldview, which is also typical of Aspies.
I am an Aspie myself, so I sympathize.
Energy companies are looking to build pumped storage in Scotland
Pumped storage meshes well with intermittent renewables but also works well with nukes. Nukes are expensive to
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's hard to believe that anyone would pay to shill nuclear power on Slashdot, but if he isn't getting paid then he is very dedicated.
Re: (Score:2)
I too am an aspie and it makes sense. We can come across like massive zealots either unable to show how deep our knowlledge of the matter runs or peocple just roll their eyes in the first two sentences and never read on.
Re: (Score:2)
Environmental damage and global warming are certainly not first world problems, especially since the climate crisis disproportionately hits the poor. [weforum.org] But you are partially correct that fixing the problem is mostly a first world problem, because the poor of this world have little ability to make an impact. The bottom 40% of countries by wealth only contribute 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and it's a good bet that those ratios are similar for other kinds of pollutants.
The damage humans are doing to
Re: (Score:2)
Environmental damage and global warming can be filed under "First World Problems".
Partly true. Partly not.
The brunt of climate change problems will be felt by the developing world. The developed countries can afford to deal with climate change. The developing world can't.
When living in poverty, or in a war zone, there's no time to worry about one's carbon footprint or if they've recycled all their paper, glass, and plastic.
True.
That's why the developed world-- us-- has to develop the technology, shake it out, and take it down the learning curve.
It is only when there's economic growth that people can look beyond food, shelter, and clothing to less immediate issues.
Yep, also true. Another thing we should prioritize is bringing third-world nations out of poverty so they can prioritize the environment.
Among other reasons for this, it's been shown that reduci
Re: (Score:2)
(Ukraine is not a third world country)
I agree, it is a Second World country. Do you not agree? There's a middle ground between First World and Third World, and it has a very obvious name as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
In the sense that this is a global problem for everyone, and that those not in the first world are going to feel the brunt of it, but it is the first world countries who have the means to attempt solving it.
Re: (Score:2)
Can I see your numbers? The way I figure it, total worldwide primary energy usage is about 600 ExaJoules. Of course, if we move to electricity in transportation and industrial processes, the increased efficiency will bring that requirement down to about 400 Exajoules. 400 Exajoules per year works out to an average constant rate of about 12.68 TeraWatts So, if renewables are really up to 3.372 TeraWatts, they have about 9.3 TeraWatts to go. Even if it stays at just adding 300 GW per year, instead of increasi
Re: (Score:2)
Its a world issue and everyone must contribute to reducing fossil use even if the small minded can't see the bigger picture.
Re:Coal Plants (Score:2)
World coal consumption has been level at about 8 gigatons per year since 2013. China is indeed building new coal plants, but they are replacing old ones that are less efficient. The world as a whole is shifting away as renewables are now growing fast enough to replace it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the message is that building EVs that weighs 2tons is a bad idea itself. Is it better than building combustion-based cars? Maybe... It basically mainly depends on the battery size, and the number of kms you use it for. For instance, an EV with a 60kWh is better than a combustion engine car at ~65000 kms (source [ademe.fr]).
At the root of the problem is that when driving alone in a car (most home-work commutes are solo-drivers), 95% of the energy used is used to move the weight of the car.
If you take an electri
Re: (Score:2)
Supposedly the average total longevity of a car is about 200,000 miles now cite [wikipedia.org], so if breakeven is at 65k km that's only 20% of 200k miles.
Reducing construction costs is great but using cars longer is another way to achieve the same result. The average longevity has doubled in the last 40 years, could we double it again? It would require occasional battery replacement and careful re-use and eventual recycling of the old ones.
Re: (Score:3)
That link is a big ask... you have to subscribe, and then speak French?
You don't have to subscribe (can just put a junk email if you prefer), and I heard they invented google translate a few decades ago. Also if you had bothered to just open the study, there is a nice graph (page 4) showing just what I then explained for those that didn't want to go to the length of actually reading the full stuff. I am also quite sure you can find similar studies in your language of choice.
Reducing construction costs is great but using cars longer is another way to achieve the same result.
It's not so much about construction costs, but about environmental impact, and in the context of the stu
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but environmental impact is a type of cost, just like monetary cost, which is amortized over the average longevity of a vehicle.
