
Report: World trending to hit 50% renewables, 11% coal by 2050 - okket
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/report-world-trending-to-hit-50-renewables-11-coal-by-2050/
======
lacker
It seems pretty dubious to project this out 32 years. I find it more
enlightening to look at some of the data this is based on. For example,
official US government figures for historical energy consumption:

[https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_6.pdf](https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_6.pdf)

You can see that even in the past 15 years, there were several inflection
points that were probably unpredictable beforehand. Coal went from flat to
declining, natural gas went from flat to increasing, petroleum rose then fell
again, renewables were flat before rising up to a current rate of 11% of US
energy consumption.

I'm rooting for renewable energy here and the future does seem bright. But any
sort of high-level prediction that claims to project out for 32 years just
isn't the right way to analyze.

~~~
rossdavidh
Hear, hear. In fact, anyone who can disregard the history of past predictions
(in energy or almost anything else) so much as to bother with a 32-years-out
prediction, seems untrustworthy.

Also, unlikely to persuade anyone of anything. It's a pretty well-known
feature of human psychology that distant prospects don't motivate us the way
they should. Actually, maybe the unreliability of long-term predictions is
part of why we evolved to be like that...

~~~
killjoywashere
Just finished reading that chapter of the The Black Swan. True, the 32-year
year number is useless, but the slope is probably still good for the next
couple of years. Of course the negative uncertainties still dominate.

The more interesting question is how do you expose yourself to the positive
uncertainties involved (e.g. a carbon negative power technology)? This
requires investment in research in parallel with your infrastructure
investments.

------
sremani
From what ever little I know, this is the most optimistic and best case
scenario and the central assumption of the report seems to be we are going to
get a battery miracle and that will make S&W much more practical for day round
and year round production and consumption cycle.

From the report: Germany sees rapid change to 2025 with coal and gas
generation falling 29%, nuclear phased-out and renewables topping 70% of
generation. \----------------------------------------------

Germans are burning more coal than Pre-Fukushima days and Munich is 48N
latitude.. good luck with Solar. That production efficiency from massive solar
installation thus far is not that impressive.

~~~
civilitty
The increases in coal consumption are lagging indicators because the
regulatory process for building a new one starts at about 5-10 years before it
is powered up. Technological progress and changing economies of scale in
solar, natural gas, and wind have done a real number on energy investments
over the last few decades. You're looking at the consequences of investment
decisions made 10-20 years before it was obvious how fast solar/wind would
reach parity with coal or how plentiful a much cleaner fuel like natgas would
become.

~~~
sremani
That is why I picked 7 year time line of Germany. Of the 33% renewable in
Germany 7% comes from biomass that is a free for all definition that includes
at times burning wood.

Right now, Biomass is 7% compared to 6% of Solar. Germany is known to have
massive solar (read it.. not from there).

From 33% to 70% in span of 7 years - that is something.

I am not rooting against it, if that is the impression my post gave. My point
is the report is too good to be true.

------
tim333
The 50% point at 2050 seems very late. Renewables are becoming cheaper already
and on present trends will be noticeably cheaper in say 5 years (2023) and
then there's not much problem cracking ahead. Already "Renewable energy now
makes up nearly third of all electricity generated in UK"
[https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-renewable-
energ...](https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-renewable-energy-third-
electricity-generated-wind-solar-panel-any-other-forms-mentioned-
coal-a8122921.html)

~~~
Retric
Don't worry, linked graph shows 64% renewable energy generation. 48% Wind /
Solar, ~2% other, and ~14% Hydro.

I know bad reporting is common, but this is ridiculous.

~~~
civilitty
You can mine the materials, fabricate, and deploy solar panels or wind
turbines without significantly impacting ecology (even when drastically
increasing shade in deserts) but dams completely change the landscape and flow
of water with consequences reaching as far as tidal pools and tributaries fed
by rivers that are damed hundreds of miles away.

It's becoming more and more common to exclude hydro from the list of renewable
energy sources because the ecological impact of dams is huge and largely
irreversible - something that has only begun to enter popular conscience (at
least in California) over the last few decades. The point of renewable energy
is to avoid exhausting natural resources at an unsustainable rate and that
includes ecological diversity.

~~~
Retric
I don't see how existing dams are going to harm biological diversity any more
than they already have. So, that argument seems excessive.

More directly, solar may be more harmful to the environment than nuclear.
Renewable means something specific, pretending it must be good for the
environment has noting to do with it.

~~~
roryisok
> solar may be more harmful to the environment than nuclear.

Wow. What?

~~~
Retric
Nuclear _can_ be very self contained. They both take quite a bit of mining,
but solar needs more land area.

Sure, rooftops works for single family homes, but that does not scale for high
rises. Unlike Wind you can't grow crops under solar, so you end up changing
habitats that would have been untouched.

Granted, if you fuck it up Nuclear can cause more problems. But most of it's
issues are for Humans with our longer lifespans and higher cancer risks. Just
look at all the wildlife in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. And, the area around
Fukushima is rapidly turning into wilderness.

~~~
tim333
You can grow crops under solar sometimes
[http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2017/12/doubling-up-
crop...](http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2017/12/doubling-up-crops-with-
solar-farms-could-increase-land-use-efficiency-by-as-much-as-60/)

~~~
Retric
That's rather low density solar and still requires extra farm land. But, point
well made.

------
sgt101
Not enough. We need to go faster if we can't get down further.

