[MonteQuest]

We are so far from hitting limits to efficiency gains it's not even funny.

It depends upon where you are looking. Efficiency gains of solar PV panels and wind turbines are nearly at max as I posted earlier. I'm pretty convinced that the EROEI of renewables is too low to support the complex industrial society necessary to produce and maintain them--without the continued support of fossil fuels. And when you add in the required storage, the EROEI plummets. Obviously, there are transmission gains to be had via HVDC, but that will require trillions in investment. Same for powerlines to move energy to facilitate the advent of everyone plugging in their EV. People will wring everything they can out of every system there is going forward, but it will not replace the energy density of oil and other fossil fuels. Same with conservation efforts. They will just perpetuate unsustainable growth.

75% of world energy will come from fossil fuels through 2040 (IEA). We must remember that 65% of the increase in developing country energy demand will come from the Asia Pacific region. 2/3rds of all new oil demand will be for jet fuel and diesel in this region. IEA forecasts that the pace of electricity demand growth will exceed that of total energy demand growth. IEA is forecasting a 62% increase in global power generation between 2017 and 2040, the vast majority of which will come from developing countries. The fastest growth will occur in Africa, where power generation is expected to jump 140%. The Middle East (96%), Asia Pacific (84%), and Central and South America (68%) also will experience tremendous growth. This is where renewables and efficiency gains need to be deployed and the US needs to invest and help facilitate investment. Why? Because that is where the people will be born that will demand the energy. Without investment, these folks will reach for fossil fuels. And with oil now so low people are paying someone to take it off their hands...We face a bottleneck that we will not pass through.

[kublikhan]

If fossil fuels will be used in the future, then that makes my point that much stronger. Efficiency gains must be wrung out of fossil fuels as well. Nor do I agree with your point that wind and solar have hit the end all be all of efficiency. We are nowhere near hitting the limits of what we can do with these technologies.

The Future of Solar Cells
To outpace current solar cells, a new design would need to be able to capture more light, transform light energy to electricity more efficiently, and/or be less expensive to build than current designs. Energy producers and consumers are more likely to adopt solar power if the energy it produces is equally or less expensive than other, often non-renewable, forms of electricity, so any improvement to current solar cell designs must bring down overall costs to become widely used.

The first option, adding hardware that allows the solar cells to capture more light, does not actually require that we abandon current solar cell designs. Electronics can be installed with the solar cell that let the cell track the sun as it moves through the daytime sky. If the solar cell is always pointing at the sun, it will be hit by many more photons than if it was only pointing towards the sun around midday. Currently, designing electronics that can track the position of the sun accurately and consistently for several decades at a reasonable cost is an ongoing challenge, but innovation on this front continues. An alternative to making the solar cell itself move is to use mirrors to focus light on a smaller, and therefore cheaper solar cell.

Another route to improving the performance of solar cells is to target their efficiency so they are better at converting energy in sunlight to electricity. Solar cells with more than one layer of light-capturing material can capture more photons than solar cells with only a single layer. Recently, lab-tested solar cells with four layers can capture 46% of the incoming light energy that hit them. These cells are still mostly too expensive and difficult to make for commercial use, but ongoing research may one day make implementing these super-efficient cells possible.

The alternative to improving the efficiency of solar cells is simply decreasing their cost. Even though processing silicon has become cheaper over the past few decades, it still contributes significantly to the cost of solar cell installation. By using thinner solar cells, material costs decrease. These “thin-film solar cells” use a layer of material to harvest light energy that is only 2 to 8 micrometers thick, only about 1% of what is used to make a traditional solar cell. Much like cells with multiple layers, thin-film solar cells are a bit tricky to manufacture, which limits their application, but research is ongoing.

In the immediate future, silicon solar cells are likely to continue to decrease in cost and be installed in large numbers.

Years from now, we are likely to see alternatives to silicon appearing on our solar farms and rooftops, helping to provide clean and renewable sources of energy. These improvements have and will continue to be made possible by increasing bulk manufacturing of solar cells and new technologies that make the cells cheaper and more efficient.

