Tripling renewables globally by 2030 is doable, says new IEA report

Comments

• Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  u/IEA has been permanently banned from c/Conservative.

  source
• Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  How is it feasible to TRIPLE renewables when we can’t even double up…double up on the bubble butt?

  source
• Mihies@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  But where do we store the energy is the question. Without storage renewables aren’t that useful.

  source

  • houseofleft@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I work in the UK energy sector, and that’s definitely not true! About 1/3 of our energy comes from wind which is somewhat but mostly not stored.

    Fossil fuels end up doing the work of balancing the grid during times when wind and solar are low. That’s not ideal, but a world where fossil fuels are used to balance renewable provision is much better than a world where they’re the primary energy source.

    We’re running out of time to prevent the worst effects of global warming, and any increase in renewables provides some mitigation to the impact. Very few, if any, countries are at the point where current battery tech should stop them increasing their renewables.

    source

    • Mihies@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Fossil fuels end up doing the work of balancing the grid during times when wind and solar are low. That’s not ideal, but a world where fossil fuels are used to balance renewable provision is much better than a world where they’re the primary energy source.

      That’s true, but only as long as your primary source/balancing source are fossil fuels. I can imagine a lot of them being burned during short and cloudy winter days + all nights in this scenario. If we want to avoid CO2 emissions, nuclear pps seems like the best choice today. But then we don’t need nearly as much renewables. Tricky situation, even worse for countries without much wind.

      I work in the UK energy sector, and that’s definitely not true! About 1/3 of our energy comes from wind which is somewhat but mostly not stored.

      Yep, because you are still relaying on fossil fuels and can adjust their output quite dynamically. But the more renewables power you have, the more fossil fuels you’ll burn when renewables aren’t producing.

      Makes sense?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    But where do we store the energy is the question. Without storage renewables aren’t that useful.

    That’s probably propaganda from the oil company. They try to slow down the adoption of renewables by making it look harder than it is.

    Fact is: You can start deploying renewables immediately. Every kWh that comes from solar does not come from coal, oil or gas. That is a win. Install renewables first, think about storing the excess power later. That is the best way to go!

    source

    • Mihies@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Germany enters the chat…

      source
  • Hugohase@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Pumped hydro, hydrogen, batteries. The solutions are readily deployable and economcally viable.

    source

    • Mihies@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Are they, though? Can you list some bigger storage facilities based on either H or batteries? Like ones that would power a city for few days, for example.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • dgmib@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    In most jurisdictions, tripling renewables doesn’t get us to a place where we’re generating more electricity than we can instantaneously use. The few places where it is possible can usually export excess electricity to neighbouring jurisdictions that still rely heavily on fossil fuels.

    We still have a depressingly long way to go before we’re at the point of renewables generating “excess” energy that needs to be stored.

    source
  • mormund@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I think solar will just drop in price so significantly that energy storage will be possible by pure scale. If you get paid to use electricity (which already happens during the day in summer), it doesn’t matter if your efficiency is terrible. It’s not elegant but it’ll get us close to net zero. Unless we blow all of our energy on stupid shit like generative “AI”

    source

    • Mihies@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Yes, but where you will be storing the excess energy?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Taniwha420@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Hydroelectric dams. Pump water uphill when the energy isn’t needed for something else. Hydroelectric is a good variable energy source too. Probably not very efficient, but simple.

    source

    • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I think pumped hydro is reasonably efficient, but requires specific terrain in order to be practical to build. Batteries are getting cheaper, and since grid storage doesn’t have the stringent weight and volume requirements that vehicles do, a wider range of chemistries (not just lithium) can be used.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Storage tech is indeed the laggard.

    The most readily available form of stored energy is still natural gas.

    We really need to change our energy pricing and taxation to reward green ways to store energy better.

    source