- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
22% Of The World's Power Now Comes From Renewable Sources
Posted on 8/29/14 at 11:12 am
Posted on 8/29/14 at 11:12 am
quote:
Last year saw the biggest worldwide boom in renewable energy yet. Across the globe, wind turbines and solar panels were rolled out and set up at a more rapid clip than ever before. "In 2013, renewable power capacity expanded at its fastest pace to date," the Paris-based International Energy Agency wrote in its latest market report. Wind, solar, and other clean energy sources "continued to grow strongly, reaching almost 22 percent of the global mix," according to the IEA, "compared with 21 percent in 2012 and 18 percent in 2007." All told, $250 billion was invested in clean energy, and the amount of power the sector generated thereafter came to equal natural gas—the other supposedly ascendent energy source. Despite its image as a booming fossil fuel, the IEA notes that natural gas "remained relatively stable in 2013."
quote:
Meanwhile, 14 percent of the US is now running on renewable energy, according to a separate report from the Energy Information Administration. That's thanks to a doubling of solar power in a single year.
LINK
4
Posted on 8/29/14 at 11:32 am to Burt Reynolds
Three things:
1) Doesn't include the whole world... like China or the middle east
2) It's only up 1 person from 2012... big deal
3) 22% of what? Max MWH production? Usage?
1) Doesn't include the whole world... like China or the middle east
2) It's only up 1 person from 2012... big deal
3) 22% of what? Max MWH production? Usage?
Posted on 8/29/14 at 11:53 am to Burt Reynolds
I'm just pointing out that the percentages don't include the whole world!
Posted on 8/29/14 at 12:03 pm to Burt Reynolds
Solar is likely 1% or less. Wind and Hydroelectric probably make up 20%.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 1:25 pm to Burt Reynolds
quote:
China is one of the leaders in solar thin film technology right now. They will be a leader in solar energy in a few years LINK
Doesn't mean their people are using it, it just means they lead in the technology (to sell elsewhere)
Posted on 8/29/14 at 1:28 pm to Burt Reynolds
Posted on 8/29/14 at 2:58 pm to C
quote:
LINK
Better breakdown. Non-hydropower renewable is only about 6%. I'm betting wind makes up most of that.
Thank you. I was wondering why all the source links from the OP weren't readily accessible.
Hydropower, which for some reason falls under "other clean energy sources" in the article, dominates the clean category, and is still growing.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 3:27 pm to 90proofprofessional
In the USA, another big issue is we are actually using less power than we were about 10 years ago. We went from stressing the power availability of our grid/setting records to trying to figure out how to keep base load online.
As we shutter coal plants and put more regs on having to buy a certain amount of clean power, of course their percentage will rise.
We need to see the rise of modular nuke reactors. That shows a lot more promise than solar/wind.
As we shutter coal plants and put more regs on having to buy a certain amount of clean power, of course their percentage will rise.
We need to see the rise of modular nuke reactors. That shows a lot more promise than solar/wind.
This post was edited on 8/29/14 at 3:30 pm
Posted on 8/29/14 at 9:10 pm to Burt Reynolds
quote:seems unlikely
14 percent of the US is now running on renewable energy,
Posted on 8/29/14 at 9:22 pm to Dam Guide
Too many regs on nukes for them to be viable for companies to build new.
Problems with solar:
- only good during the day: not greatly beneficial for home use
- no single solution: panels? Mirrors (ivanpah)? Parabolic trough?
- transmission buildout: how do we get the energy from these remote places when it's constantly having to be curtailed because there isn't enough transmission available?
Problems with wind:
- less predictable markets: the sun will shine in the desert, but weather patterns in the Midwest have greatly changed and the early wind farms built are now almost useless. Many companies who got in early with those farms have gone bankrupt or been bought out
- transmission buildout: see solar
That being said, I think solar will grow quickly. Businesses can see an immediate return on investment because they're actually using most of the load during the day. The home user will only see real benefit if they have a system with batteries that can store the suns energy during the day to be used in the afternoon when the sun goes down and people get home from work and turn on tvs, lights, and start cooking.