The Future of Solar is Bright

The cost of solar continues to plummet, as this year’s price per watt of solar energy averaged around $3. Yet while the efficiency of current run-of-the-mill solar panels still hovers around 16-18 percent, traditional silicon solar panels have only reached half of their theoretical efficiency potential. And new materials science breakthroughs are now on track to double this theoretical constraint, promising cheap, efficient, and abundant solar energy.

Disruptive players are rapidly iterating on solar cell products to enhance their aesthetic appeal. Several of these technologies focus on integrating solar panels more seamlessly into our everyday lives. Imagine if every window and every glass surface could capture solar energy, for instance. New advancements in transparent solar panels will bring this future to fruition. Only five years ago, transparent solar panels (or solar cells embedded in transparent surfaces) could not harness nearly enough energy to justify cost and commercialization. In 2013, their efficiency stood between a mere 1 and 3 percent. What’s more, the opacity of these clear surfaces was still far too high, allowing little light penetration. Today, however, solar cells and solar capture materials are finally becoming sufficiently versatile for integration in glass and other aesthetic surfaces.

Ubiquitous Energy has developed a transparent solar cell called ClearView Power, achieving 9.8 percent solar panel efficiency. A color-neutral coating for glass, ClearView Power can absorb and convert non-visible light (ultraviolet and infrared) into electricity. It can theoretically be applied to any window of an existing building. Perhaps most notable, however, is the company’s claim that its panels are as clear as glass itself, obstructing no visible light.

To put this in perspective, Ubiquitous has nearly doubled the efficiency of glass solar panels just one year after researchers at Michigan State University announced a similar panel with mere 5 percent efficiency in 2018. Within the next decade, commercialized solar-capturing glass could begin to populate every skyscraper, school, and residential rooftop, generating abundant and newly democratized energy. And now, opaque solar panels are also on track to becoming similarly unobtrusive (not to mention aesthetic).

Numerous startups have begun tackling solar tiles and solar roofing technologies, aiming to integrate them seamlessly into the construction of homes and mid-scale structures.

Materials and Efficiency
Historically, inefficient electrical production has stood as the greatest barrier to large-scale solar adoption. Yet the efficiency of photovoltaic cells has improved exponentially since their invention. Today, most active solar panels average 18 percent efficiency, meaning they capture 18 percent of the energy to which they are exposed. But new advances have dramatically increased that number. Several companies such as Solar City, Panasonic, and SunPower have achieved solar panels with between 22-23 percent efficiency, a staggering 25-27 percent efficiency increase from standard panels. Or take SolSunTech, an NYC-based startup that has achieved 33 percent solar panel efficiency in just a few years.

Currently, these high-efficiency cells and panel solutions are prohibitively expensive because of the materials used to build them. However, they notably demonstrate that today’s commercial technology is nowhere near the upward limit of solar efficiency. As materials science breakthroughs drive down cost, commercial solar products will become increasingly demonetized and democratized, just as solar efficiency continues to skyrocket.

The Age of Solar Energy Abundance Is Coming in Hot

[kublikhan]

Fresh off the first-ever American Wind Week, the Department of Energy (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) released a new report finding wind energy cost reductions of 50 percent are possible by 2030. That's on top of the 66 percent cost reduction since 2009. Envisioning the wind plant of the near-future—a "collection of intelligent and innovative machines operating in a highly coordinated way"—NREL expects advancements in wind turbine design, materials and controls to unlock major performance improvements and cost reductions.

Advanced turbines will produce significantly more electricity, allowing wind to provide the lowest-cost form of electricity in many states and regions, without any policy incentives. NREL's findings demonstrate how the federal wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) is successfully driving economies of scale and efficiency improvements, and address concerns that wind power deployment will drop as the PTC phases down.

The wind turbine of the future will be much larger, sit atop a taller tower, use next generation blades, and incorporate intelligent controls and remote monitors. Towers reaching 135 meters will access more consistent wind resources, while next-generation blades stretching more than 70 meters will help the wind turbine capture more of that resource as efficiently as possible. This will enable capacity factors more than 50 percent, all while the installed cost per kilowatt falls and plant life expectancy grows.

