Clean Power Sees First Win Over Fossil Fuels in Emerging Markets

Developing countries have added more clean power capacity than fossil fuel generation for the first time ever, charging ahead of wealthier nations in the global green energy push, according to Bloomberg NEF.

Wind and solar generation accounted for just over half of the 186 gigawatts of new power capacity in developing nations last year, according to BNEF’s annual Climatescope survey released Tuesday. Not only that, they’ve added more clean energy generation than developed economies, increasing zero-carbon capacity by 114 gigawatts compared with about 63 gigawatts in richer countries.

The findings show a turnaround from a decade ago when the world’s wealthiest nations dominated renewable investment and deployment activities. Many developing countries have an abundance of natural resources and lower equipment costs, allowing new renewable projects to become cheaper than fossil plants, according to the report.

“Just a few years ago, some argued that less developed nations could not, or even should not, expand power generation with zero-carbon sources because these were too expensive,” Dario Traum, BNEF Climatescope project manager said in a statement. “Today, these countries are leading the charge when it comes to deployment, investment, policy innovation and cost reductions.”

Emerging markets added the least new coal-fired power generating capacity last year since at least 2006. New coal plants in these countries slumped 38 percent from a year earlier to 48 gigawatts in 2017, which was about half of the peak in 2015, according to BNEF.

For the Climatescope survey, BNEF conducts country-by-country assessments of clean-energy market conditions and scores each nation, with more points awarded for investments and policy reforms that support clean energy and countries’ openness to international investors over the availability of local manufacturing. The survey included 103 nations, up from 71 in the previous report.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-27/clean-power-sees-first-win-over-fossil-fuels-in-emerging-markets

I feel like we kind of get down on this forum about the state of renewable energy in the world due no doubt to our stupid stupid president. That said, clean energy is making real gains around the world, both in terms of capacity, as evidenced by the report above, and in terms affordability in comparrison to fossil fuels. When your product is cheaper it really doesn't matter what your politics are, the private sector will follow the money, or, in this case, the savings.

Anyways, thought I would share some good news.

Good for clean power.

But there are still a lot of bugs that have to be worked out like storing power which is a major problem.

We're slowly getting there... but still have a long way to go.

Like said above, storing the power is the problem. Battery storage needs to be built along with the solar panels/wind turbines.

And as demand increases around the world, the capacity and technology will improve rapidly. Which will make renewable power even cheaper.

There are 14,000 abandoned wind mills in the US. The little known secret the wind mills still have to rely on natural gas. The problem with wind mills you can't control the amount of electricity put on the grid as you can with a conventional power generating plant. Wind mill can't be put with in a mile of human homes because of the frequency of the blades generated while rotating. Solar panels are hazardous to the environment to make. That is why they are mostly manufactured in China. This is all done for the sake of man made climate change in which the science has a lot of holes in it. We are more likely to be all killed by a comet striking the earth or the super volcano in Yellowstone than climate change.

Places that have hydro power in addition to wind and solar, could use the excess energy produced by wind and solar to pump water back into the damns for hydro power.

I like the idea of having solar panels on homes, then the energy companies buying surplus power back from the homes.

A lot of the stuff isn't perfect, I don't think most people say it is either, but we have these renewable/sustainable sources of energy that don't risk the environment, I think it's a shame to not steer in that direction.

There should obviously be a transition period, and we shouldn't start closing down power plants or abandoning nuclear power, but we need to keep our focus on "green" energy.

What is wrong with the frequency of the wind turbine blades? Genuine question.

Renewables are far from perfect, but they are by far the best choice we have at the moment. Not only is the future for solar far more potent than the one for coal (a dying industry). But it is also pollutes less.

Which is why investing in these renewable powers is a good idea.

Way better than throwing up hands and saying it is unviable. Like tools such as Ben Shapiro.

seems like low frequency noise from the large blades circulating through the air can be disturbing.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/035103

More studies definitely needed.

Not very surprised by this though.

yup. though some of the info on effects seems subjective and may be the result of NIMBY syndrome.

There is nothing wrong with that, especially when natural gas is relatively cheap. If a renewable source relies partially on a clean burning fuel source, that's not really a bad thing. Natural gas has been the biggest factor in reducing our carbon emissions.

I find it pretty ironic that the year we quit the Paris agreement was the year we had a bigger reduction of carbon emissions per capita than most of the countries in the agreement. Who would have thought that extracting clean burning gas and making it more affordable would do more for the environment than a bunch of world leaders signing a document.

@vl4d_l3nin: There's nothing really ironic about it. The US had the biggest reduction per capita because it is one of the biggest offenders (over double the EU!) It's easy to have a bigger reduction when your by far one of the biggest causes of carbon pollution.

Europe has been pushing for green energy and improving public transport etc for decades before "signing a document"

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/energy-related-co2-emissions-per-capita-in-the-eu-usa-russia-china-and-the-world

@comp_atkins: I'm all for more studies, but I am pretty confident that a significant portion of this really stems from said NIMBY syndrome.

I'm in a masters program and I still hate reading research, can someone tldr that shit for me?