Whether or how many times it gets sold is immaterial. Nobody takes a still-working car to the junkyard after 100k km (62k miles). (Or if they are, fixing that would be a super-easy way to reduce
Solar Doesn't Work - You Kids Get off My Lawn! : ) (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Middle Eastern countries and Texas are both going big on solar. Texas has the highest amount of renewables of any US state. Currently that is mostly wind, but solar is catching up.
Capacity WHEN? (Score:3)
Re: Capacity WHEN? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why adapt to less energy when we can build more nuclear power plants?
Because nuclear is four times the price of solar and wind, and takes decades to bring to production.
It is far cheaper to build geographically distributed wind and solar, so calm or cloudy weather in one area can be offset with production elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay then, we solved global warming.
Re: Capacity WHEN? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I live near Atlanta, and have a front row seat to the mess that is nuclear. Two reactors approved in 2009 are only now reaching criticality for the first one, and early 2024 for the second unit. And they had the advantage of a site that already had two reactors from the 1980's, so the basic infrastructure was already there.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, you have 10 coal plants.
During peak time all 10 are running at full power.
So at night, 4 or 5 are running at full power, and the other idle in a *keep me warm state* at roughly 30%.
Now, you replace 3 of those coal plants with solar.
Suddenly, during day time at peak only 7 coal plants have to run. Wow, that was a no brainer right?
And at night: wow, the same coal plants running before are running. That was a no brainer, too, right?
How dumb are you anti renewables people? Every jotta of energy you do not p
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You still end up burning a shitload of coal. You can see this in action, compare the carbon intensity over the last 30 days in Germany vs France:
https://app.electricitymaps.co... [electricitymaps.com]
https://app.electricitymaps.co... [electricitymaps.com]
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Oh shit you're right! I don't know how anyone didn't realize this before... solar panels don't work great at night! Someone better tell all these companies who have spent years in planning and millions - possibly billions - building out solar PV that their shit won't work after sundown!
Someone get GotNoRice a Nobel Prize for this discovery! This changes everything!
Or maybe - just maybe - your concerns are not actually concerning to people who know more about the situation than you do. When there are a whole
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"How much "capacity" do those solar panels add at night? Or even on a cloudy day? How much "capacity" do those wind farms add when there is no wind? "
You forgot to ask:
How much capacity have those tide-generators when the Moon is on vacation?
Re: (Score:2)
Or for that matter how much does Hoover Dam produce when Lake Mead is empty, like now. Solar and wind by themselves are not enough. You need a diverse range of energy sources, and a strong enough grid to move the power to where it is needed. Right now, transmission lines are the limiting factor. They take a long time to build, because everybody along the route objects.
Re: (Score:2)
capacity versus actual MWH (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe these numbers are based on capacity. I would love to see a comparison of actual generate MWH for nonrenewables versus their rated capacity as a comparison to the units being shut down. I believe most of the 2 major sources of renewables (wind and solar) almost never actually achieve their rated maximum capacity, and the percent of actual generated to their rate capacity is remarkably low, as they are both mostly only available at least part of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe it is based on "capacity", why do you not simply read the article summary?
The rest of your post: (*facepalm*) Yes, a PV solar plant does not produce *any* energy at night. We all knew that. Thanx for reminding us. Hint: in most parts of the world, people sleep at night. The only power they use is for fridges and street lights - wow - Oh! Lord! Please let it rain brains!
Re:capacity versus actual MWH (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, a PV solar plant does not produce *any* energy at night. We all knew that. Thanx for reminding us. Hint: in most parts of the world, people sleep at night. The only power they use is for fridges and street lights - wow
It is a bit more complicated than that.
First there is the season distribution: 2/3 of the energy produced by solar panels is produced during spring-summer (because longer days and better light conditions, i.e., less clouds). Which leaves only 1/3 for autumn/winter. Here is a source [thesolarnerd.com], you can find plenty others.
Guess what: we need more energy in winter, because this is when people turn their heater on. And as we push more and more for heat pumps, which is a good thing as it can be powered without burning fossil fuels, we need more and more electricity in winter. As we transition to EV, it will also lead to more electricity needed in winter for that: for instance, I am using my bike a lot to commute in spring/summer/even autumn, but I use my EV more in winter because of the weather conditions.
Secondly, there is the time of day distribution: in winter there are usually two power spikes (here is the data for France for instance [rte-france.com], I don't really expect it to be different in most modern countries as it is based on pretty standard human behavior). One between 6-9am, because people wake up, heat their house, turn their TV/other stuff on, etc... And then another one between 6-9pm, when people go home, heat their house again, turn on their appliances, etc... At those hours, solar panel produce next to nothing.
