From 2004-2015, worldwide solar power production increased at 51% per year!
In 2015, it only accounted for 1.05% of electricity generation, but at current rates of growth, solar will dominate the energy market in the next 10-20 years.
CO2 emissions will decline. The coal and oil industries are doomed. The solar revolution is coming sooner than people think.
Solar power is a good supplement, but not primary energy source. It's too costly to store it. Creating the batteries necessary to store large amounts of solar energy becomes inhibitively costly very quickly. Petrol is ready to be converted into energy instantly and at any time of day.
Kenneth I don't know what country you live in but both the United States and Australia are already dealing with yearly extreme weather events we're not equipped to handle, from massive fires to abnormal snowstorms to much stronger and more frequent tropical storms. You're right that people generations down the line will face far worse, but the effects of climate change are already here and already causing substantial damage.
Countries with hidropower dont need to worry about batteries since they can store this energy as water on the reservatories. If the country has many hidroplants this problem is very easily solved.
The main problem with solar energy in frequency stability on those regions, a problem of its own
You're right Quizmaster. The evil oil companies will all die off, we will become 100% reliant on renewable energy, there will be world peace, and we'll all hold hands around a campfire and sing Kumbaya!
Interestingly enough oil companies knows these days are doomed, not on a close future, but on a close enough to make them start worring. Major oil companies are studing how they can use their known technology to help, for instance, offshore windplants are of a great interest for them and they are already prepare to bid in countries that want to go offshore
Except that it's quite crazy to ask from our grandchildren living thousands of years in the future that they still guard our toxic waste. Imagine we would still have to guard the deadly waste that was the result of the energy production in ancient Egypt.
Except that nuclear, even fission, is vastly more efficient now than it was in the days of its height: put simply, most of the nuclear waste that will ever be produced already has been, so that problem exists either way. In the here and now, with how effective nuclear fission has become, it is a good way to provide an energy baseload.
People hardly seem concerned about how what they do now will affect future generations, at least regarding the status quo. Why try to generate energy a different way when we can keep doing what we're doing and let our grandkids inherit a flooding fireball?
On paper it might seem a good sollution, but nuclear energy is not 100% safe and given the huge impact on both mankind and environment (often in terms of many generations), one needs to be prudent.
It's much easier and safer to work with a broad spectrum of renewable energy as there the risks of failure have fewer consequences.
For the record, even including every single nuclear reactor failure, nuclear is safer than any other energy source in 2017 per watt-hour generated if you take into account everything that is involved in setting up the system.
People die falling off of roofs installing solar panels, get chewed up by wind turbines, fall into dams, etc. all for nearly insignificant percentages of what a single nuclear plant can come up with. Coal and other fossil fuels of course are orders of magnitude more harmful.
Plutonium-239, a nuclear power by-product, has a half-life of 24,000 years, 12 times as long as the length of time between Christ's life and now. How can anyone have any idea that any particular location will be geologically and politically stable for 24,000 years? Or indeed, even if somewhere stays geologically and politically stable, whether our level of civilization will remain technologically capable of continuing to contain the waste anyway? After 24,000 years, the plutonium doesn't even become safe - it just becomes half as dangerous.
Pu-239 does have a long half life and it would be harmful if all absorbed at once but firstly it will radiate half its mass over 24000 years so at any given moment the quantity of radiation emitted is small and as an end product of nuclear reactions it is only 0.8% of the mass so if you have a reactor using 1kg of fuel you may have 8g lying around after.
I think it is important to realise that the precautions taken around nuclear energy and nuclear waste are sometimes possibly more than is necessary. Radiation poisoning is obviously bad and is rightly avoided where there is nuclear power, but it is probably less a danger than some people imagine. It is also possible that a more permanent solution may be found to the problem of nuclear waste than is currently possible, meaning that nuclear waste will not necessarily need to be looked after as it is today for periods of thousands of years.
If it goes at this rate. Sadly it will probably take a bit longer to become the main energy player. Although maybe further improvements in the technology may encourage more people to use it
Well being optimistic is good and all but I'm sure you understand it is easy to double your production of anything when it's almost inexistant but quite hard to do the same when it is already huge...
That is why while solar power was increasing of 50% its share in total energy consumption didn't increase that much. Personnally I think photovoltaics aren't the way to go about solar energy, it is wasteful and inefficient. Solar energy should be used mostly to warm up houses without transforming it into electricity.
Coal production continues to grow at about 2.8% per year and makes up about 27% of the global energy supply [call global energy supply 'E'], so it increases by 2.8%*.27E = .756% of E every year.
If solar makes up 1.05% of the energy supply and grows at 50% per year, that means every year it grows by 50%*.0105E = .525% of E every year.
Coal energy is currently growing faster, in raw numbers.
If the growth in solar energy remains the same relative to its share of the energy market, then it should eventually 'dominate' over coal, but as long as coal and other fossil fuels continue to grow as well it does nothing useful for CO2 reductions. Both are driven by rising energy demand; they don't supplant the other.
The good news is that the growth of fossil fuel energy should slow and then reverse as solar energy becomes the cheaper alternative, and it is price reductions for solar, not its growth rate, that mean solar will, hopefully, dominate in the next 10-20 years.
