At COP29, IRENA Outlook calls for ambitious NDC update a ‘Make or Break’ for Global Goal to Triple Renewables by 2030

Even if all COP announcements to date were to be fully implemented, a
significant CO2 emission gap would still need to be closed by 2050,
according to IRENA’s World Energy Transitions Outlook 2024.
Released at the opening of the UN Climate Conference COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, the
Agency’s 1.5°C Scenario outlines a net-zero path by mid-century, offering
a framework for governments to develop energy transition strategies that
better align energy planning with climate policies to channel investment.
The Outlook shows that current country pledges could cut global
energy-related CO2 emissions by 3% by 2030 and 51% by 2050. Achieving the
global goals of tripling renewable power capacity and doubling energy
efficiency by 2030, as agreed at COP28, would keep the energy transition on
track for net-zero emissions by 2050. These 2030 targets are crucial to
limiting global temperature rise to below 1.5°C, as underscored by the UAE
Consensus.
IRENA 11th Nov 2024, https://mailchi.mp/73121b5cd521/press-release-ndcs-30-a-make-or-break-for-global-goal-to-triple-renewables-by-2030
Clean Energy Community Mobilizes as Trump Rises, Supporters Embrace Project 2025

Energy Mix 8th Nov 2024, Primary Author: Mitchell Beer
As leaders, citizens, and climate and energy practitioners around the
world absorb the prospect of a second Donald Trump term in the White House,
two overlapping realities are beginning to emerge.
The next U.S. government will be determined to reverse and defeat efforts to get climate change under control and speed up the shift to a clean energy economy. And the
response is already taking shape—from industries and technologies that
are far more advanced and entrenched than they were eight years ago, and
from an international community that is determined to keep the transition
going, with or without the next Trump administration at the table.
How those two forces collide will largely determine how badly the U.S. falls
short of its 2030 emission reduction target under the Paris climate
agreement, and how much is left of the already-diminished prospect of
meeting the global goal of holding average global warming to 1.5°C…………. https://www.theenergymix.com/clean-energy-community-mobilizes-as-trump-rises-supporters-embrace-project-2025/
Minimal role for nuclear in UK government agency’s Clean Energy plan
NFLA 6th Nov 2024 https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/minimal-role-for-nuclear-in-government-agencys-clean-energy-plan/
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities have noted that a report from Labour’s new National Energy System Operator (NESO) just out identifies a miniscule contribution from nuclear in Britain’s future clean energy mix.
Clean Power 2030 highlights the priorities for the new agency and two primary pathways – one with and one without a flexible contribution from biomass, hydrogen and Carbon Capture and Storage – to achieve a clean power network by the end of this decade.
In a network generating 143 gigawatts (GW) through a mix of renewable technologies, nuclear is only earmarked to provide a supplement of 4.1 GW.
The report calls for a tripling in offshore wind generation from 15 to 43 – 50 GW, a doubling in onshore wind from 14 to 27 GW, and a tripling of solar panel generation from 15 to 47 GW.
NESO also emphasises the need to dramatically increase battery storage capacity from 5 GW to over 22 GW, to increase long-duration storage capacity from 3 to 8 GW, and to invest significant sums to quickly roll out the necessary enhanced transmission system to support the transition of heat, industry and transport to electrification[i].
The derisory contribution from nuclear is clearly a sop to the nuclear industry and unions, and a means to retain the necessary transferable knowledge to maintain Britain’s nuclear arsenal.
It is calculated by assuming that one reactor at Hinkley Point C will come on-line by 2030 and that an existing Advanced Gas Cooled reactor plant and Sizewell B remain in operation[ii].
Generation from Hinkley’s second reactor will come sometime beyond that date, and any deployment of Small Modular Reactors and development of Sizewell C remains uncertain.
Commenting NFLA Chair Councillor Lawrence O’Neill said: “NESO recognises that a clean power future means our reliance upon electricity generated by renewables. Renewable generation can be delivered quicker and cheaper, without risk or radioactive contamination, deliver many new jobs, and provide this nation and its people with homegrown energy security.
“Not so long ago there was much talk of the need for nuclear power as a baseload, but in this report, this myth is destroyed as the contribution of nuclear power is identified as marginal. Its inclusion in the mix is clearly them a sop to the nuclear industry and unions, and a means to retain the necessary transferable knowledge to maintain Britain’s nuclear arsenal.
“Nuclear and clean power should not be seen in the same room for how can nuclear be clean when the National Audit Office has recently identified that to ‘clean up’ the radioactive legacy at Sellafield could cost taxpayers up to £253 billion in a mission lasting a further 100 years?”
“Nuclear and clean power should not be seen in the same room for how can nuclear be clean when the National Audit Office has recently identified that to ‘clean up’ the radioactive legacy at Sellafield could cost taxpayers up to £253 billion in a mission lasting a further 100 years?”
.For more information contact NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email to richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk
[i] Page 18, https://www.neso.energy/document/346651/download
[ii] Page 28, Ibid
IEA: Countries not on course to double rate of energy efficiency improvement by 2030

Stuart Stone, 07 November 2024
Much faster progress on energy efficiency is needed to meet target set at
COP28 Climate Summit, International Energy Agency warns.
One year on from the historic pledge at COP28 to double the rate of energy efficiency
improvements by 2030, a new analysis has cautioned that signatories to the
agreement brokered in Dubai are not badly off track to meet the goal.
According to the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Energy Efficiency 2024
report, global primary energy intensity, the overarching measure of energy
efficiency, is set to improve by around one per cent in 2024 – the same
rate as in 2023, and around half the average rate experienced between 2010
and 2019.
At the COP28 Climate Summit in Dubai last year almost 200
countries signed up to the UAE Consensus, which included headline targets
to treble renewables capacity and double the rate of energy efficiency
improvements by 2030, which would mean improving energy intensity from two
per cent in 2022 to four per cent by the end of the decade.