Of course, that problem (the one about time of day distribution) could be slightly fixed by adding storage capacity, but your post didn't mention that.
Thus the answer by a past president from France regarding solar panels, during a series of questions by the National Assembly around the loss of energy generation independance: "the problem with solar panels is that they produce a lot of electricity when you don't need it".
They are part of the solution, not a fix-all answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess what: we need more energy in winter, because this is when people turn their heater on.
Depends where you're located. Many places are hot, so during summer they operate AC to cool down and during winter just operate less AC.
Solaris panels will work better in these countries, since the peak demand coincides with peak sun.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends where you're located. Many places are hot, so during summer they operate AC to cool down and during winter just operate less AC.
Solaris panels will work better in these countries, since the peak demand coincides with peak sun.
True enough, however peak energy demand is in Winter for most, if not all, of northern hemisphere. So generally speaking (at least for 87% of the population by raw estimates), winter is still gonna be a problem.
If you wanted to refute my point though, you could have linked this study [carbonbrief.org] from 2017, saying that peak demand might shift to summer for some European countries. However, the devil is in the details: in that scenario, the peak would happen in summer (because of climate change), but we would still need
Re: (Score:2)
You are mixing up "energy" with "electricity".
Power plants produce electricity. *Energy* demand is higher in winter.
Re: (Score:2)
I can also provide a link. [eia.gov] Here's a quote from that which gives a more general perspective than your link, at least for the US:
Total U.S. hourly electricity load is generally highest in the summer months when demand peaks in the afternoon as households and businesses are using air conditioning on hot days. During the winter months, hourly electricity load is less variable but peaks in both the morning and the evening.
Note, overall for the US, electricity usage peaks in the summer, and that peak is in the afternoon when solar is available. The double daily peak is in the winter, but is lower than the summer peak. So even though solar won't co
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting perspective. I remember that the few times I visited the US, I was kinda baffled by how much people were using AC, even during days I considered as "midly hot". To the point I was sometimes feeling cold, and had to put on some extra clothes. I guess another way to trim the yearly summer peaks would be to cut back on the usage of AC, when it's not really needed. And I guess the debate about what means "not really needed" could be a passionate one too!
but it can contribute to the overall goal of getting off of fossil fuels.
Indeed, as I like to say we don't have the lux
Re: (Score:2)
It is a bit more complicated than that.
No it is not more complicated - unless you want to make it so.
In most parts of the world night power consumption is not even half of day times.
So to make it simple: if you produce 50% of daytime needs with solar power and the other 50% with "conventional" power: you still have that conventional power at night to produce all the power you need.
Every damn energy company switching out coal for solar knows that. Only /. the Yahoos, don't.
Was that simple enough? /. idiots t
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good example of strawman fallacy here. You make an argument I didn't make, and then proceed to make it look silly.
6-9am and 5-9pm peaks is not night time (in the sense that most people are not sleeping then), and during winter, you don't get electricity from solar panels at those hours of day.
No idea why you kept on ranting about other stuff in your post: of course switchout out from coal is a good thing, of course solar panels are useful (to a certain extent, that's my point), and of course, some
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: in most parts of the world, people sleep at night. The only power they use is for fridges and street lights
That is somewhat true now but will change as we transition from fossil fuel furnaces to electric heat pumps.
Re: (Score:2)
That is somewhat true now but will change as we transition from fossil fuel furnaces to electric heat pumps.
Not really, as in most parts of the world you do not need heating at night. Or traditionally - despite the fact that you could need some - have none.
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe it is based on "capacity", why do you not simply read the article summary?
Let's rephrase what the parent posted: the growth is about 295GW of added capacity.
Solar capacity factor [iea.org] is ~10-20%, and wind is ~23-44% for onshore wind farms.
Re: (Score:2)
And what has that to do with each other?
I can easy build a solar plant that has a capacity factor of 50%. I place it at the equator and make it sun tracking and it produces 50% of the time 100% of its capacity energy. Boing: so simple.
So? What is your damn problem? No one is asking about how much power 10 coal plants are actually producing, or nukes or gas.
Because: it makes no sense. Do you know e.g. what the difference between base laod and peak load in e.g. countries like Germany and France are? Nope? Gue
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how prices are set in the electricity market, if this is capacity, given the current price schemes, I'd expect that growth to be actually higher.
Re: (Score:2)
It all depends on the type of renewable energy, where it is located, and what it is for.