Wind Power Costs Could See Another 50% Reduction by 2030

Further, your statement of hydro being nearly maxed in the world is incorrect as well. While the room to grow hydro in the developed world is limited, there is still much room to grow hydro in the developing world:

Abstract
In this study, we assess global hydropower potential using runoff and stream flow data, along with turbine technology performance, cost assumptions, and consideration of protected areas. The results provide the first comprehensive quantification of global hydropower potential including gross, technical, economic, and exploitable estimates. Total global potential of gross, technical, economic, and exploitable hydropower are estimated to be approximately 128, 26, 21, and 16 petawatt hours per year, respectively. The economic and exploitable potential of hydropower are calculated at less than 9 cents per kW h. We find that hydropower has the potential to supply a significant portion of world energy needs, although this potential varies substantially by region. Globally, exploitable hydropower potential is comparable to total electricity demand in 2005. Hydropower plays different roles in each country owing to regional variation in potential relative to electricity demand. In some countries such as the Congo, there is sufficient hydropower potential (>10 times) to meet all electricity demands, while in other countries such as United Kingdom, hydropower potential can only accommodate a small portion (<3%) of total demand.

A comprehensive view of global potential for hydro-generated electricity

The world’s total technical feasible hydro potential is estimated at 14,370 TWh/year, of which about 8,082 TWh/year is currently considered economically feasible for development. About 700 GW (or about 2,600 TWh/year) is already in operation, with a further 108 GW under construction. Most of the remaining potential is in Africa, Asia and Latin America:
Technically feasible Economically feasible
potential: potential:
Africa 1750 TWh/year 1000 TWh/year
Asia 6800 TWh/year 3600 TWh/year
North + Central America 1660 TWh/year 1000 TWh/year
South America 2665 TWh/year 1600 TWh/year

At present hydropower supplies about 20 per cent of the world's electricity.

A number of countries, such as China India, Iran and Turkey, are undertaking large-scale hydro development programmes, and there are projects under construction in about 80 countries. A number of countries see hydropower as the key to their future economic development: Examples are Sudan, Rwanda, Mali, Benin, Ghana, Liberia, Guinea, Myanmar, Bhutan, Cambodia, Armenia,
Kyrgyzstan, Cuba, Costa Rica, and Guyana.

Potential exists in about 150 countries, and about 70 per cent of the economically feasible potential remains to be developed. This is mostly in developing countries.

[kublikhan]

I also disagree with your point that we can't run society on low EROEI sources. Go ahead and use fossil fuels & nukes to make them. It's a hell of a lot better than using fossil fuels as a transportation fuel and losing 80% of their energy or burning fossil fuels in our power plants and losing 2/3rds of the energy.

If the Input energy is fossil fuel based the EROEI analysis will tell you how efficient the energy extraction process is with respect to energy use, and therefore how much energy ultimately can be extracted. If, however, the input energy is renewable even if the energy conversion process is seemingly inefficient in at the end of the process one has in total more energy than one started, which is quite the opposite from when the input was fossil fuel based.

Once you move from an entropic system (where energy flows from a highly concentrated state to a less concentrated state) to a negative entropy system (where you capture some form of diffuse solar energy and concentrate it) everything changes. Instead of running down finite energy sources you are now adding to the quantity of energy available. There will be other limits, but not energy per se. In a system relying on non-renewable energy, no matter what your EROEI is eventually you'll run out of fuel. In an open system therefore EROEI is interesting as a conversion efficiency measure, but irrelevant with respect to sustainability of the energy input of energy production.

If humanity wants to continue to exist in a form recognizable to us making the switch from an entropic energy supply to a negative entropy energy supply is unavoidable. Without making that switch the game will be over at some point. We are starting to feel the first hints of limits to growth along a number of vectors, both on the input side as well as the output side of economic activity. Specifically, what you're seeing now is that there is a tension between a financial system which requires growth to exist and a natural system (resources) which naturally deplete and which have an extraction rate which at some point can no longer be increased. Switching to a negative entropy energy system would be an important step towards dealing with this problem.

On EROEI

In the face of a future scenario based on renewable energy sources (with low-EROI rates), the researchers indicate that net energy per capita is likely to decline in the future between 24 percent and 31 percent from 2014 levels, unless substantial investments are made in energy efficiency.