Nuclear is the anwser. Solar is ineffecient in the northern half of Europe in the winter and we wont have good storage batteries for a long time. Nuclear is much saver than most people think.
Windpower, hidrogen.. there are options, the good politics is a diverse energy production. Moreover, those countries can always import from southern countries, better than going oil.
Well, China knows that building coal plants at the rate they have been is totally unsustainable if they want air that isn't going to actively kill them.
If you lived here you wouldn't be saying that. Most of China's energy still comes from coal, and you can see the results of this throughout most of the country.
The reason why people praise china is that China is actually trying to solve global warming while the US is actively trying to create more coal power plants.
For those pointing out China still builds coal plants, this is absolutely true.
However, China is mostly building supercritical and ultrasupercritical coal power plants. These plants are far more efficient than the smog producing monsters that you generally think about. About 22% more energy per ton of coal burned but also a fraction of the nitrous, sulfur, or particulate emissions of subcritical plants. They also tightened their emissions standards. It will take a long time to replace their existing dirty fleet of coal plants, but that is generally what they're doing.
So while they're building new coal plants, they CAN be cleaning up their emissions. Similar to how we have cleaned up ours by replacing coal with natural gas.
This quiz has been featured on 22 April 2017, Earth Day, which is also the first day since the Industrial Revolution that the United Kingdom has met its daily power generation needs without using any coal at all.
My thoughts taking the quiz: "66.6 % increase, largest in the top 10. It has to be a quickly developing, industrializing country. Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey etc" United Kingdom?! Why such a low capacity before and such an increase during 2015?
Massive increase in UK was probably due to government grants being available to home owners that meant adding solar panels to homes was virtually cost free
6 years later, soo brazil solar growth between 2016 and 2020 and its only growing faster. Brazil was just late for the party, as brazilians usually are hahaha
Pretty easy. Just thought of what would lend itself to a country having a large reliance on solar energy. Quickly came up with 1) large geographic area. 2) large energy demands. 3) highly developed/industrialized. 4) low fossil fuel reserves. 5) sunny weather 6) forward-thinking energy policy.
If you could tick off at least 4 things on the list chances are the country is on the quiz.
Of those I would say 2, 3 and 6 appear to be most important. Otherwise Germany, Japan, France, the UK, Spain and Italy wouldn't be here. Though actually 4 may apply in some cases there too. But for the other four yeah geographic area plays a large role I expect.
It is a great thought that solar power will be the answer to all our energy problems. Unfortunately the reality is not so. In the UK it is a help that's for sure, but the amount of energy needed is growing daily and it would take so much renewable sourcing that it will be fifty or more years to get up to 50%. There are currently six nuclear projects in development and In the short to medium-term gas is expected to play an even more significant role in the UK’s energy mix. Also it seems unlikely that solar PV projects will be eligible for participation in future CfD allocation rounds.
I don't like to be a naysayer, but I'm with you on this one. Going solar is great, but I also think we need to put more emphasis on how to lower overall demands for energy rather than find more ways to meet growing demands. Do we really need bigger cars, bigger houses, bigger commercial buildings, etc? Solar helps us leave a smaller footprint, but it's only one solution to the problem. I grew up when our big cars got eight miles to the gallon but no one cared because we could always find a gas war where gasoline was 19 cents per gallon. We grew up with the idea that energy was limitless, and good living meant a bigger house, bigger car, more TVs, etc. I hope the next generations are better at embracing the "less is more" attitude and will be more conservative of what we have in addition to finding ways to generate more.
@Malbaby. It looks like you were right. I'm leaving my original comment up, but my thinking has changed in the last 4 years. Solar and wind power have some major downsides that will need to be accounted for. There will be growing pains. Having a reliable, clean, source of power that works 24x7 no matter what is important. Nuclear seems the only way to accomplish that. Without nuclear, we'll be forced to rely on coal and natural gas for some time yet.
Unfortunately Chernobyl, Fukushima, Zaphorizhzhia and Three Mile Island have shown that if you build a nuclear power plant in an area that is geologically and politically stable, you cannot guarantee it will remain that way for the 3000-plus years it will take for the nuclear material to have decayed sufficiently for it to be safe.
Back in 2005 I visited Australia. I thought back then that Australia, with its huge wide open areas of land along with the copious amounts of sun, would be ideal for solar power. I'm surprised at how sluggish they have been to adopt the this technology, when a country like the UK, with it's very unsunny climate, has more capacity.
The UK has about 60% more capacity and 200% more people. Back of the envelope calculations say that Australia produces about twice as much per person. In addition Australia has loads of coal reserves that are easily recoverable. The UK doesn't have that luxury any more.
I'm not sure I agree it's a 'luxury' but it's a perfectly rational economic option. There are plenty of coal reserves in the UK but they're not economically viable to be deep mined and it's
not socially acceptable in a densely populated island to have vast open cast mining, thank goodness.
Australia has given tax breaks to coal industry for years and years which has made it hard for renewables like solar to compete. This is changing but only slowly.
