Search the archive.

As renewable energy technologies expand worldwide, conservationists are concerned about the potential negative impacts of these technologies on animals, especially birds. U.S. News and World Report examined the issue in an August 22 article, and found that among the five most common energy sources, solar caused the least amount of bird deaths per year, while coal caused the largest amount. Though the article emphasizes that bird fatalities from renewable energy are less than bird fatalities from other forms of energy, it also shows that the data available on the matter is really not that good.

Reporter Alan Neuhauser gathered data about bird deaths where it was available, from government agencies, academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, and governmental laboratories, including the Bureau of Land Management, solar company BrightSource, and the journal Biological Conservation. According to the data, while solar is estimated to cause 1,000 to 28,000 bird deaths annually, and wind 140,000 to 328,000, coal kills far more – about 7.9 million birds a year!

According to the landmark , human activities have put over one million animal and plant species at risk of extinction. This has a tangible impact on our economy, society and, of course, our planet. Biodiversity loss and climate change are closely linked: in a destructive cycle, climate change drives biodiversity loss, which in turn further worsens the climate crisis. That means that we cannot solve one problem without the other. We need solutions that repair ecosystem degradation while promoting decarbonization and a sustainable future. For every great challenge… To protect biodiversity, the Enel Group involves local stakeholders and other partners with different backgrounds (e.g., universities, research centers, startups, NGOs, etc.) through our Open Innovability® approach. With this in mind, (EGP), Enel’s business line for production and management of renewable energy worldwide, launched a challenge to find solutions to improve biodiversity at renewable energy plants. This challenge was designed with three principle aims: first, to support existing habitats and ecosystems through renewable energies that guarantee ecological continuity with the surrounding landscape. Second, to avoid biodiversity loss and third, to contribute to SDGs 13 and 15 on climate action and terrestrial ecosystems. …there are great solutions Three winners were awarded prizes for their solutions, with first place receiving €7,000 and second and third places receiving €4,000 each. For one of the winners, Enel Green Power has adapted and tailored the solution to a specific site. The solution is undergoing testing at the Pezouliotika PV plant in Greece, along with agrivoltaic tests. As of the Environment and Impacts Mitigation Innovation Chapter of Enel Green Power explains: “We chose this location in order to focus on the preservation of some target species, aiding local butterflies that were at risk of extinction.” Insect biodiversity is especially important for proper ecosystem functioning. Although they are the most species-rich group on Earth, are reported to be at risk of extinction. For this reason, the winning solution of this challenge took into account the biodiversity of these crucial fauna. Maria Genovese continues: “We realized that in our Pezouliotika photovoltaic plant, one of the winning solutions was very suitable for creating a biodiversity hotspot. The implemented solutions provide space, habitat, and forage for wild pollinator species such as bees and butterflies.” For a sustainable future Because the challenges of biodiversity loss and climate change are interconnected, so too are the solutions. To overcome the obstacles of the future, we need cross-functional and synergistic solutions to integrate sustainability throughout the whole value-chain. That’s why, at Enel, innovation doesn’t start with the challenge and doesn’t end with the solution. It’s a guiding philosophy, a continual search to collaborate with big thinkers. Through our Open Innovability® model, we work with startups and entrepreneurs to create sustainable solutions for a better, greener future.