Business Green, 7th Nov 2024 https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4377058/iea-countries-course-double-rate-energy-efficiency-improvement-2030
Compelling Economics of Renewables Unmask Fossil Fuels and Nuclear

Posted to Energy November 07, 2024, by Francesco La Camera, Paul Dorfman,
https://dcjournal.com/compelling-economics-of-renewables-unmask-fossil-fuels-and-nuclear/
The renewable energy revolution is happening, but it is running too slow.
Renewables set a record in 2023 with 473 gigawatts added. Yet, we need to triple capacity by 2030 to stay aligned with the Paris Agreement.
While renewables are overtaking fossil fuels and nuclear as the primary choice for new power, the transition isn’t fast enough to limit global warming. In fact, renewable power capacity must triple by 2030, as recommended by International Renewable Energy Agency and agreed on by world leaders in the UAE Consensus at the last U.N. Climate Conference in Dubai.
Peaking fossil fuels is not enough; we need deep and rapid carbon dioxide cuts in the limited time we have to keep within our vanishingly small carbon budget.
The choices we make about the use of technologies will largely determine the success of our climate actions. We need low-carbon, or even no-carbon technologies. The concept of technology neutrality, understood as the capacity to cut carbon dioxide emissions, should also include the dimensions of costs and the time needed to reach the desired outcome.
Recently, nuclear energy has attracted attention as a technology to cut emissions and diversify energy supplies.
We are not challenging the choice of technology as a matter of national sovereignty. Instead, energy technologies (nuclear, renewables, fossil fuels) are compared in the context of the fight against climate change, where time is the most relevant variable.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, accelerating renewables coupled with energy efficiency measures are the most realistic means to reduce global emissions by 43 percent by 2030 and at least 60 percent by 2035.
Due to lower cost and higher efficiency, the IPCC has stated that renewables, particularly solar and wind, are ten times more effective at cutting carbon dioxide emissions than nuclear.
Nuclear’s share of global electricity production has almost halved from 1996 to 2023, largely due to the high costs of, and delays to, building and operating nuclear reactors. Far from improving, the latest nuclear reactor designs offer the worst-ever record of delays and cost escalation.
According to studies from Stanford University, new nuclear power plants cost 2.3 to 7.4 times those of onshore wind or solar per kilowatt-hour of electricity, take five to 17 years to deploy, and produce nine to 37 times the emissions per kilowatt-hour as wind.
New nuclear adds only as much electricity in a year as renewables add every few days. For example, China is now installing wind and solar capacity equivalent to five new nuclear reactors weekly.
Nuclear delivers far less power per dollar.
Because of significant costs and delays, the emphasis has moved to small modular reactors (SMRs). Their economics are costly and share the same significant security and waste problems. To date, several key SMR projects have fallen by the wayside.
Instead of wasting money on expensive non-renewable technologies, limited financial resources should be channeled into realistic solutions to climate change, including electrification; the expansion of renewables across all sectors; expansion and modernization of grids; storage, efficiency solutions and smart demand-side management.
The last decade represents a seismic shift in the balance of competitiveness between renewable technologies and incumbent fossil options.
The notion that renewables are expensive is outdated. According to IRENA data, 81 percent of the record renewable additions in 2023 were cheaper than fossil fuel and nuclear alternatives.
The total renewable power capacity deployed globally since 2000 has saved $409 billion in fuel costs in the power sector.
Factoring in the wider economic and environmental benefits of renewable power in reducing fossil fuel imports, improving a country’s balance of payments and enhancing security of affordable energy supply by reducing exposure to volatile fossil fuel prices in global markets makes it even more compelling.
The world is increasingly rallying behind renewables to do the heavy lifting for the net-zero energy transition. We have the knowledge, the technology and the means. We are fully equipped to adjust the trajectory of the transition and reduce the carbon footprint of the global energy system.
We must move faster.
Amazon’s nuclear datacenter dreams stall as watchdog rejects power deal

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission cites grid stability concerns
The Register, Dan Robinson, Mon 4 Nov 2024
Amazon has hit a roadblock in its plans for nuclear-powered US datacenters. Federal regulators rejected a deal that would let it draw more power from a Susquehanna plant to supply new bit barns next to the site, on the grounds this would set a precedent which may affect grid reliability and increase energy costs.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order on November 1 rejecting an amended Interconnection Service Agreement (ISA) that would have increased the amount of co-located load from 300 to 480 MW, and to “make revisions related to the treatment of this co-located load.”
Co-located load means the Cumulus datacenter complex that Talen Energy built next to the 2.5 GW Susquehanna nuclear plant in Pennsylvania which it operates, and which Amazon acquired in March via a deal worth $650 million.
The online megamart announced plans in May to expand the site with more than a dozen new datacenters for its Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud subsidiary over the next decade.
Soon after that, official objections were filed by two utility companies, American Electric Power (AEP) and Exelon. They argued that the revised agreement between Talen and PJM Interconnection, the regional power grid operator, would give the Cumulus site preferential treatment and may result in less energy going to the grid in some circumstances.
Exelon and AEP also argued that the amended ISA should be subject to an official hearing because “it raises many factual questions,” and, in the absence of any such hearing, that FERC should reject the amended ISA. It seems a majority of the commissioners agreed.
Specifically, Exelon and AEP said the amended ISA had not been adequately supported, meaning no good reason was given as to why the amendments were necessary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The move highlights the difficulties datacenter operators face in expanding their facilities to keep pace with the booming demand for training and operating the latest AI models, and the challenges that power companies face in delivering the energy required.
As The Register has covered recently, access to enough power has become a major issue in building or expanding those bit barns, with one major commercial property developer in the UK citing this as the single biggest constraint it faces.
Yet according to Bloomberg, the hyperscalers – Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, and Microsoft – are set to collectively splash out well over $200 billion this year chasing the AI dragon, despite increasing warnings the AI market is a bubble set to burst and many investors and enterprises are not seeing much return for all the cash they are throwing at it.
Amazon itself said in its recent earnings report it expects to spend $75 billion on capex this year and even more in 2025, largely due to rising demand for AWS services related to generative AI.
