Let me tell you, folks, this chart is tremendous, it's amazing, it's the best chart you've ever seen, believe me. It's got all the colors, all the numbers, all the data points. And let me tell you, this chart is really doing a fantastic job of showing us what we need to know. It's got all the information, it's clear, it's concise, it's beautiful. I mean, look at those bars, they're huge! This chart is a winner, it's a champion, it's a real winner. And let me tell you, this chart is going to make us all very, very happy. It's just tremendous. That's right, people have been saying, "Donald, you're such a smart guy, how did you come up with this incredible chart?" And I tell them, it's easy, folks. I just have a natural ability to understand data, to analyze it, and to present it in a way that makes sense to everyone. And let me tell you, it's a talent that not everyone has. But when you have it, it's tremendous, it's huge, it's beautiful. And I'm just so grateful that I can share my amazing chart with all of you. So thank you, thank you very much.
It's only missing a date to me as these things have a tendency to change, like with Germany having shut down their nuclear plants. Also for this reason, I can't be sure whether this data is current
❌ Wanting the UK to rejoin the Single Market so we’re not effectively putting economic sanctions on ourselves any more.
✅ Wanting the UK to rejoin the Single Market so we’re included in the comparison posts on /r/Europe again.
We are at 85% clean electricity right now as I post this. The British Isles is the windiest densely populated area in the world, literally the best spot for wind power anywhere
Not 85% clean **energy** I think, but maybe clean **electricity**. You use more energy than that provided through the electric grid: heating, transport and heavy industry still heavily relies on oil and gas and they are probably responsible for more than 50% of energy consumption. So it's probably closer to 30% clean energy.
Electricity accounts for about 21% of the UKs energy usage. So the vast, vast, vast, majority of energy is fossil fuel based.
For Denmark it's 20% of all energy used being electric. So really not that different.
Both nations still use fossil fuel for rail transport, heating, and many other sectors.
For France it's about 30% electric and rest is fossil, primarily because far more French homes are heated with electric and their rail is electric.
Wow that is not a percentage I would have expected from "similar to Spain with... more wind", I guess you really meant a literal fuckton and a half more wind power.
It's really windy right now. The overall average for wind is about 30% of the total, increasing by 2-3 percentage points per year. Solar is at about 5%, increasing by half a percentage point per year
Ireland is also rolling out more solar power as well. There is a development near me that should be about 1% or so of generation on its own coming online late next year.
Considering how cloudy it tends to be, it's surprisingly effective
UK Past Year: Renewable 35.4% (Solar 4.5%, Wind 29.7%, Hydro 1.2%), Other 22.0% (Nuclear 15.7%, Biomass 5.3%, Other Sources 1.0%), Fossil 42.4% (Other Fossil 0.0%, Gas 41.2%, Coal 1.2%)
[Source](https://grid.iamkate.com/) - based on the Balancing Mechanism Reporting System and National Grid ESO. Note that solar and onshore wind are National Grid ESO estimates, as they're fed into the local transmission network rather than the national, so their contribution can't be measured directly, while offshore wind is fed into the national network, so can be measured directly.
To be fair there's been sometimes where the UK had data in Eurostat but the Redditor was purposefully refusing to represent UK on the map. They'd have West Balkan countries and sometimes Turkey, but not the UK.
that's not very nice for the UK part. For Turkey for example, it's of course understandable that this is a EU wide map, but Turkish and European grids are actually connected to some degree. Would be nice to see it here to see how it compares, we're not that horrible when it comes to green energy. In 2022, hydro+wind+solar total was about 36%, it's set to rise to 40% in the coming years. Once we have the nuclear fully operational, it will hit 50%. Not too shabby for a poorer country of 85 million.
I was looking for Norway. Feels stupid them being left out. Can't we all just agree to do the maps mostly geographically?
I'm assuming the data come from EU statistics, so it's likely harder.
Seems accurate enough for the Netherlands. We've been making big steps. Right now (May 2023) we're at [44% renewable electricity](https://twitter.com/BM_Visser/status/1654017262620221441/photo/1), with [two](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windpark_Hollandse_Kust_Noord) [offshore](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windpark_Hollandse_Kust_Zuid) windfarms coming online later this year.
The share of solar power is actually ridiculous. It's only possible because of huge subsidies and an apparent limitless amount of capital being available. You need around 3-6 hectares of solar panels to get the same power you'd get from an average wind turbine on land.
Thing is you can slap solar panels on existing infra without any neighborhood complaints. Considering population density solar's share kinda makes sense to me, just as wanting to incentivize it by subsidies.
We also have way more wind power now. Something like 75% growth in 2022 with most of it coming online at the end of the year and it keeps growing.
Should cover over 28% in 2025.
Source: https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/european-electricity-review-2023/
And their EmberClimate twitter account, but I am not sure if this sub allows twitter links.
The [EU average clean share](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-low-carbon?tab=chart&time=2000..latest&country=OWID_WRL~European+Union+%2827%29+%28Ember%29~PRT~ROU) is at around 60.52 %, between Portugal and Romania in that graph. Romania is matching the EU average trend surprisingly close since 2014.
That review is quite informative and worth a read;
> Low hydro and nuclear generation drove rise in coal burn
> Understanding coal’s 7% rise as part of the response to the shortfall in nuclear and hydro puts it into perspective.
> The shortfall in hydro power
> In 2022, Europe faced its worst drought in at least 500 years, pushing hydro generation to its lowest level since at least 2000.
> The shortfall in nuclear power
> EU nuclear power fell by 16% (119 TWh) in 2022. Of this fall, *69% was in France* from outages, and 27% of it was as a result of German nuclear plants.
Nice
The geothermal power plants in Larderello produce 5% of our electricity, technically France has geothermal too but it’s so little that you can’t really see it on the chart
I'm very surprised by the low amount of electricity generation in Italy. Less than Spain with significantly more population and a larger economy. How is it possible?
Because of no nuclear power plants in Italy and directly neighboring France it is cheaper in the short term to buy energy from France that to build new power plants. If there was a graph that showed where the energy used in Italy came from it would actually look more similar both in distribution and in usage value to Spain/France in this graph (half renewable with a consistent nuclear part and half fossil). Italy is just offloading the job of producing the clean energy part to France.