To improve lifestyles, a low-EROI society has three options: increase gross energy production, improve end use energy efficiency in production and consumption, or improve the average EROI considerably through technological improvements and investment in higher-EROI energy sources.

Low-carbon energy transition requires more renewables than previously thought

[MonteQuest]

Nor do I agree with your point that wind and solar have hit the end all be all of efficiency. We are nowhere near hitting the limits of what we can do with these technologies.

In terms of the Betz Limit for wind turbines and the Shockley–Queisser limit for solar PV we are indeed near the maximum limits.

[MonteQuest]

I also disagree with your point that we can't run society on low EROEI sources.

Basic physics says otherwise. Not his society, anyway. Maybe some far lower construct. Even with FF support, the EROEI gets far too low when storage is required.

But the bottom line is that renewables are not capturing but a minuscule amount of the total energy pie and are doing it at a snail's pace. That hasn't changed in the 16 yrs I have followed the issue, despite massive growth rates installed capacity. I wouldn't be surprised to see their share shrink in the 2020 REN21 report due to the increase in NG use. Renewables just facilitate more unsustainable growth at this point and fail to address 75% of our energy needs in heat and transportation in any significant way.

[kublikhan]

In terms of the Betz Limit for wind turbines and the Shockley–Queisser limit for solar PV we are indeed near the maximum limits.

There are a plethora of ways to increase the efficiency of these two technologies. Looking only at the Betz Limit for wind turbines or the Shockley–Queisser limit for solar PV is like saying we are near the limit of improving the efficiency of automobiles because tires can't be improved much more to reduce rolling resistance. There are much more to those systems than that and thus much more areas for improvement.

Basic physics says otherwise. Not his society, anyway. Maybe some far lower construct.

No it doesn't. Read what I posted carefully:

In the face of a future scenario based on renewable energy sources (with low-EROI rates), the researchers indicate that net energy per capita is likely to decline in the future between 24 percent and 31 percent from 2014 levels, unless substantial investments are made in energy efficiency.

To improve lifestyles, a low-EROI society has three options: increase gross energy production, improve end use energy efficiency in production and consumption, or improve the average EROI considerably through technological improvements and investment in higher-EROI energy sources.

We are likely to do all three. First off, gross energy production of solar & wind are increasing. Second, energy efficiency in production and consumption is increasing. And third, we are already using high EROEI sources to make our solar panels and wind turbines(fossil fuels). I am not trying to argue here we cold turkey switch to 100% renewables. No need for such binary thinking.

But the bottom line is that renewables are not capturing but a minuscule amount of the total energy pie and are doing it at a snail's pace. That hasn't changed in the 16 yrs I have followed the issue. I wouldn't be surprised to see their share shrink in the 2020 REN21 report due to the increase in NG use.

Renewables are currently shrinking fossil fuel usage. Did this happen 16 years ago?

[MonteQuest]

Renewables are currently shrinking fossil fuel usage. Did this happen 16 years ago?

No, they are not. Renewables are not even meeting but 25% of new energy demand, must less displacing existing demand. Not my figures. That's comes from the IEA. "Renewables saw the highest growth rate of any energy source in 2018, meeting a quarter of global energy demand growth last year." --IEA

16 yrs ago, their market share was .5%. Today it is 2%. World energy demand is growing 1.5% a year. Modern renewables are growing at .3% or 25% of that.

[kublikhan]

No, they are not. Renewables are not even meeting but 25% of new energy demand, must less displacing existing demand. Not my figures. That's comes from the IEA. "Renewables saw the highest growth rate of any energy source in 2018, meeting a quarter of global energy demand growth last year." --IEA

I was talking about in this country.

[MonteQuest]

No, they are not. Renewables are not even meeting but 25% of new energy demand, must less displacing existing demand. Not my figures. That's comes from the IEA. "Renewables saw the highest growth rate of any energy source in 2018, meeting a quarter of global energy demand growth last year." --IEA

I was talking about in this country.