We asked the company to comment on the rejected Susquehanna power proposal.
The company has also recently pursued small modular reactors (SMRs) via a $500 million investment into three projects to develop these miniature nuclear plants. https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/04/aws_nuclear_datacenter_ferc/
Endangered Bees Halt Meta’s Nuclear-Powered AI Data Center Plans
Mark Zuckerberg is trying to find more renewable energy sources for his AI ambitions.
By Kate Irwin, Nov 05, 2024, https://au.pcmag.com/ai/108105/endangered-bees-halt-metas-nuclear-powered-ai-data-center-plans
Meta’s plans to set up a nuclear-powered AI data center in the US have been halted in part because a rare bee species was found on the land, the Financial Times reports.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg told staff about the issue in an all-hands meeting, according to sources familiar with the situation. The project has also faced other environmental and regulatory hurdles, and Meta is now looking for other ways to access carbon-free energy for its AI data centers.
Zuckerberg previously said Meta would build bigger AI computing clusters if the company could get the electricity to do so, admitting that limited energy resources are the main bottleneck for AI expansion.
Because AI uses a lot of electricity (and water), energy is one of its biggest challenges. Because of existing rules, adding new sources to US grids can take years, and utility firms may not want to add large, new power plants to their systems because of the challenges associated with the additions, MIT researcher and energy council member Robert Stoner previously told PCMag.
A 2017 report from the Center for Biological Diversity found that there are 347 endangered bee species in North America and Hawaii. It noted that 90% of wild plants require pollinator activity in order to survive, meaning that disrupting bee habitats could result in not only extinct species but also a loss of plant life, which could further accelerate climate change.
The 1973 Endangered Species Act currently only protects one species of endangered bee in the continental US: the Rusty Patched Bumblebee. While it’s unclear which bee species has posed a challenge to Meta’s nuclear plans, according to a map from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, there are only about 471 Rusty Patched Bumblebees left, and most of them are in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and around the Virginia-West Virginia border.
Meta’s website currently lists nearly two dozen data centers worldwide, with the majority concentrated in the US. A map shows 26 data centers either completed or being built in addition to 75 different solar power locations, 21 wind power locations, and 25 “Water Restoration” projects.
Meta isn’t the only big tech firm eyeing nuclear power, though. Google has ordered six or seven small modular nuclear reactors from Kairos Power, and Microsoft has made plans to reopen Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania to power its AI plans.
Why Nimbys are wrong about solar farms

Opponents of solar farms often say that solar panels should be put on roofs and that fields should be left for agriculture so i asked the experts on whether they agreed
By Tom Bawden, Science & Environment , November 3, 2024 ,
https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/why-nimbys-are-wrong-about-solar-farms-3355702
Tory leadership loser Robert Jenrick said that solar panels are “for roofs not fields” when asked byi last month if he supported a proposed giant solar farm in his Nottinghamshire constituency.
He is by no means alone in that view, which is a common argument given by opponents of solar farms.
Those who protest against solar farm developments argue fields would be better used for growing food, while solar panels could and should be concentrated on roofs, of which there are quite literally millions in the UK.
“I’ve said that we must ban solar farms from prime agricultural land and I mean it. These facilities are despoiling our beautiful countryside and jeopardising our food security. We must end it,” Mr Jenrick added.
But since Labour came to power Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has approved four of the five biggest solar farms to be given planning permission in the UK.
Mr Miliband has vowed to take on “the blockers, the delayers, the obstructionists” who oppose large solar and onshore wind development to help the UK meet its ambitious targets to make the country’s energy supply virtually carbon neutral in just six years.
As the Government steps up its campaign to drive through new solar and wind projects, it is likely we will be seeing more projects of a similar scale too that opposed by Mr Jenrick in the coming years.
i asked experts whether it was feasible for the UK to do without new solar farms and instead confine new solar panel installations to the rooftops of households, offices and other business properties, and what effect this could have on food security.
The sale of the solar challenge
Experts were clear that there needs to be a huge and rapid increase in renewable energy generation if the UK is to have any chance of meeting its highly ambitious climate targets.
And, as the cheapest source of renewable energy – now costing less than onshore and offshore wind, according to government figures – solar will inevitably play a key role in the transformation of the UK’s energy supply.
The Conservative’s British Energy Strategy in April 2022 outlines the need for 70 gigawatts (GW) of solar power to be installed by 2035 – enough to power 20 million homes, according to National Grid.
As of June 2024, the UK only had about 17GW installed capacity (powering around 4.5million homes), meaning the country needs to quadruple its solar power generation in the next 11 years.
Two thirds of the current solar power is generated by solar farms with panels on the ground – known as “ground mount” – with the remaining third coming from the rooftops of businesses and over 1.5 million homes.
Meanwhile, government advisor the Climate Change Committee estimates that we will need 90GW of solar by 2050 (5.3 times current capacity) if we are to hit our legally binding target of becoming Net Zero.
Dr Simon Harrison, a member of the Government’s new advisory commission to help make the UK’s power generation virtually carbon neutral by 2030, told i the task is so great that it’s “going to require vastly more renewable energy generation” – meaning that “in practice both solar farms and roof top solar will be needed at scale to meet our needs”.
“There’s a significant role for both,” added Professor Rob Gross, who also sits on the commission.
What are the advantages of solar farms?
The first major advantage of solar farms is the sheer amount of energy they produce.
The 600 MW Cottam Solar farm that was granted planning permission in September would be the UK’s largest – supplying 180,000 homes, or 1,500 homes for every 5MW of energy generated.
By contrast, large solar rooftop installs, say over an airport or large of space, typically generate hundreds of kilowatts (kW) potentially up to a few megawatts (MW).
While the average solar rooftop installation size on someone’s home for their own use is typically 4kW.
So the Cottam Solar project would generate at least 200 times the electricity of the very largest commercial roof top installations and around 150,000 times as much as a typical household solar panel setup.
