I can’t remember where I ran across these — I think a reader shared them with me — but I started going through a bunch of old drafts of articles I wanted to write but never got to last night (Spring cleaning, I guess) and ran across them again. Basically, the image and tables below show how renewable electricity generation has changed over the years. Visit the German website I got all this from for more.
As you can see, up until the late 1990s, the only renewable energy source for electricity generation that was at all significant was hydro power.
In the middle to late 1990s, wind power started growing and had grown to a significant share of the electricity supply by the early 2000s. In 2003, it surpassed hydro power for the #1 renewable energy source for electricity, and has held that position up until today.
Biomass has also grown a lot in the 2000s, and it passed up hydro in 2007.
Solar started growing later, but you can see that its big boom in 2010 and 2011 has resulted in it becoming a major player now, as well.
Of course, the chart also shows Germany’s significant renewable energy growth (in the electricity sector) overall.
For more details, here are tables to go with the image:
Interesting stuff. Let me know if more thoughts pop into your head from looking at this. And let me know if you have similar charts and stats for other countries that you think would be worth a share!
Connect with me on Google+, Twitter, or the little-known social networking site referred to as ‘Facebook‘.
More on CleanTechnica:
-->About Zachary Shahan
If you couldn't guess, I spend most of my time on CleanTechnica and Planetsave. I'm the director/editor of both sites and am a little obsessed with them and the topics they cover. I'm also Publishing Services Manager at Important Media, which means that I do everything I can to support other Important Media writers, editors, and directors (as well as the network as a whole) in the good work they are engaged in. You can also find my work on Scientific American, Reuters, Change.org, most of the sites in the Important Media network, & many other places. For more, or to connect, go to: zacharyshahan.com
Freitag, 6. April 2012
How Renewable Electricity Generation in Germany Has Changed (Chart & Statistics)
Donnerstag, 5. April 2012
Europe-Solar.de News - [22. Febr 2012] Radikale Kürzung der EEG Tarife zum März oder A : Europe-Solar.de, Solarbörse & Grosshandel - Photovoltaik Anlagenplanung & Beratung
Startseite Europe-Solar.de News [22. Febr 2012] Radikale Kürzung der EEG Tarife zum März oder A
Startseite Europe-Solar.de News [22. Febr 2012] Radikale Kürzung der EEG Tarife zum März oder A Europe-Solar.de News
[22. Febr 2012] Radikale Kürzung der EEG Tarife zum März oder A
vom Europe-Solar.de | post a comment
Künftig soll es nur noch drei Förderklassen geben:
Kleine Dachanlagen bis 10 kWp: 19,5 Cent / kWh
Mittler und große Anlagen bis 1000 Kilowatt: 16,5 Cent / kWh
Großanlagen auf Dächern und Freiflächen bis 10 Megawatt: 13,5 Cent.Je nach Anlagengröße bedeut dieses eine radikale Kürzung zwischen 20 und mehr als 30 Prozent.
Hinzu kommt eine Verstetigung der Degression. Um die bisherigen Jahresendrallyes vor jeder weiteren Kürzung zu verhindern, sollen die Vergütungssätze von Mai an monatlich um 0,15 Cent je Kilowattstunde gesenkt werden.
Ferner soll bei kleinen Anlagen nur noch maximal 85%, bei größeren 90% der Nennleistung der PV Anlage vergütet werden.Schlussendlich fällt auch der Eigenverbrauchbonus weg, um die EEG-Umlage zu entlasten.
Neuheiten vom Montag, 01. August 2011
Lesen Sie alle Neuigkeiten vom Montag, 01. August 2011 auf einer Seite
CSS Designed By MTPH Software
Stern Review on the economics of climate change : Directgov - Newsroom
Moving to a low-carbon global economy
The second half of the Review examines the national and international policy challenges of moving to a low-carbon global economy.
Climate change is the greatest market failure the world has seen. Three elements of policy are required for an effective response.
The first is carbon pricing, through taxation, emissions trading or regulation, so that people are faced with the full social costs of their actions. The aim should be to build a common global carbon price across countries and sectors.