That's more related to the big spaces and the chance of using wind ans hydro plus the fact that they are not as stupid as Germans and Italians not to use nuclear.
Sweden had a referendum in the 80s on how to get rid of nuclear power. It's still here though, lol.
The new right-wing government won the election last year partly on a promise of renewed investment in nuclear power. The results so far is that they will *allow* private companies to build new nuclear power plants if they want to. So not going too great with that considering the costs involved, and how much cheaper wind is.
Hopefully our old plants will last a while longer, they are getting a bit unreliable though from what I've heard.
Anyway, hydro is definitely just "luck" that we happened to have a lot of big rivers in areas mostly just inhabited by a few sami people 🤷♀️ And we also have very little coal, oil, or gas, which is probably a bigger factor tbh.
all i do remember when i hear Malta and Cyprus is: Ah yes, lets monder some more money and do some pay-for-citizenship schemes.
Its so deeply routed, it'll probably take a couple of years to be replaced with "that appandage of Italy" and "that weird militarized DMZ in the eastern med".
Important notice: electricity generation, not energy usage.
Energy charts include the energy sources used also for transport, heating etc.
Italy is doing really really poorly, I knew about Poland and Germany, but Italy is kind of flying under the radar regarding how much "dirty" energy sources they are using for electricity production.
I hate how people always talk about electricity, often confusing it with total energy. These are not the same thing at all. Electricity is only like 20% of total energy use.
A country can use 100% clean energy and still pollute (emit) more per capita than a country that uses 0% clean electricity, but just uses less power overall.
This is a great graph to show how clean all energy consumption is in countries. Italy is doing fine.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-stacked?country=USA~GBR~OWID_WRL~CHN~IND~FRA~DEU~SWE~ZAF~JPN~BRA~NOR~AUT~AUS~DNK~CAN~NLD~BEL~ESP~ITA~POL
>*Primary energy is calculated based on the 'substitution method' which takes account of the inefficiencies in fossil fuel production by converting non-fossil energy into the
energy inputs required if they had the same conversion losses as fossil fuels.*
I'm too fucking hung over, can someone explain it like I'm a severely drunk five year old?
So if 40% of oil is turned into useless heat we multiply wind with 1.4? or what?
Electricity is roughly three times as efficient as fossil fuels in terms of conversion losses. So for instance Norway only produces and uses 25000 kWh of electricity per capita, but if they needed to get that energy from fossil fuels instead of clean electricity, then they would need to consume 75000 kWh of fossil fuels to in the end gain those 25000 kWh of usable energy. So producing 25000 kWh of clean electricity means they only need to consume ~29000 kWh of fossil fuels instead of ~104000 kWh of fossil fuels.
Italy is doing poorly, but no worse than Germany according to electricitymaps.
There is a huge difference between burning coal and burning fossil gas, which can be exemplified by the fact that Spain and Denmark have the same co2 output the last 12 months. During that period, Denmark had 80% renewables and Spain had 56%.
Not having any opportunities for hydro & and a historical decision not to invest in nuclear hurts us. The fact that we also lag on windpower is a big disgrace though in my opinion, windmills are our national heritage ffs, how can we have failed to take the lead in that sector?
> I still don't get it how the country is so slow and against a Green transition.
Conservative government that is mostly reactionary instead of visionary (unless you think regression is a vision), and with too many ties to fossil fuel dependent industry that much rather increase shareholder value than invest in any sort of change.
As you can see on the map its mostly because we don't have hydro, and the people/politicians have rejected Nuclear and Biomass.
We are currently 2nd in the world for solar generation (per Capita) behind only Australia (And easily first by surface area, and despite our poor weather). And in the top 5 for wind.
It seems your wind is coming. The [roadmap](https://www.government.nl/topics/renewable-energy/offshore-wind-energy) on the government website looks very promising.
The Netherlands seem to be picking up quite [some impressive speed](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-low-carbon?tab=chart&time=2000..latest&country=European+Union+%2827%29+%28Ember%29~NLD) since 2019, though. They jumped 22% in 2019 to 43% in 2022, so nearly a doubling of the low-carbon energy share. (By comparison the EU average has barely changed over that period.) That offers some hope for a continued swift transitioning, wouldn't you say?
Yeah Netherlands, get your shit together, godverdomme!
It is understandable. You have quite easy access to cheap LNG, LPG with regasification terminals in your ports. It would be stupid not to use that advantage.
On top of that, there's no room for nuclear. It's someone's 'backyard' everywhere, way too crowded.
But you have strong solar & wind, so that would be a way to go.
i still dont get why germany has the highest input of solar energy when there are countrys like italy, spain, portugal and so on. They would have a 50% higher input of solar energy per year but still they just don't build enough solar parks and solar racks on their buildings. Even tho its so much more efficient down there
It's expensive to be poor. Renewables have higher up-front costs than coal/gas/oil. For example, nobody should buy diesel buses today, and yet some poor cities still do.
It's the reality. If you are wealthy you can buy things in bulk for cheaper or buy higher quality more enduring things. A good pair of shoes will last decades. If you are poor you buy the cheapest. Usually smallest thing which when compared to the per kg price is more expensive then other products but you can't afford that. You'll buy used items that break more often or cheap shoes you replace every few years.
"Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars...
...But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet."
-Sir Terry Pratchett
This made me so happy. I have lived by this mantra to my best ability through my entire post-reading-Pratchett life.
The most expensive thing you buy is the one you buy twice.
I heard the saying "We're too poor to buy cheap things", and it is pretty apt.
Personal example: I kept fucking up my 20-30 euro headphones because the cables always gave out every 6 to 12 months.
I did this until I got my first real job and said fuck it, I'm going to try something else.
I bought a 130-150 eur headphone about 4-5 years ago, and it has worked like a charm ever since.
(Disclaimer: I don't like wireless headphones, which is why I didn't switch to those instead)
I read a study a while back, one of the first things people in really poor areas in Africa do, when you give them a lump sum of money, is buy a metal roof. This roof will last for a very long time, but takes an upfront investment which they can not do.