Most of the coal is, of course, shipped off to Asian countries like Japan. It's not the worst thing ever, since Australian coal tends to be cleaner and have higher energy density than other grades. Still, it's not ideal. In my opinion, Australia is up there with Saudi Arabia and Canada as possibly the worst country for the environment on a per-capita basis.
Solar power is good where they're efficient. But a big negative to them is that they have low lifespan and therefor produce a lot of waste. Toxic waste too, which we don't know where to dispose yet.
I think this might show that nationalism limits energy efficiency. Nobody planning an energy system for the whole world would think of putting so many solar panels in the UK of all places. Australia and parts of the US and China, yes. There are of course limits to how far energy can be transported without significant loss, but the countries that would benefit most from solar energy if only they had the money are burning fossil fuels while the countries where solar energy is the least economic are trying to harvest it regardless of whether there is any or not. Though in the case of the UK at least we really ought to just build offshore wind turbines and look into the possibility of tidal power in some places. As far as I can tell the only real barriers to this are lack of will and bureaucracy.
Easy to say that, but before celebrating Vietnam, take a look at this quiz. Also, Vietnam's off this list now. I think it's less that Vietnam is becoming a leader in clean energy and more that it's energy demand has grown a lot and it uses whatever sources it can to meet its energy needs.
In the Netherlands so many households and regular companies have been installing solar panels on their roofs that in some municipalities it is now forbidden to do so because the electrical grid can't keep up with it on sunny days.
By now those numbers are already out of date. Brazils power capacity is already over 27GW for Solar energy and its getting larger in huge rates.
Brazil is probably already the 5th largest solar energy producer on the world, if not it will be in matter of months. (Not sure how australia is going right now).
Brazils largest energy production still comes from waterplants, but solar plants are already 2nd place and windplants 3rd place, making it about 81% of its power capacity renewable.
LGN is about 9%, and Oil+Diesel+Coal less than 4%.
In 2015, it only accounted for 1.05% of electricity generation, but at current rates of growth, solar will dominate the energy market in the next 10-20 years.
CO2 emissions will decline. The coal and oil industries are doomed. The solar revolution is coming sooner than people think.
* Just kidding *
The main problem with solar energy in frequency stability on those regions, a problem of its own
It's much easier and safer to work with a broad spectrum of renewable energy as there the risks of failure have fewer consequences.
People die falling off of roofs installing solar panels, get chewed up by wind turbines, fall into dams, etc. all for nearly insignificant percentages of what a single nuclear plant can come up with. Coal and other fossil fuels of course are orders of magnitude more harmful.
It's currently at 2.3%, and growing at a slower rate of 15% per year. At this rate in 2060~ it will account for 221% of energy production in the world
That is why while solar power was increasing of 50% its share in total energy consumption didn't increase that much. Personnally I think photovoltaics aren't the way to go about solar energy, it is wasteful and inefficient. Solar energy should be used mostly to warm up houses without transforming it into electricity.
If solar makes up 1.05% of the energy supply and grows at 50% per year, that means every year it grows by 50%*.0105E = .525% of E every year.
Coal energy is currently growing faster, in raw numbers.
If the growth in solar energy remains the same relative to its share of the energy market, then it should eventually 'dominate' over coal, but as long as coal and other fossil fuels continue to grow as well it does nothing useful for CO2 reductions. Both are driven by rising energy demand; they don't supplant the other.
The good news is that the growth of fossil fuel energy should slow and then reverse as solar energy becomes the cheaper alternative, and it is price reductions for solar, not its growth rate, that mean solar will, hopefully, dominate in the next 10-20 years.
The writing is on the wall for fossil fuels - adapt or perish.
However, China is mostly building supercritical and ultrasupercritical coal power plants. These plants are far more efficient than the smog producing monsters that you generally think about. About 22% more energy per ton of coal burned but also a fraction of the nitrous, sulfur, or particulate emissions of subcritical plants. They also tightened their emissions standards. It will take a long time to replace their existing dirty fleet of coal plants, but that is generally what they're doing.
So while they're building new coal plants, they CAN be cleaning up their emissions. Similar to how we have cleaned up ours by replacing coal with natural gas.
If you could tick off at least 4 things on the list chances are the country is on the quiz.
not socially acceptable in a densely populated island to have vast open cast mining, thank goodness.
Australia's governments, and in fact, it's quality of life is subsidized by environmentally harmful activities. Iron ore is another huge industry.
All told, coal and iron ore represented more than 50% of Australia's exports in 2022.
Most of the coal is, of course, shipped off to Asian countries like Japan. It's not the worst thing ever, since Australian coal tends to be cleaner and have higher energy density than other grades. Still, it's not ideal. In my opinion, Australia is up there with Saudi Arabia and Canada as possibly the worst country for the environment on a per-capita basis.
Brazil is probably already the 5th largest solar energy producer on the world, if not it will be in matter of months. (Not sure how australia is going right now).
Brazils largest energy production still comes from waterplants, but solar plants are already 2nd place and windplants 3rd place, making it about 81% of its power capacity renewable.
LGN is about 9%, and Oil+Diesel+Coal less than 4%.
(Only considering eletricity)