The world is not on track to triple global installed renewables by 2030 as hoped. That’s according to a new report by the International Renewable Energy Agency and the COP30 Brazilian Presidency, along with the Global Renewables Alliance.
An unprecedented 582 GW of renewables was installed last year, but deployment still falls short of what is needed to achieve the COP28 UAE Consensus goal of tripling renewables to 11.2 TW by 2030. To stay on track, the report says the world would need to add around 1,122 GW of renewable capacity each year from 2025 onward—about 20 times what was achieved last year. The report also highlights slow progress on energy efficiency. Global energy intensity improved by just 1% in 2024, far below the 4% p.a. needed to keep the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C temperature target within reach.
In its annual Energy Transition Outlook DNV says the roughly same. The energy transition it forecasts ‘remains too slow to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement – net zero emissions is not achieved until the latter part of the century, with dangerous warming of 2.2°C by 2100’. Although ‘some aspects of the transition are supercharged and progressing rapidly, other aspects have hit turbulence & are delayed’. For example, ‘in the US, policy reversals are markedly slowing that nation’s transition, with, for example, emissions reductions delayed by 5 years relative to our previous forecast’.
However, overall it does sees global CO2 emissions reducing by 43% from today by 2050 and by 63% by 2060 – although that means we would only reach full net zero after 2090. So it warns that we are not going fast enough: ‘limiting global warming to 1.5°C without a temporary overshoot is no longer possible. Emissions in our forecast are associated with a temperature rise of 2.2°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.’ But ‘limiting global warming to ‘well below 2°C’ is still possible and urgent actions in all sectors and in all countries and regions are crucial to ensure this’.
So with issues like that on the agenda, what some look to COP 30 in Brazil. That has still to conclude, but in the run up to it there were some positive commitments from the industry side and from some countries, including the UK. But not the USA: ‘President Trump will not jeopardise our country's economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals that are killing other countries,’ a White House spokeswoman told Sky News.
That inevitably slowed things down a bit there, but given that much of the rest of the world is moving fast on green energy, overall, globally, DNV seemed to think that may not make too much difference longer term. Nor, it said, will the extra power demand that some expect from AI- it looks to an extra 3% of power use globally. EVs will be more significant. It says that while data centres and AI may have the biggest impact on power consumption in the next five years in N. America, in Europe, it sees EV charging growth far exceeding AI’s demand growth, as will both EV charging & the cooling of buildings in China and India. Certainly like many others, it sees China as pushing ahead fast in all areas- in terms of renewable expansion and EV use, as well as getting emissions stabilised.
However, that may not be enough. Neither will technical fixes like carbon capture/removal in their various guises. Direct Air Capture of CO2 looks like the least worst of the geoengineering options, but as a recent Sunday Times colour supplement (2/11/25), noted, while ‘Climeworks believes it can eventually get its price to between $150 and $200’, companies are ‘currently charging about $1000 per tonne of CO2 removal- far too high to work at scale.’ However, it added that spraying salt water vapour into the air to brighten clouds, using thousands of ships, was also seen as possible. But both options use energy…Quite apart from the eco-impact issues, would be a sensible use for green power?
What about nuclear? That has not exactly been sitting quietly in the wings waiting to be called on (it’s been talking up its purported energy security role), but equally it’s not expanding much, if at all, in many places. The DNV scenario only has nuclear supplying 10% global power by 2060, almost the same as now - and that’s despite global power demand being very much larger then. But it is conceivable that that the will be some better nuclear technology.
Much is being made of small modular reactors. The new still being developed and assessed Rolls Royce SMR, at 470MW, may not be very small, but three units have now been planned for a 1.5GW installation at Wylfa in North Wales. Though it’s not yet certain – the ‘Final Investment Decision’ for Rolls Royce Wylfa isn’t until 2029. No one has mentioned a price for power yet, but the government has set £2.5 bn aside for SMRs. Interestingly though President Trump was not happy with the plan- he felt that US company Westinghouse should have got the contract!
It is fairly small beer- the two old already shut Magnox reactors it will replace were 490MW each. Though with 3 units it will be a bit larger. And, in time, some new technology options may yet emerge: DESNZ minister of state Michael Shanks said: ‘The next generation of nuclear, including SMRs, offers new possibilities, including faster deployment, lower capital costs and greater flexibility. Whilst nuclear energy has a unique role to play in delivering stable, low-carbon 'base-load' energy, SMRs may be able to serve the electricity grid more flexibly than traditional nuclear, as well as unlock a range of additional applications in energy sectors beyond grid electricity.’ That seems a bit optimistic. Perhaps some new SMRs can be more flexible, but New Civil Engineer countered that it would only help UK power balancing if there were lots of them. Maybe they are too small!
It is true that balancing is important and will become more so globally as renewable expand. At the moment, fossil gas plants provide most balancing, but as gas prices vary it can be very costly at times. The nuclear lobby says nuclear can offer low cost 'base-load' power. But at what costs? Surely it will cost more overall as the power won’t be needed continually, only when some renewables are low?
The future isn’t going to easy. But perhaps we can do better with renewables than DNV suggest. For example, it only sees hydrogen and its derivatives covering 1% of demand globally by 2040 and 6% by 2060. And we might do better on energy efficiency and energy saving : as the IEA these days keeps reminding us, we need we need to focus more on reducing energy demand. That could really help us meet emission targets. See my next post…
Comments
Post a Comment