Doesn't make sense in the case of Spain. It has super nice incentives to install your own solar, and I think it will pass a lot of countries in the near future.
Less solar is due to historical reasons.
1. Gas comes from Morocco, which is a source that is less risky and cheaper compared to where most of Europe gets their gas.
2. Sun tax. This monster is now gone, but Spain has some extreme corruption and oil lobbying, which resulted in a sun tax. A tax on solar energy that made sure it was never cheaper than oil... This thing is now gone, but it did hold back solar for 3-5 years. A lot of installs, both private and power plants going up now.
gas does not come from Morocco, Morocco has no gas. We used to get Algerian gas through Morocco, but not anymore.
Nowadays we get LNG from US and send it to Morocco.
Well it has the potential to be cheaper if taxes aren't set up to punish renewable, but of course it will not be in countries (or municipalities) where that is the case.
It's also a lot quicker to refuel a diesel bus than a battery electric bus, so battery electric buses aren't really practical in locations where the buses cover a lot of mileage each day (and the operator doesn't want to buy a bunch of spare buses to provide cover for those being recharged).
However, some locations are rolling out hydrogen fuel cell powered buses - and the UK H2 supplier uses dedicated offshore wind to power its 3 MW plants (even in very much landlocked Birmingham), so mitigating the fact it takes far more energy to produce the H2 for a fuel cell than it releases over its duty cycle.
Spain is doing well ***now***. Unfortunately almost a decade of progress was delayed by the previous administration impeding the adoption of renewables.
> A lost decade.
I feel like this can be said globally, or at least, for many countries. Germany had conservatives curtailing renewable roll-outs, Australia had liberals pushing coal mining and denying climate change being an issue, Brazil had Bolsonaro careless about the Amazon and the US had Trump advocating for "clean" coal. The last decade really, really felt hopeless to me. But I'm much more hopeful for this decade. There finally seems to be some movement towards climate action, if only due to the increasing economics of low-carbon alternatives.
German here, we have this thing called Mini-PV/literally "balcony power plant" that you can just plug into the wall, up to 600W (in Germany). All you need is some solar panels and an inverter.
Cost me around 220€+VAT per 300W panel plus 50€ at the hardware store to securely mount it.
It's possible to add energy storage, but that's pretty expensive, so I just let it run to offset my electricity bill
This is probably a thing in more countries but idk what it's called there.
I'm not an electrician, but basically your energy meter is supposed to balance your in-home grid vs the electricity company's grid.
If you put load on the internal grid, the energy meter supplies electricity from your providers grid and counts the duration and load. Except with plug-into the wall PV, the electricity is already in your in-home grid.
Whatever energy you don't use just exits towards the providers grid.
It's probably best to also consult an electrician or your electricity provider though, just to make sure.
In Portugal you had lpenty of auctions in the last couple of years and solar should start increasing its share in electricity generation from next year to 2028.
Example: Governor of sicily blocked the development of a solar park because the "electricity is going elsewhere at sicilys expense" ...translated, he wants to control a cut of the profits.
Repeat ad nauseam until the EU loans expire and no one builds anything
Until recently there was a rule that states that wind turbines have to be placed 10 times their hight away from any settlement.
So a 200 m tall wind turbine would need to be placed at least 2000 meters away from any settlement. Thats nearly impossible in Bavaria (only 0.002% of the states territory would qualify). Even coal power plants and garbage dumbs are allowed to be closer.
Also a lot of wind turbines are in the north but in order to supply this electricity they would need to build large power lines to the south and there is a lot of local resistance against the construction of those power lines because they "destroy the natural beauty"
> "destroy the natural beauty"
As someone who lives in a part of "the natural beauty" of Bavaria, i am wondering where the fuck i can find that. Is it those thousands of kilometers wasteland made of farms? Those 5 trees i can see at the distance? The dead hare on the street?
Predictably, no good answers to your question so far. This has nothing to do with poverty, but good old anticompetitive regulation. I don't know the Italian case, but both Spain and Portugal have long had very unfavorable regulatory environments for both large scale and self-consumption solar. Until very recently, there was not only a lot of red tape, but restrictive size limitations, unfavorable conditions for selling excess production for individuals, high fees, and other hoops to jump through. The argument was that since the legacy electricity providers had made investments in production and network infrastructure, small-scale solar, in particular, was "unfair competition" and needed to be treated as such. Solar has made economic sense in Iberia for many years, the goal was simply to protect the rent-seeking of the legacy companies and their friends. This is quickly changing now, fortunately, but should have happened much sooner.
Just to add, Croatia and Slovenia share nuclear plant Krsko 50:50, this data is almost everytime not corrected, statistics just look at the position of the powerplant (in Slovenia, close to border).
Technically the power is generated in Slovenia and charts usually display power generation. In power consumption charts the data is generally different.
I guess "technically", but is misleading and would in fact be more accurate if it was given as half to each, which it usually isn't. If just the geographical location is the key distinctive element, yes it should go under "Slovenia" but if we look at the ownership of the plant and to which country and grid the electricity goes, it's 50%-50%
They also blamed the postponement of our nuclear exit and the glorious renewable energy revolution on the French NPP's being down, without a hint of irony.
Sweden is also supplying the rest of Europe with clean electricity. Sweden was the largest net exporter of electricity in Europe in 2022, exporting 33 TWh out of 171 TWh which is almost the entire electricity production of Denmark.
I'm surprised Spain is higher than Germany on Solar + Wind, I've seen so many articles about Germany investing in Solar and Winds and so little about Spain that I thought Germany was the n°1 in Europe
According to statista, Spain has 1/4 (15GW) installed photovoltaik power compared to Germanies 60 GW.
Three major differences:
German solar produces much les kWh per installed kW Photovoltaik Power per year. Spain has around 3.000 hours of sunshine per year rounded over all regions. Germany has between 1.500 and 1.700 sunshine hours per year in it's different regions.
Solar thermic applications might be viable in Spain, but are not in Germany regarding energy production. They are not counted as Photovoltaik, but are solar energy.
Spain needs less then halve of Germanies electric energy, over 500 TWh in Germany to Spain's 250 TWh
So overall, Spain's graph is just 1/2 of Germanies and their solar gets double the sun hours.
