Renewable energy is at the heart of climate action. 💚 At #COP28, the world decided to transition away from fossil fuels and triple renewable energy capacity by 2030. But what does this mean exactly, and how can we achieve it? Listen to International Energy Agency (IEA) expert Heymi Bahar explain.
I am not in line with Heymi Bahar's comments. Tripling renewable energy generation should not be a priority - in my view. Nature tells us that the solution for any problem is the balance. We cannot get the full potential of renewable energy without making sure that curtailment does never happen again. This can only be avoided by increasing storage dramatically (about 500 times more in the entire world). Without storage we will pay an unaffordable invoice producing energy that cannot be utilised increasing the risk for a blackout as a result of the intermitency associated with renewables - in general. Moreover, what do you want more renewables for if their production needs to be curtailed because there is no way to store it? What do you want more renewables for if when we demand energy there is a Dunkelflaute effect and neither the sun shines nor the wind blows? Have you thought that in those times we still need to burn fossil fuels regardless the renewable energy power we have installed? I am a renewable energy developer but I am also having an oppinion for the planet we live in and the subsequent generations that are still to come. More renewables YES but only when we make sure that there is not energy wasted.
The discovery of the answer to the most difficult scientific question of physics, which has led to the creation of a new renewable energy in the world, can soon, in addition to controlling the world energy market, also have deep strategic effects on all areas of the world's oil and non-oil economy. The design and construction of the initial model of this clean energy production plant will show all the political leaders of the countries that in the past century, humanity has had no need for fossil fuels or nuclear fuel to meet the world's energy needs! Physicists hiding from scientific facts started when this scientific answer was discovered after a century. Even the most prominent physics scientists in the world did not have the idea that a hydroelectric power plant of the new generation in the depths of the water can have more energy production efficiency than nuclear power plants!Although the scientific texts of this global discovery have been hidden by the German Patent Office for unknown reasons, commercial negotiations aimed at signing a contract to build the world's first model of it could be surprising and possible for many countries. #HydroWindTurbines https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/pat/register?AKZ=1020201194676
Look…I struggle with putting a highly intermittent source of energy on a variable demand grid that we have to depend upon as such a source grows in contribution that has to be so significantly backed up. It will just breed wasteful redundancy. If you use systems logic, it makes no sense. Plenty of studies done on this.
Ian Ordish
4w
The reality of Solar is FAR FAR worse. Let's do the math: A 1 GW legacy power plant produces energy for 750,000 homes (33 kWh average per day). The solar industry standard is 5:1 - (5 MW to 1 acre), ie 50 MW = 250 acres. That 50 MWs will only produce 264,000 - 348,000 kWhs per day within a 5.28 - 7 hour day average over the course of an entire year, 96 - 127 GWhs per year. Where as a legacy power plant will produce 7,884 GWhs per year. So we need 62 - 82 of these 50 MW solar farms that will consume 15,500 - 20,500 square acres (23 - 32 sq miles) to replace the energy of a legacy plant that occupies on 640 acres. AND - that's not including battery back up for the homes to have power at night. This is ONLY DAY time energy supply! If we consider the upper level of 82 facilities X 50 MWs = 4.1 GWs of solar needed to replace 1 GW of power generation X $1,000,000/MW = $4.1 BILLION. I can build a 1 GW emission free natural gas plant that will generate power 24/7/365 for $1.2 Billion. In that short energy window of 5.28 - 7 hours of usable solar energy it only equates to 58,000 KWhs - 100,900 kWhs per day consumed in that energy window. To consider backup of the remaining energy needed is $245 - $403/kWh.
Why so many meetings.....is COP just a platform for lip service. Nothing much has changed except the many series of meetings. I am sure many of them will fly in and yet discussed about climate change and gas emissions. Many of them will stay in posh hotels but discussing about environmental degradation. Can't they do it online? We already has such virtual platform. May be its not fun if no traveling.
When posting about climate change during the summer, be mindful of your attire. Dressing lightly in the summer underscores the urgency of addressing human-induced global warming. Influencers▶ https://www.econok.org/blog/influencers
Ron A.
3w
Read this from 2016. I will let you decide what the truth is. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/changing-climate-10-years-after-inconvenient-truth
This is really so important for climate change mitigation. Thank you so much for sharing this.
RKG International Executive Director, Leading metal recycling solutions for nearly four decades
4wRenewable energy is indeed the key to combating climate change. The transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy sources is a necessary step towards a sustainable future. Achieving the goal of tripling renewable energy capacity by 2030 will require a concerted effort from governments, businesses, and individuals alike. It will require investments in renewable energy infrastructure, research and development, and policy changes that incentivize the use of renewable energy sources. But the benefits of this transition are clear: cleaner air, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and a more sustainable future for generations to come. Let's work together to make this vision a reality.