Even solar farms grow life It has been long suggested that solar parks, otherwise known as solar farms, can help local biodiversity: a large area of the land is not occupied by solar panels or other equipment which helps create habitats and increase species populations; what is more, after the initial construction of the solar farm, the grounds are mostly undisturbed. These claims and anecdotal evidence are now being backed up by what is one of the most comprehensive studies on solar farms and their impact on biodiversity [1]. The study was conducted in the UK by ecological consultants on behalf of and it examined 11 solar farms in England and Wales alongside neighbouring control plots. The results of this study clearly demonstrate that solar farms have a positive impact on biodiversity for a range of plant and animal species when combined with an appropriate land management plan. The level of benefit to biodiversity was, perhaps unsurprisingly, dependent on the management: the stronger the focus on wildlife management, the better the solar farm performed on biodiversity metrics. The solar farms that performed best were the ones that were seeded with a diverse seed mix once the solar farm had been constructed, that used herbicides in a very limited way, that provided good marginal habitat for wildlife and employed a conservation grazing or mowing regime. Clean energy goes hand in hand with ecosystem services The report further contends that findings also show that not only is there a net benefit for the environment from solar farms even before considering the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that would result once renewable energy is generated, but that the benefits for wildlife in solar farms extend to the surrounding areas. By helping strengthen local biodiversity, solar farms support the ecosystem services that are so important for people and agriculture. For example, by becoming a net producer of pollinating insects, which are in decline, solar farms are promoting the health of surrounding crops such as cereals, , soft fruits and orchard fruits. This is a win-win situation for both the environment and the rural economy. The precise reason that solar farms benefit biodiversity is attributed to a combination of factors such as the conversion of land from to more diverse planting approaches, the more limited use of pesticides as well as shaded areas and structures for perching and nesting which are particularly important for birds. The management of solar farms also requires for less frequent grazing which helps encourage the growth of a wider variety of species and consequently also of the species that rely on them. Call for (bio)diverse research In assessing the importance of those findings, it is interesting to note that the impact of solar farms on biodiversity was determined by comparing the solar farms to “control” plots nearby. These plots were outside the solar panel array but within the same farm. What the researchers then did was continue managing the “control” plots in the same way that the land where the solar farm had been constructed was previously managed. This meant that a comparison provided a clear view of the benefits of solar farms when correctly managed versus what was happening prior to their construction. To provide a sense of scale, in other word to quantify how much better well managed solar farms do when compared to other land uses, it would have been good to seek comparisons with biodiversity in reserves, where biodiversity enhancement is a key focus, and more importantly with . Such a comparison would not in any way minimise the significance of the study results. It would however serve to highlight the relative advantages of solar farms in terms of biodiversity. Overall, the initiative of the UK’s Solar Trade Association is a step in the right direction for providing a more accurate overview of how different land uses can impact our environment and society. Promulgating best practices such as those applied in the 11 sites reviewed in the study is key to minimizing negative impacts and identifying potential positive externalities. In this respect, the benefits of solar farms for biodiversity and wildlife could be useful to farmers who are seeking to generate their income through land as it highlights the possibility of converting plots into solar farms and in so doing benefiting neighboring land which will continue to be cultivated for agriculture.

Renewable energy is an urgently needed and economically viable solution to fight climate change. As the United States and other countries worldwide turn to renewable sources to reduce emissions and move away from fossil fuels, policymakers must consider the impact of renewable energy development on wildlife. The two can coexist – and they must- but it takes prior planning and an understanding of the needs of wildlife that depend on the places renewable energy developers are focused on.

Since January, when President Biden took office, renewable energy planning and deployment has been gaining momentum. The administration is working to achieve its ambitious goals of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52% below 2005 levels by 2030and obtaining carbon pollution-free electricity generation by 2035with economy-wide net-zero emissions by 2050. Offshore wind energy, for example, now has a whole-of-government approach. The administration aims to generate 30 gigawatts by 2030, mitigating 78 million metric tons of carbon emissions and creating nearly 80,000 new offshore wind jobs and 57,000 new jobs in communities supported by offshore wind activities. In May, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management approved the first commercial offshore wind energy project in the U.S. off the Massachusetts coast. Several projects are now being planned or are underway on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts as well as in the Gulf of Mexico.

Our Biodiversity Policy is designed to ensure we preserve ecosystems and biological diversity as we work to create a more sustainable energy model. Before we begin any major project, we assess its potential environmental impact. This assessment includes evaluating if sensitive species, native habitats, wetlands, or other natural resources are in the project’s area or its vicinity. Once we have the project-specific understanding, our team works collaboratively to determine the best path forward to avoid or minimize potential impacts.

We also consider biodiversity when we plan to decommission a site. For example, depending on the site, we would plan reclamation procedures which could include restoring soil, restoring the site to its original natural contours, and revegetating any disturbed areas with native plant seed mixes or agricultural crops, as appropriate, based on the use of surrounding lands and the needs of the landowners.