Ok. In the US, modern renewables are growing .489%/yr. "In the Reference case, from 2017 to 2050, projected gross domestic product (GDP) grows annually at a rate of 2.0%, while projected energy consumption grows at 0.4%/year and surpasses its 2007 peak by 2033."--EIA

Barely putting a dent in it. Citing US stats is almost anecdotal, given that this is a global issue.

[kublikhan]

Barely putting a dent in it.

That didn't answer my question. I was talking about gross fossil fuel consumption. You are quoting modern renewable growth rate figures. In the last decade, fossil fuel consumption has fallen by 7% in this country. This is more than a tiny dent. And this is more than has happened in the last 16 years you have been following this issue.

Citing US stats is almost anecdotal, given that this is a global issue.

You have cited quite a few US figures in this thread.

[MonteQuest]

Barely putting a dent in it.

That didn't answer my question. I was talking about gross fossil fuel consumption. You are quoting modern renewable growth rate figures. In the last decade, fossil fuel consumption has fallen by 7% in this country. This is more than a tiny dent. And this is more than has happened in the last 16 years you have been following this issue.

Citing US stats is almost anecdotal, given that this is a global issue.

You have cited quite a few US figures in this thread.

But we already agreed that that 7% decline in FF use was largely from outsourcing, less intensive industries and efficiency gains, so that small .489% gain in 2019 was entirely due to other factors, not renewable penetration. And those gains were less in preceding years.

Yes, I have cited US data where warranted, but any variance away from the global stats means little to the BIg Picture, que no? US stats are only 2% better than world stats.

[kublikhan]

But we already agreed that that 7% decline in FF use was from outsourcing, less intensive industries and efficiency gains, so that small .089% gain was entirely due to other factors, not renewable penetration.

Incorrect. Read my post carefully. That 7% decline I was talking about was perfectly matched by a combination of increased renewables(78% of that figure was from renewables), and a reduction a total energy consumption(22%). That outsourcing, less intensive industries, efficiency gains, all of that just prevented fossil fuels from growing another 22%. That 7% decline was 78% from renewables.

Yes, I have cited US data where warranted, but any variance away from the global stats means little to the BIg Picture, que no?

So you want to talk big picture? Hows this:

Some welcome good news for a pandemic-weary world: renewable energy made up 72% of all new energy generation projects last year, with solar and wind power making up 90% of that capacity.

Wind energy rose from 180,850 megawatts (MW) in 2010 to 622,704 MW in 2019, while solar energy capacity went from 41,542 MW at the beginning of the decade to 586,434 MW—increases of 244% and 1,311%, respectively.

All told, renewable sources generated 34.7% of the world’s electricity in 2019, up from 33.3% in 2018.

In 2019, Three Quarters Of The World’s New Energy Projects Were Renewable

[kublikhan]

Here's some more big picture:

Wind and solar energy are now the cheapest forms of power in two-thirds of the world. In its New Energy Outlook 2019, the research firm said the globe will be 50% powered by renewable energy by 2037. The firm has credited “sweeping technological advances and more efficient manufacturing” as the reason for wind and solar’s increasingly important role in the global energy mix.

Cheapest power sources: 2014 to now
Ten years ago, when wind and solar were just 1% of the US’ energy mix, it would have seemed unrealistic to envision renewables replacing fossil fuels. Yet, this April marked the first time that renewable energy supplied more power to the US grid than coal, showing that solar and wind have certainly stepped up to the plate.

Low build costs spark renewables shift
Electricity generation has traditionally been the world’s biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions, but since 2016, US power plants have given off less carbon dioxide than the nation’s transportation sector, Bloomberg reported. According to the news wire, wind and solar farms are a major reason for the turnaround, with cheaper parts making these projects more economical to build than coal and gas plants across two-thirds of the world. “Solar photovoltaic modules, wind turbines and lithium-ion batteries are set to continue on aggressive cost reduction curves, of 28%, 14% and 18% respectively, for every doubling in global installed capacit. By 2030, the energy generated or stored and dispatched by these three technologies will undercut electricity generated by existing coal and gas plants almost everywhere.”

