Carbon emissions are on the rise despite the record-breaking deployment of renewables, according to new BP Energy data released today.
“Despite the extraordinary growth in renewables in recent years,” said BP, “and the huge policy efforts to encourage a shift away from coal into a cleaner, lower carbon fuels, there has been almost no improvement in the power sector fuel mix over the past 20 years.”
The data is further evidence that dilutes and unreliable sources of energy like solar and wind cannot replace coal and other fossil fuels and will not lead to significant reductions in carbon emissions.
Coal grew one percent in 2017 — its first growth since 2013. For the last few years, energy analysts had speculated that we had reached “peak coal,” thanks to abundant cheap natural gas.
Natural gas consumption grew three percent globally and a whopping 15 percent in China in 2017.
The last few years have seen huge amounts of hype about India’s investment in solar, but according to BP, the global rise in coal consumption came mostly from India, and to a lesser extent, China.
And, “despite all the talk of peak oil demand, increasing car efficiency, the growth of electric vehicles,” BP notes, oil consumption grew 50 percent faster in 2017 than its decade-long average.
The growth of coal and natural gas was enough to wipe out any emissions reductions from wind and solar, which grew 17 percent and 35 percent, respectively.
Wind and solar account for just six percent of total electricity globally, despite decades of subsidies. The growth of fossil fuels was enough to wipe out any emissions reductions from wind and solar, which grew 17 percent and 35 percent, respectively.
According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), public and private actors spent $1.1 trillion on solar and over $900 billion on wind between 2007 and 2016. According to BNEF, global investment in these clean 10 energies hovered at about $300 billion per year between 2010 and 2016.
To put this roughly $2 trillion in investment in solar and wind during the past 10 years in perspective, it represents an amount of similar magnitude to the global investment in nuclear over the past 54 years, which totals about $1.8 trillion.
A big part of the problem has been the decline of nuclear. “The share of non-fossil in 2017 is actually a little lower than it was 20 years ago,” noted BP, “as the growth of renewables hasn’t offset the declining share of nuclear.”
My organization, Environmental Progress, was the first to alert the world about the impact that declining nuclear power as a share of global electricity was having on efforts to deal with climate change.
Over the last two years, renewable energy advocates have insisted that solar and wind can make up the difference. The new BP Energy data is further proof that they cannot.
Michael Shellenberger, President, Environmental Progress. Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment.”
Read more at Forbes Blogs
Hahahah – no surprise there then as 97% of atmospheric carbon dioxide comes from natural sources. No amount of dirty “renewables” will ever make an indent on that. Here are two essays that explain in easy-to-grasp details what it’s all about:
http://ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Clever_or_Dumb.pdf and
http://ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Stupidity.pdf
Stupidity reigns supreme in the AGW mist of deception.
The crisis, “man-made global warming” and the solution, “renewable energy”, are both political contrivances. Criminally misleading and meant only to create chaotic disruption on a global scale.
Electrical energy derived from wind and solar is not the panacea the left seeks. And renewable energy, like “Climate Change” is based solely on lies. After years of promoting deceptive and socially disruptive lies we are yet to observe any of the Left’s purported scientific claims of catastrophic global consequences of global cooling or global warming. The Left’s “science” is the science of lies. “Renewable energy” is not reliable, efficient, and convenient and would amount to nothing more than another government run social program.
Promotion of substantive electrical energy derived from wind and solar by 2040 or 2050 or anytime in the next century to achieve energy independence is a lie. As we are now beginning to see, the infrastructure required for such and endeavor would require destroying the natural evolutionary moment we have arrived at after millions of years which makes our very existence on this planet possible. Solar panels would replace trees, wind turbines would command the heights and the earth necessarily ravaged to construct the massive electrical infrastructure and storage batteries to support the scheme. Population reduction would be a necessary part of the renewable energy solution as arable land is lost.
The proposed social and financial costs of the grand deception of “the climate change solution” would result in ecological devastation and a DEAD end for humanity.
it is amazing to me that people like Shellenberger seem to keep worrying about “carbon emissions”.
CO2 is not causing global warming, hence climate change.
There is no proof that it does.
I concur that mankind releases a small fraction of the carbon dioxide that is released annually, most is from nature, and that CO2 is no impact on warming.
It is still worth discussing the foolishness of the environmentalists when they believe that wind and solar can make up for the loss of nuclear power. I once read an article that stated it takes 3,500 full size windmills to equal the power from one small nuclear power plant. Now consider those closing down include medium and large nuclear plants. If the $2 trillion had been spent on nuclear power rather than green energy, there would be a lot less emissions than we have now. That doesn’t matter, but what does matter is the high cost of renewables and their impact to customers. I should note that nuclear energy is more expensive than fossil fuels, but not nearly as expensive as wind and solar.
The amount of CO2 released by mankind is tiny compared to the amount released by nature like a volcanic eurpions like whats going on in Hawaii I can still remember when Mt St Helen’s Erupted back in 1980 and living with a 50 mile radius of Mt Shasta