A study led by the University of Southampton, in collaboration with Gail Taylor, Department of Plant Sciences, UC Davis and published in the has found that expanding green energy production sites in the future won’t necessarily be a threat to protected areas of land.

The project studied how expanding land use requirements for wind and solar infrastructure would impact the ability to preserve biodiversity. They used global databases covering more than 24,500 land-based renewable energy installations in 153 countries to examine overlaps with areas identified as important for biodiversity conservation, at 1-km resolution.

Governments worldwide should introduce compulsory take-back policies for products rich in REEs, and build networks of licensed recycling firms to process products containing REEs. Mandatory recycling rates or recycled-content requirements for REEs need to be set, and enforced. For example, the European Commission has passed a law requiring that 15% of REE consumption in the European Union be covered by secondary sources by 2030 (see ). Global agreements will be needed for collecting REE end-of-life products from countries lacking recycling facilities. Governments should also agree to a global standard for product labelling to help manufacturers and others understand the types and amounts of REEs in products. And they should revise existing legislation concerning electrical equipment to include products with dense and rich amounts of REEs, including magnets and electric-vehicle batteries. Researchers need to assess the feasibility and implications of such policies. For example, how hard will it be for companies to meet a national 15% recycling target without repercussions, such as having to rely on poor-quality secondary sources or export restrictions? What would it take for them to achieve 30%? One stumbling block is that few researchers or industry players know the quantities of REEs in products, or consumption patterns of low-carbon devices, often because of confidentiality issues. This makes it difficult to judge how many tonnes of REEs might become available when products come to the end of their lives, or the time frame for being able to collect them. A data platform to share estimates about the future supply of REEs from secondary sources would help to resolve this gap. Coordination and reduced tariffs for goods and services related to REEs are needed to overcome global trade barriers and REE export restrictions, which have increased fivefold since 2009. Better alignment of international trade, industrial policy and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) should include international circularity for REEs. Agreement on such issues at the next G20 meeting, in New Delhi in September, for example, would help to establish international markets and build economies of scale for recycled REEs and reused products. It would also help low- and middle-income countries to access REEs to speed up their energy transitions, and it would help governments to support green-recovery plans after the COVID-19 pandemic through fair trade, while delivering on the SDGs.

To have a fighting chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, emissions must drop by at least 40-60% by 2030. Richer nations, having put most of the excess carbon in the atmosphere in the first place, should be aiming even higher.

Because so much needs to be done in such little time, we must rely primarily on technology that already exists. This includes a massive expansion in low-carbon energy generation, and improving energy efficiency through, for example, national building insulation schemes.

Distributed energy and energy efficiency can further reduce land demand

But the story doesn’t end there, because there are multiple ways to reduce the footprint of a 100% renewable energy system (or really, any energy system). In particular, distributed renewable energy generation – like rooftop solar, especially with battery energy storage – and improved energy efficiency could significantly reduce the amount of large-scale wind, solar, and transmission infrastructure the U.S. will have to build.

Renewable energy sources like solar panels and wind turbines take up a fair amount of space. Unsurprisingly then, one of the main concerns raised about the idea of transitioning to a fossil fuel-free, renewable energy-powered society has been land use. Can America build a clean energy future without covering the landscape with solar panels and wind turbines, becoming endlessly mired in local land use conflicts, or threatening special and ecologically vulnerable places?

It’s an important question. But while there are legitimate issues to be worked out, it is very easy to overstate the barrier that land use poses to the clean energy transition.

Renewable energy sources like solar panels and wind turbines take up a space. Unsurprisingly then, one of the main concerns raised about the idea of transitioning to a fossil fuel-free, renewable energy-powered society has been . Can America build a clean energy future without covering the landscape with solar panels and wind turbines, becoming endlessly mired in local land use conflicts, or threatening special and ecologically vulnerable places? It’s an important question. But while there are legitimate issues to be worked out, it is very easy to overstate the barrier that land use poses to the clean energy transition. First, while renewable energy does take up land, so does the current energy system, primarily for land-intensive, low-value forms of energy, like ethanol. Second, a clean energy future won’t necessarily use more land than the current system and might even use less. This is especially true if we reduce reliance on biofuels in the transition away from fossil fuels. And third, there are many tools we can use – from energy efficiency and distributed forms of energy generation (such as solar panels) to the adoption of less energy-intensive lifestyles and tools to shape our demand for energy – that can reduce the amount of renewable energy capacity we need to build in order to meet the needs of society.

