Wind and Solar Power Fuel Over One-Third of Brazil's Electricity For First Time (apnews.com) 46
Wind and solar power generated more than a third of Brazil's electricity in August, the first month on record the two renewable sources have crossed that threshold, according to government data made public on Thursday and analyzed by energy think tank Ember. AP: The clean energy sources accounted for 34% of the country's electricity generation last month, producing a monthly record of 19 terawatt-hours (TWh), enough to power about 119 million average Brazilian homes for a month, Ember told The Associated Press.
That surpassed the previous high of 18.6 TWh set in September 2024. The milestone came as hydroelectric output, Brazil's dominant power source, fell to a four-year low. "Brazil shows how a rapidly growing economy can meet its rising need for electricity with solar and wind," said Raul Miranda, Ember's global program director based in Rio de Janeiro.
That surpassed the previous high of 18.6 TWh set in September 2024. The milestone came as hydroelectric output, Brazil's dominant power source, fell to a four-year low. "Brazil shows how a rapidly growing economy can meet its rising need for electricity with solar and wind," said Raul Miranda, Ember's global program director based in Rio de Janeiro.
Climate change is killing Venezuela (Score:2, Interesting)
But the reason Venezuela is hurting so much is because it's a small country and they were literally getting all of their electricity from a huge
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure that you aren't describing a problem specific to relatively young dictatorships? When Argentina invaded the Falklands, it was because the military dictatorship was falling apart along with the economy (and hardly an empire).
Empires in a state of collapse tend to have stopped ex
Re: (Score:1)
When Argentina invaded the Falklands, it was because the military dictatorship was falling apart along with the economy (and hardly an empire).
In contrast, Trump's starting out smaller, invading (destroying) a boat carrying, apparently, innocent, people. We'll have to wait to see what he goes after next ... /PoliticalRant
People killed in US boat strike were not Tren de Aragua, Venezuela minister says [reuters.com]
"They openly confessed to killing 11 people," Interior Minister and ruling party head Diosdado Cabello said on state television. "We have done our investigations here in our country and there are the families of the disappeared people who want their relatives, and when we asked in the towns, none were from Tren de Aragua, none were drug traffickers."
(To be honest/fair, I don't know how trustworthy this guy, or the Venezuelan government, is but have a pretty good idea how (un)trustworthy Trump and his minions are - or, at least, how challenging our President finds the truth, especially truth
So Trump is using Venezuela (Score:1)
Basically he's trying to see what he can get away with and how much power he can grab.
That said I don't think we should pursue it because we're just going to lose to Trump in the courts because the courts are hopelessly corrupt. I hate to say it but the best thing to do about Trump killing innocent Venezuelans is let it Go and do everything you can to take over Congress during the midterms so that somebody can reign him
Re: (Score:2)
we're just going to lose to Trump in the courts because the courts are hopelessly corrupt.
Well... SCOTUS anyway. The lower courts seem to be (mostly) ruling against him -- you know, following the Constitution -- then SCOTUS literally makes up something in his favor, or simply allows it w/o any explanation "for now" with a stay from the shadow docket. I'm sure they'll get around to banning his behavior going forward when a Democrat is/will be in charge. /cynical
Re: (Score:2)
...and I've never heard anyone complain about China's dictatorship ...
You're not paying much attention, then.
Oh I've heard the complaints (Score:1)
America is perfectly okay with a dictatorship we just don't want a communist dictatorship.
The funny thing is China couldn't be further from communism if they tried. I mean they literally have a private fucking healthcare system. And they have a fully capitalist economy. Just because the state intervenes does not make it communist.
I don't think you can actually get to communism. Co
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, here it is, the "No true Scotsman" fallacy of Communism. So close to almost accepting that Communism doesn't work. Oh well, if the state owns 99% of the means of production is that communist? What if it owns 66%, or 51%? How little does the state's share of the mea
Re: (Score:2)
China has had private ownership since Mao died. It's something like 60% of GDP, whch is similar to Denmark.
Note that ~40% GDP in the US is public spending.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh well, if the state owns 99% of the means of production is that communist?
No, that's socialism.
Re: (Score:1)
A story about Brazil gets hijacked talking about the USA, China, Saudi Arabia and Mexico.
Are you drunk?
Weirdass article (Score:2)
Why does hydro not count as renewable? It's basically solar with extra steps.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said to doesn't count as renewable?
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
All energy is "solar with extra steps" if taken back far enough.
Not really. Uranium was not created by the sun. All power is nuclear if taken back far enough.
why isn't nuclear considered a "green" energy source?
Because there are "green" issues other than climate emissions. Producing permanent lethal radioactive waste being one of them. Producing low level radioactive contamination from mining and processing uranium is another. Presenting the danger of widespread lethal radioactive contamination from accidents is another.
But the more practical problem is not that nuclear power isn't gree, its that it has proven itself exp
Weirdass ability to read (Score:2)
At no point did the article say hydro doesn't count as renewable. In fact the article isn't about renewable energy, it's specifically about wind and solar, and how this is the first time those two renewable sources reached that milestone.
Wouldn't it be funny (Score:2)
Not "ha-ha" funny, obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of Brazil's energy comes from hydroelectric plants, mostly built in forested areas.
Wind power, on the other hand, comes almost entirely from offshore or coastal plants. Solar power comes from industrial/residential panels and (still few) plants being built in remote and arid regions.
Since the Brazilian coastline is immense, building wind and solar plants in forested areas is not economically viable, at least for now.
Re: (Score:3)
If land use is a problem then how seriously has Brazil considered nuclear power?
Probably as seriously as any other country that wants an actual solution today instead of an expensive boondoggle that lasts 20 years and saddles the population with high cost of energy.
But in any case land use isn't a problem for power generation in Brazil. Cattle ranching is. Nearly 100% of deforestation is related to farming, and 80% of that is cattle.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the deforestation is for farming meat products and lumber, both of which are exported in large quantities. If we stopped buying it, they wouldn't be motivated to destroy so much rainforest.
Not that the government isn't trying to stop them.
Amazon (Score:2)
Maybe when they are done clear-cutting the Amazon rainforest they will have plenty of room to put up solar panels.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeppers... those dumb trees don't do anything except take up space!
Aside from preventing soil erosion and producing oxygen and absorbing CO2... and potentially being home to the cures for some of the worst diseases.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe when they are done clear-cutting the Amazon rainforest they will have plenty of room to put up solar panels.
But then how will the cows get their sun tan? There's two fundamentally different problems at play here, and one of them is an age old discussion around the world. Even nice rich western nations are fucking up their forest in the name of making cheaper hamburgers. E.g. Australia.
But that presents a political problem. Farmers wield an unnatural amount of political clout because they can always shout about "but then the population can't eat" which mobilizes the non farming masses against a policy as well, reg