Offshore wind is now exceeding 50% capacity factor, rivalling nuclear in Europe.
Some renewable energy is also not supposed to have a high capacity factor. They are currently looking at building new hydro in Scotland, designed to time-shift very large amounts of energy via pumped storage. In other words it's only supposed to work half the time.
Re: (Score:2)
50% capacity nuclear capacity factor is for France because they have low demand in the summer. Most others run at around 70-80%.
Solar is around 15-20% capacity factor and onshore wind 25%. I can't find the European share of offshore vs onshore but in Germany and France the vast majority is onshore, for example ~8 vs 56GW: https://www.cleanenergywire.or... [cleanenergywire.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I thought France was keeping the lights on in Germany all summer, because the Germans foolishly tried to replace coal and nuclear with renewables. Guess not.
The actual reason for the abysmal capacity factor is that French plants are old and need a lot of maintenance. Even excluding them, nuclear capacity factor in Europe is only about 75%. It's just not very reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought France was keeping the lights on in Germany all summer, because the Germans foolishly tried to replace coal and nuclear with renewables. Guess not.
The Germans bailed everyone out by burning lots of coal.
The actual reason for the abysmal capacity factor is that French plants are old and need a lot of maintenance. Even excluding them, nuclear capacity factor in Europe is only about 75%. It's just not very reliable.
That too but you can see the French use massively less energy during the summers, and not just this one. Compare 2021 or something: https://www.rte-france.com/en/... [rte-france.com]
All European plants are very old, but 75% includes refueling, maintenance and and ramping down with demand. Seems reasonably reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
It is true that Germany uses bit more coal and exported a lot to compensate for the failure of the nuclear industry in France, but one has to put this into perspective: In 2022 Germany produces 213 TWh from fossil fuels vs 243 TWh from renewables. So renewables was more. And production from fossil fuels is also was not nearly on the same level as in the past (e.g. 259 TWh in 2018, 275 TWh in 2017, 292 TWh in 2026...).
Re: (Score:2)
Reduction of CO2 emissions linked to fossil fuels burning in Germany can be directly linked to a decline of their heavy industries (shutdown because of high energy prices).
It is true that Germany uses bit more coal and exported a lot to compensate for the failure of the nuclear industry in France
Yes yes, none of it was to compensate for a lack of baseload since they for once couldn't rely on France imports.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany economy grew by 1.9% in 2022. I think the only sector that was shrinking was construction.
Also in the past, Germany always did export more electricity to France than vice versa. I checked all years going back to 2015.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany economy grew by 1.9% in 2022. I think the only sector that was shrinking was construction.
Except we are not talking about GDP here, which can be inflated through a number of way.
We are talking about how high energy prices and material shortages, which hampered industrial production and construction [destatis.de], caused a reduction of CO2 emissions in Germany in 2022 (high prices pushed down emissions from industry and construction [cleanenergywire.org]).
From an economic standpoint, and a long-term vision though, industries facing shortages and being forced to close down is not a good thing. It only means you are decreasing your C
Re: (Score:2)
Your linking fu sucks.
Your link neither shows demand nor production of power, during summer or what ever: it shows todays (when ever anyone is reading this: that days) production. PRODUCTION, not need or consumption.
It e.g. does not even show how much power is imported: in only shows production.
No idea why anti renewable idiots are to stupid to even look up proper sources (of information).
Re: (Score:2)
Your linking fu sucks.
Your link neither shows demand nor production of power, during summer or what ever: it shows todays (when ever anyone is reading this: that days) production. PRODUCTION, not need or consumption.
It e.g. does not even show how much power is imported: in only shows production.
Your interpretation skills suck, holy shit. It's showing production + imports/exports, where else do you think the energy is going?
Re: (Score:2)
No, it does not show imports/exports.
It shows the hourly production of electricity by source, aka nuke, coal, gas etc. For THAT DAY - or TODAY - could not figure what. In other words: if you click it right now again, it either shows you the production of the day when you made the link: or from right now. There is not even anything on it that has anything to do with import/export - (* facepalm *)
Check your link or stay silent :P
Re: (Score:2)
No, it does not show imports/exports.
Yes it does.
https://i.imgur.com/MrOc9fF.pn... [imgur.com]
It's not possible to link to a specific date so it's showing the current date by default. There's a calendar in the top-left of the page.
If you still can't use a basic website, I don't know how we can continue from here :)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought France was keeping the lights on in Germany all summer, because the Germans foolishly tried to replace coal and nuclear with renewables. Guess not.
