Fire at Tilbury coal generation plant

Wind And Solar Energy Growth is reshaping the global power mix, accelerating grid decarbonization as coal declines; boosted by pandemic demand drops, renewables now supply near 10% of electricity, advancing climate targets toward net-zero trajectories.

Key Points

It is the rise in wind and solar's share of electricity, driving decarbonization and displacing coal globally.

✅ Share doubled in five years across 83% of global electricity

✅ Coal's share fell; renewables neared 10% in H1 2020

✅ Growth still insufficient for 1.5 C; needs ~13% coal cuts yearly

Wind and solar energy doubled its share of the global power mix over the last five years, with renewable power records underscoring the trend, moving the world closer to a path that would limit the worst effects of global warming.

The sources of renewable energy made up nearly 10% of power in most parts of the world in the first half of this year, according to analysis from U.K. environmental group Ember, while globally over 30% of electricity is renewable in broader assessments.

That decarbonization of the power grid was boosted this year as shutdowns to contain the coronavirus reduced demand overall, leaving renewables to pick up the slack.

Ember analyzed generation in 48 countries that represent 83% of global electricity. The data showed wind and solar power increased 14% in the first half of 2020 compared with the same period last year while global demand fell 3% because of the impact of the coronavirus.

At the same time that wind turbines and solar panels have proliferated, coal’s share of the mix has fallen around the world. In some, mainly western European countries, where renewables surpassed fossil fuels, coal has been all but eliminated from electricity generation.

China relied on the dirtiest fossil fuel for 68% of its power five years ago, and solar PV growth in China has accelerated since then. That share dipped to 62% this year and renewables made up 10% of all electricity generated.

Still, the growth of renewables may not be going fast enough for the world to hit its climate goals, even as the U.S. is projected to have one-fourth of electricity from renewables soon, and coal is still being burnt for power in many parts of the world.

Coal use needs to fall by about 79% by 2030 from last year’s levels - a fall of 13% every year throughout the decade to come, and in the U.S. renewable electricity surpassed coal in 2022, Ember said.

New installations of wind farms are set to hold more or less steady in the next five years, according to data from BloombergNEF on deployment trends. That will make it difficult to realize a sustained pace of doubling renewable power every five years.

“If your expectations are that we need to be on target for 1.5 degrees, clearly we’re not going fast enough,” said Dave Jones, an analyst at Ember. “We’re not on a trajectory where we’re reducing coal emissions fast enough.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

PLREDA 2019 advances solar, wind, and geothermal on public lands, guiding DOI siting, improving transmission access, streamlining permitting, sharing revenues, and funding conservation to meet climate goals while protecting wildlife and recreation.

Key Points

A bipartisan bill to expand renewables on public lands fund conservation, speed permitting and advance U.S. climate aims.

✅ Targets 25 GW of public-land renewables by 2025

✅ Establishes wildlife conservation and recreation access funds

✅ Streamlines siting, transmission, and equitable revenue sharing

The Senate unveiled its version of a bill the House introduced in July to help the U.S. realize the extraordinary renewable energy potential of our shared public lands.

Senator Martha McSally (R-AZ) and a bipartisan coalition of western Senators introduced a Senate version of draft legislation that will help the Department of the Interior tap the renewable energy potential of our shared public lands. The western Senators represent Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, and Idaho.

Elsewhere in the West, lawmakers have moved to modernize Oregon hydropower to streamline licensing, signaling broad regional momentum.

The Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act of 2019 (PLREDA) facilitates siting of solar, wind, and geothermal energy projects on public lands, boosts funding for conservation, and promotes ambitious renewable energy targets that will help the U.S. take action on the climate crisis.

