What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies

What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnecting from subsidies?


Recently

How much money did the planet spend on “green energy” from 2000 to 2016 and what effect was achieved?


A very informative note from the analytical center that summarizes data from several sources and showshow much has the planet collectively spent on green energy from 2000 to 2016, and what miserable effect has been achieved as a result. The note is recommended to throw in the places of congestion.cockroachesgreen propagandists :-).


Approximately $ 4 slashes were invested in the "green generation" from 2000 - $ 3 direct costs tricks and $ 1 tricks for upgrading power grids. The achieved result - the share of renewable energy (including hydro!) In global power generation rose from 19% in 2000 to 24% in 2016, and the share in the total energy balance is less than 3%. The details below are shown.


 


Global investment in green energy

Data sources used are (IEA report) and. During this period, investments in the energy sector were as follows (the atom fell into the thermal group):



Figure 1. Energy investments by generation type from 2000 to 2016


According to these data, direct investments in greens from 2000 to 2016 amounted to $ 3,002 slices.


To this still need to add investment in the modernization and development of power grids.


The IEA data provides data on the power grids (cumulatively $ 3.46 stunt from 2000 to 2016), but without specifying in what detail - for green generation or normal. For simplicity, we can take at least a proportion - from 2004 to 2014, 898 gigawatts of green generation were added, 1,482 gigawatts of thermal generation. If you make a simple proportion, then from $ 3.46 $ 1.3 was spent on upgrading networks for greens. Rounding up to $ 1 trillion would be a conservative estimate.


Here is a graph showing the same figures, but only “green investments” are shown - it is worth noting their growth on average by 20% per year from 2000 to 2011 and the subsequent stagnation:



Figure 2. Investments in green energy from 2000 to 2016


Green propaganda reports that investments have stagnated after 2011 due to falling prices for turbines and sockets, which made it possible to build more for the same money. But this is nonsense - prices have declined in previous years, but this did not stop the growth of investments. The real explanation is completely different -in 2011, governments, which were pressured by the effects of the crisis, massively reduced green subsidies.


For example, the headlines of those times - “Investments in greens have fallen, as governments are cutting subsidies” in, or similar notes in


In general, it was grants that became the limit for the growth of “greenery” in 2011, and not other limiters.


Another useful source of data is Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which provides quarterly data on “green investments” by country and region, but only since 2011. Here is a graph based on this data:



Figure 3. Global clean energy investments (quarterly)


Or, if you give these same data for Europe, the USA, China and the rest of the world on each chart separately:



Figure 4. Global clean energy investments (quarterly) for each country


Here we see that “green investments” in Europe are declining since 2011 and there are no signs of recovery, in the US they are stagnating, in China they grew until 2015, and the rest of the world is stagnating.


 


End of Grant

As shown above, the “sudden” stagnation of investments in green energy after 2011 is caused by a reduction in government subsidies and the abandonment of previous ambitious programs.


: “We get decent tax returns on building wind farms - andthis is the only reason to build them, they do not make sense without these returns».


The BNEF 2014 report says: “Investing in green energy requires a high degree of price confidence — either through subsidies or through guaranteed energy redemption at a specified price.”


But now countries are saving money and 48 countries are replacing feed-in tariffs for auctions, and another 27 are going to do it (according to the message). The charts below show that the new system really helped to lower the “green tariffs”:


 



Figure 5. Auction Auction price for wind and solar generation ()


Cuts mean cost savings for governments, but they also mean cuts in profits for the green industry - as a result, a fall in attractiveness for investors, and the risk of failure to achieve the stated green quotas for governments in the future. Some of the “green companies” may not receive any profit at all in the current auction system (although they still don’t actually have the opportunity to NOT pay for the backup generation and storage facilities to compensate for the intermittent generation).


 


What is expected in the future?

What will happen to investments in the "green generation" next? optimistic: “Up to 2040, $ 10 cutters will be invested in power generation, of which three quarters will be green generation”, i.e. about $ 328 yards a year. Note, it is not much higher than $ 265 yards in 2011 - it does not look like a boom.


But such a forecast is very doubtful, since it contains many assumptions, it is unclear what is based on - the cost reduction of panels and windmills at times, such as the appearance of magic batteries, which will increase the share of green generation in Germany to 74%, and China up to 55% :-).


It is more reasonable to assume that the investment will be much less than that required to achieve the proclaimed plans. Germany, for example, has already lagged behind and installed only 1.4 gigawatts of capacity instead of 2.5 gigawatts planned for this date.


Trump's victory in the US calls into question the development of “greenery” there as well. China reduced subsidies after stumbled upon the quality problems of wind generation. Australia is suffering from blackouts in South Australia. Indian investments in greens make up a paltry $ 2-3 yards a year, the same as in 2011.Britain begins to turn away from the green toward the atom.


The EU is discussing the destruction of network priority for green generation, which according to Agora Energiewende.


Thus, after decades spent and investment investment troll, the prospects for green generation are extremely unclear.


 


Return on investment

What did the planet receive in exchange for the $ 4 stunt invested in greens since 2000? Here are graphs of electrical balance and energy balance in general:


 


Figure 6. How the share of greens in the power balance and energy balance changed


The share of greenery in the electric balance has increased only by a measly 5%, and in the total energy balance it is still in the range of 2-3%!


Was it worth the spent $ 4 slices?


 


Sources:


Comment:


So, $ 4 trillion is required to increase the share of greenery by 5% in the electric balance and by 2-3% in the energy balance.


To understand the context, ALL world investments (gross fixed capital formation) in fixed assets (construction of houses, roads, factories, etc.) now amount to about $ 19 tricksters per year (). This is a gross value, i.e. not only the new infrastructure, but the cost of depreciation and renewal of funds, only in the new one is much less (but they are not counted).


This means that if it is stupid to make up the proportion, in order to reach a hypothetical 100% in the energy balance, about $ 160 trickers will be needed, i.e.for more than 8 years, the whole world should not repair, build and install anything other than riveting windmills and sockets. And after 20 years, the cycle will have to be repeated, as they will fail.


This is actuallyextremely optimisticestimate, because in real life there will be no proportion. The note showed that when the share of green generation exceeds 10-15%, wild problems begin because of its discontinuity (when the share is smaller, it can be spread over the rest of the power system, throwing "green problems" into "normal" generation, but when this is exceeded Blackut cascades begin - see South Australia), for whichradically differentamounts.


Draw conclusions.


how much money the planet has vbukhala in the green "energy" for 16 years, and what a pitiful result achieved ($ 4 trillion sliced ​​in exchange for 2-3% share in the energy balance). The green propagandists immediately shouted that unprecedented progress was made over the years and the green has now reached a new level of efficiency, so high that it no longer needs subsidies.

An example of a specific country where subsidies are turned off, and the "green" is developing - for some reason they did not name it.

Well, I will give an example myself. Britannia.

Green subsidies have been active here for a long time, but the growing popular anger (due to the wild increase in housing and utility bills) has led politicians to change their shoes and cut subsidies. The previous schemes were changed there, and the subsidies were not even nullified, but only reduced - decently, but they still remained.

Related news

  • Kristina Estekhina: as always, I sent my daughter to school
  • Good appetite - the enemy for losing weight
  • Impression as a gift in Kharkov and the region: a selection of sites
  • Lives of the Saints: a selection of sites
  • Real Leonid Ilyich in photos
  • What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies

    What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies

    What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies

    What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies

    What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies

    What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies

    What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies

    What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies

    What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies

    What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies

    What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies What happens to green energy in the second year after disconnection from subsidies