Wind and solar energy now cheapest forms of power in two-thirds of the world

[MonteQuest]

Read my post carefully. That 7% decline I was talking about was perfectly matched by a combination of increased renewables(78% of that figure was from renewables), and a reduction a total energy consumption(22%). That outsourcing, less intensive industries, efficiency gains, all of that just prevented fossil fuels from growing another 22%. That 7% decline was 78% from renewables.

While only growing their market share of the US energy pie from 1% in 2008 to 4% in 2019 while demand was flat? When pigs fly.

[MonteQuest]

Here's some more big picture.

The only Big Picture that matters is how much and how fast are renewables capturing market share. Cheapness, rising EROEI, the amount of money invested, installed capacity, etc, are just click bait and misleading.

So, given all these rosy stats, what is your prediction for the REN21 Report in June? How much did modern renewables manage to capture of the total world energy pie in 2019 over 2018's measly 2%?

I'm not sure if REN21 shows US gains, as I've never looked. But the Lawrence Livermore chart showed just a .489% gain in 2019 over 2018 from 3.5% to 3.989%. Peanuts.

[MonteQuest]

All told, renewable sources generated 34.7% of the world’s electricity in 2019, up from 33.3% in 2018

That's from IRENA. REN21 says that in 2018, ALL renewables accounted for 26.2% of electrical generation. 60% of that came from hydro. The article you linked to claims hydro is just 47% in 2019. Let's see what the REN21 2020 report says for 2019. You do recognize that there was no mention whatsoever of market capture in that article ( there never is), only massive growth rates in installed capacity--with one exception: "the global increase in renewables capacity for 2019 was 1.7% slower compared with 2018."

If that's the case, renewable market share has likely declined in 2019, especially given the increase in NG use.

Here's those massive growth rates of wind and solar that yielded just 1.5% new market capture over the last decade.

"Wind energy rose from 180,850 megawatts (MW) in 2010 to 622,704 MW in 2019, while solar energy capacity went from 41,542 MW at the beginning of the decade to 586,434 MW—increases of 244% and 1,311%, respectively."

[kublikhan]

While only growing their market share of the US energy pie from 1% in 2008 to 4% in 2019 while demand was flat? When pigs fly.

Ok lets try taking this nice and slow:

Renewable energy consumption
6.8 quads 2007
11.5 quads 2019

From 2007-2019, renewables increased their consumption from 6.8 to 11.5 quads, for a total increase of 4.7 quads. This has nothing to do with outsourcing or energy intensity or shifting industries. This is solar panels and wind turbines and biomass increasing their domestic output. Are you with me so far?

Second, demand was not flat. Demand fell 1.3 quads. This is part of the spillover from efficiency improvements, industry shifts, etc.

Third, fossil fuels fell by 6 quads. Total demand did not fall by 6 quads. It only fell by 1.3 quads. That means something must have stepped up to fill the void left by those fossil fuels. Because 6 quads of missing fossil fuels minus 1.3 quads of demand falls still leaves us short of 4.7 quads of energy that must have come from somewhere. Well we just calculated that earlier. It was from renewables. Renewables generated 4.7 quads. 78% of the shortfall of fossil fuels was met by fuel switching from fossil fuels to renewables. Only 1.3 quads came from a fall in overall demand.

That's from IRENA. REN21 says that in 2018, ALL renewables accounted for 26.2% of electrical generation. 60% of that came from hydro. The article you linked to claims hydro is just 47% in 2019.

You are conflating generation(TWh) and installed capacity(MW/GW). IRENA and REN21 both claim that Hydro is around 47% of all renewable capacity. REN21 gives a figure of 2,378 GW for all renewable capacity and a figure of 1,132 GW for hydro capacity(page 19). 1,132 / 2378 * 100 = 47.6%, which is very similar to the value IRENA gave. The .6% difference can be explained by solar and wind increasing faster than hydro in 2019.

