fossil fuels

us-solar-production-soars-by-25-percent-in-just-one-year

US solar production soars by 25 percent in just one year

Energy, fossil fuels, nuclear power, renewable energy, Science, Sustainability / /

Solar sailing —

2024 is seeing the inevitable outcome of the building boom in solar farms.

–

A single construction person set in the midst of a sea of solar panels.

With the plunging price of photovoltaics, the construction of solar plants has boomed in the US. Last year, for example, the US’s Energy Information Agency expected that over half of the new generating capacity would be solar, with a lot of it coming online at the very end of the year for tax reasons. Yesterday, the EIA released electricity generation numbers for the first five months of 2024, and that construction boom has seemingly made itself felt: generation by solar power has shot up by 25 percent compared to just one year earlier.

The EIA breaks down solar production according to the size of the plant. Large grid-scale facilities have their production tracked, giving the EIA hard numbers. For smaller installations, like rooftop solar on residential and commercial buildings, the agency has to estimate the amount produced, since the hardware often resides behind the metering equipment, so only shows up via lower-than-expected consumption.

In terms of utility-scale production, the first five months of 2024 saw it rise by 29 percent compared to the same period in the year prior. Small-scale solar was “only” up by 18 percent, with the combined number rising by 25.3 percent.

Most other generating sources were largely flat, year over year. This includes coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric, all of which changed by 2 percent or less. Wind was up by 4 percent, while natural gas rose by 5 percent. Because natural gas is the largest single source of energy on the grid, however, its 5 percent rise represents a lot of electrons—slightly more than the total increase in wind and solar.

US electricity sources for January through May of 2024. Note that the numbers do not add up to 100 percent due to the omission of minor contributors like geothermal and biomass.

Enlarge / US electricity sources for January through May of 2024. Note that the numbers do not add up to 100 percent due to the omission of minor contributors like geothermal and biomass.

John Timmer

Overall, energy use was up by about 4 percent compared to the same period in 2023. This could simply be a matter of changing weather conditions that require more heating or cooling. But there have been several trends that should increase electricity usage: the rise of bitcoin mining, the growth of data centers, and the electrification of appliances and transport. So far, that hasn’t shown up in the actual electricity usage in the US, which has stayed largely flat for decades. It could be possible that 2024 is the year when usage starts going up again.

More to come

It’s worth noting that this data all comes from before some of the most productive months of the year for solar power; overall, the EIA is predicting that solar production could rise by as much as 42 percent in 2024.

So, where does this leave the US’s efforts to decarbonize? If we combine nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar under the umbrella of carbon-free power sources, then these account for about 45 percent of US electricity production so far this year. Within that category, wind and solar now produce more than three times hydroelectric, and roughly the same amount as nuclear.

Wind and solar have also produced 1.3 times as much electricity as coal so far in 2024, with solar alone now producing about half as much as coal. That said, natural gas still produces twice as much electricity as wind and solar combined, indicating we still have a long way to go to decarbonize our grid.

When you look at the generating facilities that will be built over the next 12 months, it's difficult not to see a pattern.

Enlarge / When you look at the generating facilities that will be built over the next 12 months, it’s difficult not to see a pattern.

Still, we can expect solar’s productivity to climb even before the year is out. That’s in part because we don’t yet have numbers for June, the month that contains the longest day of the year. But it’s also because the construction boom shows no sign of stopping. As noted here, solar and wind deployments are expected to dwarf everything else over the coming year. The items in gray on the map primarily represent battery storage, which will allow us to make better use of those renewables, as well.

By contrast, facilities that are scheduled for retirement over the next year largely consist of coal and natural gas plants.

US solar production soars by 25 percent in just one year Read More »

banks-use-your-deposits-to-loan-money-to-fossil-fuel,-emissions-heavy-firms

Banks use your deposits to loan money to fossil-fuel, emissions-heavy firms

banking, climate change, fossil fuels, Policy, Science, syndication / /

Money for something —

Your $1,000 in the bank creates emissions equal to a flight from NYC to Seattle.

–

High angle shot of female hand inserting her bank card into automatic cash machine in the city. Withdrawing money, paying bills, checking account balances and make a bank transfer. Privacy protection, internet and mobile banking security concept

When you drop money in the bank, it looks like it’s just sitting there, ready for you to withdraw. In reality, your institution makes money on your money by lending it elsewhere, including to the fossil fuel companies driving climate change, as well as emissions-heavy industries like manufacturing.

