Slashdot Mirror
Renewable Energy Policies Actually Work (arstechnica.com)
Renewable energy use and reduced energy use overall have helped carbon emissions remain flat or below average as the global economy continued to grow over the years. But, as new research has found, government policy also appears to play a large role. Slashdot reader AmiMoJo shares a report from Ars Technica: The researchers started by identifying countries that show a "peak and decline" pattern of carbon emissions since the 1990s. They came up with 18, all but one of them in Europe -- the exception is the United States. For comparison, they created two different control groups of 30 countries, neither of which has seen emissions decline. One group saw high GDP growth, while the second saw moderate economic growth; in the past, these would have been associated with corresponding changes in emissions. Within each country, the researchers looked into whether there were government energy policies that could influence the trajectory of emissions. They also examined four items that could drive changes in emissions: total energy use, share of energy provided by fossil fuels, the carbon intensity of the overall energy mix, and efficiency (as measured by energy losses during use). On average, emissions in the decline group dropped by 2.4 percent over the decade between 2005 and 2015.
Half of this drop came from lowering the percentage of fossil fuels used, with renewables making a large contribution; another 35 percent came from a drop in energy use. But the most significant factor varied from country to country. Austria, Finland, and Sweden saw a drop in the share of fossil fuels within their energy mix. In contrast, a drop in total energy use was the biggest factor for France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The U.S. was an odd one out, with all four possible factors playing significant roles in causing emissions to drop. For the two control groups, however, there was a single dominant factor: total energy use counted for 75 and 80 percent of the change in the low- and high-economic growth groups, respectively. But there was considerably more variability in the low-economic growth group. All of the high-growth group saw increased energy use contribute 60 percent of the growth in emissions or more. In contrast, some of the low-growth group actually saw their energy use drop. So why are some countries so successful at dropping their emissions? Part of it is likely to be economic growth, but the biggest reason may have to do with government policies. "By 2015, the countries in the group that saw declining emissions had an average of 35 policies that promoted renewable energy and another 23 that promoted energy efficiency," reports Ars Technica. "Both of those numbers are significantly higher than the averages for the control groups. And there's evidence that these policies are effective. The number of pro-efficiency policies correlated with the drop in energy use, while the number of renewable policies correlated with the drop in the share of fossil fuels."
Half of this drop came from lowering the percentage of fossil fuels used, with renewables making a large contribution; another 35 percent came from a drop in energy use. But the most significant factor varied from country to country. Austria, Finland, and Sweden saw a drop in the share of fossil fuels within their energy mix. In contrast, a drop in total energy use was the biggest factor for France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The U.S. was an odd one out, with all four possible factors playing significant roles in causing emissions to drop. For the two control groups, however, there was a single dominant factor: total energy use counted for 75 and 80 percent of the change in the low- and high-economic growth groups, respectively. But there was considerably more variability in the low-economic growth group. All of the high-growth group saw increased energy use contribute 60 percent of the growth in emissions or more. In contrast, some of the low-growth group actually saw their energy use drop. So why are some countries so successful at dropping their emissions? Part of it is likely to be economic growth, but the biggest reason may have to do with government policies. "By 2015, the countries in the group that saw declining emissions had an average of 35 policies that promoted renewable energy and another 23 that promoted energy efficiency," reports Ars Technica. "Both of those numbers are significantly higher than the averages for the control groups. And there's evidence that these policies are effective. The number of pro-efficiency policies correlated with the drop in energy use, while the number of renewable policies correlated with the drop in the share of fossil fuels."
"The majority wants something done about climate change."
Really?
How many members of this so-called "majority" are willing to forgo automobile and air travel? How many are willing to forgo carbon-based, grid-tied electrical service in favor of on-premise solar or wind generation?
The majority may want something done about climate change - but only if it doesn't mean a reduction in quality of life and someone else pays for it.
Climate change policy is doomed to fail. It is a financial boondoggle and the major carbon emitters (China and India) simply don't give a hoot what you want.
In the U.S. one of our two major political parties represents a minority of voters
Assuming you are referring to the Republican party and the last presidential election:
No, the Republican party represents a majority of Electoral College voters. These are the people who vote the president in. This is the vote that counts.
The Republican party received less votes when counting the totally unofficial and not used for anything popular vote. The competition wasn't run on the popular vote.
If the game were to get the most votes (with no EC in between) then you can be sure that both parties would have played the game very differently. For this reason you cannot project the popular vote count of the last election onto this hypothetical election and say Democrats would have won.
The rules were laid out and the Democrats didn't play the game as well. It's time to move on from that. If you want to change the way votes are counted then a preferential voting system is far superior to a simple "majority rules" system.
My country uses this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We have almost 100% voter turn out (compulsory voting). We don't have Gerrymandering. We have an independent electoral commission.