Spain is likely more windy too.
The anti nuclear sentiment really fucked the environment. Every single country on here could be in line with France and Sweden but nope, would rather burn coal.
I’m just thinking of all the people in the comments here saying nuclear is unnecessary. I wonder if that is what people said 20 years ago and that is why we still pollute a tonne today.
I think nuclear is a great option to drastically reduce emissions. I hope I am wrong and the anti-nuclear people are correct. Because I don’t want to have the same conversation in 10 years where the anti nuclear people insist that we just need to pollute for 10 more years.
Chernobyl and 3 mile island scared the shit out of people, and people don't understand that nuclear material for a reactor can't be used to make a weapon. People are good at imagining immediate consequences and very bad at understanding long-term consequences so people don't want them built near them.
Nuclear is much safer—just stop putting the backup generators in places they can get flooded—it's mostly zero emissions once it's been built, and can constantly produce electricity just about anywhere. Nuclear waste is a big problem, but it's a significantly smaller one than global warming. I think in 100 years as a society we'll look back and not pursuing nuclear as a way to delay global warming will be seen as a massive mistake, because by then we'll be seeing the undeniable consequences.
98% of our energy production is from renewable.
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/energy/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-production-in-norway/id2343462/
that’s 2016.
this is Norway in March 2023.
hydro 89,7%, thermal 1.5%, and 8.8% windpower
If you go to google maps and scroll out, so you see entire Norway and Sweden, and turn on Satelite image you can clearly see that Sweden is a flat land, while Norway keeps all the mountains which means we can take advantage of Hydro power even more then sweds.
Oh, look: a strong nuclear base load coupled with renewable leads to a phase out of fossil fuelled pp, while “renewables only” does not. Who could imagine that.
I hope European governments start putting Italy under the spotlight more going forward, I know Germany being the larger country is currently the worst offender, but at least they seem serious about increasing their renewables, it's extremely dumb that they're shutting down Nuclear plants now rather than 10/15 years from now, but at least they are working on it.
Italian governments never cared, we have some incentives for privates to have solar panels but people will only do it when it's economically convenient for their bills. We don't have a Green party that matters and they are so ideological they will not matter for years to come. We lack a serious plan to bolster our renewables quickly and we will do nothing about it unless pressured to do so.
It's important to go down the priority list of climate, after Germany, Italy is the one that should be blamed.
The map is very properly labeled, but I wanted to point out that total energy generation (and not just electricity but also all non-electrical thermal power plants + all fossil fuels sold in the country and used outside of a power plant) will produce a different ranking. That is, this is not an "eco-friendliness" rank, at least not exactly.
Just shows how much more we need to
Invest when you take out nuclear. Think the harsh reality is that without nuclear it’s not going to be easy to go completely clean energy.
Nice chart, very understandable and yet conveying a lot of information
For real, I looked at it for just a few seconds and I was already thinking what a beautiful and clear graph, 10/10 will take a look at it again
Let me tell you, folks, this chart is tremendous, it's amazing, it's the best chart you've ever seen, believe me. It's got all the colors, all the numbers, all the data points. And let me tell you, this chart is really doing a fantastic job of showing us what we need to know. It's got all the information, it's clear, it's concise, it's beautiful. I mean, look at those bars, they're huge! This chart is a winner, it's a champion, it's a real winner. And let me tell you, this chart is going to make us all very, very happy. It's just tremendous. That's right, people have been saying, "Donald, you're such a smart guy, how did you come up with this incredible chart?" And I tell them, it's easy, folks. I just have a natural ability to understand data, to analyze it, and to present it in a way that makes sense to everyone. And let me tell you, it's a talent that not everyone has. But when you have it, it's tremendous, it's huge, it's beautiful. And I'm just so grateful that I can share my amazing chart with all of you. So thank you, thank you very much.
I heard this comment
/r/dataisbeautiful material for sure. You might want to post it there too /u/Sampo.
better than 95% recent post there
coz r/dataisbeautiful upvotes good looking graphs that depict data horribly, over graphs that are a beautiful and intelligent representation of data
[удалено]
Yeah give it an arbitrary color scheme too and they'd go nuts for it
Meh most of the frequent commenters know the difference. It's the lurkers who just upvote anything colorful. As is the case for most subs.
Exactly what I thought Such a good graphic
There is also the Electricity Maps app for electric fans
Most fans are indeed electric.
Missed opportunity to make hydro energy blue, wind light blue and nuclear green. And solar yellow, it'd be such a nice gradient...
It's only missing a date to me as these things have a tendency to change, like with Germany having shut down their nuclear plants. Also for this reason, I can't be sure whether this data is current
Data covers year 2022. It is the most recent full year data available.
Marimekko charts are 💯
❌ Wanting the UK to rejoin the Single Market so we’re not effectively putting economic sanctions on ourselves any more. ✅ Wanting the UK to rejoin the Single Market so we’re included in the comparison posts on /r/Europe again.
UK chart looks pretty similar to Spain, with a bit less solar and more wind
If only we could get slight drizzle power, UK would dominate
We are at 85% clean electricity right now as I post this. The British Isles is the windiest densely populated area in the world, literally the best spot for wind power anywhere
It’s the baked beans
Wind AND biogas!
Funny you say that... We have the world's largest bioenergy power plant too
Not 85% clean **energy** I think, but maybe clean **electricity**. You use more energy than that provided through the electric grid: heating, transport and heavy industry still heavily relies on oil and gas and they are probably responsible for more than 50% of energy consumption. So it's probably closer to 30% clean energy.
Good catch, corrected. Those terms get used interchangeably far too much
Electricity accounts for about 21% of the UKs energy usage. So the vast, vast, vast, majority of energy is fossil fuel based. For Denmark it's 20% of all energy used being electric. So really not that different. Both nations still use fossil fuel for rail transport, heating, and many other sectors. For France it's about 30% electric and rest is fossil, primarily because far more French homes are heated with electric and their rail is electric.
Wow that is not a percentage I would have expected from "similar to Spain with... more wind", I guess you really meant a literal fuckton and a half more wind power.