So just by leaving money in a bank account, you’re unwittingly contributing to worsening catastrophes around the world. According to a new analysis, for every $1,000 dollars the average American keeps in savings, each year they indirectly create emissions equivalent to flying from New York to Seattle. “We don’t really take a look at how the banks are using the money we keep in our checking account on a daily basis, where that money is really circulating,” says Jonathan Foley, executive director of Project Drawdown, which published the analysis. “But when we look under the hood, we see that there’s a lot of fossil fuels.”

By switching to a climate-conscious bank, you could reduce those emissions by about 75 percent, the study found. In fact, if you moved $8,000 dollars—the median balance for US customers—the reduction in your indirect emissions would be twice that of the direct emissions you’d avoid if you switched to a vegetarian diet.

Put another way: You as an individual have a carbon footprint—by driving a car, eating meat, running a gas furnace instead of a heat pump—but your money also has a carbon footprint. Banking, then, is an underappreciated yet powerful avenue for climate action on a mass scale. “Not just voting every four years, or not just skipping the hamburger, but also where my money sits, that’s really important,” says Foley.

Just as you can borrow money from a bank, so too do fossil fuel companies and the companies that support that industry—think of building pipelines and other infrastructure. “Even if it’s not building new pipelines, for a fossil fuel company to be doing just its regular operations—whether that’s maintaining the network of gas stations that it owns, or maintaining existing pipelines, or paying its employees—it’s going to need funding for that,” says Paddy McCully, senior analyst at Reclaim Finance, an NGO focused on climate action.

A fossil fuel company’s need for those loans varies from year to year, given the fluctuating prices of those fuels. That’s where you, the consumer, comes in. “The money that an individual puts into their bank account makes it possible for the bank to then lend money to fossil fuel companies,” says Richard Brooks, climate finance director at Stand.earth, an environmental and climate justice advocacy group. “If you look at the top 10 banks in North America, each of them lends out between $20 billion and $40 billion to fossil fuel companies every year.”

The new report finds that on average, 11 of the largest US banks lend 19.4 percent of their portfolios to carbon-intensive industries. (The American Bankers Association did not immediately respond to a request to comment for this story.) To be very clear: Oil, gas, and coal companies wouldn’t be able to keep producing these fuels—when humanity needs to be reducing carbon emissions dramatically and rapidly—without these loans. New fossil fuel projects aren’t simply fleeting endeavors, but will operate for years, locking in a certain amount of emissions going forward.

At the same time, Brooks says, big banks are under-financing the green economy. As a civilization, we’re investing in the wrong kind of energy if we want to avoid the ever-worsening effects of climate change. Yes, 2022 was the first year that climate finance surpassed the trillion-dollar mark. “However, the alarming aspect is that climate finance must increase by at least fivefold annually, as swiftly as possible, to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change,” says Valerio Micale, senior manager of the Climate Policy Initiative. “An even more critical consideration is that this cost, which would accumulate to $266 trillion until 2050, pales in comparison to the costs of inaction, estimated at over $2,000 trillion over the same period.”

Smaller banks, at least, are less likely to be providing money for the fossil fuel industry. A credit union operates more locally, so it’s much less likely to be fronting money for, say, a new oil pipeline. “Big fossil fuel companies go to the big banks for their financing,” says Brooks. “They’re looking for loans in the realm of hundreds of millions of dollars, sometimes multibillion-dollar loans, and a credit union wouldn’t be able to provide that.”

This makes banking a uniquely powerful lever to pull when it comes to climate action, Foley says. Compared to switching to vegetarianism or veganism to avoid the extensive carbon emissions associated with animal agriculture, money is easy to move. “If large numbers of people start to tell their financial institutions that they don’t really want to participate in investing in fossil fuels, that slowly kind of drains capital away from what’s available for fossil fuels,” says Foley.

While the new report didn’t go so far as to exhaustively analyze the lending habits of the thousands of banks in the US, Foley says there’s a growing number that deliberately don’t invest in fossil fuels. If you’re not sure about what your bank is investing in, you can always ask. “I think when people hear we need to move capital out of fossil fuels into climate solutions, they probably think only Warren Buffett can do that,” says Foley. “That’s not entirely true. We can all do a little bit of that.”