The 60% figure is referring to generation. If you want to look at generation(TWh) instead of installed capacity(MW/GW), you can get those values here:

Code: Select all

World Electricity generation in TWh
source     2018    2019 2018 %  2019 %
total    25,457  25,814   100%    100%
ff       16,129  16,052  63.4%   62.2%
renew     6,701   7,054  26.3%   27.3%

Code: Select all

World Electricity generation in TWh
source     2018    2019 2018 %  2019 %
coal      9,341   9,083  36.7%   35.2%
n gas     5,836   6,073  22.9%   23.5%
nuclear   2,614   2,716  10.3%   10.5%
wind      1,260   1,404   4.9%    5.4%
solar       573     699   2.3%    2.7%
hydro     4,208   4,271  16.5%   16.5%
biomass     560     578   2.2%    2.2%
other ren   100     102   0.4%    0.4%
other ff    952     896   3.7%    3.5%

Global Electricity Dashboard

So in the big picture on the world stage of electricity generation, renewables displaced more fossil fuel consumption in 2019 vs 2018. The increase in natural gas(237TWh) was not enough to cover the fall in coal(260TWh). Both gross generation and share of the pie fell for fossil fuels between 2018 to 2019. Meanwhile renewables grew their share of the pie by 1%. Renewables grabbed a 1% bigger piece of the pie over a decade? Try 1% in a year.

[kublikhan]

A similar pattern played out in all energy. The increase in natural gas's share of the total energy pie from 2018 to 2019(22%->23%) was not enough to cover falls in coal's (28%->26%) share of the pie or oil's (32%->31%). Meanwhile renewables continued to gain ground(9%->10%).

The decline in energy demand growth between 2018 and 2019 was disproportionately felt by coal and gas, while the absolute growth for other energy sources changed little. Renewables and natural gas both gained market share, with gas breaching 23% and renewables 14%.

Renewables underwent both the largest absolute growth and the fastest rate of growth in 2019, with their overall use increasing by 75 Mtoe or 3.7%. Wind power and solar photovoltaic (PV) power experienced another year of double-digit growth, although solar PV growth slowed.

Natural gas demand increased by 60 Mtoe, or 70 billion cubic metres (bcm), a 1.8% increase from 2018 levels. The rate of demand growth was well below the 5% increase observed in 2018 but marked a return to the average growth rate between 2010 and 2017.

Demand for oil, including biofuels, grew in 2019 by 0.8%, or 0.8 million barrels per day (mb/d), led by growth in China. Coal demand declined by 1.7%, as electricity generation from coal-fired power plants fell by the largest amount ever, with coal challenged by cheap gas prices and expanding renewables and nuclear power.

Code: Select all

Share of total primary energy demand by fuel, 2010-2019
source        2018  2019
renewables      9%   10%
T biomass       5%    4%   
nuclear         5%    5%
oil            32%   31%
n gas          22%   23%
coal           28%   26%

IEA: Global Energy Review 2019

[MonteQuest]

IRENA and REN21 both claim that Hydro is around 47% of all renewable capacity.

No, they do not. 15.8% is 60% of 26.2%

So in the big picture on the world stage of electricity generation, renewables displaced more fossil fuel consumption in 2019 vs 2018.

According to REN21, ALL renewables decreased their share of the electrical power generation pie from 26.5% in 2017 to 26.2% in 2018. Fossil fuels increased their share of the power generation pie from 73.5% in 2017 to 73.8% in 2018. As to modern renewables of wind, solar and geothermal. They grew their share of the pie just .4%. In June, we will see the REN21 2020 report for 2018 to 2019.

In 2017, wind was 5.6%, in 2018, 5.5%. Solar PV was 1.9% in 2017 and 2.4% in 2018. Geothermal stayed at .4%. I expect this was largely due to the increased use of NG for power generation.



You can cite all manner of stats collected from various sources on growth rates, installed capacity, etc. But the final market share stats are all that matter. The goal is to replace FF's is it not? How are we doing on that front? These stats show us that they are not growing fast enough to displace fossil fuel use.

Despite wind energy rising from 180,850 megawatts (MW) in 2010 to 622,704 MW in 2019, while solar energy capacity rose from 41,542 MW at the beginning of the decade to 586,434 MW—increases of 244% and 1,311%, respectively, both combined still represent less than 2% of the world’s total energy supply and just 3.8% of US supply—based on the current data available from REN21 Global Renewable Status Reports and Lawrence Livermore Labs. Power generation market share even declined in 2018.

Here's 2016 to 2017: