Green energy ‘stagnates’ as fossil fuels dominate
By Paul Homewood
h/t Dennis Ambler
Well, blow me down!
A new study says that the world is using more fossil fuels than ever as the transition to green energy stalls.
The Renewables 2022 Global Status Report says the share of wind and solar in the global energy mix has risen minimally in the last decade.
While renewables boomed in the electricity sector last year, they didn’t meet the overall rise in demand.
In transport, which accounts for a third of energy, renewables provided less than 4%.
"The share of renewable energy has moved in the last decade from 10.6% to 11.7%, but fossil fuels, all coal and gas have moved from 80.1% to 79.6%. So, it’s stagnating," said Rana Adib, the executive director of REN21.
"And since the energy demand is rising, this actually means that we are consuming more fossil fuels than ever."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-61802802
Did this actually come as a surprise to Matt McGrath? If so, he is a bigger idiot than I thought!
He says that the transition to green energy has stalled. In fact it has never actually got going.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
It’s impossible to transition from conventional transportation to electrical transportation and to renewables, solar and wind, without using vehicles that run on fossil fuels. That should not be a surprise to anyone. Urgent reductions in CO2 emissions to zero from those fuels can only make it worse.
Good!
The forced “transition” to LESS practical (and simultaneously more expensive) products, particularly transport is the real problem. Why are politicians obsessed with killing mobility?
I believe this goes right back to the start of public railways, which was opposed by the Duke of Wellington on the grounds that the plebs would gang up on the ruling classes!
There is no record of the Duke of Wellington saying that. He actually opened the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1830. But possibly because he witnessed his friend William Huskisson being run down and killed by a train in 1828, he never travelled on one himself until 1843.
Energy use growth is greater than renewable energy addition. It will always be a moving target.
All the same, Broadlands, every kg of coal, oil or natural gas burned or processed for carboniferous applications like plastic or medication, is another kg reduced of our finite reserves. The gangster and mass murderer Putin is painfully remind us of that fact during these awful (and unexpected) times..
We, “nice, liberal” democrats in Western Europe badly need to defeat his chaotic leadership and make urgent, common cause with the many peoples of the Russian Federation and develop a true, non toxic, energy solution that all our children and grandchildren will benefit from as we embark on a Global population pushing 11 billion citizens.
Atomic energy of one sort and another seems to be the only way forward for such a huge population of humans, all seeking betterment on this fragile and very special planet.
In the mean time of course, we badly need symbiotic frienship with the citizens of the Russian and Ukrainian Republics and to fully develop our remaining fossil reserves.bearing the foregoing in mind.
The “net zero” mob has no notion of the social and environmental damage that will certainly be caused if our ignorant politicians and civil servants pursue the agreements they all signed up to at the close of COP26 in Glasgow, last November.
“Atomic energy of one sort and another seems to be the only way forward for such a huge population of humans, all seeking betterment on this fragile and very special planet.”
Agree. But even the construction and implementation of nuclear plants will need vehicles that run on fossil fuels. There is no alternative to transport people and the materials needed.
“every kg of coal, oil or natural gas burned or processed for carboniferous applications like plastic or medication, is another kg reduced of our finite reserves.”
Nonsense! If that was the case the West would have stopped mining and drilling (for coal and oil) when the Limits To Growth determined in 1970 that we were about run out of oil and coal.
Inasmuch as Nuclear is the answer, it only supports baseload; it does not do load-following.
“Inasmuch as Nuclear is the answer, it only supports baseload; it does not do load-following.”
Harry that is a bit of a common misconception. Nuclear most certainly can load follow if required and has been doing so for many decades in France.
There are some problems with Xenon neutron poisoning of the core if output regularly ramped up and down in the latter part of the fuel burn process but this is really not a major problem. The point is that there is really negligible fuel cost saving in ramping down so they are normally run flat out.
Given the negligible cost differentials this report (written by an acquaintance of mine and GWPF contributor) Andy Dawson demonstrates how to incorporate nuclear into a variable demand grid.
http://euanmearns.com/decarbonising-uk-power-generation-the-nuclear-option/
but does not that wreck nuclear’s economics, which are based on continuous operation?
Hi Paul, in response to your question, this report sums up cost experiences of load following in France and Germany in particular. It is summed up by “. In France, the impact of load following on the average unit capability factor is estimated at about 1.2%.”
Click to access technical_and_economic_aspects_of_load_following_with_nuclear_power_plants.pdf
Certainly it would be preferable to run a NPP at max output continuously but it is not a tragedy economically to load follow. Obviously the real problem would be shutting down/restarting which can readily be done with a gas (or even oil fired unit eg the former Littlebrook D) but not with nuclear.