The second is technology policy, to drive the development and deployment at scale of a range of low-carbon and high-efficiency products. And the third is action to remove barriers to energy efficiency, and to inform, educate and persuade individuals about what they can do to respond to climate change. Fostering a shared understanding of the nature of climate change, and its consequences, is critical in shaping behaviour, as well as in underpinning both national and international action.
Effective action requires a global policy response, guided by a common international understanding of the long-term goals for climate policy and strong frameworks for co-operation. Key elements of future international frameworks should include:
- emissions trading
- technology co-operation
- action to reduce deforestation
- adaption
Stern Review on the economics of climate change : Directgov - Newsroom
Impacts and risks from uncontrolled climate change
"There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we act now and act internationally"The first half of the Review focuses on the impacts and risks arising from uncontrolled climate change, and on the costs and opportunities associated with action to tackle it. A sound understanding of the economics of risk is critical here. The Review emphasises that economic models over timescales of centuries do not offer precise forecasts - but they are an important way to illustrate the scale of effects we might see.
The Review estimates that the dangers could be equivalent to 20 per cent of GDP or more.
In contrast, the costs of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change can be limited to around 1 per cent of global GDP each year. People would pay a little more for carbon-intensive goods, but our economies could continue to grow strongly.
If we take no action to control emissions, each tonne of CO2 that we emit now is causing damage worth at least $85 - but these costs are not included when investors and consumers make decisions about how to spend their money. Emerging schemes that allow people to trade reductions in CO2 have demonstrated that there are many opportunities to cut emissions for less than $25 a tonne. In other words, reducing emissions will make us better off. According to one measure, the benefits over time of actions to shift the world onto a low-carbon path could be in the order of $2.5 trillion each year.
The shift to a low-carbon economy will also bring huge opportunities. Markets for low-carbon technologies will be worth at least $500bn, and perhaps much more, by 2050 if the world acts on the scale required.
Tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy; ignoring it will ultimately undermine economic growth.
Is stopping climate change actually cheap?
You’ve heard it before: politicians say they’d love to take action against climate change, but they’re reeling from sticker shock. Today, a new report from the UK’s leading climate change watchdog refutes this oft-cited argument that climate action will herald economic Armageddon.
The Committee on Climate Change report, with the hairy-sounding title “Statutory Advice on Inclusion of International Aviation and Shipping,” says that in 2050, the UK’s emissions reductions across the whole economy will cost 1-2 percent of the total GDP. This updates, in greater detail, the range predicted half a decade ago by the watershed Stern Review.
Just how much is that? For a rough comparison, one percent of the UK’s 2011 GDP is a little more than what the country currently spends on public housing and community amenities, and is no where near the big ticket public spending items like healthcare. The UK has enshrined in law an emissions reduction of 80 percent on 1990 levels by 2050.
“It’s a very compelling economic case to act,” says David Kennedy, CEO of the CCC, an independent statutory body charged with advising parliament on all things climate. “You don’t need radical behavior and lifestyle change to achieve our climate objectives.” “It’s a very, very small impact on growth. And what you get for that is a whole range of economic benefits.”
This table from the report details the cost in 2050 of meeting emissions reductions in a few different scenarios, including if fuel prices are high or low:
The report says that cost is not an impediment, even when factoring into the mix international aviation and shipping, two sectors that have previously been left out of the UK government’s carbon budgets.
Cost is a familiar argument against climate action for US readers. As president, George W. Bush refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, calling it a job killer that placed unfair economic burdens on the US while letting poorer countries off the hook. And in Congress, the ill-fated cap-and-trade bill of 2009 fell victim, in part, to arguments that consumers would foot the bill by paying more for electricity. The Heritage Foundation said cap-and-trade could raise the average family’s annual energy bill by $1,241. House Republicans called it “a light switch tax that would cost every American household $3,128 a year,” a statement that has been widely disputed.
But Kennedy says talk of economic meltdown is wrong. “They talk about the economy being closed down, about an ‘end to growth’. Well, that is frankly nonsense, and the debate should be around the correct number.”
The cost in GDP terms in the UK report accords with US studies. The Congressional Budget Office reported similar reductions would reduce the GDP here by 1-3 1⁄2 percent in 2050. One of the co-sponsors of the 2009 cap-and-trade bill, Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), said the scheme would cost the average family the equivalent of “about a postage stamp a day,” far less than critics claimed.