The actual reason for the abysmal capacity factor is that French plants are old and need a lot of maintenance. Even excluding them, nuclear capacity factor in Europe is only about 75%. It's just not very reliable.
Oh yes, "only" 75%, tiny when compared to renewables 10-25%. Also, you can schedule maintenance, unlike good weather.
Re: (Score:2)
It might only be 25% for one particular renewable source, but we have tens of thousands of them.
So what really matters is that we have coverage all year around, 24 hours a day. That is entirely possible with renewables and storage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many nations have enough geographic diversity to cover themselves. Those that don't are typically reliant on others for their energy security anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, we have solved long distance transmission already, and we don't need these super batteries you talk about. What do you think they are for, like a whole country UPS or something?
Re: (Score:2)
You know, we have solved long distance transmission already, and we don't need these super batteries you talk about. What do you think they are for, like a whole country UPS or something?
Ah of course, those room-temp supercunductors are already here, how silly of me to not know that. And of course we don't need energy storage, after all, while it may be the middle of night for one PV panel, the one right next to it will be receiving full noon sunlight, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
High voltage DC transmission lines are a mature technology.
You know the wind blows at night, right?
Re: (Score:2)
High voltage DC transmission lines are a mature technology.
You know the wind blows at night, right?
Oh yes, fourth law of thermodynamics. Absolutely inviolable. Whenever there's no sun, there's wind. It's physically, no, mathematically impossible for wind to not blow during night or cloudy conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
So what really matters is that we have coverage all year around, 24 hours a day. That is entirely possible with renewables and storage.
In a fairy world, anything is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought France was keeping the lights on in Germany all summer, because the Germans foolishly tried to replace coal and nuclear with renewables. Guess not.
And to think they could have invested in both renewables AND nuclear, so that they would have been able to only emit ~40gCO2eq/kWh like in France, instead of the ~450gCO2eq/kWh like they do now with "all" their renewable capacity.
It is sad to see that Germany is one of the biggest CO2 emitter in Europe, despite its efforts since 20-30 years. So much CO2 emissions could have been avoided if they had gone the science path, instead of the philosophical one.
Re: (Score:2)
They do not have low demand in summer.
They have low water levels in the rivers and have to shut down the plants.
Dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep spreading fake news! Way to go and convince people.
Re: (Score:2)
You could read news, though.
Or simply look up a load curve of France.
Simple.
Re: (Score:2)
You could read news, though.
Or simply look up a load curve of France.
If you want actual numbers, you can find them here [rte-france.com] for instance.
Or you can read actual reports on RTE website.
Or you can make up silly numbers and facts, based on what you wish was true. This is what you like to do after all.
Coal usage increased by over 9% for 2022. (Score:2)
Globally the increase of coal was over 2%. Guess which one is keeping more people alive and feed.
Re: (Score:2)
Temporary increase in coal due to high prices of NG, so relax.
Re: (Score:2)
Temporary increase in coal due to high prices of NG, so relax.
How do we know this increase in renewable energy isn't temporary due to the high price of natural gas?
Sun and wind are free once you've installed the panels and turbines. Unlike coal.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we'll find out, The price of NG has cratered since December.
https://markets.businessinside... [businessinsider.com]
Meanwhile renewables march on;
https://www.weforum.org/agenda... [weforum.org]
"Renewables’ share of the power generation mix worldwide is set to rise from 29% to 35% by 2025, according to the IEA. The share of coal and gas-fired
generation will consequently fall, it says. And so will global power-sector CO2 emissions, which are predicted to plateau through to 2025, despite reaching an all-time high in 2022 of about 13
It's the electricity economy (Score:2)
I don't know about your country, in mine, the price for electricity is set by the most expensive power plant that is used. That means that if you have 4 power plants and need the power of 3, the 3 cheapest ones get to deliver, the fourth does not, but the price that all the 3 get is set by the most expensive one of those three.
Now let's take a look at the price of power generation. And especially what changed last year.
Gas used to be a fairly cheap power provider. That changed dramatically last year as prob
Solar power profit Crop prices (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
There is an upside from covering a field with solar.
Not growing things for a few years would allow the soil to recover from overuse of fertilisers. Then if those solar panels are built at least 5ft off the ground, you could graze sheep underneath. At least, the ground isn't permanently lost as it would be if the likkle boxes that we call houses are built on the land.
Hopefully we will not need more (fission) nuclear (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Malthusians will not cooperate.