Tony Slade, technical director of Beaverbrook Energy, which designs, finances and builds low-carbon energy generators, told i: “Ground mounted solar farms also suffer from less ‘shading’ (blocking of direct sunlight through obstacles and obstructions) and ‘directional losses’ by being angled in the wrong direction.
“About 50 per cent of roofs face the wrong way and of those that face the right way about 25 per cent suffer from shading issues,” he said.
Are solar farms cheaper than roof panels?
Yes, in part because they benefit from economies of scale. In other words, the bigger the solar farm, the cheaper each unit of electricity will be, as more panels can benefit from the infrastructure.
Professor Gross, who is also director of the UK Energy Research Centre coalition of researchers, told i “the principal advantages are economic”.
“It is far cheaper to install each solar panel in a large array of thousands of panels than it is to install a handful of panels on a roof.
“Ground mounted is cheapest, followed by larger arrays on commercial units, followed by new build, followed by residential retrofit. All categories are getting cheaper but it is impossible to get away from the fundamentals – the cheapest solar will always be the simplest to install, in the largest arrays,” he said.
“And ground mounted developers building large schemes may also be able to negotiate the best deals for panels and equipment,” he added.
Mr Slade explains that greenfield ground mount solar panels on fields typically cost two thirds as much, per unit of energy, as large scale solar panel arrays on commercial buildings such as warehouses, shopping centres and factories – as well as new build domestic and commercial buildings, where the solar panels are fitted as part of the original construction.
Meanwhile, installing solar panels above car parks is typically twice as expensive as wind farms and retrofitting homes is about three times as expensive, he said.
What about food security?
Opponents of large solar farms often argue that the land would be better used for agriculture and that too many of them could impact food security.
But the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero firmly rebuts those suggestions, arguing the amount of agricultural land involved would make very little difference to the UK’s food production.
“Our plans to boost solar power do not risk the UK’s food security. The total area of agricultural land used for solar is very small and is often the lowest grade quality for food production.
“Even in the most ambitious scenarios, solar would still occupy less than 1 per cent of the UK’s agricultural land, while bringing huge benefits for the British public and our energy security,” the spokesperson added.
Meanwhile, in July, National Farmers’ Union boss Tom Bradshaw warned MPs against making “sensationalist” claims about food security.
“It’s a small amount of land which is being taken out of production,” he told the Politico Europe website.
The role of rooftop solar panels
“They can potentially play a very important role, accounting for perhaps 40 per cent of new installation of solar. But it’s important to be clear that rooftop and ground based are additive not competitive,” Professor Gross said.
Dr Harrison says “there are serious considerations to make on where solar is placed”, meaning that sometimes roof top solar power can be far more suitable than those in fields.
“In the simplest terms, there is more space in rural areas for solar panel installations and it is often easier to optimise their positioning for greater energy capture. But they are generally further from existing grid connections and with sometimes competing requirements for land use,” he said.
“On the other hand, rooftop solar, most commonly in urban settings, often avoids use of congested electricity networks, especially when combined with local batteries, and when used in homes tends to drive greater awareness and action by residents in other areas such as energy efficiency improvements, as well as reducing bills. In practice both will be needed at scale to meet our needs.”
The Government estimates there are 250,000 hectares of south-facing, industrial roof space across the country. That’s an area bigger than London and Manchester combined, with the potential for a vast amount of solar panels.
Even a very conservative estimate suggests that this commercial roof space could provide an area big enough to generate approximately 25GW of energy.
This amounts to nearly half the total amount recommended by the Climate Change Committee (CCC), according research by University College London for the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).
Mr Ramandani agrees that fields and rooftops can play different, complementary, roles in UK energy generation.
“We need about 18GW more of rooftop solar to hit 70GW by 2035 to keep us on the right path to Net Zero. So it will play a massive role,” he said.
“Rooftop solar can power people’s homes and business onsite without needing to pull from the grid, and excess generation can be stored or exported back to the grid, which supports the flexibility and security of the grid. And they operate at a smaller scale with some export to the overall grid system.
“Solar farms, meanwhile, are not onsite generation – they operate at a much bigger scale and power the grid with greater quantities of energy, which is used by the whole system and not specific to a home or business (before they export the excess generation that they don’t use or store).”
Is there a big role for household solar panels?
UK households are already waking up to solar panels, receiving record sums last year for the amount of excess energy they generated that they sold back to the grid, Ofgem said last week.
Homeowners received more than £30m for the energy they didn’t need in the year to March 2024, four times the £7.2m they made the previous year.
Although this amounted to a relatively small amount of energy – enough to power 88,000 homes – experts say there is considerable scope to increase this and they expect this to happen in the coming years.
“There is definite major role for rooftop solar in the UKs future energy mix,” said Mr Slade. “As installations become cheaper and the market for excess generation becomes fairer to the home owner rooftop domestic solar will continue to grow,” he said.
Mr Ramandani says: “Onsite solar rooftop generation takes money off consumer’s bills as they purchase less from the grid, and excess generation can be exported to the grid for income. This in turn creates a stable grid system with less demand side pressure, as well as supplementary energy generation from homes and businesses.
For a typical house, installing a PV system could lower bills by the equivalent of nearly 330 every year over the 30-year lifespan of the system, according to a study by Cambridge University and the Think Three property development company for Solar Energy UK.
Grazing sheep among solar panels could produce higher quality wool, study finds

Sophie Vorrath, Nov 1, 2024,
https://reneweconomy.com.au/grazing-sheep-among-solar-panels-could-produce-higher-quality-wool-study-finds/
The co-location of solar farming with sheep grazing does not have a negative affect on wool production and could even improve the quality of the wool produced, a new study has found.
The study is based on the results of a second round of wool testing at the Wellington solar farm, south east of Dubbo in New South Wales, which has shared its site with 1,700 merino sheep for the past three years.
Legend has it that the decision to graze sheep at the solar farm came about when an employee of Lightsource bp, the owner of the Wellington project, complained to a local, sixth-generation wool farmer about the hassle and cost of mowing the solar farm six times a year.
