Since 2001 fossil fuels have supplied 75% of the world's new electricity

[GliderGuider]

Last edited Sun Jan 5, 2014, 03:12 PM - Edit history (2)

According to BP's data, the world's electricity generation has increased by 6866 terawatt-hours per year since 2001:

• Solar PV supplied 92 twh/yr (1% of the growth - edited in response to muriel_volestrangler's comment below.);
  
• Geothermal and biomass contributed 236 (3%);
  
• Wind contributed 483 twh/yr (7%);
  
• Nuclear power dropped by 179 twh/yr (-3%);
  
• Hydro increased by 1081 twh/yr twh/yr (16%); and
  
• Fossil fuel generation increased by a whopping 5153 twh/yr to supply 75% of new generation.
  
  
  
  Fossil fuels have generated 75% of the new electricity since 2001, and 73% of the new electricity since 2006.
  Non-hydro renewables have generated 12% of the new electricity since 2001, and 18% since 2006.
  
  
  

[intaglio]

1. One word - China

[GliderGuider]

2. True. But the atmosphere doesn't care where it came from.

And we all use the stuff that China makes with its coal electricity.

On edit: China has generated half of all the new fossil fuel and hydro electricity production since 2001, but only 5% of the new solar PV and 20% of the new wind power.

[Systematic Chaos]

3. But...dude...they're going to pave Mordor with solar panels and wind turbines!

In 58,002 years, they will be generating a whopping 37% of their power with renewables! The other 63% will be from the fires and explosions generated from it being 146 degrees in Shanghai in August.

[kristopher]

4. If my 14 y/o daughter keeps growing at the rate she has been for the past 13 years

She'll be 14 ft tall and weight 520 pounds by the time she's 25.

The fallacy of this attempt to undermine renewables has been demonstrated before many times.

Since you post this obviously in response to the predictions of high renewable growth that are emerging, it's looks like your efforts still target renewable energy.

You were working to promote the nuclear industry when you began doing this, but you say now that you've seen the error of your ways and that nuclear is no good either.

A person could be forgiven for doubting your sincerity.


Although it may not seem like it, we are making very good progress with renewable technologies. This stage is largely building a manufacturing base large enough to bring renewable energy costs down to where they are competitive with fossil fuels. We are there with several important technologies in a number of markets; onshore wind is one of the least expensive types of new generation, and solar PV is competitive in a rapidly expanding range of markets. With that reduction in price comes a corresponding growth in demand which drives growth in manufacturing which results in lowered costs that sets off another cycle of growth in demand - rinse and repeat.

What happens then?

[NickB79]

5. Your reply cuts both ways

If my 14 y/o daughter keeps growing at the rate she has been for the past 13 years, she'll be 14 ft tall and weight 520 pounds by the time she's 25.

That same argument can be used to argue that the current high rate of renewables deployment is unsustainable in the long run as the low-hanging fruits of renewable growth are harvested, and we shouldn't extrapolate global renewables deployment 30-40 years in the future based on their current rates of growth.

Of course, since you DO often post such extrapolations, I expect this observation won't sit well with you.

[kristopher]

6. That's a legitimate thought to explore

That same argument can be used to argue that the current high rate of renewables deployment is unsustainable in the long run as the low-hanging fruits of renewable growth are harvested, and we shouldn't extrapolate global renewables deployment 30-40 years in the future based on their current rates of growth.
Of course, since you DO often post such extrapolations, I expect this observation won't sit well with you.

That is the point of the OP isn't it? The question to apply would be are there any mitigating factors affecting the trajectory of the trend lines we're concerned about?

For fossil fuels, yes, there are. We've seen a steady decrease in the costs of competitive technologies to the point where they are now, in a rapidly and ever increasing number of markets, more affordable than the fossil alternative. That's what the shorter term graphs charting the relationship between declining costs and increasing deployment for the various key renewable technologies demonstrate. If they were not competitive, they wouldn't be showing that pattern. I'm not sure what "the low-hanging fruits of renewable growth" means. As the graphs clearly show, the economic windows of opportunity for these technologies is just beginning to open. If there is such a thing as "low hanging fruit" in this context it is just beginning to reveal itself and can only be expected to multiply as the conditions increasingly favor renewable use.


Is the economic trend displayed by my graphs expected to continue or reverse itself over the next 10 years?
Continue.

Is the non-economic pressure due to climate change to end fossil fuel use expected to decrease or increase in the next 10 years?
Increase.

Is the political influence of fossil fuel based economic entities expected to increase or decrease over the next ten years?
Decrease.


You can make a graph that doesn't incorporate all of those highly significant points of analysis and pretend it tells the truth; or you can look at the range of forces at play and develop a more fully informed opinion. In the physical/social/economic systems of relevance all the indicators say that fossil fuels are on their way out; it isn't even a close call.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Solar PV supplied 92 twh/yr = 1.3% of the growth, surely, not 12% (nt)

[GliderGuider]

8. Yes, I dropped a decimal point. nt