93% of new global electricity generation capacity was from renewable energy last year, says IRENA. That sounds very impressive. But, sadly, that’s only half the story. As the IEA noted, global energy demand grew by 2.2% in 2024, led by the power sector with electricity demand surging by 4.3%, well above the 3.2% growth in global GDP, driven by record temperatures, higher electrification and increased digitalisation. Renewables met the largest share of the growth, but not all of it (fossil fuel use also expanded) and so renewable expansion was not enough to cut net new emissions.
So, we are running fast to not even stand still. That’s how French economist Fressoz sees it in his new book ‘More & More & More’. He says that renewables are just additive - fossil fuel growth just continues, feeding yet more demand. And on top of that, renewables use scarce materials, adding to eco-damage. So putting this all together, along with continued population growth, you can construct a pretty gloomy picture of the future – and that’s without taking Trump in to account.
Some react to gloomy views like this by calling for a radical switch to low growth and a more frugal lifestyle, while others are hopeful that technology can help us avoid that- so they call for even more renewables and faster deployment, coupled with a commitment to energy saving. This debate on this has been rumbling on for some while. For example, back in 2012 Australian ecologist Ted Trainer argued, in a critique of Delucchi and Jacobson’s ‘100% renewables’ global scenario, that renewable energy could supply the world only if the world ‘embraces frugal lifestyles, small and highly self-sufficient local economies, and participatory and co-operative ways in an overall economy that is not driven by growth or market forces’. In response, Delucchi and Jacobson said ‘This vision may or may not be desirable, but it was found in our study not to be necessary in order to power the world economically with wind, water, and solar energy’.
More recently the continued rise in carbon emissions, despite renewable deployment, has been seen by some as a reason to back rapid nuclear expansion and/or Carbon Capture and Storage- despite the uncertainties and costs of those options, and also carbon removal options like DAC. In practice though, what we have been seeing is a ‘bit of every-thing’ approach - although not entirely following Fressoz’s predictions. Thus, China is clearly leading the world in green energy terms: pushing ahead with renewables very fast. But it also has a (smaller) nuclear programme and also still has a lot of coal plants, sometimes used only occasionally to back up renewables. Though it is building more to meet demand. However, there are hopes that with renewable expansion and better energy use efficiency, its coal build/use will peak soon. That’s far from certain, but by contrast it does seem likely that, under Trump, coal use in the US, and maybe elsewhere, may grow. If so that will open some interesting political and strategic security issues globally.
Meantime, in the UK, the political leaders battle it out over future priorities. In the introduction to a new report from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, one time leader Blair says that, with global fossil fuel use dominating and still expanding ‘any strategy based on either “phasing out” fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail’- not least he claims since, in the developed countries, ‘voters feel they’re being asked to make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know that their impact on global emissions is minimal’.
So they are resisting – evidently not buying enough electric cars or heat pumps and objecting to wind farms, solar farms and new pylons. Well maybe, but as Prospect magazine argued, it is not clear if Blair’s ideas for net zero (lots of nuclear and CCS) would fare any better- it says they are likely to be ‘expensive and unpopular’. BNEF founder Michael Liebreich has also trashed most of Blair’s facts. Nigel Farage, who has been pushing a similar approach for ReformUK, had better take note! But so must Starmer- Labour’s renewables expansion programme is not that radical and it’s also not that secure …Though it has got rid of coal.
As for the rest of the world, well China, the biggie, as noted above, still has a long way to go to get rid of coal, and the USA currently has a big political problem with coal (and renewables). However, almost 60 countries (including China) have drastically scaled back their plans for building coal-fired power plants since the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, and renewables are doing well most places: 60 countries had electricity generation in 2023 at between 50-100% renewable, including 12 at near 100%. The leaders are mostly in developing countries in Asia, Africa & South America, most using hydro, but they also include Iceland at 100% (70% hydro), Norway at 98.4% (88% hydro). Canada isn’t far behind at 68% (57% hydro). Kenya is at 88% (20% hydro, 47% Geothermal). But wind and solar are picking up fast, as new green options, around the world- led by China. We may all get there yet…although possibly not the USA on current form.
It may be unsettling, but, on that last point, take a look at Trumps ‘ending the green new scam’ proposals for the 2026 US budget, which, amongst other things, are pretty unrelentingly hostile to ‘unreliable renewable energy’. So, it proposes cuts of $2.5 billion from the Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programme, which it says ‘funneled billions of taxpayer dollars into unreliable energy and EVs to advance the destructive “Green New Deal” agenda. EERE is also responsible for outlandish regulations that drive up costs for American families, like banning gas stoves and incandescent light bulbs’ The Budget proposal also ‘refocuses spending on research and development, technologies improving baseload power, and bioenergy, while saving taxpayers over $2.5 billion’. It’s not clear what that means exactly, but presumably coal-fired plants would be included as ‘good things’, along with biofuels – to cheer the farming lobby. But it is clear what will not be included, with the budget ‘eliminating funding that supports disastrous offshore wind energy projects that harm coastal communities, wildlife, and military readiness’. Pretty grim reading overall, with some grim prognoses on solar too.
Comments
Post a Comment