@fr57ujf - Personally I prefer to use the international sites rather than national ones, as they provide a more balanced global view, hence why I referenced IRENA and IEA. The IRENA 77% renewable figure is total energy mix not just electricity, the analysis covers non-electrical based energy sources via efficiency gains/electrification/hydrogen/CCS+BECCS as well.
My last sentence indicates that something needs to be done and renewables is the best alternative available, the CO2 point is a statement of fact rather than an acquisition. Your wording about renewable sources can be interepreted as both āwind and solar farmsā, which is how it read to me - as both offshore and onshore wind are mainly being built as energy farms these days not as sole turbines (as occured in the early days).
Energy mix increases year on year (very few years see a dip, generally for external reasons such as the pandemic), whilst to proportion of one energy source reduces relatively to others itās overall volume may increase in line with growth. The 4% increase in renewables between 2018 and 2023 is an improvement compared to what would have otherwise been generated by fossil fuels; transfering some 7.3TWh of energy production from fossil-fuel to renewable generation.
Like are large scale energy infrastructure projects, renewable farm costs are calaculated over a period of time and payed from over a duration typically 15 to 25 years and includes both capital cost and ongoing operation and maintenance costs. The upfront capital is amrotised over this period and generally covered by a mixed public/private funding basis, the majority being private funding to reduce burden to the tax payer. Hence whilst the figures are large their impact is spread out over many years and not borne within any one yearās GDP.
Further, with renewables the cost of purchasing and operation is much lower than previous energy generation sources, this is why most countries are investing in renewables as it will save money in the medium term on what would otherwise have been spent on more costly energy soucres. The Hornsea site is an example, with all four phases costing a total cost of ~Ā£15 billion itā's cost three times lower and producers 2.5 times the energy than Hinkley C nuclear power plant under construction in the UK; each phase of the Hornsea site also started generating within a year of construction being started and completed within two years. Whereas the nuclear plant will take 12 to 15 years from constructions start till operation begins.
Many developing countries are adopting renewables at a faster rate than developed ones, renewables can operate at differing scales of deployment. This means adoption can be localised and used where itās needed at a scale and cost that suits a particular community or countryās need. That said some countries have high natural renewable sources, such as hydro, and have accordingly spent large sums on these, already achieving 100% renewable power.
In terms of generation intermittency, as well as energy storage countries are using HVDC interconnections to mitigate the impact of local energy supply lulls by sharing energy over a much wider area. There are such supergrids under development in most parts of the world; most grow organically as countries link up their grids with each other. The European smart supergrid is one example, linking the existing Europe wide supergrids to each other and with North Africaās and those further afield (such as Central Asia). These HVDC cables can be very long, spanning 1,000s of kms, with low losses compared to AC interconnections.
You may be interested in International Solar Allianceās One Sun, One World, One Grid initiative that is seeking to link up countries round the planetās central solar belt, via a series of achievable local projects, to create a global power house. Both enabling many developing countries to become energy sufficient and generate a lucrative revenue stream providing power to other parts of the world.