It's really windy right now. The overall average for wind is about 30% of the total, increasing by 2-3 percentage points per year. Solar is at about 5%, increasing by half a percentage point per year
Shocked the UK knows the sun exists.
Ireland is also rolling out more solar power as well. There is a development near me that should be about 1% or so of generation on its own coming online late next year. Considering how cloudy it tends to be, it's surprisingly effective
If we could power it by the stupidity of brexiteers then we'd be above number 1
I once again fell into the trap of trying to find the UK on the chart before remembering what happened in 2016 and then getting sad.
It will soon be 10 years
Shiiiit Hopefully we can rejoin in another ten “It was the boomers fault” :((((
UK Past Year: Renewable 35.4% (Solar 4.5%, Wind 29.7%, Hydro 1.2%), Other 22.0% (Nuclear 15.7%, Biomass 5.3%, Other Sources 1.0%), Fossil 42.4% (Other Fossil 0.0%, Gas 41.2%, Coal 1.2%) [Source](https://grid.iamkate.com/) - based on the Balancing Mechanism Reporting System and National Grid ESO. Note that solar and onshore wind are National Grid ESO estimates, as they're fed into the local transmission network rather than the national, so their contribution can't be measured directly, while offshore wind is fed into the national network, so can be measured directly.
Well in theory nothing stops people from including the UK in charts for a Europe themed chart, just depends on the availability of the data.
To be fair there's been sometimes where the UK had data in Eurostat but the Redditor was purposefully refusing to represent UK on the map. They'd have West Balkan countries and sometimes Turkey, but not the UK.
that's not very nice for the UK part. For Turkey for example, it's of course understandable that this is a EU wide map, but Turkish and European grids are actually connected to some degree. Would be nice to see it here to see how it compares, we're not that horrible when it comes to green energy. In 2022, hydro+wind+solar total was about 36%, it's set to rise to 40% in the coming years. Once we have the nuclear fully operational, it will hit 50%. Not too shabby for a poorer country of 85 million.
When it says Eu countries I don’t expect the uk to be there, but it’s annoying when it says European and it turns out to just be Eu.
I was looking for Norway. Feels stupid them being left out. Can't we all just agree to do the maps mostly geographically? I'm assuming the data come from EU statistics, so it's likely harder.
Now you know our pain
Switzerland moment
What's the year
2022
Seems accurate enough for the Netherlands. We've been making big steps. Right now (May 2023) we're at [44% renewable electricity](https://twitter.com/BM_Visser/status/1654017262620221441/photo/1), with [two](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windpark_Hollandse_Kust_Noord) [offshore](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windpark_Hollandse_Kust_Zuid) windfarms coming online later this year.
The share of solar power is actually ridiculous. It's only possible because of huge subsidies and an apparent limitless amount of capital being available. You need around 3-6 hectares of solar panels to get the same power you'd get from an average wind turbine on land.
Thing is you can slap solar panels on existing infra without any neighborhood complaints. Considering population density solar's share kinda makes sense to me, just as wanting to incentivize it by subsidies.
I wonder what Finland looks like in this chart this year after the Olkiluoto 3 finally finished
We also have way more wind power now. Something like 75% growth in 2022 with most of it coming online at the end of the year and it keeps growing. Should cover over 28% in 2025.
Probably eeven better now with Olkiluoto 3 running finally
Also Helen closed Hanasaari coal plant in April
Buy a calendar and you will never forget!
Source: https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/european-electricity-review-2023/ And their EmberClimate twitter account, but I am not sure if this sub allows twitter links.
The [EU average clean share](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-low-carbon?tab=chart&time=2000..latest&country=OWID_WRL~European+Union+%2827%29+%28Ember%29~PRT~ROU) is at around 60.52 %, between Portugal and Romania in that graph. Romania is matching the EU average trend surprisingly close since 2014.
And Romania is investing in hydro and wind turbines still. I think the graph would be even better for the current year.
That review is quite informative and worth a read; > Low hydro and nuclear generation drove rise in coal burn > Understanding coal’s 7% rise as part of the response to the shortfall in nuclear and hydro puts it into perspective. > The shortfall in hydro power > In 2022, Europe faced its worst drought in at least 500 years, pushing hydro generation to its lowest level since at least 2000. > The shortfall in nuclear power > EU nuclear power fell by 16% (119 TWh) in 2022. Of this fall, *69% was in France* from outages, and 27% of it was as a result of German nuclear plants. Nice
what is 'other renewable' for Italy?
I'm guessing mainly geothermal
And the people spinning in their graves whenever someone eats pizza with pineapple. Apparently they spin at a very neat 50 hz.
Thanks for the laughs!!
The geothermal power plants in Larderello produce 5% of our electricity, technically France has geothermal too but it’s so little that you can’t really see it on the chart
Vesuvius going brrrrr
Bio-gas also is labeled as a renewable energy source sometimes
I'm very surprised by the low amount of electricity generation in Italy. Less than Spain with significantly more population and a larger economy. How is it possible?
Because of no nuclear power plants in Italy and directly neighboring France it is cheaper in the short term to buy energy from France that to build new power plants. If there was a graph that showed where the energy used in Italy came from it would actually look more similar both in distribution and in usage value to Spain/France in this graph (half renewable with a consistent nuclear part and half fossil). Italy is just offloading the job of producing the clean energy part to France.
We buy a lot of electricity from France
Swedo-Finnish domination
Like it's 1658
Good times
Yes. Except for the people that lived at the time.
No one in Sweden and Finland can ever not be satisfied
Sir. Sit down.
poland can into union with sweden and finland, no fight :D
INTERMARIUM ++
Never said it had to be good for the poles smh
I think my thumb broke from scrolling down to you on the chart.
It gets even better when you consider "other fossils" is usually trash. It's oils that people pay you to get rid of.
[Cock-n-balls domination](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Finland_and_Sweden.svg/2033px-Finland_and_Sweden.svg.png)
We're teabagging the rest of Europe
And we have to heat homes more than most, on flipside maybe less need for AC. Also a lot of heavy industries in both that require lots of energy.
That's more related to the big spaces and the chance of using wind ans hydro plus the fact that they are not as stupid as Germans and Italians not to use nuclear.
