Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Renewable Power Surges as Pandemic Scrambles Global Energy Outlook, New Report Finds

posted by janrinok on Thursday April 30 2020, @10:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the power-surges-are-not-good-though dept.

Phoenix666 writes:

Renewable power surges as pandemic scrambles global energy outlook, new report finds:

The pandemic-induced global economic meltdown has triggered a drop in energy demand and related carbon emissions that could transform how the world gets its energy -- even after the disease wanes, according to a report released today by the International Energy Agency (IEA)[*].

The precipitous drop in energy use is unparalleled back to the Great Depression of the 1930s. But not all energy sources are suffering equally. Efforts to shift toward renewable energy could be hastened, as fossil fuels, particularly coal and oil, have borne the brunt of the decline. Use of renewable energy, meanwhile has risen, thanks to new projects coming online, and the low cost of turning wind turbines or harvesting sunlight.

[*] Link to the IEA report.

Prices for fossil fuel have plunged, while the costs of maintaining those supply chains (eg. storage) remain constant.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Renewable Power Surges as Pandemic Scrambles Global Energy Outlook, New Report Finds | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 27 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2020, @11:40PM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2020, @11:40PM (#988763)

    Michael Moore makes the case that green energy is largely a sham in that its long term environmental cost is no better than fossil fuels
    Full rebuttal here https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/michael-moores-green-energy-takedown-worse-than-netflixs-goop-series/ [arstechnica.com]

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   3  

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2020, @11:49PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2020, @11:49PM (#988765)

    That's not a rebuttal, it's an opinion piece.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 01 2020, @12:43AM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 01 2020, @12:43AM (#988782) Journal
      Notice what was said about the link.

      Full rebuttal here

      It's the ritual that matters. The rebuttal is issued, the contrary information can be safely ignored. One wonders what it would take for a "full rebuttal" to not occur.

      • (Score: 2) by Aegis on Friday May 01 2020, @02:42PM (1 child)

        by Aegis (6714) on Friday May 01 2020, @02:42PM (#988982)

        I think it would require an obvious rebuttal.

        • (Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Friday May 01 2020, @03:15PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 01 2020, @03:15PM (#989002) Journal

          I think it would require an obvious rebuttal.

          Full rebuttal here [soylentnews.org].

          Note that I fully quoted the AC's description of the "full rebuttal". They didn't bother to say anything about what was on the other side of that link aside from it being a "full rebuttal". No follow through whatsoever. Such sloppiness is characteristic of the rebuttal ritual. They don't really care what the rebuttal says or how right it is. That it exists is good enough.

          And when you click through and find that it wasn't actually a full rebuttal, then what? Not their problem. A couple of minutes of googling and dumping a link without explanation should be enough for anybody! Obvious rebuttal completed!

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Aegis on Friday May 01 2020, @02:23PM (2 children)

      by Aegis (6714) on Friday May 01 2020, @02:23PM (#988966)

      The movie in question is also an opinion piece.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 01 2020, @03:16PM (1 child)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 01 2020, @03:16PM (#989003) Journal
        But what's fully rebutting about having a different opinion? Or did I just rebut everyone in this thread??!

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 01 2020, @07:51PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 01 2020, @07:51PM (#989152) Journal
      Ok, I decided to read the "full rebuttal". Well, despite coming from Ars Technica, it's more than just opinion. For example,

      The rest comes from Ozzie Zehner—an author of a book critical of renewable energy titled Green Illusions—who is also listed as producer of the film. Zehner is mostly used to explain how raw materials used in green tech are produced, making claims like “You use more fossil fuels to do this than you’re getting benefit from it.”

      That’s false. Really, really false. As you’d expect, solar and wind installations produce many times more energy over their lifetimes than was used to produce them, breaking even in a few months to a few years. And that means the lifetime emissions associated with these forms of generations are far, far less than for a gas or coal plant.

      Sorry, but that is true. Even if one has to burn coal to produce this power generation, once it is constructed, it generates much more power over its life than was used in its production. And doesn't produce any more greenhouse gases. So a net decrease in emissions over the lifetime of the installation as claimed. And anyone making that claim this late, is really out of touch. Now, maybe there are parts of the movie that are recoverable, but this huge whopper isn't one of those parts.