According to Tony Inder, who heads up the Allendale Merino Stud, the effect on his sheep has been a lot better than he thought it would be – he says the wool quality they are producing has “increased significantly.”
But Lightsource bp – which is now wholly owned by the oil and gas giant BP, after completing the acquisition of the remaining 50.03% interest – has used the opportunity to gather some formal data.
The study, conducted by EMM Consulting with support from Elders Rural Services, compares two groups of merino sheep – one group grazed in a regular paddock and the other at the Wellington solar farm.
The latest findings show grazing sheep among solar panels does no harm to wool production, even in the case of pre-existing high-quality standards. And it says that some parameters even indicate an improvement in wool quality, although conclusive benefits require further long-term measurement.
Lightsource bp says that while the study at the Wellington solar farm is ongoing, it is another indication that solar farms can exist side-by-side with sheep farming, for the benefit of both enterprises.
“These results are very encouraging and highlight the potential for solar farms to complement agricultural practices,” says Emilien Simonot, Lightsource bp’s head of agrivoltaics.
“By integrating sheep farming with solar energy production, we can achieve dual benefits of sustainable energy together with agricultural output.” . By co-locating grazing with renewable energy, land can remain in agricultural use, offering farmers additional revenue while contributing to cleaner energy for the planet.
“Finding ways for agriculture and clean energy to work together is crucial for a more sustainable future,” says Brendan Clarke, interim head o environmental planning Australia and NZ at Lightsource bp.
“The promising results from this study indicate that we are on the right path, and working closely with farmers to grow our knowledge in this area is paramount.”
As for the sheep, Inder says they “just do really well” when grazing among the Wellington solar farm panels.
“I like to say that panel sheep are happy sheep.”
Sophie is editor of One Step Off The Grid and deputy editor of its sister site, Renew Economy. She is the co-host of the Solar Insiders Podcast. Sophie has been writing about clean energy for more than a decade.
IEA: Global clean tech market set to be worth $2tr a year by 2035.
Business Green 30th Oct 2024
The global market for clean technologies such as solar panels, wind
turbines, and electric vehicles (EVs) is set to triple to more than $2tr a
year over the next decade, eclipsing the value of the oil and gas markets
in the process, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
In a “first of its kind” analysis today, the IEA estimates the global market for
six leading mass-manufactured clean technologies – solar PV, wind turbines,
EVs, batteries, heat pumps, and green hydrogen electrolysers – is set to
surge in the coming years.
The report estimates that based on today’s
policy settings the global market for these technologies is set to rise
from $700bn in 2023 to more than $2tr by 2035, which would put it on a
similar level to the value of the global crude oil market in recent years.
https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4374453/iea-global-clean-tech-market-set-worth-usd2tr-2035
Green jobs and green skills – the state of play

October 26, 2024, https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2024/10/green-jobs-and-green-skills-state-of.html
In 2023, the global renewable energy sector witnessed a record increase in jobs, rising from 13.7 million in 2022 to 16.2 million. China led with an estimated 7.4 million renewable energy jobs, representing 46% of the global total. The EU followed with 1.8 million jobs, while Brazil had 1.56 million. The US and India each contributed nearly one million jobs. The strongest growth was seen in the solar photovoltaics sector, which accounted for 7.2 million jobs globally, with 4.6 million jobs located in China.
However, as I have reported in earlier posts, green skill shortages may slow progress and, exploring this issue in the UK context, an Imperial College Futures Lab briefing paper has investigated the Net-Zero job skills and training requirements in the UK’s energy system. It notes that the governments advisory Committee on Climate Change (CCC) estimates that between 135,000 and 725,000 net new jobs could be created in the UK by 2030 directly in low-carbon sectors, this wide range highlighting uncertainties in estimates about the number of workers required to support the transition to Net-Zero. The Futures Lab study identifies ongoing barriers and opportunities for expanding low-carbon job competencies, culminating in a set of policy recommendations to create clear, inclusive training pathways into low-carbon energy jobs.
Using three sectoral case studies, the paper investigates challenges and opportunities for improving skills and training. Firstly it shows how the building energy retrofit sector faces a significant shortage of skilled workers, particularly in heat pump installation, energy efficiency measures, retrofit coordination, and digital roles. Despite the potential to create 120,000–230,000 new jobs by 2030, it says ‘inconsistent policies and funding have hindered private investment in training’. Secondly, the offshore wind sector is forecast to employ over 100,000 workers in 2030, compared to 32,000 in 2022. But it says ‘offshore wind struggles with skills gaps in electrical, digital, consenting, and marine roles, relying on experienced workers and those from other industries to fill these gaps’. Thirdly, the paper claims the electric vehicles sector ‘could generate at least 80,000 new jobs over the next 10-15 years’ but says that this ‘is contingent on gigafactory development, with key skills needed in charging point installation, vehicle recycling, battery manufacturing, and electrification engineering.’
Most of these cases involve expanding training for specific green energy technologies and electrification, but the report says that ‘not all industrial decarbonisation can be achieved through direct electrification, and particularly across hard-to-abate industries, decarbonisation will depend on the development of hydrogen and CCUS sectors’. It notes that ‘growth of these sectors is considered highly conditional, subject to the competitiveness of international markets, the availability of skilled labour, and levels of investment,’ but reports that the CCC estimates that ‘these industries could create between 1,500 and 97,000 new jobs by 2030’. It adds that ‘the current offshore oil and gas workforce is expected to provide a large number of skills required in these sectors’.
That’s good news (arguably blue hydrogen/CCUS apart) but making it happen won’t be easy. It is interesting in this context that there has recently been a call for £1.9bn a year to help oil and gas workers move into clean energy, with the Green Jobs Taskforce also estimating that ‘the low-carbon transport sector could create 78,000 new jobs by 2040, including 24,500 in battery manufacturing, 43,500 in the battery supply chain, and 10,000 in EV manufacturing’.