HS: You are right to stress that fossil fuel resources are finite – especially gas (think my own visualisation of two balloons. One is filled with water and one is inflated with air. Let go – what happens?). But in all the foregoing the focus is unrelentlessly on electricity, which is only a quarter of our energy usage, and even for that it is clear that nuclear fission is not the answer. What the target should be is to inteligently blend all the energy sources coherently. Sure, wind has large part to play but it is intermittent. Primary back up should be CCGT generation using liquid fuel, stored for emergencies. Slightly less efficient but vital is coal fired power. Let’s up-date (i.e. digitalise) any usable plants and build a few more. But all this depends on ending the nett zero insanity NOW. And please don’t bother tto tell me that shale gas is going to rescue us because it ain’t. We’ve got a lot of it but we can’t get it out – our shale is too impermeable (like most other shales).
Even if no more fossil fuels were to be discovered or deemed extractable, our nations already possess far more reserves and recoverable resources worldwide than we can burn. Humanity has burned just a small portion of our fossil fuels to date.
Oil companies, gas companies and the federal government collectively invest billions of dollars each year in research and development to create new fossil fuel technologies. The state of the art will continue to advance, enabling economical access to new reserves well into or beyond the 21st century. There is even the potential for a major breakthrough that enables access to new types of reserves. For example, Japan recently announced that they were able to extract methane from undersea hydrate deposits, a world first. Methane hydrates may contain more than twice as much carbon as in all of Earth’s fossil fuels combined.
We Will Not Run Out of Fossil Fuels (Op-Ed)
Jeffrey Rissman, policy analyst at Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology, contributed this article to LiveScience’s Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights .
https://www.livescience.com/37469-fuel-endures.html
For starters . . . There is no such thing as ‘Clean or Green Energy’ !
ALL Energy Production of ALL kinds . . . Poisons Planet Earth . . . Somewhere, Somehow . . .
Do Not be fooled . . . Wind Turbines . . . Solar Panels . . . Bio-Fuels . . . Electric Cars . . . ALL BAD!
https://www.academia.edu/52039545/All_Electricity_Poisons_Planet_Earth
They ALL have a Huge Carbon Footprint Hidden behind Propaganda . . .
Elitist Environmental Propaganda . . .
“our shale is too impermeable (like most other shales)”
Cuadrilla’s test results show otherwise.
” humans, all seeking betterment on this fragile and very special planet.”
The planet is not fragile ( it’s withstood billions of yrs of cosmic bombardment ), the humans are fragile !!!
Thx. “Fragile” is silly.
Yet oddly all the ugly, nasty animals and plants will thrive if it gets warmer! Only the beautiful stuff humans value is “fragile”.
Meanwhile ever more humans choose to live in cities. The correlation between those who spend most of their time in an urban environment and those who worry about the environment is extremely high.
Does the Urban Heat Island effect fry what’s left of their brains? The joy of country living is that the heat drops off in the evening so we can sleep. We don’t get that many times when it doesn’t.
‘A new study says that the world is using more fossil fuels than ever as the transition to green energy stalls.’
Well, Mattie, this is your first clue that the world is NOT transitioning to green energy. Everybody else knows it.
Renowned musician and bassist, Herbie Flowers, was once asked what the difference was between working with a drummer rather than a drum machine. He replied “You only have to punch it into a drum machine once!”
Seems Mattie struggles to understand basic clues…perhaps he is a bit of a thick drummer really!
But also that any transaction is going to consume large quantities of fossil fuels. Building a large number of new factories for batteries, solar panels, EVs, wind turbines requires fossil fuels. They will be largely fossil fuel powered and their products transported to the consumer by fossil fuels. And flying helicopters out to offshore wi d requires far more fossil fuels than wandering g about a CCGT plant.
The “transition” will cause a sharp increase in emissions. As Stern understood a few decades ago.
See Jo nova
“Despite having 61 figures in their 367 page report, they didn’t seem to have a graph of how global fuel sources have changed. To help them, I created one:“
Well worth a look.
Jo Nova’s graphic…
Did anyone notice these percentages in the report pertain to ELECTRICITY and not total energy !?
If the “shares” were calculated as percentages of total energy instead of per cent of electricity, the miniscule progress towards decarbonisation would be truly microscopic.
Indeed, a glance at this IEA data set of total energy consumption makes it hard to actually see the input of non hydro renewables!
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-browser/?country=WORLD&fuel=Energy%20consumption&indicator=TFCbySource
Ray, that plot is confusing. It has “electricity” plotted separately to wind and solar. So it may be that means wind and solar used as direct energy sources without being converted to electricity first ?
Sorry KB I posted wrong link, here is the one I meant
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-browser?country=WORLD&fuel=Energy%20supply&indicator=TESbySource
Thanks, I understand it now. I doubt the BBC know the difference between “energy” and ” electricity” though !
Meanwhile the BEIS Select Committe has an enquiry open on decarbonisation of the power sector by 2035. Here are the opening questions to which they seek answers, together with my reply notes, which I may well expand later:
• Is the proposed future electricity mix, as announced in the Energy Security Strategy, the most efficient and cost-effective way to deliver power sector decarbonisation by 2035?
1. Wrong question: a) is it feasible by any route? Probably not on this timescale b) is it affordable? Probably not on any timescale c) does it deliver energy security? Almost certainly worse security
2. The basic answer is however no.
• Are there any further policy details and/or legislation required by the end of this Parliament to achieve these goals?