Like the House version, the Senate bill enjoys strong bi-partisan support and industry endorsement. The Senate version makes few notable changes to the bill introduced in July by Representatives Mike Levin (D-CA) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ). It includes:

• A commitment to enhance natural resource conservation and stewardship via the establishment of a fish and wildlife conservation fund that would support conservation and restoration work and other important stewardship activities.
• An ambitious renewable energy production goal for the Department of the Interior to permit a total of 25 gigawatts of renewable energy on public lands by 2025—nearly double the current generating capacity of projects currently on our public lands.
• Establishment of criteria for identifying appropriate areas for renewable energy development using the 2012 Western Solar Plan as a model. Key criteria to be considered include access to transmission lines and likelihood of avoiding or minimizing conflict with wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and other resources and values.
• Improved public access to Federal lands for recreational uses via funds made available for preserving and improving access, including enhancing public access to places that are currently inaccessible or restricted.
• Sharing of revenues raised from renewable energy development on public lands in an equitable manner that benefits local communities near new renewable energy projects and supports the efficient administration of permitting requirements.
• Creating incentives for renewable energy development by giving Interior the authority to reduce rental rates and capacity fees to ensure new renewable energy development remains competitive in the marketplace.

NRDC strongly supports this legislation, and we will do our utmost to facilitate its passage into law. There is no question that in our era of runaway climate change, legislation that balances energy production with environmental conservation and stewardship of our public lands is critical.

PLREDA takes a balanced approach to using our public lands to help lead the U.S. toward a low-carbon future, as states pursue 100% renewable electricity goals nationwide. The bill outlines a commonsense approach for federal agencies to play a meaningful role in combatting climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis highlights nuclear power vs coal and natural gas, renewables and hydropower limits, carbon emissions, energy security, and baseload reliability during Russia-related supply shocks and winter demand.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis weighs reactor extensions vs coal revival to bolster security, curb emissions.

✅ Coal plants restarted; nuclear shutdown stays on schedule.

✅ Energy security prioritized amid Russian gas supply cuts.

✅ Emissions likely rise despite renewables expansion.

Peel away the politics and the passion, the doomsaying and the denialism, and climate change largely boils down to this: energy. To avoid the chances of catastrophic climate change while ensuring the world can continue to grow — especially for poor people who live in chronically energy-starved areas — we’ll need to produce ever more energy from sources that emit little or no greenhouse gases.

It’s that simple — and, of course, that complicated.

Zero-carbon sources of renewable energy like wind and solar have seen tremendous increases in capacity and equally impressive decreases in price in recent years, while the decades-old technology of hydropower is still what the International Energy Agency calls the “forgotten giant of low-carbon electricity.”

And then there’s nuclear power. Viewed strictly through the lens of climate change, nuclear power can claim to be a green dream, even as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy most.

Unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions when they generate electricity, and over the past 50 years they’ve reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 60 gigatonnes. Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants aren’t intermittent, and they require significantly less land area per megawatt produced. Unlike hydropower — which has reached its natural limits in many developed countries, including the US — nuclear plants don’t require environmentally intensive dams.

As accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown, when nuclear power goes wrong, it can go really wrong. But newer plant designs reduce the risk of such catastrophes, which themselves tend to garner far more attention than the steady stream of deaths from climate change and air pollution linked to the normal operation of conventional power plants.

So you might imagine that those who see climate change as an unparalleled existential threat would cheer the development of new nuclear plants and support the extension of nuclear power already in service.

In practice, however, that’s often not the case, as recent events in Germany underline.

When is a Green not green?
The Russian war in Ukraine has made a mess of global energy markets, but perhaps no country has proven more vulnerable than Germany, reigniting debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany among policymakers.

At the start of the year, Russian exports supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas, along with significant portions of its oil and coal imports. Since the war began, Russia has severely curtailed the flow of gas to Germany, putting the country in a state of acute energy crisis, with fears growing as next winter looms.

With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors temporarily, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.

Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.

Based on carbon emissions alone, you’d presumably go for the nuclear option. Coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, responsible for a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions — more than any other single source — as well as a soup of conventional air pollutants. Nuclear power produces none of these.

German legislators saw it differently. Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy. There would be no effort to restart closed nuclear power plants, or even consider a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout for the last active reactors.

“The gas storage tanks must be full by winter,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the Green Party, said in June, echoing arguments that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue for the coming winter.

Partially as a result of that prioritization, Germany — which has already seen carbon emissions rise over the past two years, missing its ambitious emissions targets — will emit even more carbon in 2022.