Looking to the way ahead, the Future Lab identify a series of barriers facing this type of job transition. First come straight forward ‘skills transferability’ barriers. For example it notes that it has been estimated that 100,000 jobs in the UK’s offshore energy sector will be filled by workers transferring from oil and gas into offshore renewable roles, and by new entrants from outside the sector. But it says ‘there is debate about how transferable skills across high- and low-carbon sectors actually are, and whether a ‘topping up’ of skills or more rigorous retraining will be required for those transitioning’.
Then there are mobility barriers. ‘Whether or not workers are able to take low-carbon jobs will depend on where and when existing jobs are being lost and new jobs become available. It will also depend on the supply of and demand for relevant training, which is likely to be unevenly distributed in terms of quantity and quality. If green jobs or re-skilling opportunities do not appear in areas where jobs have been phased out, workers will either have to lose out on opportunities, seek employment in other high-carbon sectors, or relocate, which risks reinforcing existing regional inequalities.’
That links up to regional barriers. It says ‘UK regions with a higher concentration of energy-intensive industries, such as the North East, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the West Midlands, stand a higher chance of being negatively affected by the transition. These regions are often also those whose economies have seen the least growth in recent decades. They are also likely to have less capacity and resources to be able to provide adequate re-skilling support’.
And finally there are diversity barriers. The report notes that ‘the current energy sector is predominantly represented by white male workers. Available statistics suggest that only 5% of the workforce comes from BAME backgrounds. Unless active measures are taken to support underrepresented groups joining the Net-Zero energy workforce, occupational gender & ethnicity gaps are likely to persist’.
Some of the reports recommended actions are obvious enough from the foregoing analysis. For example green sectors should be ‘inclusive and respectful places to work, where underrepresented groups not liable to be discriminated against’, and we should build ‘closer links between high- and low-carbon energy sectors to create direct routes into new jobs.’
More specifically ‘current public financing mechanisms for skills, including the Apprenticeship Levy, the National Skills Fund, and the Adult Education Budget, should be reviewed to see how funding can be better directed towards the development of training for green jobs. Additional public funding should also be leveraged to support long-term development of skills for Net-Zero, specifically for FE colleges and training providers to be able to develop new, high-quality green courses and overcome low participation rates. There is also a case for targeted funding for SMEs who cannot afford to send staff to be trained or take on apprentices’. And more generally, ‘introduce a national Net-Zero Skills Commission to take on monitoring, research and advisory roles to support development of skills for the Net-Zero transition in England.’
Plenty of good ideas. Let’s hope some are implemented soon, and meantime, the UK government is pushing ahead with its ‘skills passport’ initiative. In parallel, we hope helpfully, OU Visiting Research Fellow Terry Cook and I are putting together a journal paper on this whole area, looking in particular at what governments can do at the strategic level, by making new energy technology funding/subsidies conditional on the provision of green skill training programmes.
Will AI’s huge energy demands spur a nuclear renaissance?
Contracts with Google and Amazon could help, but bringing new types of reactor online will take larger investments — and time.
Davide Castelvecchi, Nature , 25vOct 24
Last week, technology giants Google and Amazon both unveiled deals supporting ‘advanced’ nuclear energy, as part of their efforts to become carbon-neutral.
Google announced that it will buy electricity made with reactors developed by Kairos Power, based in Alameda, California. Meanwhile, Amazon is investing approximately US$500 million in the X-Energy Reactor Company, based in Rockville, Maryland, and has agreed to buy power produced by X-energy-designed reactors due to be built in Washington State.
Both moves are part of a larger [??] green trend that has arisen as tech companies deal with the escalating energy requirements of the data centres and number-crunching farms that support artificial intelligence (AI). Last month, Microsoft said it would buy power from a utility company that is planning to restart a decommissioned 835-megawatt reactor in Pennsylvania.
The partnerships agreed by Google and Amazon involve start-up companies that are pioneering the design of ‘small modular reactors’, which are intended to be assembled from prefabricated pieces………….they still have a way to go before they become a reality.
Nature talked to nuclear-energy researchers to explore the significance and possible implications of these big-tech investments.
Could these deals spur innovation in the nuclear industry?
Building nuclear power stations — a process often plagued by complex permit procedures, construction delays and cost overruns — is financially risky, and betting on unproven technologies is riskier still…………..
the details of the deals are murky, and the level of support provided by Amazon and Google is likely to be “a drop in the bucket” compared with the billions these start-ups will ultimately need, says physicist Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington DC. “The PR machine is just going into overdrive,” says Lyman, but “private capital just doesn’t seem ready yet to take that risk”.
Allison Macfarlane, director of the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, and former chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), says that the speed of progress in computer science raises another question. “If we’re talking 15 years from now, will AI need that much power?”
Are there safety advantages to the small modular designs?
“The smallest reactors, in theory, could have a high degree of passive safety,” says Lyman. When shut down, the core of a small reactor would contain less residual heat and radioactivity than does a core of the type that melted down in the Fukushima Daiichi disaster that followed the cataclysmic 2011 tsunami in Japan.
The companies also say that the proposed pebble-bed reactors are inherently safer because they are not pressurized, and because they are designed to circulate cooling fluids without the help of pumps (it was the loss of power to water pumps that caused three of the Fukushima plant’s reactors to fail).
But Lyman thinks it is risky to rely on potentially unpredictable passive cooling without the backup of an active cooling option. And as reactors become get smaller, they become less efficient. Another start-up company, NuScale Power, based in Portland, Oregon, originally designed its small modular reactor — which was certified by the NRC — to produce 50 MW of electricity, but later switched to a larger, 77-MW design. The need to make the economics work “makes passive safety less credible”, Lyman says.
Do small modular reactors carry extra risks?
In some cases, small modular reactors “could actually push nuclear power in a more dangerous direction”, says Lyman. “Advanced isn’t always better.”