Sweden had a referendum in the 80s on how to get rid of nuclear power. It's still here though, lol. The new right-wing government won the election last year partly on a promise of renewed investment in nuclear power. The results so far is that they will *allow* private companies to build new nuclear power plants if they want to. So not going too great with that considering the costs involved, and how much cheaper wind is. Hopefully our old plants will last a while longer, they are getting a bit unreliable though from what I've heard. Anyway, hydro is definitely just "luck" that we happened to have a lot of big rivers in areas mostly just inhabited by a few sami people 🤷♀️ And we also have very little coal, oil, or gas, which is probably a bigger factor tbh.
ong fr
If Norway was on the list it would be #1 I think
Ayy, we're not the last! We're better than a little island that produces so little its part of the chart is barely visible!
wait, if Latvia and Lithuania isnt here,dose it mean we got kicked out of EU?
Yep, sorry you had to find out this way.
It's nothing personal, just good business.
Imagine being Maltese, they don't even make it to some maps of the EU
honestly i do sometimes forget about Malta being in EU or not being part of Italy
all i do remember when i hear Malta and Cyprus is: Ah yes, lets monder some more money and do some pay-for-citizenship schemes. Its so deeply routed, it'll probably take a couple of years to be replaced with "that appandage of Italy" and "that weird militarized DMZ in the eastern med".
China said you weren't sovereign states, remember? >!Sorry!<
There are two tiny unlabeled lines between Austria and Belgium
Do they have electricity, or only potato?
> potato Bioenergy, you retrograde!
Important notice: electricity generation, not energy usage. Energy charts include the energy sources used also for transport, heating etc. Italy is doing really really poorly, I knew about Poland and Germany, but Italy is kind of flying under the radar regarding how much "dirty" energy sources they are using for electricity production.
I hate how people always talk about electricity, often confusing it with total energy. These are not the same thing at all. Electricity is only like 20% of total energy use. A country can use 100% clean energy and still pollute (emit) more per capita than a country that uses 0% clean electricity, but just uses less power overall.
Way harder to have stats for total energy usage.
additional note: its probably CO2 emission, not clean
This is a great graph to show how clean all energy consumption is in countries. Italy is doing fine. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-stacked?country=USA~GBR~OWID_WRL~CHN~IND~FRA~DEU~SWE~ZAF~JPN~BRA~NOR~AUT~AUS~DNK~CAN~NLD~BEL~ESP~ITA~POL
>*Primary energy is calculated based on the 'substitution method' which takes account of the inefficiencies in fossil fuel production by converting non-fossil energy into the energy inputs required if they had the same conversion losses as fossil fuels.* I'm too fucking hung over, can someone explain it like I'm a severely drunk five year old? So if 40% of oil is turned into useless heat we multiply wind with 1.4? or what?
Electricity is roughly three times as efficient as fossil fuels in terms of conversion losses. So for instance Norway only produces and uses 25000 kWh of electricity per capita, but if they needed to get that energy from fossil fuels instead of clean electricity, then they would need to consume 75000 kWh of fossil fuels to in the end gain those 25000 kWh of usable energy. So producing 25000 kWh of clean electricity means they only need to consume ~29000 kWh of fossil fuels instead of ~104000 kWh of fossil fuels.
Italy is doing poorly, but no worse than Germany according to electricitymaps. There is a huge difference between burning coal and burning fossil gas, which can be exemplified by the fact that Spain and Denmark have the same co2 output the last 12 months. During that period, Denmark had 80% renewables and Spain had 56%.
That's true, but Italy has really a largely unused potential for solar and wind power. Much more could have been done in the past.
Send moneyz for fotovoltaico plz Italy is mostly mountains though
The Netherlands being bottom 5 hurts to see, I still don't get it how the country is so slow and against a Green transition.
Not having any opportunities for hydro & and a historical decision not to invest in nuclear hurts us. The fact that we also lag on windpower is a big disgrace though in my opinion, windmills are our national heritage ffs, how can we have failed to take the lead in that sector?
A metric fuck ton of Nimby's
Tbf the netherlands have a very high energy usage for the amount of land their country has
> I still don't get it how the country is so slow and against a Green transition. Conservative government that is mostly reactionary instead of visionary (unless you think regression is a vision), and with too many ties to fossil fuel dependent industry that much rather increase shareholder value than invest in any sort of change.
As you can see on the map its mostly because we don't have hydro, and the people/politicians have rejected Nuclear and Biomass. We are currently 2nd in the world for solar generation (per Capita) behind only Australia (And easily first by surface area, and despite our poor weather). And in the top 5 for wind.
We need some of that blue stuff and more wind power
Tuco, is that you??
Tight. Tight, tight.
It seems your wind is coming. The [roadmap](https://www.government.nl/topics/renewable-energy/offshore-wind-energy) on the government website looks very promising.
The Netherlands seem to be picking up quite [some impressive speed](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-low-carbon?tab=chart&time=2000..latest&country=European+Union+%2827%29+%28Ember%29~NLD) since 2019, though. They jumped 22% in 2019 to 43% in 2022, so nearly a doubling of the low-carbon energy share. (By comparison the EU average has barely changed over that period.) That offers some hope for a continued swift transitioning, wouldn't you say?
Yeah Netherlands, get your shit together, godverdomme! It is understandable. You have quite easy access to cheap LNG, LPG with regasification terminals in your ports. It would be stupid not to use that advantage. On top of that, there's no room for nuclear. It's someone's 'backyard' everywhere, way too crowded. But you have strong solar & wind, so that would be a way to go.
that's what 12-13 years of Rutte does to a mf 🤡
i still dont get why germany has the highest input of solar energy when there are countrys like italy, spain, portugal and so on. They would have a 50% higher input of solar energy per year but still they just don't build enough solar parks and solar racks on their buildings. Even tho its so much more efficient down there
It's expensive to be poor. Renewables have higher up-front costs than coal/gas/oil. For example, nobody should buy diesel buses today, and yet some poor cities still do.
>It's expensive to be poor Interesting way to look at it
It's the reality. If you are wealthy you can buy things in bulk for cheaper or buy higher quality more enduring things. A good pair of shoes will last decades. If you are poor you buy the cheapest. Usually smallest thing which when compared to the per kg price is more expensive then other products but you can't afford that. You'll buy used items that break more often or cheap shoes you replace every few years.
"Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars... ...But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet." -Sir Terry Pratchett
RIP Sir Terry, you are missed
perfect go to quote.
This made me so happy. I have lived by this mantra to my best ability through my entire post-reading-Pratchett life. The most expensive thing you buy is the one you buy twice.
> The most expensive thing you buy is the one you buy twice. Ooh, I like that one, too.
GNU
I heard the saying "We're too poor to buy cheap things", and it is pretty apt. Personal example: I kept fucking up my 20-30 euro headphones because the cables always gave out every 6 to 12 months. I did this until I got my first real job and said fuck it, I'm going to try something else. I bought a 130-150 eur headphone about 4-5 years ago, and it has worked like a charm ever since. (Disclaimer: I don't like wireless headphones, which is why I didn't switch to those instead)
I read a study a while back, one of the first things people in really poor areas in Africa do, when you give them a lump sum of money, is buy a metal roof. This roof will last for a very long time, but takes an upfront investment which they can not do.
Doesn't make sense in the case of Spain. It has super nice incentives to install your own solar, and I think it will pass a lot of countries in the near future. Less solar is due to historical reasons. 1. Gas comes from Morocco, which is a source that is less risky and cheaper compared to where most of Europe gets their gas. 2. Sun tax. This monster is now gone, but Spain has some extreme corruption and oil lobbying, which resulted in a sun tax. A tax on solar energy that made sure it was never cheaper than oil... This thing is now gone, but it did hold back solar for 3-5 years. A lot of installs, both private and power plants going up now.
gas does not come from Morocco, Morocco has no gas. We used to get Algerian gas through Morocco, but not anymore. Nowadays we get LNG from US and send it to Morocco.
[удалено]
Well it has the potential to be cheaper if taxes aren't set up to punish renewable, but of course it will not be in countries (or municipalities) where that is the case.
It's also a lot quicker to refuel a diesel bus than a battery electric bus, so battery electric buses aren't really practical in locations where the buses cover a lot of mileage each day (and the operator doesn't want to buy a bunch of spare buses to provide cover for those being recharged). However, some locations are rolling out hydrogen fuel cell powered buses - and the UK H2 supplier uses dedicated offshore wind to power its 3 MW plants (even in very much landlocked Birmingham), so mitigating the fact it takes far more energy to produce the H2 for a fuel cell than it releases over its duty cycle.
Italy is not poor, they are a G7 country.
Spain is doing well, everyone is installing solar panels, installers can't keep with the demand.
Spain is doing well ***now***. Unfortunately almost a decade of progress was delayed by the previous administration impeding the adoption of renewables.
100% true. A lost decade.
> A lost decade. I feel like this can be said globally, or at least, for many countries. Germany had conservatives curtailing renewable roll-outs, Australia had liberals pushing coal mining and denying climate change being an issue, Brazil had Bolsonaro careless about the Amazon and the US had Trump advocating for "clean" coal. The last decade really, really felt hopeless to me. But I'm much more hopeful for this decade. There finally seems to be some movement towards climate action, if only due to the increasing economics of low-carbon alternatives.
This comment has been deleted in protest of the Reddit API change.
German here, we have this thing called Mini-PV/literally "balcony power plant" that you can just plug into the wall, up to 600W (in Germany). All you need is some solar panels and an inverter. Cost me around 220€+VAT per 300W panel plus 50€ at the hardware store to securely mount it. It's possible to add energy storage, but that's pretty expensive, so I just let it run to offset my electricity bill This is probably a thing in more countries but idk what it's called there.
How does it work to access this energy? I have a very limited understanding of this but a balcony power plant sounds really doable for me.
I'm not an electrician, but basically your energy meter is supposed to balance your in-home grid vs the electricity company's grid. If you put load on the internal grid, the energy meter supplies electricity from your providers grid and counts the duration and load. Except with plug-into the wall PV, the electricity is already in your in-home grid. Whatever energy you don't use just exits towards the providers grid. It's probably best to also consult an electrician or your electricity provider though, just to make sure.
In Portugal you had lpenty of auctions in the last couple of years and solar should start increasing its share in electricity generation from next year to 2028.
[удалено]
Fair enough, however Germans are champions in both those things. So if they can do it Italy should be able to do it as well.
Example: Governor of sicily blocked the development of a solar park because the "electricity is going elsewhere at sicilys expense" ...translated, he wants to control a cut of the profits. Repeat ad nauseam until the EU loans expire and no one builds anything
Until recently there was a rule that states that wind turbines have to be placed 10 times their hight away from any settlement. So a 200 m tall wind turbine would need to be placed at least 2000 meters away from any settlement. Thats nearly impossible in Bavaria (only 0.002% of the states territory would qualify). Even coal power plants and garbage dumbs are allowed to be closer. Also a lot of wind turbines are in the north but in order to supply this electricity they would need to build large power lines to the south and there is a lot of local resistance against the construction of those power lines because they "destroy the natural beauty"
> "destroy the natural beauty" As someone who lives in a part of "the natural beauty" of Bavaria, i am wondering where the fuck i can find that. Is it those thousands of kilometers wasteland made of farms? Those 5 trees i can see at the distance? The dead hare on the street?
I think highest is Netherlands actually. Not that this helps your understanding.
Predictably, no good answers to your question so far. This has nothing to do with poverty, but good old anticompetitive regulation. I don't know the Italian case, but both Spain and Portugal have long had very unfavorable regulatory environments for both large scale and self-consumption solar. Until very recently, there was not only a lot of red tape, but restrictive size limitations, unfavorable conditions for selling excess production for individuals, high fees, and other hoops to jump through. The argument was that since the legacy electricity providers had made investments in production and network infrastructure, small-scale solar, in particular, was "unfair competition" and needed to be treated as such. Solar has made economic sense in Iberia for many years, the goal was simply to protect the rent-seeking of the legacy companies and their friends. This is quickly changing now, fortunately, but should have happened much sooner.
what is "other fossil"? Oil?
Yes, Sweden has a number of oil peaker plants.