To be fair, restarting closed nuclear power plants is a far more complex undertaking than lighting up old coal plants. Plant operators had only bought enough uranium to make it to the end of 2022, so nuclear fuel supplies are set to run out regardless.

But that’s also the point. Germany, which views itself as a global leader on climate, is grasping at the most carbon-intensive fuel source in part because it made the decision in 2011 to fully turn its back on nuclear for good at the time, enshrining what had been a planned phase-out into law.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canada Manufacturing Policy prioritizes affordable energy, trims carbon taxes, aligns with Buy America, and supports the resource sector, PPE and plastics supply, nearshoring, and resilient supply chains amid COVID-19, correcting costly green energy policies.

Key Points

A policy to boost industry with affordable energy, lower carbon taxes, resource ties, and aligned U.S. trade.

✅ Cuts energy costs and carbon tax burdens for competitiveness

✅ Rebuilds resource-sector linkages and domestic supply chains

✅ Seeks Buy America relief and clarity on plastics regulation

By Jocelyn Bamford

Since its inception in 2017, the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses has warned all levels of government that there would be catastrophic effects if policies that drove both the manufacturing and natural resources sectors out of the country were adopted.

The very origins of our coalition was in the fight for a competitive landscape in Ontario, a cornerstone of which is affordable energy and sounding the alarm that the Green Energy Policy in Ontario pushed many manufacturers out of the province.

The Green Energy Policy made electricity in Ontario four times the average North American rate. These unjust prices were largely there to subsidize the construction of expensive and inefficient wind and solar energy infrastructure, even as cleaning up Canada's grid is cited as critical to meeting climate pledges.

My company’s November hydro bill was $55,000 and $36,500 of that was the so-called global adjustment charge, the name given to these green energy costs.

Unaffordable electricity, illustrated by higher Alberta power costs in recent years, coupled with ever-more burdensome carbon taxes, have pushed Canadian manufacturing into the open arms of other countries that see the importance of affordable energy to attract business.

One can’t help but ask the question: If Canada had policies that attracted and maintained a robust manufacturing sector, would we be in the same situation with a lack of personal protective equipment and medical supplies for our front-line medical workers and our patients during this pandemic?  If our manufacturing sector wasn’t crippled by taxes and regulation, would it be more nimble and able to respond to a national emergency?

It seems that the federal government’s policies are designed to push manufacturing out, stifle our resource sector, and kill the very plastics industry that is so essential to keeping our front-line medical staff, patients, and citizens safe, even as the net-zero race accelerates federally.

As the federal government chased its obsession with a new green economy – a strange obsession given our country’s small contribution to global GHGs – including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 advocated by some leaders, it has been blinded from the real threats to our country, threats that became very, very real with COVID-19.

After the pandemic has passed, the federal government must work to make Canada manufacturing and resource friendly again, recognizing that the IEA net-zero electricity report projects the need for more power. COVID-19 proves that Canada relies on a robust resource economy and manufacturing sector to survive. We need to ensure that we are prepared for future crises like the one we are facing now.

Here are five things our government can do now to meet that end:

1. End all carbon taxes immediately.

2. Create a mandate to bring manufacturing back to Canada through competitive offerings and favourable tax regimes.

3. Recognize the interconnections between the resource sector and manufacturing, including how fossil-fuel workers support the transition across supply chains. Many manufacturers supply parts and pieces to the resource sector, and they rely on affordable energy to compete globally.

4. Stop the current federal government initiative to label plastic as toxic. At a time when the government is appealing to manufacturers to re-tool and produce needed plastic products for the health care sector, labelling plastics as toxic is counterproductive.

5. Work to secure a Canadian exemption to Buy America. This crisis has clearly shown us that dependency on China is dangerous. We must forge closer ties with America and work as a trading block in order to be more self-sufficient.

These are troubling times. Many businesses will not survive.

We need to take back our manufacturing sector.  We need to take back our resource sector.

We need to understand the interconnected nature of these two important segments of our gross domestic production, and opportunities like an Alberta–B.C. grid link to strengthen reliability.
If we do not, in the next pandemic we may find ourselves not only without ventilators, masks and gowns but also without energy to operate our hospitals.