Comparatively small footprint NREL found that the land area directly occupied by wind and solar infrastructure by 2035 would make up less than 1 percent of the land in 94 percent of the country and less than or equal to 7 percent of total land area in just three states. A key reason why a relatively small amount of land is needed is because only 2 percent of the total area within a wind farm is occupied by wind infrastructure, while the remaining 98 percent is available for agriculture, grazing, or other uses. Offshore wind turbines also have a relatively small footprint and are able to use much larger turbines than land-based projects. Rooftop solar deployment, meanwhile, doesn’t require any land. Of course, to deliver all this clean energy from wind-rich regions in the Midwest and Plains states to major load centers in the East will also require a lot of additional transmission lines. NREL found that total US transmission capacity would have to increase by 1.3 to 2.9 times current levels by 2035. This would require 1,400 to 10,100 miles of new high-capacity lines per year, assuming new construction began in 2026. But the big news is NREL found that the total amount of land needed by 2035 to achieve our clean power goals with wind, solar, and long-distance transmission lines (19,700 sq. mi) would be: equivalent to the land area currently occupied by railroads (18,500 sq. mi) less than half the area of active oil and gas leases (40,500 sq. mi) less than one-third of the area currently needed for ethanol production (59,500 sq. mi), and only slightly more than the historically disturbed land area for coal mining (13,100 sq. mi). Plus, NREL’s main “All Options” scenario projects roughly 250,000 wind turbines in the United States, which is considerably less than the nation’s 1.5 million oil and gas wells.

It’s true that, watt for watt, , but this is not the problem it seems to be, for five main reasons: With renewables, land has multiple uses. Roofs don’t just keep the rain off; with solar panels, they can quietly generate energy year after year. Solar panels can also be fixed over crops and greenhouses, optimizing the land in so-called agrivoltaic systems. Wind turbines spin just as well over fields of barley. There are even floatovoltaics: solar that floats on water. One study found that floatovoltaics on just a quarter of man-made reservoirs in the United States could while saving water. It’s not just solar that can find a home on water. Wind power can sit offshore too. Systems that run on electricity are far more efficient. A gasoline-powered car wastes around 70% of the gasoline energy in heat and noise. An electric vehicle of its electricity. An electric vehicle charged by solar represents huge cuts in the energy and land needed in the first place. Solar-powered electric bikes are even better. The high estimates for renewable space requirements come from biofuels. Plants are terrible at converting solar energy. Solar panels convert energy 10-20 times more efficiently, and straight into electricity. Choosing more solar and wind power over biofuels means the upper end of land-use estimates can be avoided. Fossil fuels can pollute land and oceans for the very long term. Once the mines and wells are exhausted, it can take decades for the land to recover, if it ever does. The stretches of polluted land are increasing each year as Canadian tar sands and US shale gas operations expand. Care needs to be taken to ensure we don’t see the same problem with the mining materials for renewable energies. But, overall, the potential for pollution is much lower than oil spills and mine tailings from coal. In a warming world, we will see an increasing risk of extreme events. Repeated disasters like flooding and wildfires can threaten both fossil fuel and nuclear infrastructure. Renewables, especially solar, can be moved and re-sited quickly. Renewables also don’t pollute the environment if flooded. Policy makers still need to take care and empower communities in renewable energy developments. But given the speed of transition required, space is not a significant reason for concern or delay. If we don’t reduce emissions dramatically this decade, we may need large-scale carbon capture in the future, either by growing plants and burying the carbon they use to grow or through devices that physically scrub the atmosphere of carbon. If we grow plants for this or use renewables to power the scrubbers, we may see increasing land tensions. But this is just one more reason to focus on lightning-fast emission reductions now, so we need less of this scrubbing later in this century. In any case, we don’t yet have this technology at scale. We might see more evidence of our energy use around us: solar panels on our roofs and wind turbines in our fields. But is this really such a bad thing? It beats the invisible fossil-fuelled air pollution that . People in higher income nations use so much energy that if you had to replace the fossil fuels and renewables with human labour, each European would need 100-150 energy servants working for them 24-7. This might be a shocking statistic. But by seeing the source of our energy, perhaps we’ll be encouraged to find ways to use less of it.