In particular, Lyman points out that the pebble-bed designs drawn up by X-energy and Kairos would rely on high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), which comprises 10–20% uranium-235 — compared with the 5% enrichment level required by most existing reactors (and by NuScale’s reactor). HALEU is still classified as low-enrichment fuel (as opposed to the highly enriched uranium used to make nuclear bombs), but that distinction is misleading, Lyman says. In June, he and his collaborators — including physicist Richard Garwin, who led the design of the first hydrogen bomb — warned in a Science article that a bomb could be built with a few hundred kilograms of HALEU, with no need for further enrichment1.
Smaller reactors are also likely to produce more nuclear waste and to use fuel less efficiently, according to work reported in 2022 by Macfarlane and her collaborators2. In a full-size reactor, most of the neutrons produced by the splitting of uranium travel through a large volume of fuel, meaning that they have a high probability of hitting another nucleus, rather than colliding with the walls of the reactor vessel or escaping into the surrounding building. “When you shrink the reactor, there’s less material in there, so you will have more neutron leakage,” Macfarlane says. These rogue neutrons can be absorbed by other atomic nuclei — which would then themselves become radioactive.
Will small reactors be cheaper to build?
The capacity to build components in an assembly line could drastically cut reactors’ construction costs. But there are also intrinsic economies of scale in building larger reactors, says Buongiorno. “Don’t believe people blindly” when they say smaller reactors will produce cheaper energy, he says: nuclear energy has a lot going for it, but “it ain’t cheap” — and that is unlikely to change significantly.
Will all of these efforts help to combat climate change?
…………….. whether building new reactors is the best way to rapidly cut emissions is debated. Macfarlane points out that solar panels and wind turbines can be deployed at a much faster rate.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03490-3
How data centres will cut carbon emissions, not increase them

It should be noted that low carbon waste heat from electricity is increasingly renewable in source and this will substitute for natural gas consumption. As a result, carbon emmisions will be lowered.
Hence not only can data centres reduce energy consumption overall by the indirect effects described above, it can also reduce them directly by substituting the low carbon waste heat for natural gas consumption that is normally used for heating
David Toke, Oct 23, 2024
https://davidtoke.substack.com/p/how-data-centres-will-cut-carbon
Yes, you read that headline the right way. Despite the torrents of nonsense you will hear from lots of places (and a lot of energy nonsense these days seems to be concentrated in the Daily Telegraph) data centres and that fellow monster AI is unlikely to bust the electricity grid. Indeed, it is, on balance, more likely to reduce total energy demand.
Nevertheless, lurid tales of the data centre/AI monster devouring power have been spreading, and, they have even been linked to companies such as Meta, Amazon and Amazon issuing press releases about how they are going to source power from another monster, new nuclear power plants. However, as in horror stories in general, these monsters are, at least in almost all cases, entirely mythical.
As a point of fact, despite the seemingly rapidly rising number of data centres in the USA electricity demand in the first half of 2024 was the same as it was two years previously. The UK’s electricity demand has been on a downward path for some time. The International Energy Agency has recently published an analysis saying that data centres will be a small proportion of future growth energy demand (see HERE). Now, there is a very strong case for saying that electricity demand will increase to a greater or lesser extent. However, it rests on increased electrification of transport (starting with Electric Vehicles) and also heat pumps. But I don’t suppose many Daily Telegraph readers are very interested in that.
In the USA lots of data centres are being built in Texas. In the UK London is the biggest hub, housing over 40 per cent of the data centres sited in the UK. Not many people seem to realise that they will not consume gigantic amount of power. Even fewer people know that the alleged super-monstrous AI (which is said to ravenously consume this data centre energy) may, in fact, actually reduce energy demand in various indirect ways.
In fact AI and data centres that feed AI are likely to generate economic growth in service industries – business applications – that have a low energy intensity. GDP is likely therefore to become less energy intensive, replacing output that would otherwise be more energy intensive. Moreover the energy usage of these less energy- intensive applications will be itself reduced through better energy management organised through AI. Goldman-Sachs (see here) estimates that AI will see ‘the economy benefiting, from enhancing office productivity and sales efforts, to the design of buildings and manufactured parts, to improving patient diagnosis in healthcare settings,’ etc This means that as the efficient use of energy in the economy increases faster than the demand for energy services, then energy usage will decline, not increase. AI processing centres will themselves reduce the power they use as they take advantage of new tools that are becoming available to reduce power consumption. See HERE.
One way in which energy efficiency is going to be increased is directly as a result of the application of AI itself to improve the way that energy is managed, especially in buildings. Andrew Warren, the Chair of the British Energy Efficient Federation (BEEF), says in the October issue of the Energy In Buildings Newsletter ‘According to management consultants McKinsey, AI has the potential to deliver energy savings of up to 20% in buildings and 15% in transport systems. Additionally, AI-driven solutions can help businesses reduce CO₂ emissions by up to 10% and cut energy costs by 10-20% – particularly so in the field of industrial energy management.’
The overall effect of AI-driven increases in data centre consumption is visualised using the chart below. The demand for energy servicesA (green line) represents increasing energy demand under conditions of earlier industrial periods, whilst the demand for energy servicesB (orange line) represents the demand for energy services under a AI influenced services dominated economy. As can be seen also the green line represents the trend towards energy efficiency improvements that occurs as the economy refines its equipment, buildings, plant etc to use energy more efficiently. The orange line represents the increase for energy services in a AI influenced services economy. The key point is that it grows at a slower rate than overall energy efficiency improvements. This leads to a decline in energy consumption overall.
Of course this chart [on original] assumes that the energy economy is structured as before in its energy supply technologies. Of course energy will be increasingly supplied by electricity technologies. This chart ignores this effect, but is constructed so that we can focus on the effects of AI and data centre.
On top of all of this there are opportunities for data centres to sell otherwise waste heat to neighbouring businesses and housing estates in district heating systems. Indeed, it was reported last year that ‘The UK Government has awarded £36 million ($44.5m) to a district heating system in West London which will share data center waste heat with up to 10,000 new homes’. This development is taking place in Ealing.