Jocelyn Bamford is a Toronto business executive and President of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Cloud Data Centers Environmental Impact highlights massive electricity use, carbon emissions, and cooling demands, with coal-heavy grids in China; big tech shifts to renewable energy, green data centers, and cooler climates to boost sustainability.

Key Points

Energy use, emissions, and cooling load of cloud systems, and shifts to renewables to reduce climate impact.

✅ Global data centers use 3-5% of electricity, akin to airlines

✅ Cooling drives energy demand; siting in cool climates saves power

✅ Shift from coal to renewables lowers CO2 and improves PUE

A hidden environmental price makes storing data in the cloud a costly convenience.

Between 3 to 5% of all electricity used globally comes from data centers that house massive computer systems, with computing power forecasts warning consumption could climb, an amount comparable to the airline industry, says Ben Brock Johnson, Here & Now’s tech analyst.

Instead of stashing information locally on our own personal devices, the cloud allows users to free up storage space by sending photos and files to data centers via the internet.

The cloud can also use large data sets to solve problems and host innovative technologies that make cities and homes smarter, but storing information at data centers uses energy — a lot of it.

"Ironically, the phrase 'moving everything to the cloud' is a problem for our actual climate right now," Johnson says.

A new study from Greenpeace and North China Electric Power University reports that in five years, China's data centers alone will consume as much power as the total amount used in Australia in 2018. The industry's electricity consumption is set to increase by 66% over that time.

Buildings storing data produced 99 million metric tons of carbon last year in China, the study finds, with SF6 in electrical equipment compounding warming impacts, which is equivalent to 21 million cars.

The amount of electricity required to run a data center is a global problem, but in China, 73% of these data centers run on coal, even as coal-fired electricity is projected to fall globally this year.

The Chinese government started a pilot program for green data centers in 2015, which Johnson says signals the country is thinking about the environmental consequences of the cloud.

"Beijing’s environmental awareness in the last decade has really come from a visible impact of its reliance on fossil fuels," he says. "The smog of Chinese cities is now legendary and super dangerous."

The country's solar power innovations have allowed the country to surpass the U.S. in cleantech, he says.

Chinese conglomerate Alibaba Group has launched data centers powered by solar and hydroelectric power.

"While I don't know how committed the government is necessarily to making data centers run on clean technology," Johnson says. "I do think it is possible that a larger evolution of the government's feelings on environmental responsibility might impact this newer tech sector."

In the U.S., there has been a big push to make data centers more sustainable amid warnings that the electric grid is not designed for mounting climate impacts.

Canada has made notable progress decarbonizing power, with nationwide electricity gains supporting cleaner data workloads.

Apple now says all of its data centers use clean energy. Microsoft is aiming for 70% renewable energy by 2023, aligning with declining power-sector emissions as producers move away from coal.

Amazon is behind the curve, for once, with about 50%, Johnson says. Around 1,000 employees are planning to walk out on Sept. 20 in protest of the company’s failure to address environmental issues.

"Environmental responsibility fits the brand identities these companies want to project," he says. "And as large tech companies become more competitive with each other, as Apple becomes more of a service company and Google becomes a device company, they want to convince users more and more to think of them as somehow different even if they aren't."

Google and Facebook are talking about building data centers in cooler places like Finland and Sweden instead of hot deserts like Nevada, he says.

In Canada, cleaning up electricity is critical to meeting climate pledges, according to recent analysis.

Computer systems heat up and need to be cooled down by air conditioning units, so putting a data center in a warm climate will require greater cooling efforts and use more energy.

In China, 40% of the electricity used at data centers goes toward cooling equipment, according to the study.

The more data centers consolidate, Johnson says they can rely on fewer servers and focus on larger cooling efforts.

But storing data in the cloud isn't the only way tech users are unknowingly using large amounts of energy: One Google search requires an amount of electricity equivalent to powering a 60-watt light bulb for 17 seconds, magazine Yale Environment 360 reports.

"In some ways, we're making strides even as we are creating a bigger problem," he says. "Which is like, humanity's MO, I guess."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News