According to energy governance group REN21, renewable energy will account for nearly half (45%) of global electricity generation by 2040.

This growing number is worthy of much excitement. Yet as renewable energy use continues to grow, it faces a looming challenge: in a world accustomed to having electricity on demand, renewable energy’s reliance on specific weather means that it offers intermittent availability, which could create a less reliable grid system over time.

The perfect storm of crises and policy directives have converged to create the energy storage moment. Between the drive to reduce carbon output to “net zero” over the coming decades and the commodity crisis created by the conflict in Ukraine (including its impact on the supply and price of oil and natural gas), the pressure to deploy renewable resources has never been greater.

The term “renewable resources” could include wood or falling water, but policymakers tend to equate “renewable” with wind or solar generation. While wind and solar both produce electricity without carbon emissions and with zero fuel cost, standing alone, they are considered intermittent resources. Put simply, when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining, these resources do not produce electricity.

Intermittency has always been an issue the growth of renewable energy, but the development of high-capacity batteries capable of storing large quantities of power has changed that. Being able to store excess energy produced by renewable energy during peak cycles, storage provides power grids with the ability to tap into those reserves when the cycles dip – negating the intermittency of renewables. Recent studies have shown that the use of large-scale batteries in the United States could both help reduce renewable energy infrastructure costs and provide of the nation’s power demands through sustainable energy.

(“Renewable Energy’s Intermittency is Not a Showstopper”, Physics, 4-20-2022, https://physics.aps.org/articles/v15/54, Date Accessed 7-15-2023) //TCM