Wind? RIP ?.

:(

Emissions are still rising.

Cool. So what do you need the document for? It seems that the west is doing a pretty good job at curbing it. The U.S. is doing it by making clean burning fuel more abundant and affordable, some European countries like France are doing it by jacking up the price of fuel and making it less affordable to drive a car, leading to protests where people get killed.

The U.S. is NOT the biggest cause of carbon pollution. China more than doubles our carbon output, and despite signing the Paris agreement, they're output is going to rise until at least 2030. India is going to increase their output for even longer, and they are on the agreement as well. Maybe you meant that the U.S. is the biggest in terms of per capita, but even then you're still wrong. Per capita we are lower than Australia and the UAE, and on par with Canada.

Great news. There is no such things as borders when it comes to CO2 pollution so a reduction by poorer countries is as good as a reduction here.

Basically developing countries that are getting access to electricity and gas for more areas of their people for the first time are adopting more renewable energy than they are adopting fossil fuels.

Uhhhh, we actually already do that. It's called water cycle. lol

@N30F3N1X: And the water cycle has a fairly fixed, uncontrolled rate. Lol.

Investment in clean power is never bad but we are no where near a place where it´s a viable alternative to more stable power sources.

But i agree it´s not unviable , progress just needs to happen before we are at a place where it can be a substitutue.

I'm not talking about the natural water cycle. Anyhow some places are perhaps already doing it. Do know that in my country, it is done very little, if anything at all.

3% reduction in emissions is a reasonable goal. Wish we would get cracking on that now.

Meanwhile, Trump wants to increase coal usage.

@Jacanuk: that's the battery issue. We are close to fixing that.

@Jacanuk: actually it is viable now. Some much that it can make a surplus in energy. The only issue we have with it is with cars. The batteries we have now have slow recharge rates so the best thing we have to deal with it are hybrids that uses it gas powered engine to recharge the battery these cara have. It ammounts to less fuel used.

The very moment we advance the recharge ability of batteries is the moment gas power starts to die.

Actually no it´s not viable now if you look at wind and solar they are even in countries with a high usage like in Scandinavian only a small percentage of the usage, the UK said they expect 20% in 2020, since the problem is still storage and the methods available now is much more costly than having a fossil fuel based power plant.

Also, you need to stay on topic and not go to "cars" since that has zero relevance as to this debate.

@Jacanuk: 1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/environment/germany-grids-paying-electricity-customers-renewable-energy-power-surplus-wind-solar-generation-a8022576.html%3famp

German power producers are poised to pay customers to use electricity this weekend.

"Wind generation is forecast to climb to a record on Sunday, creating more output than needed and driving electricity prices below zero, broker data compiled by Bloomberg show. It would be the first time this year that the average price for a whole day is negative, not just for specific hours.

Germany’s grid operators can struggle to keep the balance between how much energy people are using and how much is being produced when there are high amounts of wind generation. Negative prices mean that producers must either shut down power stations to reduce supply or pay consumers to take the electricity off the grid."

Which is my point. Any place that state they only use a limited ammout of solar power is due to the surplus of energy it makes.

This issue here is not about power regulation...it's about money.

You can't say something that makes to much of anything is not viable.

Not Viable only means that it's not consistant.

Wind and water inconsistencies are only limited to the limit of power it can make.

It can make too much power which the can't Be used to get money.

Also, cars go hand in hand with this because A major of the power industry depends on cars. Exxon, shell, and any gas and oil companies are listed under the energy industry.

All conversations of clean energy includes cars as well.

Which is why I brought up the issue of batteries and rechargablity in cars as well because with that improviting all industries in energy.

Why because the only thing holding back clean energy out side of big oil industries holding back on purpose are the issue we have with batteries and their rechargablity.

Which we are very cloae to fixing.

And Germany is blocking electricity from Scandinavia countries who are surplus mostly come from clean energy.

But no the problem with storing is not solved and the few solutions there is available is a lot more costly than just firing up a normal coal/fossil fuel electric plant. And again that is the biggest problem.

https://qz.com/1133123/batteries-cant-solve-the-worlds-biggest-energy-storage-problem-one-startup-has-a-solution/

@Jacanuk: 1. Germany is doing that because of money. Which I pointed out. Any extra power they have to finally refund.

2. And said before, I already pointed out that problem with electric cars. The issues with batteries and recharge is the same issue with the entire clean energy market.

Issues with batteries are always going to be about storage, stability, and rechargablity.

Even with those issue clean energy still makes more energy then all that current power options we have.

3. I never said it was solved....I said ot was close to being solved.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.technologyreview.com/s/610792/this-battery-advance-could-make-electric-vehicles-far-cheaper/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/building-a-better-battery/amp

The current lead development in batteries are in phones and electric cars. Once it is finalized it will imporves all markets of energy.

Do the batteries still use cobalt? Because that kind of defeats their entire environmental benefit over fossil fuels.

It's like DEF fluid for diesel motors, used to remove NOx emissions from diesel exhaust, but it's produced from natural gas and shipped in non-biodegradable plastic containers. On top of Europe dumping the mandated use of it after two years in favour of a simpler DPF system, but North America continuing to use it after ten years.

