The IEA states that:
In 2024, 80% of the growth in global electricity generation was provided by renewable sources and nuclear power. Together, they contributed 40% of total generation for the first time, with renewables alone supplying 32%.
So 32% of new electricity generation in 2024 was provided by renewables. In 2023 renewables accounted for about 23% of electricity generation, and 13% of total energy consumption.
I commented this in a related post, but according to the IEA, in 2024 renewables accounted for 38% of new energy generation, and 32% of new electricity generation. That's a big discrepancy from the 90% cited in this report, which refers to "renewable power capacity,"defined as:
the maximum net generating capacity of power plants and other installations that use renewable energy sources to produce electricity.
Not quite sure why that difference in definition leads to such different figures.
From an engineering standpoint it may have something to do with battery size, but from a marketing standpoint it seems like (in America) carmakers decided bigger = better a couple decades ago and have been running with it (and charging more money for it) ever since. I miss the car-sized cars of the 80s.
According to the IEA, in 2024 renewables accounted for 38% of new energy generation, and 32% of new electricity generation. That's a very big discrepancy from the 92.5% cited in this report, which refers to "renewable power capacity,"defined as:
the maximum net generating capacity of power plants and other installations that use renewable energy sources to produce electricity.
So it seems like that number might be referring to potential, not actual (?) use. But maybe someone more familiar with these terms can weigh in here.
Colorado had a crazy rebate deal that allowed people to lease a Leaf for $20/month (after $2,400 upfront).
I don't believe that we should be pursuing growth in an era of global overshoot, but I do believe that this kind of messaging has a better chance of getting through to people who care more about the economy than the biosphere.
The difficulty in regulating mining in international waters are precisely why companies are rushing into this market. It's much harder to stop something that's already been started, and regulatory agencies are notoriously slow.
What we do know of seabed mining is that it's incredibly destructive to marine ecosystems. As Peter Watts writes,
Very little research has been done on the environmental impacts of deep-sea mining. The only real study was undertaken thirty years ago, led by a dude called Hjalmar Thielon. It was a pretty simple experiment. They basically dragged a giant rake across 2.5 km2 of seabed, a physical disturbance which— while devastating enough— was certainly less disruptive than commercial mining operations are likely to be. Today, thirty years later, the seabed still hasn’t recovered.
But what's more concerning is what we don't know, as very little research has been conducted on its impact. Moreover, many of these ecosystems are largely uncharted. We could very well destroy something before we have the chance to understand it.
On a higher level, this is what happens when you attempt to solve for one variable (climate change, in this case the transition to renewables and its associated mineral demand) instead of looking at an issue holistically (i.e. the total integrity of our biosphere).
I'm not a fan of manufacturers continually foisting larger vehicles on us. Improvements in range and charging are always welcome, but the Nissan Leaf was the perfect size for its niche (an affordable urban vehicle). Our local CarShare has a Gen2 Leaf, and I never had an issue hauling work equipment with the seats down. You can't fit sheet plywood or lumber in there, but that was never its intended purpose.
With increases in size come increases in cost (and decreases in MPGe). The Chevy Bolt was another great pocket rocket that recently fell victim to the oversizing trend (in this case being canceled entirely to manufacture e-pickups).
Beautiful! I'm hoping I can get some established as well.
Ignorance, petulance, and a willful dismissal of the truth are the new norms for this "administration." But information wants to be free, and this is a good example of how the internet can be a force for good.
Thank you to Fulton Ring for making the raw data publicly available on their Github. I'll be downloading this data and hosting the risk maps on my website as well; the more copies of this information out there, the better.
The level of obstinacy and stupidity in this administration never ceases to amaze me.
Each year the WEF publishes a Global Risk Report, surveying over 300 global experts and leaders from business, government, and academia on what they believe are the most pressing threats facing the world. For the past 3 years, climate change and its associated impacts have consistently ranked #1, #2, and #3 among all quantified threats.
To not only downrank this threat, but pretend that it presents no risk entirely implies that the US doesn't even have object permanence at this point.
The vast majority of pollution is created by the vast majority of people. The impact of the ultra-wealthy is large individually, but small collectively.