The greatest question facing the world as we transition away from traditional fuels to 100% clean, renewable energy is whether we can keep the electricity grid stable every minute of every day given the variability of wind and sunlight. My answer is yes! We can avoid blackouts by taking advantage of multiple tools that are already available. Clean, renewable energy is energy that is naturally replenishable, results in no emissions of health- or climate-affecting air pollutants, and does not pose other major environmental threats. The main clean, renewable electricity-generating technologies are onshore and offshore wind turbines, solar photovoltaics, concentrated solar power plants, geothermal plants, and hydropower plants. Collectively, these are called wind-water-solar (WWS) technologies. Electricity-generating technologies that aren’t clean and renewable involve fossil fuels, biomass, and nuclear energy. Fossil fuel and biomass power plants produce air pollution—a problem to these plants. The main concerns with nuclear power are radioactive waste, the pollution from mining and refining uranium, the meltdown risk of reactors (1.5% of all energy-supplying reactors ever built have experienced some level of accidental core melting), and the possibility of nuclear weapons proliferation. But these polluting energies are often deemed necessary for maintaining reliable power production. And yet, the ability to avoid blackouts with 100% WWS is already a reality in several countries. In 2021, 10 countries—Iceland, Norway, Costa Rica, Albania, Paraguay, Bhutan, Namibia, Nepal, Ethiopia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo—produced 97.5 to 100% of all their electricity from WWS resources. Some of these countries even produced excess electricity that they could sell to their neighbors: Paraguay exported electricity to Argentina and Brazil, and both Bhutan and Nepal exported energy to India. In all the 100% WWS countries listed above, the dominant renewable is hydropower. Of course, not all countries have a large hydropower capacity, so reaching 100% WWS electricity for many countries will require 90% or more of electricity generation from wind and solar. A common worry is that consumers will face blackouts when the wind doesn’t blow, or the Sun doesn’t shine. However, we can make a WWS-supplied grid stable by combining a number of methods. First, wind and solar energies are complementary in that the Sun often shines when the wind isn’t blowing, and vice versa. Thus, combining wind and solar smooths the power supply compared with using wind or solar alone. Similarly, combining wind or solar energy from distant facilities can in particular locations. The location of wind farms can also have an influence on grid stability. Building wind turbines in coastal waters helps in meeting spikes in electricity demand because offshore wind is usually less variable than onshore wind and often . Building more wind turbines in cold climates also increases reliability because, on average, when temperatures drop and heating demand goes up, winds become stronger. Another grid-stabilizing strategy is electricity storage, which can often fill gaps in wind and solar supply. Existing electricity storage technologies include batteries, pumped hydropower storage, flywheels, compressed air storage, and so-called . In many places, solar plus batteries is already cheaper than coal or nuclear and is . In fact, battery costs have . The more storage costs decline, the more storage will be coupled with WWS generation to keep the grid stable. Other ways to avoid blackouts focus on demand. Efficiency improvements—such as switching to LEDs and insulating buildings—can reduce electricity consumption. Utilities can also give financial incentives to encourage consumers to shift the time of their energy use to periods when sunlight or wind is available. I’ve studied the use of these techniques in and found that the grid can stay stable everywhere in the world with 100% WWS. There are many incentives to make the transition. For one, a fully WWS-based energy supply would reduce energy needs, primarily because it would imply a transition from gas-fueled vehicles to more efficient electric vehicles. Other motivations include less pollution-related diseases and reduced environmental impacts. To take the example of the US, show that a full transition to WWS in 2050 would reduce energy needs by 57%, energy costs by 63%, and energy plus health plus climate costs by 86%—compared with a business-as-usual scenario. The health savings are based on an estimated 53,000 less air-pollution deaths per year (multiplied by a “value of life” factor of around $11 million per death); the climate savings come from assuming a societal cost of $550 per metric ton of CO2 emitted. In addition, a 100% WWS scenario in the US would create a net gain of 4.7 million jobs. In sum, there are many tools available to keep the grid stable with 100% WWS. Doing so will reduce costs, increase employment, reduce pollution-related deaths, mitigate climate damage, and provide energy security. In order to avoid the worst climate damage, we need to stop emissions immediately, but—barring that—we need at least an 80% transition by 2030 and a 100% transition, ideally, by 2035–2040 but no later than by 2050. We have at least 95% of the technologies we need for a transition today. As such, we have no excuse not to proceed as rapidly as possible.

The growth of the world’s capacity to generate electricity from solar panels, wind turbines and other renewable technologies is on course to accelerate over the coming years, with 2021 expected to set a fresh all-time record for new installations, the IEA says in a new report.

Despite rising costs for key materials used to make solar panels and wind turbines, additions of new renewable power capacity this year are forecast to rise to 290 gigawatts (GW) in 2021, surpassing the previous all-time high set last year, according to the latest edition of the IEA’s annual Renewables Market Report.

London CNN Business — Global renewable power capacity is set to grow as much in the next five years as it has over the past two decades, as soaring energy prices and the climate crisis force governments to ditch fossil fuels.

In a report published Tuesday, the International Energy Agency forecast a sharp acceleration in installations of renewable power. It now expects green energy to overtake coal to become the largest global source of electricity by early 2025.

The pace of deployment of some clean energy technologies – such as solar PV and electric vehicles – shows what can be achieved with sufficient ambition and policy action, but faster change is urgently needed across most components of the energy system to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, according to the IEA’s latest evaluation of global progress.

Published today, the annual update of the IEA’s Tracking Clean Energy Progress online resource reveals remarkable gains in the past year. Electric car sales reached a record high of more than 10 million in 2022, a nearly tenfold increase in just five years. Renewable electricity capacity additions rose to 340 gigawatts (GW), their largest ever deployment. As a result, renewables now account for 30% of global electricity generation. Investment in clean energy reached a record USD 1.6 trillion in 2022, an increase of almost 15% from 2021, demonstrating continued confidence in energy transitions even in an uncertain economic climate.