We should make this the norm rather than the exception with data centres. We should take a leaf from German practice. Under the German Energy Efficiency Act (approved in 2023) data centres are required to re-use an increasing amount of waste heat – at least 20 per cent for those data centres which come into operation from 2028. It should be noted that low carbon waste heat from electricity is increasingly renewable in source and this will substitute for natural gas consumption. As a result, carbon emmisions will be lowered. Hence not only can data centres reduce energy consumption overall by the indirect effects described above, it can also reduce them directly by substituting the low carbon waste heat for natural gas consumption that is normally used for heating.
The reaction in some circles to the (it seems) mythical monster of the threatening data centres and AI becomes all the more stranger when it comes to nuclear power’s role in the story. Mythical nuclear power stations (that is ones that are unlikely to be built) are hypothesised as the answer to this (non-) problem. US companies such as Google, Amazon and Meta have been sounding their support for new nuclear power. In fact their support seems to consist of usually of vague announcements of future support. You would think of course, that if more electricity is needed, then we need to issue more contracts for renewable energy. This is especially as nuclear power plant seem very difficult to organise. However, such thoughts do not feature strongly in the minds of many Daily Telegraph readers.
The only definite support new nuclear power is actually getting in the wake of the imaginary AI monster seems to come from Amazon who has pledged $500 million towards a 300 MW small modular reactor (maybe the sort of offering that can please Trump supporters). Quite how a smaller type of nuclear reactor is going to deliver much of an increase in power supplies compared to the booming construction of wind and solar plant does not seem to compute with the Trumpists either. But it falls in with the ever-mythical notion that cheap nuclear power is (again) just around the corner story that we have heard for so many decades. What’s changed now? Really, not very much in fact – but the mixture of monster AI power demands and nuclear power coming to the rescue is really like something out of a 1950s science fiction story. And that’s all it is likely to remain.
Small nuclear reactors won’t be ready in time for the needs of energy-guzzling needs of Artificial Intelligence.

As of last month, when [data centres] were classed as critical national
infrastructure, data centres are on a par with utilities, meaning the
government would step in were there a risk to connectivity. Nonetheless, as
Rohan Kelkar, the executive vice-president of power products at Schneider
Electric, puts it, the “lack of grid capacity puts UK’s AI and data
centre ambitions and energy transition goals at risk”.
So much so that we have seen the boroughs of Hillingdon, Ealing and Hounslow all rejecting
data centre projects in order to retain supply for housing. This is far
from a UK-specific issue. In Ireland, the pressure on the national grid
from computing needs is so acute they have had to pause some data centre
approvals over concerns that excessive demand from data centres could lead
to blackouts.
On the other side of the Atlantic, Big Tech companies are
also grappling with the energy conundrum: how to find low-carbon, reliable
sources of power for their power-hungry warehouses without jeopardising
customer needs or their net zero goals. Along with renewable energy and
improving battery storage, right now they all seem to be turning in one
direction: towards nuclear power. Microsoft signed a deal last month to
help resurrect a unit of the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania.
Amazon bought a nuclear-powered data centre earlier in the year. On Monday,
Google became the latest to announce a nuclear energy deal to meet the
needs of its data centres, looking at mini reactors developed by a
Californian company.
A cocktail of technological innovation means this
could happen in the UK, too. Rolls-Royce, the engineer, is at the forefront
of developing mini reactors and is already having conversations with
operators in the UK about their use. While mini nukes would not have been
commercially viable in the past, now that demand for data centres has
jumped exponentially, their potential use has become more feasible. Another
key component in the future marriage of computing and nuclear power is that
data centres are becoming less location driven because of improvements in
latency, the time it takes for data to travel from one point to another.
The immediate problem with the introduction of small nuclear reactors?
Rolls-Royce estimates that they remain a decade or more away, with none
currently operating and generating electricity in the UK. In the meantime,
connection to the “constrained” grid, remains all-important headache
for those looking to build data centres.
Times 16th Oct 2024
Open AI Wants to Build Data Centres That Would Consume More Electricity Per Year Than the Whole of the U.K.

The Daily Sceptic, by David Turver, 14 October 2024
Over the past few months, the newswires have been hot with stories about the large-scale data centres that will be required to meet the needs of the forthcoming revolution in Artificial Intelligence (AI). How much electricity will these new data centres consume and what does that mean for the electricity demand forecasts underpinning the plans for Net Zero?
Recent Date Centre Announcements.
To give a flavour of the scale of data centre developments that are coming, it is helpful to look at recent announcements from large tech companies. Back in March, it was announced that Amazon had bought a 960MW data centre that is powered by an adjacent nuclear power station. In April, Mark Zuckerberg CEO of Meta that owns Facebook and Instagram said energy requirements may hold back the build out of AI data centres. He also talked about building data centres that would consume 1GW of power.
Last month, Oracle chairman Larry Ellison announced that Oracle was designing a data centre that would consume more than 1GW that would be powered by three small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). Then Microsoft also got in on the act when it announced it had done a deal with U.S. utility Constellation to restart the 835MW Three Mile Island (TMI) Unit 1 nuclear power plant to power its data centres. Anxious not to be left out, Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google said they too were working on 1GW data centres and saw money being invested in SMRs.
Finally, Sam Altman of OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT has trumped them all by pitching the idea of 5GW data centres to the White House. Altman has been heard talking of building five to seven of these leviathans…………………….
Scale of AI Energy Demand
When companies bandy about such large numbers it is sometimes difficult to visualise just how big they are. For context, consider that a 1GW data centre would consume 8.76TWh of electricity each year. Seven of Altman’s enormous 5GW data centres would consume 306.6TWh. According to DUKES data (Table 5.6) the UK generated 292.6TWh in 2023. The plans for ChatGPT alone would consume more electricity in a year than the U.K., the sixth largest economy in the world, managed to generate. Now consider what the total demand is going to be when you add in the requirements the likes of Amazon, Oracle, Microsoft, Meta, Google and X…………………………………………..
-
Archives
- February 2026 (256)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS

