No shit, the global south is leading the renewable charge.
What's the breakdown on emissions though?
this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
100 points (97.2% liked)
Data Is Beautiful
6891 readers
59 users here now
A place to share and discuss data visualizations. #dataviz
(under new moderation as of 2024-01, please let me know if there are any changes you want to see!)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
South America has a ton of hydroelectric capacity.
The South had less in the way of infrastructure, self contained solar and wind are totally obvious.
Gonna need this map with biomass excluded
It would also be nice to get one with nuclear added. Not renewable, but still green.
And another with hydropower removed. Dams weren't exactly built with green energy as a goal.
So?
Why does it matter why they were built? Low carbon energy is low carbon energy, while some countries may have an natural advantage it typically tends to be in places with lower options for solar.
Dams are hugely problematic in their own way. Dam removal is a real thing. We may want fewer dams in the future.
Perhaps, but definitely something to worry about after net zero. Dams, especially existing ones, tend to cause local damage to a handful of species, while the natural gas they take off the grid damages nearly all of the ecosystems on the planet while killing people even in normal operation.
It's a strong argument in favor of nuclear power. You get power like a dam, but without the impact on local ecosystems.
This is blatantly untrue. Dams act like huge batteries that can be used to smoothen out the load if demand or supply drop.
It should be used in conjunction with other sustainable energy methods. Over production can be used to pump up water and if production of wind and solar drops (as they tend to). Water electricity can fill the gap.
Power grids are very complex and require great forethought and balancing options. If water energy cannot be used, nuclear is the best balancing power.
The dam still causes huge environmental damage though. We may not want to use dams like that.
For a dam which already exists, surely keeping it in use makes more sense than decommissioning it in favour of fossil fuels though?
We probably shouldn't be building any more, but unless our grid is already completely renewable, hydro stations are the last ones we should be taking offline.
For the time being, dams will have to exist. But eventually, there will come a time when we won't need nearly as many dams.
How/why is North Korea so green?
The emblem of the DPRK comes to mind:
doesn't a lot of their energy come from solar and hydropower?
In 
's defense, they at least have nuclear which doesn't need to be counted as "renewable", but is definitely leagues better than dinosaur juice.
Norway playing both sides...
Man the ocean is really behind everyone else. I expected better from the worlds largest watermass.