John Reilly, co-director of a MIT research group studying climate economics, says the UK predictions are in the “sensible range” for the UK, but a little rosy when applied around the world. “It may be a bit optimistic on the low end because we’ve not seen a lot of evidence that countries have been able to adopt clean, broad cap-and-trade-incentives without gunking them up with policies that add to the cost.”
What complicates things further is that the cost of not acting is “hugely difficult to estimate and quite controversial,” he says. It’s hard to get a handle on how, and when, costs from severe weather or ecological loss will mount. “We’re seeing things we never even thought of 20 years ago. So we continue to be surprised. And those surprises aren’t good.”
Put another way: “We’ve jumped off the cliff, but we haven’t landed yet. And it’s hard to stop ourselves in mid-air.”
Regardless of the complexity of working out the costs of inaction, the vast majority of economists agree that the environmental effects of greenhouse gas emissions create significant risks to the US economy. A 2009 survey of 289 of the world’s top economists with expertise on climate change found broad consensus that the benefits of action outweighed the cost.
David Kennedy says his estimates give people a solid idea to hold on to: “Unless people have a tangible sense of what it is we can do, they will feel helpless. There isn’t any need to be helpless. There is a set of things we can do, and we should get on and do them.”
Kennedy warns that the US is lagging behind and risks “storing up costs” for the future. “There is action in various states of the US. But at the national level, clearly the US has not got anything like the ambition we have, and I think in the long term that will be to the economic detriment of the US.”
Listen to part of James West’s interview with David Kennedy:
Audio: James West, The Climate Desk
The costs of not acting far out-way the short-term costs of acting and crowd funding alternative energy could also stimulate the adoption of sustainable energy, sustainability being the key word here. Sunnycrowd is striving to help in the adoption of alternative energies through crowdfunding.
Dienstag, 3. April 2012
Improving the wind energy’s competitive edge - Was ist Los mit windenergie?
Wind energy, one of the cleanest sources of power, is sharpening its competitive edge; producers are becoming steadily adept at harnessing the world’s wind resources and getting the energy to consumers.
With this combination of intensifying competitiveness and light-weight climate impacts, wind power is already making a powerful strategic contribution to efforts to conquer one of the world’s most pressing challenges: the creation of a secure, affordable and sustainable energy mix.
The Current and Future State of the Wind Energy Sector
Having doubled every three years since 1996, global installed wind capacity is rising steadily, with Asia now spearheading its growth. Offshore installations and the repowering of existing farms are serving as new sources of growth.
Wind energy is the lowest carbon emitter along its lifecycle; it has the shortest energy payback time; and it is one of the most cost-effective ways of introducing renewable energy into the grid.
By 2030, wind power’s share of global electricity demand could reach 20%, with annual installations nearly matching the total global capacity registered at the end of 2010. The expected growth of large offshore wind installations is becoming a key driver; another is the repowering of old wind farms with larger, more efficient turbines.
As technology and sector competence gather strength and push down costs, and as the appetite for non-fossil energy picks up, the industry can be expected to continue its forward-march.
Four Main Drivers of Grid Parity
Although wind energy has made substantial progress toward grid parity; it has yet to reach it as an industry. The sector’s achievement of this goal depends on progress in the following four areas:
- Cost structure
- Revenue optimization
- Regulatory environment
- Access to the grid
According to John Harris, Technical Manager, IKEA Goes Renewable, IKEA Services, the biggest challenges for the wind industry include the following:
- Unreliable government support
- Technical hurdles in offshore wind
- The lack of a global climate deal
- Competition from the solar PV industry
Improving Performance throughout the Wind Energy Project Lifecycle
From the siting decision and construction phase right through to the choice to repower or decommission, the wind energy project lifecycle is replete with opportunities to improve performance. We highlight some of the main areas of potential in the following lifecycle stages:
- Planning and development
- Engineering, procurement, construction and installation (EPCI)
- Operation and maintenance
- Transmission and distribution
- End-of-life management
Going Forward
The wind industry is in many ways still in its infancy. There are, thus, significant opportunities to shape its development by applying technological innovation along the wind energy project lifecycle.