Almost like being able to charge people twice for their fuel is a great way to make money and it's benefit to the environment isn't why it's legally required.

@foxhound_fox: Cobalt is still used, however far less. Tesla has reduced their usage with 60% or more.

@horgen: beat me to it.

@foxhound_fox: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2018/6/21/17488626/elon-musk-cobalt-electric-vehicle-battery-science

Elon Musk wants cobalt out of his batteries — here’s why that’s a challenge

@JimB: that all depends on if we grow gills before the earth gets too hot for the polar icecaps. And if that doesn't kill us the digging for fossil fuel may collapse the earth as we hollow it out for coal and stuff

That's great. Get back to me when it happens. I totally understand the need to move towards clean energy, but expensive, environmentally damaging cobalt batteries aren't the solution. It's long-term solutions like hydrogen fuel cells. Musk should have been spending his fortune on the future, rather than a stop-gap.

Not that I don't appreciate his effort, but it still strikes me more as him investing in the current fad of "environmentally friendly" technology that when you really dig into it, isn't very environmentally friendly. And his cars are high-end luxury vehicles, not entry-level compacts for everyone.

Using hydrogen as fuel isn't more effective than fossil fuel. At least not by much.

We can't be getting the hydrogen from natural gas forever. I think we need to to mass scale hydrolysis after a while.

Take what I posted here with a grain of salt. It's from memory from other forums.

Yeah, I'm a huge supporter of climate change legislation, but I want actual movement towards the future, and less stop gaps and things pleasing to corporations. When scientists are telling me we are reaching a "point of no return" in about a decade, why are the world governments not losing their shit and actually getting stuff done?

@foxhound_fox: Money, of course. Established lobbyists get their money from established business interests/infrastructure.

Because of the investment required, the money it will cost and the reduced income it means for years to come.

The higher cost associated with doing nothing atm is for potential future generations to bear. Not many organizations will say that we need to either reduce the number of people living, especially in the western world, drive less, fly less, consume less and eat more vegetables and less meat to make significant impact now.

Why don't you drop that shitty truck you're driving and do your logistics job by hand to save on CO2 emissions?

Yeah, that's what I thought. The same thing goes for governments.

There is no clean cut alternative to what we have at the moment and no one wants to take a bullet for a very vacuous "greater good". As long as everyone wants his home heated in the winter and cooled in the summer, on demand transportation with cars, last generation electronics, reliable electricity and services, availability of any kind of common goods from far away places, then CO2 emissions won't be cut unless a major technological breakthrough happens. Don't point your finger at the government to do something you should be doing yourself.

Yeah? How about you stop buying shit so I don't have to drive the truck anymore?

The trucking industry is a huge part of the North American economy, and I'll gladly switch to a hydrogen-powered truck when they become available. So long as I can still shift the gears manually.

It's going to require a lot more than the general public buying hybrid/all-electric cars for change to happen. It's big corporations and governments that need to affect the change.

@horgen: yes it is.

Even our cell core form of energy in based around hydrogen.

With gas and oil the carbon in them are just carriers of carbon. The issue is that in the end of the process of it is harmful carbon monoxide. It's the movement of the hydrogen in the gas and oil that gives them boom.

With more hydrogen based fuel you're looking at h2 and o2 as a result and that goes back water vapor at the very most.

At the very worse it turna to hydroxide ions which is easier to clean up.

To be fair, doing those things are essentially requesting that people go against human nature. Asking people to live smaller, and doing less for the sake of the planet is kind of like trying to get teenagers to stop having sex. Some might go along with it, but you're still banking against human nature for your plan to work. Creating new machines that are more efficient or run off a different fuel source so that we don't have to feel the impact of simply not having what we used to have is a far more viable strategy than expecting people to just give things up.

Yup. Light Green environmentalism is unfeasible for the same reasons abstinence programs are.

It is why Bright Green environmentalism is so effective.

I believe the we as a society should move unviable/futureless sources like coal, and instead go where the future is, such as nuclear, solar, and yes, even natural gas (as a transitional). The best way to do this is via incentivicization through the private sector.

I've not heard the terms bright green and light green before. Is that relatively new?

Nah, they have been used for quite a while. Environmentalism, has always been a pretty divided category... with varying degrees of sanity.

Dark is blatantly insane. As it often seeks to undermine capitalism, which has been a key product for our well being of the modern age.

Light isnt a bad idea for personal morality and ethics, but not everyone is going to adopt it.

Bright is the one we are seeing the most today, and it often involves pushing for innovation, usually via incentivization of the private sector. And regulations of dirtier industries such as coal. In most parts of the world, even conservatives like this one.

Just not nuclear.

Not only is it more polluting than coal and oil combined (38,000 year radioactive waste half life). It is patently a risk from meltdown even if that risk is slim.

Nuclear is by far the easiest way to endanger the entire human race.

Having said that. It is more suited as a fuel for space flight or the aeronautical industry but US governments are twitchy about it's use in international boundaries due the possibility of rival political powers weaponizing it.