A record 30% of global electricity was generated from renewables in 2023, according to a report released by Ember, a think tank based in London.
Scientists say emissions from burning fuels like coal must ramp steeply down to protect Earth’s climate, yet there was an increase in electricity made from burning fossil fuels. China, India, Vietnam and Mexico were responsible for nearly all of the rise.
The report said some countries burned coal to make up for the loss of hydroelectric power they experienced when drought caused their reservoirs to dry up. This is an example of a vicious cycle — when climate change prompts the use of more of the substances that cause climate change in the first place.
You're viewing a single thread.
6 comments
Good news we are increasing the percent from renewables. The pace leaves something to be desired though:
23 years to increase 12% (2000 to 2023, 18% to 30%)
12 years to increase 10% (2011 to 2023, 20% to 30%)
6 years to increase 5% (2017 to 2023, 25% to 30%)
Based on the charts and write up, it seems like China is the main driver of us even making significant progress.
I'd like to be optimistic but 6 years to go 5% will have us totally renewable in 84 years (2023+[6x14]=2107).
This is irrelevant due to Jevons paradox. That's why we're still burning peak fossil fuels, have released 25% of all GHG's this century, and will release another 25% before 2030 2040. All renewables to date have only been additional energy sources; they will not reduce fossil fuel consumption until we've already solidified 3-4c (especially given how energy intensive robotics and AI will prove to be).
The ONLY way humanity stops burning fossil fuels is if the people rise up en mass and FORCE their governments and corporations to keep the fossils in the ground, and everyone accepts that we have to pay more for a lower standard of living. That is about as likely as capitalism collectively choosing to stop wasteful consumption... So just enjoy the ride until the collapse. The entirety of human civilization will only ever commit to shuffling deck chairs on the titantic. The only circumstances powerful enough to change that are a meteor, supervolcano, highly fatal epidemic, nuclear war, etc. Luckily fossil fuelled warming will cull the herd for us within the next 50-100 years.
That's an interesting concept but the base assuptions are fundamentally wrong, because this is not how the electricity market or the grid work.
There is no classical supply and demand here. There has to always be the amount produced as is used up. More supply than demand and the grid breaks down, more demand than supply and the same happens.
When you add cheaper renewable electricity to an existing system, there is no effect of higher supply reducing the price thus creating more demand like in a classical market. The opposite is true. The base price is usually linked to the most expensive producer via some merit order system (because there must always be enough capacity to fullfill the demand in real time), so the price stays the same. And on top of the produced electricity we now also need to pay some producers to stop production. That cost is also added via some grid fee. So burning fossil fuels is indeed the worst thing to make money here. Instead you can get a lot of money with producing renewable energy on one hand (as you get a high prize for cheap production), or by not producing fossil fuel energy (basically getting paid for not shutting down you power plant in case it's needed while not actually burning fuels most of the time).
Which in the end means you are indeed replacing fossil fuels with renewables. Prices will only drop once you build so much renewables and short term storage to completely eliminate the need for fossil fuel power plants to be kept for the rare moment you need them. So there is no effect of lower prices artificially creating higher demand.
Ehhh it's a mixed blessing with China. The country's power consumption increased by an average of about 1,100 TWh per year during 2012-2022, which is outpacing the newly-added solar and wind generation in the article by a factor of four. It's great that they're adding so much clean power, quite the opposite that they're adding even more less clean power
Edit: I should add that these numbers don't specify hydro or nuclear capacity added. Not all of the gap is fossil fuels
So you've got basically all the figures to plot exponential growth but you assume linearity?
