from the The-answer-is-blowin'-in-the-wind dept.
The International Energy Agency [IEA] says that the world's capacity to generate electricity from renewable sources has now overtaken coal.
The IEA says in a new report that last year, renewables accounted for more than half of the increase in power capacity.
The report says half a million solar panels were installed every day last year around the world. In China, it says, there were two wind turbines set up every hour.
Renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and hydro are seen as a key element in international efforts to combat climate change. At this stage, it is the capacity to generate power that has overtaken coal, rather than the amount of electricity actually produced. Renewables are intermittent - they depend on the sun shining or the wind blowing, for example, unlike coal which can generate electricity 24 hours a day all year round. So renewable technologies inevitably generate a lot less than their capacity.
Even so it is striking development.
The IEA's Executive Director Fatih Birol said "We are witnessing a transformation of global power markets led by renewables".
Link to original BBC story: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37767250
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday October 27 2016, @01:48AM
The International Energy Agency [IEA] says that the world's capacity to generate electricity from renewable sources has now overtaken coal.
Too bad more than half of it is offline at any given time. Something about being on a round planet.
Can we start working on deployable storage now?
We've got a long way to go before any solar storage can compete with your typical pile of coal for storage capacity.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Touché) by JNCF on Thursday October 27 2016, @02:25AM
Too bad more than half of it is offline at any given time. Something about being on a round planet.
Too bad there isn't any wind at night.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @02:38AM
There is, but it blows backwards at night so all the wind turbines spin backwards and end up sucking energy out of the grid.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Whoever on Thursday October 27 2016, @02:38AM
Too bad electricity demand is higher when the sun is shining in most countries.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @03:48AM
Too bad the rivers turn off at night.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @03:51AM
Too bad the earth's core cools off at night.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @03:56AM
Too bad microbes stop metabolizing at night. Curse you, round planet!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @05:08AM
Too bad that . . . Wait a minute! This is a fucked meme! You know, a meme that is fucked! Because it is not true to begin with. So let us go, holding our memes tight, into the new morning that is a world without coal. Except for Blacksmiths. Yeah, you can use charcoal, but it burns too quickly! So you really need coke, not the drink, but coal that all the volatile gases have been burned out of. But, you know, blacksmiths amount to less than .ooo34% of all global warming gases in aggregate, so I say, give them a break. Now the damn whitesmiths, they need some regulating! Especially the Trump supporters! Fuch the Trump Supporters! I mean, who would want to be that close to that man's testicles?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @08:21AM
Communes are cheap, but they need to be connected to transport. They can provide charcoal, which works the same as coal for coal fired power stations. Put the power stations along the upper and right edges of the map, and the pollution will blow away off the map. Solar power stations don't make pollution but they cost a lot more and make much less electricity. High tech windmills not only provide electricity, but also make farms more efficient and residences more desirable.
(Score: 2, Troll) by tisI on Thursday October 27 2016, @05:21AM
Solar isn't the only "Renewable" method to generate electricity.
Wind, geothermal, ocean wave, hydroelectric to name a few.
Intelligently deployed, any nation can easily generate all the electric power they need without burning coal or anything else for that matter.
Many civilized nations about the planet are heading in this direction.
The problem here in the US is the majority of yocals still think the earth is flat and won't be bothered with such nonsense as climate change. Just give 'em their guns, they'll be fine.
To make matters worse, our leadership is in the pocket of any and every major corporate interest. All corrupted as hell top to bottom.
In Florida, solar panels and wind turbines are discouraged. Criminal offenses and such may (and have) ensue.
In Oregon (one of the rainiest places on earth), collecting rain water is strictly verboten. That water belongs to the public utility. You have to pay for that.
Can't have anyone get a free ride now can we?
Nah, the mentality here in the US is completely head-up-ass.
We're lead by corrupt incompetent imbeciles too busy sucking corporate dick to do any good.
The rest are busy running in circles blaming everyone and everything for every problem imaginable.
We're pathetic, go on without us into the 21st century.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
(Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Thursday October 27 2016, @07:30AM
Yeah, great, lets turn it into a political problem. Lots of free wind there.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Thursday October 27 2016, @08:42AM
Discussing this with an expert recently, I got the information that with current technology there would have to be a four-fold net capacity of renewables (with the current mix) installed to match current fossil solutions. So first, there is no problem with day/night wind/no-wind situation. Second, the effective capacity of renewables would be 1/4 of coal. Third, improving storage would help (but currently less effective than installing more renewables).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 27 2016, @01:40PM
Germany is getting about 1/3 of its electricity from renewables now. They're at a much higher latitude than the US, and their insolation is much worse. They have seasons, including winter, they have mountains, and I think we can agree that they're a modern, industrialized country with industries that need a lot of electricity and a people who do not live in mud huts and read by the light of a tallow lamp. They're doing all that, and their economy is still in good shape.
So if the Germans can do it, why can't the United States? What further objection can be whisked out that the Germans have not already disproven?