This story originally appeared on wired.com.

Banks use your deposits to loan money to fossil-fuel, emissions-heavy firms Read More »

opec-members-keep-climate-accords-from-acknowledging-reality

OPEC members keep climate accords from acknowledging reality

carbon emissions, climate change, COP28, fossil fuels, paris agreement, Policy, Science, UN / /

Avoiding the truth —

COP28 agreement draft no longer includes calls to phase out fossil fuels.

–

Image of a person standing in front of a doorway with

Enlarge / Saudi Arabia’s presence at COP28 has reportedly been used to limit progress on fossil fuel cutbacks.

Oil-producing countries are apparently succeeding in their attempts to eliminate language from an international climate agreement that calls for countries to phase out the use of fossil fuels. Draft forms of the agreement had included text that called upon the countries that are part of the Paris Agreement to work toward “an orderly and just phase out of fossil fuels.” Reports now indicate that this text has gone missing from the latest versions of the draft.

The agreement is being negotiated at the United Nations’ COP28 climate change conference, taking place in the United Arab Emirates. The COP, or Conference of the Parties, meetings are annual events that attempt to bring together UN members to discuss ways to deal with climate change. They were central to the negotiations that brought about the Paris Agreement, which calls for participants to develop plans that should bring the world to net-zero emissions by the middle of the century.

Initial plans submitted by countries would lower the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, but not by nearly enough to reach net zero. However, the agreement included mechanisms by which countries would continue to evaluate their progress and submit more stringent goals. So, additional COP meetings have included what’s termed a “stocktake” to evaluate where countries stand, and statements are issued to encourage and direct future actions.

The language of that statement needs to be agreed upon by every party and is invariably contentious. This year’s statement has been especially difficult, as early drafts (such as this one) included the potential to call for parties to stop using fossil fuels, along with a separate, vague alternative:

Option 1: An orderly and just phase out of fossil fuels;

Option 2: Accelerating efforts toward phasing out unabated fossil fuels and to rapidly reducing their use so as to achieve net zero CO2 in energy systems by or around mid-century;

Option 3: No text.

The “unabated” language in the alternative is widely interpreted as referring to abatement via the use of large-scale carbon capture to offset the emissions from continued fossil fuel use.

While we know that carbon capture can work, it has not been tried at large scales, much less on anything close to the scales needed to offset continued fossil fuel use. Critical details like the capacity and stability of different storage options haven’t been worked out, nor has the very tricky question of who will be paying to operate all the infrastructure that would be required for it to work.

As a result, carbon capture is not generally considered a viable option for offsetting anything more than a few difficult-to-decarbonize use cases, such as international shipping. Which why most countries and NGOs are supporting the UN’s secretary-general, who promoted the alternate language calling for a phase-out of fossil fuels.

Most, but not all. One notable NGO, OPEC, directly called on its members to reject any language that targeted fossil fuels. And a prominent OPEC member, Saudia Arabia, appears to have been trying to block any deals that would include that language, in part by bogging down all negotiations at COP28. Matters weren’t helped when a video surfaced that showed the conference’s host, Sultan Al Jaber, saying that there was “no science” behind calls to phase out fossil fuels, although he quickly disavowed that position.

The loss of Option 1 from the latest drafts is a sign that oil-producing nations have succeeded. Which in turn indicates that they have no intention of slowing production even as indications of continued warming and its consequences have grown ever more dramatic. It will also provide cover for many other countries that may be looking for excuses to act.

That said, the same draft includes several actions that do not have any alternative language and call for countries to take significant actions:

  • Triple renewable energy capacity by 2030.
  • Double the annual rate of energy efficiency improvements.
  • Immediately stop issuing permits for coal plants that do not include carbon capture and rapidly phase out any existing plants of this sort.
  • Rapidly phase in zero-emissions vehicles.
  • Eliminate fossil fuel subsidies.

Negotiations are ongoing, and that draft is nearly a week old, but it may indicate that some positive things could be accomplished while everyone is distracted by arguments over the phase-out of fossil fuels.

OPEC members keep climate accords from acknowledging reality Read More »