Power producers have two choices now in the US:
1) natural gas. Cheapest to produce due to the drop in prices and the lower man power needed to keep a plant running. A coal plant may need 200 employees when a gas plant may only need 50 for the same amount of MWH.
2) get in the home. NRG is moving toward being able to offer the home solar solution where people generate their own power and supply the grid as well.
Problems with solar:
- only good during the day: not greatly beneficial for home use
- no single solution: panels? Mirrors (ivanpah)? Parabolic trough?
- transmission buildout: how do we get the energy from these remote places when it's constantly having to be curtailed because there isn't enough transmission available?
Problems with wind:
- less predictable markets: the sun will shine in the desert, but weather patterns in the Midwest have greatly changed and the early wind farms built are now almost useless. Many companies who got in early with those farms have gone bankrupt or been bought out
- transmission buildout: see solar
That being said, I think solar will grow quickly. Businesses can see an immediate return on investment because they're actually using most of the load during the day. The home user will only see real benefit if they have a system with batteries that can store the suns energy during the day to be used in the afternoon when the sun goes down and people get home from work and turn on tvs, lights, and start cooking.
Power producers have two choices now in the US:
1) natural gas. Cheapest to produce due to the drop in prices and the lower man power needed to keep a plant running. A coal plant may need 200 employees when a gas plant may only need 50 for the same amount of MWH.
2) get in the home. NRG is moving toward being able to offer the home solar solution where people generate their own power and supply the grid as well.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 9:23 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:Why? We have lots of hydros thanks to the TVA and other programs that built dams during the Great Depression. And solar plants are popping up while coal is being shut down
seems unlikely
Posted on 8/30/14 at 12:11 am to Carson123987
quote:
This is the typical reaction I see on the poli board whenever anything related to green/renewable energy is posted and it always confounds me. Any particular reason conservatives (which I presume most people on this site are) are against such efforts? Why wouldn't you want to leave this planet a better place for your children and grandchildren to live in?
Posted on 8/30/14 at 12:55 am to hikingfan
quote:
This is the typical reaction I see on the poli board whenever anything related to green/renewable energy is posted and it always confounds me. Any particular reason conservatives (which I presume most people on this site are) are against such efforts? Why wouldn't you want to leave this planet a better place for your children and grandchildren to live in?
That would be incorrect. Many "conservatives" are indeed conservationists. Many are involved with habitat, energy, and conservation efforts. Ak. is one of the most conservative states, yet is more "progressive" than most when it comes to renewable and sustainability issues. Example, the Sitka Blue Lake Hydro project. Many of our towns use hydro, which is also "fish friendly."
LINK
Posted on 8/30/14 at 1:23 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Eh, no, it seems pretty clear that the general conservative position is to hate.. HATE.. that tax money is spent subsidizing clean tech.
That would be incorrect.
Posted on 8/30/14 at 3:30 am to Burt Reynolds
China doesn't have an EPA forcing regulations on them. They can produce energy at a fraction of what it costs us.
They consume and DNGAF. Saying they will opt for more expensive sources of energy is a joke.
They consume and DNGAF. Saying they will opt for more expensive sources of energy is a joke.
Posted on 8/30/14 at 3:37 am to Korkstand
Because it's not cost effective. The only way to make it worthwhile is to subsidize the majority of it. We have great sources of energy but they have bad publicity, so they are being stonewalled while we build expensive and inefficient clean/green facilities.
Other countries are flourishing because we are handing them successful fuels. Every emission we reduce will be produced by someone else.
Other countries are flourishing because we are handing them successful fuels. Every emission we reduce will be produced by someone else.
Posted on 8/30/14 at 10:48 am to C
quote:
Non-hydropower renewable is only about 6%.
And greenies don't really like hydro, either.
Posted on 8/30/14 at 10:52 am to Ace Midnight
Hydros kill fish. Solar/Wind kill birds. Natural gas = fracking. Coal = OMG!!
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News