The Germans are doing themselves geopolitical favors that will pay deep dividends through the coming tumult. The strategic vulnerability of fossil fuels, which has already bitten them several times, won't remain at all much longer for them. They'll have a predictable, much more stable energy supply that they can factor into their planning for business and government. All the money they have previously paid to prop up foreign bottom lines will become coin in their own purse. If the US did the same, the $365 billion we spend every year for just foreign oil would be an economic stimulus for the American economy. Every year. That would be really good.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday October 27 2016, @06:27PM
Yep, we could free Billions to spend on more weapons to still protect those countries we currently get oil from. Because Congress logic.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday October 27 2016, @05:12AM
Looking at the numbers on Wikipedia, which they admit they fudged with an artificial 'carbon penalty' on the carbon based sources doesn't look good. Even looking ahead a bit and taking the projections for 2020 it doesn't look good for ratepayers if more green energy comes online near you. Old school Coal costs between $87 and $119 per megawatt/hr and the most modern gas fired stuff $69 - $82 per MWH. Wind at $66-$82 is competitive but almost certain to be a fictional number before the the subsidies are even dealt with, otherwise they would be building more, a LOT more. Geothermal is great but not likely to grow because it is being stamped out as being as bad as fracking. Forget offshore wind and thermal solar though, those range from $170 to $383 per MWH and again, are probably much more expensive than even those depressing numbers in reality. Doubt the PV solar number ($98-$193) includes storage (looking down the page gives numbers for batteries in the hundreds of dollars per MWH so this is a reasonable assumption) so is a joke, costing the grid more than it is worth if there is more than a couple of percent being put onto it. Assuming typical hippie home PV solar, not grid scale PV solar, which is almost never done since thermal solar is more efficient at scale, again that $240 per MWH average for thermal solar is the clue to how cooked the PV solar number is.
We should be building hundreds of nuke plants ($91-$101 and no carbon emissions) if we really cared. We don't which is why we aren't. AGW is just a power grab, any 'solution' that doesn't give power to the right people gets ignored.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Sarasani on Thursday October 27 2016, @06:37AM
When we're going to mention subsidies, we should also make a mention of the subsidies going towards all forms of "traditional" energy generation.
For instance, the state of Queensland (Australia) intended to subsidise the creation of one of the world's largest coal mines (Carmichael coal mine) by offering to pay for the rail line that was needed to transport the coal. Due to a change of government, this offer is no longer on the table. And who pays for cleaning up all of the abandoned mines that continue to be a risk to the environment? Or should we just completely ignore that aspect of the equation? Externalities and all that.
When people are talking about renewables, they are easily forgetting that those "traditional" energy industries have been (and continue to be) subsidised to the max to get them off the ground initially (and to keep them running afterwards). And the subsidies can come in many forms too. Want oil? Just invade a country or two. That can even be considered an indirect subsidy (after all, there would be no need to invade a country because it has wind, waves or sunshine).
However, smart and progressive governments will provide subsidies to encourage future growth (and sustainable) industries. For me, that's a no-brainer.
(Score: 2) by fubari on Thursday October 27 2016, @05:34PM
I don't care so much about the cost difference.
Lots of reasons to stop burning coal & oil; we should just use them for plastics - setting them on fire is short sighted.
Clean air is beautiful (literally and health-wise), so I'll pay more for that.
And if even just half the Global Warming consequences come true, it would be worth paying more to avoid that.
Fracking is a slow motion disaster going off the rails (Damn, sorry about those aquifers - good luck with that).
The gist of it is [wikipedia.org] that fracking is "pretty safe" so long as nothing goes wrong. I trust the oil industry to never screw up [fortune.com] about as far as I can throw a super tanker [eljefe.net]. But of course the kids doing the fracking are perfect and would never cut corners or make mistakes. Right?
We totally don't need the oil.
We can do other things, and if that costs more... so what? It is long-term worth it. (though I've never been overly impressed with our specie's ability to think long term).
(Score: 3, Funny) by xpda on Thursday October 27 2016, @05:43AM
The sun is emits heat, light, and various and sundry other stuff, and it is NOT renewable. While we will get quite a lot of solar energy when the sun becomes a red giant and expands to a size larger than earth's orbit (5 billion years from last Tuesday), it will eventually burn out and become a white dwarf, rendering roof-top solar panels completely worthless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @01:03PM
The Sun will keep shining as a white dwarf, then as a red dwarf. When it becomes a black dwarf, a quadrillion years from now, we'll need to run off stored energy. Fortunately, a common AA battery can last a billion years.
(Score: 2) by Sarasani on Thursday October 27 2016, @01:39PM
I should hope that by that time, we'll have figured out a way to simply plug our phones into a black hole.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @02:57PM
Plugging our phones into a black hole is easy - getting them back out intact is somewhat trickier.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 27 2016, @05:49PM
Yes, this is also why global warming doesn't matter. The sentient cockroaches that arise out of the smoldering remains of human civilization will all get supernova-ed in the end, anyway, so why bother.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday October 27 2016, @07:32PM
I'm assuming that you were going for the funny mod (which at this point in time you hold), but since the other posters have ignored this point...
Not turning sun light into electricity doesn't slow down the death of the sun.
This doesn't imply that I think solar is always the best choice (though in many cases it is), but that the rate at which the sun burns is unrelated to the use of solar energy. Of course, if you were serious I'd need to point out that by the laws of thermodynamics there is no renewable energy resource...not over time and in the long run. And were you have been actually meaning that in a serious vein I'd think you were being incredibly nitpicky. Which is what makes the joke work (though without a tone of voice it's a *bit* ambiguous.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.