Green Energy

2223 readers

93 users here now

Everything about energy production and storage.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

poVoq@slrpnk.net

SteveKLord@slrpnk.net

110

Tripling renewables globally by 2030 is doable, says new IEA report (electrek.co)

submitted 1 month ago by threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works to c/energy@slrpnk.net

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Germany definitely has a tonne of renewables, but then is still like 25% coal which is why it has high energy emmisions. It has much cleaner energy than it did before adopting renewables though, so still seems like a reason to think renewables are a positive?

It's 100% untrue that Germany's recent pursuing of renewables is the reason it pollutes so much per KW.

Then France has a similar amount of renewables to the UK but with a much cleaner mix after that (basically more nuclear and less gas).

I'm wondering if I've misunderstood your initial point because I'm not seeing any reason to suggest increasing renewables doesn't reduce emissions? Only that there's more to CO2 per KW than just categorising stuff as "renewable" vs "non-renewable", which I don't think anyone is doubting?

Sorry to go so hard on this, but this stuff really matters. We don't have a lot of time left to reduce the most extreme impacts of global warming, and nobody benefits from muddying the waters on the clear benefits of renewables.

[–] Mihies@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I guess we are stating the same, just from different perspectives. About Germany, you are correct that it isn't just their push towards renewables, it was a combination of ditching nuclear power and going full renewables. The real world outcome was huge pollution. That was indeed reduced by renewables (each year more) but still, it was enormous and it's still pretty huge and will be for a foreseeable future unless they come with enough surplus of renewables and huge energy storage. I don't see the later coming soon, though. The France does it right, they rely on nuclear.

You say (correct me if I'm wrong) that renewables (even without storage) are reducing emissions because they reduce fossil fuels usage, and you are definitely right. I'm saying that that's not enough, we have to ditch fossil fuels entirely and if/when that occurs, renewables without storage are not that useful since we will have to rely on stable non-co2-emission power source - which is only nuclear today.

Sorry to go so hard on this

Hey, it's a healthy debate.

Edit: formatting