Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Bugfrag t1_j1ydopl wrote

Seriously, almost every single sentence is incorrect.

>Russian invasion of Ukraine and subsequent shortages of fossil fuel supply have really supercharged the growth of Wind and Solar energy and the electric vehicles.

Global investment in energy is linearly increasing over time since the early 2000s. It's following a trend well established from previous years. https://about.bnef.com/energy-transition-investment/

>The European Union was forced to realize that they can no longer rely on imported fossil fuels.

The EU knows this for a long time, including when Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014. EU and are still improrting including from the US.

>This has also affected other countries around the world. The United States were not dependent on Fossil Fuel imports, but even there Renewable electricity projects received a big boost this year.

It's not the Russians. Renewable got a boost because Democrats won the presidency and got enough members in the House and Senate.

18

random_shitter t1_j1z31y9 wrote

... And still the IEA noted that current global renewables investments are 30% higher than projected just a year ago.

14

grundar t1_j22hl1p wrote

> And still the IEA noted that current global renewables investments are 30% higher than projected just a year ago.

Slight correction, the 30% increase is to what will be installed over the period 2022-2027, not just for 2022 (IEA report).

However, that's a pretty minor correction, as the phrase the prior comment was complaining about is pretty much straight from the title of the IEA's press report:
> "Renewable power’s growth is being turbocharged as countries seek to strengthen energy security"

2

Bugfrag t1_j1zgy8k wrote

In any case, a 30%-higher-than-project means that the IEA projection is off.

It says nothing about the actual investment amount

−1

random_shitter t1_j20mjg6 wrote

>Global investment in energy is linearly increasing over time since the early 2000s. It's following a trend well established from previous years.

>a 30%-higher-than-project means that the IEA projection is off.

You just say anything to stick to your mantra. Sigh.

5

Bugfrag t1_j21wpml wrote

Ok. Let's do this properly then:

A) Can you source the claim that it's 30% higher than projected?

B) Can you describe/cite the methodology for projection

It's your claim, so back it up

I already read the IEA Jan 2022 report. It's not there. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-investment-2022 See

−3

random_shitter t1_j234jom wrote

Sigh.

>In December, the International Energy Agency published two important reports that point to the future of renewable energy.

>First, the IEA revised its projection of renewable energy growth upward by 30%.

https://www.civilbeat.org/2022/12/small-islands-and-putins-war-are-accelerating-the-global-shift-to-clean-energy-in-2023/

You're a bad faith arguer. You may reply but I will stop wasting time on your nonsense.

0

Bugfrag t1_j236zyt wrote

A) Things could have been simpler if you simply put the link to the IEA report. Why do you expect anybody to have stumbled into the Honolulu Civilbeat?

B) Clearly you didn't look at my post which referred to global investment. You would have noticed that the units are in dollars.

Your cited resource refers to global capacity, units in GW. These are not equivalent comparisons.

Note that both of my sources (including report from IEA that I searched myself because you didn't provide any) report things in $.

Did you even check out the two references I posted?

In conclusion:

  • you made a claim without support
  • when pushed for data, presented items that's not even in the same unit.
1

Bugfrag t1_j238s4x wrote

And lastly, after reading the methodology to get that 30% number:

The IEA are changing the forecast model for cumulative capacity of 2022-2027 time frame. Their earlier forecast was off. (Read page 17-18 on the IEA report, but it's in the secondary Civilbeat digest)

It's definitely not a year-to-year change

Actual change in capacity is linear (see page 21 on the IEA report, not on Civil beat)

1

Jack04trades t1_j1yyl3l wrote

Oh. So that's why after renewable energy being pushed forward, in this year there was lots of blackout's in USA. Damn, people. Its not green energy. Its green for your own country. But to make these solar panela and wind turbines you are making hell lots of easte as well. Also "green energy" cannot replace burning yet, its still a lot worse in efficiency. Maybe in future it'll be better, i hope. But not now.

−9

Whiskeypants17 t1_j1z3j2i wrote

Are you sending this from a coal mine? Might want to check on your oxygen supply friend

7

Jack04trades t1_j1z4pdf wrote

Nuclear, gas stations are the main source of energy yet on the planet. France has 6 of them for a reason.

−2

neglectedselenium t1_j20cq87 wrote

Yeah but it gets billions of $$$, massive community outrage and million years to construct a single nuclear plant. So hell no, no politician can afford to waste their points on that

0

Jack04trades t1_j22isbt wrote

Nuclear plant takes 5 to 10 years to build. And in Russia we invented and already using a new process of reusing nuclear wastes again. So it's basically almost endless nuclear energy right now. And you forgetting one thing: in previous comment i told i hope green energy will bece truth. But its not green now at all. You just dont know some little things about it, and most of you dont care. Because its green for you, not for the place where its produced. For example parts of wind turbines made nano carbone texture, which cannot be recycled, so its just buried into the ground. But politics will not tell you that, because its just gives as much dollars as nuclear plants.

1

Bugfrag t1_j1zetbo wrote

>Oh. So that's why after renewable energy being pushed forward, in this year there was lots of blackout's in USA.

This argument does not make any sense at all.

The investments are being ramped up this year. Congress started to allocate the money, but that does not mean the infrastructure is completed.

If anything the blackouts indicates that a majority fossil fuel based approach is insufficient. Additional infrastructure is needed.

>Damn, people. Its not green energy. Its green for your own country. But to make these solar panela and wind turbines you are making hell lots of easte as well.

The main difference is that renewable waste is isolated during production but clean during its operational liferime. Waste generated for Coal, as a comparison, happened during (a) mining (b) refinement (c) transport (d) continuously while it's burned to generate energy.

>Also "green energy" cannot replace burning yet, its still a lot worse in efficiency. Maybe in future it'll be better, i hope. But not now.

Comparison between efficiency of the two technologies makes absolutely no sense

Efficiency of renewables is different compared to fossil fuel efficiency. For solar, if we don't capture the energy, the sun will still shine. For fossil file power plants, ~70% of the energy generated are burnt away/lost as heat.

5