Complemented by interviews with industry leaders, our analysis indicates that enhanced information management capabilities alone could deliver an 8-21% reduction in the levelised cost of wind energy. We have identified six specific opportunity areas:
- Integrating the management of wind farm assets over their lifetimes
- Optimizing wind farm layouts
- Strengthening wind power forecasting methods
- Improving enterprise management
- Moving from individual to integrated wind farm control centers
- Improving maintenance management
These measures (all of which could be implemented over the next five years) could accelerate the wind energy sector’s pursuit of grid parity across a larger number of markets.
While wind energy is already competitive in some markets, achieving grid parity on a wider scale is necessary if the sector is to sustain the high rates of growth that have characterized the last 15 years.
As it continues to build competitive advantage, the wind energy sector will generate valuable knowledge and expertise that could be used by other renewable energy sectors to overcome their intermittency challenges. In doing so, wind power will help the world create a secure, affordable and sustainable energy mix.
Source http://www.tcs.com/Insights/Pages/improving-wind-energy-competitive-edge.aspx#
Solar Power In the Sahara | 2nd Green Revolution
Turning the Sahara Desert into a major solar power producer seems like a no brainer on the surface. An enormous expanse of sparsely populated land with strong and steady sunshine should be the ideal place to build major solar installations. Take into account some main concerns, however, and the idea runs into problems. The Sahara is likely way too hot for photovoltaic solar cells to work efficiently. Transfer of the electricity produced to major metropolitan areas is complicated and extremely costly. The idea has been around for a while to send electricity produced by “solar thermal” plants to North African cities and even Europe using high-voltage, direct-current (HVDC) cables. It is said that a collection area the size of Austria could supply the world. Now, as the Economist reports, there might be real interest and financing for just such an audacious project to get off the ground.
Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurance [providing insurance to insurance companies] business, has invited 20 large companies (including Siemens, Germany’s engineering giant; power suppliers RWE and E.ON; and Deutsche Bank, Germany’s biggest) to join it in forming a consortium called Desertec. If all goes well, this will eventually build a legion of solar power stations in Africa and Arabia, and connect them to Europe.
The power stations in question will be “solar thermal”, rather than the better known sort relying on photovoltaic solar cells. In other words, instead of converting the sun’s rays directly into electricity using expensive semiconductor-grade silicon, they will use cheap metal mirrors to focus those rays either onto boilers that make steam to drive turbines, or onto containers of special low-melting-point salts that will store heat overnight, so that it is available to drive turbines during the hours of darkness.
While the idea seems feasible but unlikely, the consortium led by Munich Re took a small step toward reality at a meeting in Munich, Germany on July 13th. “A memorandum of understanding signed Monday….described Desertec as ‘a scientifically substantiated and economically feasible way of achieving’ the stated energy production goal. [The consortium] involves, among others, German industrial conglomerate Siemens AG, power companies RWE AG and E.ON AG, reinsurer Munich Re AG, Deutsche Bank AG, and Swiss-based electrical engineering firm ABB.”
If the plan works, it would cost €400 billion ($560 billion) over the next 40 years and build enough solar power stations to satisfy 15% of European electricity needs in 2050, along with most of North Africa’s demand.
[Image from: www.inhabitat.com]
What the Sahara solar energy project could be like.
Concept - Solar flowers!
Town of Parachute: Installations of 10 kilowatts each at the Town Hall, the water treatment plant and at the Parachute I-70 Rest Area. El Sol of Carbondale was the winning bidder; work is complete.
A unique feature of the project are the three sculptural “solar flowers” installed at the rest area, using triangular solar panels to create the petals of the flowers. Pattillo and Associates engineered the structures and Garfield Steel and Machine Inc. fabricated the framework.
source and copyright: http://www.garfieldcleanenergy.org/gov-solar-installations.html#
Landrat warnt - Energiewende in Gefahr
Von Peter BeckerKommunalpolitiker sprechen sich gegen die massive Kürzung der Solarstromvergütung aus - Bundestagsabgeordneter Franz Obermeier will kämpfen
Der Bundestag beschäftigt sich am Freitag, 9. März, mit der Einspeisevergütung für Strom aus Photovoltaikanlagen. Nach dem derzeitigen Stand der Dinge soll diese stark gesenkt werden. Der Landkreis Freising zeigt dafür kein Verständnis, er will schließlich bis zum Jahr 2035 die Energiewende schaffen und setzt dabei zu einem großen Teil auf Sonnenstrom. "Die Kürzung der Solarvergütung kann die Energiewende gefährden", warnt Landrat Michael Schwaiger vor allzu drastischen Kürzungen. Der Planungs- und Umweltausschuss des Kreistags hat deshalb beschlossen, einen Brief an den CSU-Bundestagsabgeordneten Franz Obermeier zu schicken und ihn aufzufordern, sich für eine moderatere Senkung der Einspeisevergütung einzusetzen.
Doch Obermeier meldet bereits Vollzug. "Ich habe schon vor dem Plenum darüber gesprochen", sagt der Bundestags-abgeordnete auf Nachfrage. Wie viele andere Politiker auch, hält er den geplanten Einschnitt für zu kurzfristig und überzogen. Wer beabsichtigt, eine Solaranlage zu bauen, muss Planungssicherheit haben, sagt er. Er müsse sich darauf verlassen können, dass seine Investition nicht sprunghaften Veränderungen ausgesetzt ist. Ansonsten gebe es keine Kredite von den Banken. Obermeier setzt sich nun dafür ein, dass die Kürzungen nicht schon zum avisierten 9. März in Kraft treten sollen, sondern erst später. Er kann sich Anfang April oder Mai vorstellen. Es gebe aber Widerstand innerhalb der Fraktion. Obermeier ist zuversichtlich, dass dieser überwunden werden kann. "Ich kämpfe", verspricht er.
Auch Politiker anderer Couleur setzen sich dafür ein, am Energie-Einspeisegesetz (EEG) nicht zu rütteln. Landtagsabgeordneter Manfred Pointner (FW) sieht in dem Vorhaben, 90 Tage nach Inkrafttreten des aktuellen EEG den Fördersatz ein weiteres Mal abzusenken, einen Vertrauensbruch seitens der Bundesregierung. Der SPD-Bundestagsabgeordnete Ewald Schurer kritisiert, dass die Koalition die Zeichen der Zeit nicht erkenne und wirft ihr vor, die beschlossene Energiewende zu boykottieren.
Hintergrund der beabsichtigten Kürzung des EEG ist der Umstand, dass allein im Dezember bundesweit Photovoltaikanlagen mit einer Gesamtleistung von drei Gigawatt ans Netz gingen. Über das ganze Jahr verteilt waren es 7,5 Gigawatt. Dies könnte dazu führen, dass die EEG-Umlage zu stark steigt, fürchtet die Bundesregierung. Und die wiederum zahle der Stromkunde mit seinen Gebühren. Anton Neumaier (SPD) kann dieses Argument nachvollziehen. Manche Leute hätten kein Verständnis dafür, Solaranlagen mitzufinanzieren, die sich andere auf ihr Dach setzen, sagte er jüngst im Planungsausschuss. Gleichwohl hält er die geplanten Kürzungen gesamtpolitisch gesehen "für Unfug".
Johannes Hofmann von der Landkreis-Verwaltung und Andreas Henze vom Verein Sonnenkraft haben nun Eckpunkte eines Briefs vorgestellt. Darin wünschen sie sich eine moderatere Verteilung der Kürzung. Größere Sprünge sollten vermieden werden. "Die Summe der vorgesehenen Maßnahmen hat das Potential, die deutsche PV-Industrie in die Knie zu zwingen, heißt es in dem Entwurf. Henze bestätigt dies auf Nachfrage. "Die Hersteller legen Geld drauf", sagt er. Selbst chinesische Produzenten könnten mit den Preisen nicht noch weiter herunter gehen. Henze hält die Kürzung der Einspeisevergütung für "völlig daneben". Dies geschehe zu einem Zeitpunkt, zu dem der Bau einer Solaranlage für Jedermann erschwinglich geworden sei.
Leser empfehlen
- Thema
- Freising Energiewende RSS
(SZ vom 06.03.2012)
