Still, this is exceptionally commendable. Most of the time, when other countries have claimed they ran only on renewables, they have neglected the fact that they are net exporters and were running combustion generation across some of their network. The total renewable generation was greater than the total demand, but some of their generation was combustion and the excess passed off to other countries, with a bit of number fiddling to say that they were 100% green. With this, Portugal didn’t run any combustible generation, and they still exported to other countries.
Norway ran on 100% renewables for like 80 years, but no one cares.
Only reason we’re not at 100% anymore is because politicians don’t find it a priority to be self-sufficient and it’s much better to sell Norwegian renewable electricity to Europe for a profit, then buy back dirty electricity and let the consumers in Norway pay a cable transit tax to the government.
See, now you get to sell the energy twice, and both times at a higher rate.
You can’t compare other countries with the likes of Norway or Iceland. For most countries, hydro isn’t enough to meet the needs. Not to mention the fact that it isn’t truly renewable. What happens when climate change makes water more scarce?
The true renewable production became possible only recently with the advances in PV, wind and battery tech.
Yeah I’d agree with you, I think the reason Norway isn’t 100% renewable has a little more to do with growing demand, as well as seasonal variation. Saying that, I’m sure this could have been addressed if the government had properly encouraged development of more clean generation.
Honestly, the entire world could have been in a much better situation if we had pushed for renewables a long time ago. The first identification of the global greenhouse effect was in 1892 - more than 130 years ago. There was plenty of time to come up with alternatives, considering how fast technology develops (how many knew mobile phones before 1995?).
We are in a serious mess not for the lack of understanding or resources. Some people wanted to be rich at the expense of the majority of ordinary people, all other species and the entire planetary biome. They made sure that no other technology would challenge the world’s dependence on oil. They chose profits over countless lives on the brink of a mass extinction event.
I understand why you feel the need to blame the government. But I can’t help but rant about the insatiable greed and the crime that resulted from it on a scale that the planet has never witnessed before (I don’t think any species, much less a few individuals, ever caused so much destruction before). And while those criminals (for lack of a better word suitable for their actions) live a life in luxury without consequences, the rest of us are being gaslighted by the same vermin for the damage they caused.
I’m sorry for the lengthy rant. Thank you for understanding!
Even now, going hard on renewables is the best strategy. The technology is cheap, proven and readily available. If we build an excess of renewables we can wean off of fossil fuels most quickly, even diverting resources to nuclear will only slow down this goal.
The government do have ultimate responsibility, even if they’re influenced by the greed of wealthy people and organisations.
Well, portuguese here, that record period can be mostly attributed to hydropower as we’ve seen unusually high levels of rainfall over that period that we haven’t seen in a while. And because we decided to try and ditch stuff like coal in a rush, there was an uncomfortable while where our grid very much depended on electricity imports, which don’t come from clean sources, we just outsourced the problem.
Renewable capacity is still growing however, but with climate change making droughts here more frequent, the main hydrofallback may not become as much of an option
That’s where energy storage comes in. Either more traditional elevated water storage, or new battery storage. Batteries is a massive growth sector at the moment, and governments are making it easier for batteries to get approval - to developers and land owners, it’s becoming more appealing than solar.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Yes!
Doh, I was hoping they had extended the record.
Still, this is exceptionally commendable. Most of the time, when other countries have claimed they ran only on renewables, they have neglected the fact that they are net exporters and were running combustion generation across some of their network. The total renewable generation was greater than the total demand, but some of their generation was combustion and the excess passed off to other countries, with a bit of number fiddling to say that they were 100% green. With this, Portugal didn’t run any combustible generation, and they still exported to other countries.
Norway ran on 100% renewables for like 80 years, but no one cares.
Only reason we’re not at 100% anymore is because politicians don’t find it a priority to be self-sufficient and it’s much better to sell Norwegian renewable electricity to Europe for a profit, then buy back dirty electricity and let the consumers in Norway pay a cable transit tax to the government.
See, now you get to sell the energy twice, and both times at a higher rate.
You can’t compare other countries with the likes of Norway or Iceland. For most countries, hydro isn’t enough to meet the needs. Not to mention the fact that it isn’t truly renewable. What happens when climate change makes water more scarce?
The true renewable production became possible only recently with the advances in PV, wind and battery tech.
Yeah I’d agree with you, I think the reason Norway isn’t 100% renewable has a little more to do with growing demand, as well as seasonal variation. Saying that, I’m sure this could have been addressed if the government had properly encouraged development of more clean generation.
Honestly, the entire world could have been in a much better situation if we had pushed for renewables a long time ago. The first identification of the global greenhouse effect was in 1892 - more than 130 years ago. There was plenty of time to come up with alternatives, considering how fast technology develops (how many knew mobile phones before 1995?).
We are in a serious mess not for the lack of understanding or resources. Some people wanted to be rich at the expense of the majority of ordinary people, all other species and the entire planetary biome. They made sure that no other technology would challenge the world’s dependence on oil. They chose profits over countless lives on the brink of a mass extinction event.
I understand why you feel the need to blame the government. But I can’t help but rant about the insatiable greed and the crime that resulted from it on a scale that the planet has never witnessed before (I don’t think any species, much less a few individuals, ever caused so much destruction before). And while those criminals (for lack of a better word suitable for their actions) live a life in luxury without consequences, the rest of us are being gaslighted by the same vermin for the damage they caused.
I’m sorry for the lengthy rant. Thank you for understanding!
Even now, going hard on renewables is the best strategy. The technology is cheap, proven and readily available. If we build an excess of renewables we can wean off of fossil fuels most quickly, even diverting resources to nuclear will only slow down this goal.
The government do have ultimate responsibility, even if they’re influenced by the greed of wealthy people and organisations.
Something something “not supposed to join them”.
Forget Norway!
Well, portuguese here, that record period can be mostly attributed to hydropower as we’ve seen unusually high levels of rainfall over that period that we haven’t seen in a while. And because we decided to try and ditch stuff like coal in a rush, there was an uncomfortable while where our grid very much depended on electricity imports, which don’t come from clean sources, we just outsourced the problem.
Renewable capacity is still growing however, but with climate change making droughts here more frequent, the main hydrofallback may not become as much of an option
You’ve still got plenty of potential for solar, though.
Which is known for being less in line with demand
That’s where energy storage comes in. Either more traditional elevated water storage, or new battery storage. Batteries is a massive growth sector at the moment, and governments are making it easier for batteries to get approval - to developers and land owners, it’s becoming more appealing than solar.