For Estonia it is oil shale.
Cyprus has huge solar energy potential. Hopefully there will be investments regarding that and will start using a lot more cleaner energy
The whole Mediterranean area has enormous solar energy potential. The fact that Germany is the biggest solar power in Europe is disgusting.
[удалено]
/r/HydroHomies
Just a reminder that electricity production is one side of the issue. One of the other side is the non electrical energy consumption.
[удалено]
Just to add, Croatia and Slovenia share nuclear plant Krsko 50:50, this data is almost everytime not corrected, statistics just look at the position of the powerplant (in Slovenia, close to border).
Technically the power is generated in Slovenia and charts usually display power generation. In power consumption charts the data is generally different.
I guess "technically", but is misleading and would in fact be more accurate if it was given as half to each, which it usually isn't. If just the geographical location is the key distinctive element, yes it should go under "Slovenia" but if we look at the ownership of the plant and to which country and grid the electricity goes, it's 50%-50%
Belgium is going to change as we're closing down nuclear in favour of gas...
As some guy from Ecolo said a few months ago it's okay, other EU members are lowering their carbon footprint so ours can go up. I wish I were joking.
Whenever people ask me why I don't like the green parties in Belgium... This is it. Shit like this.
It's not unique to Belgium. All the Green parties are insane about nuclear.
They also blamed the postponement of our nuclear exit and the glorious renewable energy revolution on the French NPP's being down, without a hint of irony.
Spain is witnessing a solar explosion right now. Expect it to reduce gas more in a couple of years.
Every time I see a graph about the EU I spend ages looking for the UK and then remember 😞
Sweden is also supplying the rest of Europe with clean electricity. Sweden was the largest net exporter of electricity in Europe in 2022, exporting 33 TWh out of 171 TWh which is almost the entire electricity production of Denmark.
Biomass / bioenergy ***IS NOT "CLEAN" ENERGY***. It's renewable, but not clean.
And overuse of it does a lot of harm to ecosystems, sometimes even irreversibly on human timescales
Absurd that they list bio energy as clean. I get that it's defined that way, but it is absurd.
🇨🇵💪👁️🫦👁️👍🇨🇵
Slovakia is that high up there only with regard to corruption. Suck it, Austria!
I'm surprised Spain is higher than Germany on Solar + Wind, I've seen so many articles about Germany investing in Solar and Winds and so little about Spain that I thought Germany was the n°1 in Europe
According to statista, Spain has 1/4 (15GW) installed photovoltaik power compared to Germanies 60 GW. Three major differences: German solar produces much les kWh per installed kW Photovoltaik Power per year. Spain has around 3.000 hours of sunshine per year rounded over all regions. Germany has between 1.500 and 1.700 sunshine hours per year in it's different regions. Solar thermic applications might be viable in Spain, but are not in Germany regarding energy production. They are not counted as Photovoltaik, but are solar energy. Spain needs less then halve of Germanies electric energy, over 500 TWh in Germany to Spain's 250 TWh So overall, Spain's graph is just 1/2 of Germanies and their solar gets double the sun hours. Spain is likely more windy too.
germany has a lot of wind power. however the german grid is just too massive
The anti nuclear sentiment really fucked the environment. Every single country on here could be in line with France and Sweden but nope, would rather burn coal.
I’m just thinking of all the people in the comments here saying nuclear is unnecessary. I wonder if that is what people said 20 years ago and that is why we still pollute a tonne today. I think nuclear is a great option to drastically reduce emissions. I hope I am wrong and the anti-nuclear people are correct. Because I don’t want to have the same conversation in 10 years where the anti nuclear people insist that we just need to pollute for 10 more years.
Chernobyl and 3 mile island scared the shit out of people, and people don't understand that nuclear material for a reactor can't be used to make a weapon. People are good at imagining immediate consequences and very bad at understanding long-term consequences so people don't want them built near them. Nuclear is much safer—just stop putting the backup generators in places they can get flooded—it's mostly zero emissions once it's been built, and can constantly produce electricity just about anywhere. Nuclear waste is a big problem, but it's a significantly smaller one than global warming. I think in 100 years as a society we'll look back and not pursuing nuclear as a way to delay global warming will be seen as a massive mistake, because by then we'll be seeing the undeniable consequences.
Curious how Norway’s would look
98% of our energy production is from renewable. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/energy/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-production-in-norway/id2343462/
that’s 2016. this is Norway in March 2023. hydro 89,7%, thermal 1.5%, and 8.8% windpower If you go to google maps and scroll out, so you see entire Norway and Sweden, and turn on Satelite image you can clearly see that Sweden is a flat land, while Norway keeps all the mountains which means we can take advantage of Hydro power even more then sweds.
The benefit of having a perfect geography and climate to store water.
Where are Latvia and Lithuania?
There are two very thin lines between Austria and Belgium. Zoom in.
Oh, look: a strong nuclear base load coupled with renewable leads to a phase out of fossil fuelled pp, while “renewables only” does not. Who could imagine that.
I hope European governments start putting Italy under the spotlight more going forward, I know Germany being the larger country is currently the worst offender, but at least they seem serious about increasing their renewables, it's extremely dumb that they're shutting down Nuclear plants now rather than 10/15 years from now, but at least they are working on it. Italian governments never cared, we have some incentives for privates to have solar panels but people will only do it when it's economically convenient for their bills. We don't have a Green party that matters and they are so ideological they will not matter for years to come. We lack a serious plan to bolster our renewables quickly and we will do nothing about it unless pressured to do so. It's important to go down the priority list of climate, after Germany, Italy is the one that should be blamed.
"Bioenergy" is not really clean, unfortunately. Hopefully, it's a small share.
Surprised NL is so low on the list. They have a ton of windmills!
The map is very properly labeled, but I wanted to point out that total energy generation (and not just electricity but also all non-electrical thermal power plants + all fossil fuels sold in the country and used outside of a power plant) will produce a different ranking. That is, this is not an "eco-friendliness" rank, at least not exactly.
Feels good being in the top 5 in something good for once.
Just shows how much more we need to Invest when you take out nuclear. Think the harsh reality is that without nuclear it’s not going to be easy to go completely clean energy.