1. Permanent lockdown in a police state
• Beyond current Government ambitions, how else can energy demand be reduced and how much of an impact will this make on reaching power supply targets?
1. Population reduction through net emigration or ill health/premature death and suppression of births
2. Further lowering of living standards, subject to civil revolt as the constraint
• What action is required to ensure consumers engage with and are protected during the power sector transformation?
1. Issue gilets jaunes for protests
• What are the key challenges faced by each generation technology regarding both their deployment and scaling up within the current policy framework?
1. Nuclear (traditional, small and advanced modular, and fusion)
Obstructive regulation that adds cost and delay. Poor technology choices.
2. Offshore and onshore wind
Rising levels of excess production/curtailment. Costs of connection and transmission and balancing.
3. Solar
Rising levels of excess production/curtailment. Costs of connection and transmission and balancing. Cost of intra day storage
4. hydrogen
Extreme intermittency of input. Low round trip efficiency. High cost. Safety and handling.
5. Tidal
Extreme intermittency of output. Cost.
6. Biomass
Not green. High cost.
7. Gas combined heat and power
Only paper mills and similar have a continuous demand for heat.
I think even the Guardian have been reading our comments threads!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/17/pollutionwatch-hydrogen-power-climate-leaks
None of the questions address the real issue: scale. British demand for energy dwarfs any possible output from renewables.
Idau: excellent analysis!
Just on that last point:
“7. Gas combined heat and power
Only paper mills and similar have a continuous demand for heat”
I fear we tend to look at this the wrong way round, starting from the need for power and then wondering if there’s any demand for the waste heat.
Some years ago there was a study (by Poyry, iirc) on the potential for power generation at existing heavy users of industrial heat: refineries, chemical works and the like. They came up with a figure of 12 GW.
The main barrier to realising this potential was/is – if memory serves – the uncertainties over who would invest in the generating kit and how the power would be sold. The industrial companies didn’t find it an attractive proposition.
In today’s situation this should be revisited. Although it’s based on fossil fuels, it would not increase the consumption. However I suspect that many of the candidate sites may not be long for these shores or have already closed.
Another example of idiocy. Some of the comments are rich. 🙂
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/16/exclusive-dirty-cost-keeping-governments-net-zero-strategy-alive/
A plan under consideration is to massively increase wood fired electricity generation on the assumption it is carbon neutral and capture the carbon (CO2) from the burning to offset other CO2 producing activities. It would be good if such plans indicated the projected impact on future global temperatures and costs.
Bjørn Lomborg recently published a graph with the following statement:
EU wants to radically change itself to reduce emissions 55% by 2030
Extra cost upwards of €10,000 per EU citizen (€5tr)
It will reduce global temps by 0.004°C
This from the article if permitted.
Dr David Joffe, a government adviser from the Climate Change Committee, has told MPs it is “really important” that the “vast majority” comes from the UK so they can be certain it is sustainable.
However, scientists have warned that this would take a “huge amount of land” and would compete with government pledges, including on food, rewilding and tree planting to combat climate change.
Dr Daniel Quiggin, a senior research fellow with the environment and society programme at Chatham House, said: “The tension over land is going to be absolutely extreme the world over and that is the same in the UK. Adding in biomass at the scale net zero has indicated is going to be very difficult to achieve. It is very difficult to square all of these things.”
What is ALWAYS missing in the ‘Conversion to Green Energy’ diatribe is how much Fossil Fuel must be burned during the Production of ALL these ‘Magic’ solutions to what ails the world. Concrete and steel represent almost 15% of Global CO2 production . . . bases and masts for turbines, dams, processing silicon, glass panels . . . on and on. If you CHOSE to ignore all the input costs . . . You get ‘Green Energy’. The Environmentalist Elite carry a two faced flag of protest with solutions based on wishful thinking and scientific ignorance. The mases ‘Gobble it up’ thanks to the Media’s scientific ignorance and ‘What sells Papers’ mentality. Truth and Science are Nowhere in sight . . .
https://www.academia.edu/71023588/Batteries_Renewable_Energy_and_EV_s_The_Ultimate_in_Environmental_Destruction
https://www.academia.edu/76965285/Clean_Green_Energy_and_Net_Zero_Fairy_Tales_on_Steroids
Politicians . . . they are followers of public opinion . . . NOT Leaders as we should expect !
If politicians were actually followers of public opinion, why are they pursuing the “net zero” and “climate change” lunacy at all? Neither of these actually benefit people.
Because the MEDIA says Climate Change is Human Caused . . . !!
I have sent papers to 150 Editorialists and Journalists on MANY occasions . . . Not even so much as ONE question or comment . . . EVER . . . I have been sending these going on to 10 years . . . Useless . . . The Five Principals of Ethical Journalism . . . Meaningless . . . THAT is why the voice we hear and share on Paul’s site goes nowhere . . . There are None Sooo Blind as those who Will NOT see . . .