These are mainly good things (I don't agree with compulsory voting, I do see it's benefits).
Oddly it is the so-called "red" states that are leading in renewable power generation. But I guess that doesn't fit your idiotic narrative. The question is what you YOU doing about it? Do you own a car? Use electricity?
Good troll, Vlad! You make King Putin proud!
I don't respond to AC's.
In the U.S. one of our two major political parties represents a minority of voters but thanks to our voting system has had a stranglehold on policy and that party is dedicated to doing everything possible to maximize donor profit.
California has 55 electoral votes, 7 of which are due to illegals(*). The US census counts people, not citizens, in an area to determine how many electoral votes a state gets.
California gets a significant extra amount of influence in elections due to the electoral college - are you willing to give that up?
Also, the EC is what keeps California and NY from ganging up on all the other states. In effect, it prevents the US from having a civil war, and breaking up into smaller national entities.
Are you willing to give *that* up? Just because your candidate lost the popular vote?
And finally, House representatives are also allocated by the census count. California gets 7 more reps due to its illegal population.
All of which means California gets to dominate affairs in the US house of representatives and presidential elections out of proportion to their electorate.
Their mindless followers vote them in being mesmerized by keywords like "job creation" and chimeras like "the liberals are coming to get your guns." They will churn up FUD with their industry-funded studies.
a) A lot of jobs *were* created. Chrysler just opened an idled plant, creating 6500 more. Look around - the economy is doing great!
b) The house just passed a law making private sale of guns illegal. Also, NY just passed a gun confiscation law, which is ripe for abuse.
(*) About 2.3 million illegals, at 700,000 per house rep/electoral vote. The electoral formula is non-linear, and estimates of illegals are sketchy, but it's about right.
(Incidentally, this is why the Dems are so much against the wall. They don't care about any of the issues - cost, crime, jobs, and so on - that's not their problem to fix. That's why Pelosi kept the government shutdown past $6 billion to avoid spending $5 billion on a wall "that would do nothing". It would have been more cost effective to build the wall even if it did do "nothing".)
Here's some background on the source for the source of your second link: TLDR, RWNJ who tends to play extremely fast and very loose with the data.
Of course, the record-breaking high temperatures occurring across two states on that day had nothing to do with the price of of that electricity, did it?
That's fine if you don't like the messenger. Here's what I'd like to know, was anything they said a lie?
You don't like the message so you kill the messenger, that does not change the truth. If they lied then what's the truth? Do you have counterexamples?
I have an issue with the idea that picking one single example of one town in Texas from a report made by an institute funded by people with vested interests in discrediting the renewable energy industry should be taken as the irrefutable truth. If you want to discredit renewables I won't even get up out of my armchair to answer the phone until you have got multiple sources of data that do not have a massive conflict of interest, like a conservative think tank funded by oil companies and your dataset consists of quite a lot more than a single town in Texas that signed some rather ill conceived long term fixed price contracts.
Because stating that renewables are not currently competitive...
...is total bullshit in 2019. It will be even more bullshit in 2020, 2021, 2022...you get it.
Ezekiel 23:20
CO2 emissions are fixable without "demolishing civilization".
It's only the people who want to do nothing about climate change that are pushing the narrative that it's a problem that cannot be solved "without demolishing civilization".
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Just Millennial SJW types. They have never seen a real recession so they think these things are the worst things that can happen.
The Great Recession hit at the same time that most millennials were attempting to enter the job market. It hurt that generation worse than any other. Despite this, I think that it's wise to view catastrophes caused by climate change as, if not "the worst things that can happen," to be worse than temporary economic woes caused by a recession. I have children, and I will probably one day have grandchildren. It would be pretty shitty of me to prioritize short term amenities over the sustainability of life on the planet that my progeny will depend on. Unlike the baby boomers, I don't wish take a mortgage out on my children's future for my own benefit.
Of course, asserting that one has to choose between economic stability and sound climate policy is a false dichotomy anyway.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
The proponents of "green" energy always point to the early wins. There are a lot of easy wins early on in the process, when most energy still comes from nuclear, coal, or whatever. Those existing plants can adjust their output to allow for the massive fluctuations of solar and wind generation, as long as the solar/wind is a minor part of the grid.
Things change when solar/wind become a large part of the generation capacity. On sunny summer days, Germany doesn't know what to do with all it's solar energy, and they've been know to pay other countries to take it. In bad weather, they import energy. Renewable energy on the massive scale Germany has implemented It only works, because they can leech off the capabilities of the countries around them. Germany's energy looks cleaner, because someone else is burning extra coal. If Germany is really does close their nuclear plants, the situation will get massively worse.
Unless large scale energy storage is solved, renewable energy will remain limited in its potential. In addition, we will always need something to handle baseline load, for which nuclear remains the greenest and safest option.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.