2030: Per capita renewable capacity shortfall

Picture from Pixabay

Renewable capacity updates for a 1.5° C future

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) recently published an update to their 1.5 °C scenario. In a recent report, a number is at its forefront: the need to triple the global installed capacity of renewable energy (from 3.4 terawatts [TW] in 2022 to 11.2 TW in 2030). This tripling factor is aimed to limit the rise of the global mean surface temperature (GMST) to 1.5 °C over pre-industrial levels (COP28 et al., 2023; IRENA, 2023). Furthermore, the International Energy Agency (IEA) recently updated their net-zero scenario within their World Energy Outlook, where a slightly smaller value of 11 TW by 2030 was modelled (IEA, 2023).

What does this look like per capita?

Without going into the details, I wanted to see what this gap would look like considering population growth over the same period, as estimated by the United Nations (UN) (UN DESA, 2022). This would let me see a cross-country, temporal distribution of the renewable capacity. Following the methodology of the Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDG) 7.b.1 indicator from the SDG database (SDG Database, 2023), I calculated the averages for the world and the developed/developing countries, as shown by the now-outdated classification available at the UNSD’s site (UNSD, 2022b).

I am taking the slightly more aggressive target from IRENA, which says we will need 11.2 TW of renewable capacity by 2030 (x3.2 times the amount of 2022). Because the UN estimates around 8.5 billion people will inhabit the globe by the same year, dividing one by the other gives us around 1,308 watts per capita of renewable power.

The figure below shows the renewable capacity per capita for the world, developed and developing countries as it has progressed since the year 2000, as well as the target by 2030 of triple capacity.

Figure 1. Renewable capacity per capita by global average, developed and developing countries, and x3 target by 2030

Source: Author, based on (COP28 et al., 2023; IRENA, 2023; SDG Database, 2023; UN DESA, 2022)

Some things jump out to me when looking at this graph

First, that the difference between the target and the global average of 424 watts per capita is slightly larger than the triple modelled by the agencies. This is because we must consider the population growth in this tripling effect. Since the UN models a growth of 500 million people by 2030, the capacity per capita needs to surpass the triple target. Also, due to rounding, as the population would grow significantly less than the renewable capacity in the models.

Second, that even the richest countries are not there yet. These are countries with the most renewable capacity per capita, diversified economies, and good levels of education, healthcare, and income (UNDP, 2023). But these are also the countries with the least number of people. Even if these countries surpass the target in the coming years, only a fraction of the world’s population will benefit from renewables. As you can see, the world average is much closer to the lower value of 293 watts per capita of the developing countries because that is where most of the world lives.

Third, we could rethink renewable deployment strategies for countries with the largest populations to ensure that the current and future power demands are met with renewables and not with fossil fuels. This is based purely on arithmetic: developing countries will make or break our ambitions to reach this global target.

Fourth, and more alarming, is that the developed countries have almost four times as many renewables per capita than developing countries. This gap is larger than the global gap between our current performance to what we need by 2030. How is this a fair situation? The case worsens for the least developed countries, but that is a story for another time.

Fifth, is the 1,308 watts per capita target asking for much? For decades, researchers have pondered how much power is required for individuals to cover their basic needs. The 1,000 watts per capita value came up (Goldemberg et al., 1985) – keep in mind, that is in consumption terms, so the supply must be vastly higher. Also, some of the estimations in the literature refer to personal consumption, that is, in the household sector. This is but a slice of the pie. To top it off, we are more electrified than ever and will continue to electrify our energy systems, thus increasing the renewable electricity demand. The same models argue for a doubling in energy efficiency (reducing the renewable capacity needs). While there is ample opportunity for energy efficiency and for the poorest countries to leapfrog in technological and behavioural advancements – which is debatable in its usefulness to increase efficiency (van Benthem, 2015), we are talking about basic needs. Are 1,308 watts per capita enough to develop our lives? Unlikely. This means that the target of triple capacity, as explained in both agencies’ reports, is only a fraction of what might be needed to control the GMST rise while guaranteeing ample electricity resources for the world.

Business as usual growth in capacity

Here is a top-down modelling exercise to study the latest years of renewable capacity growth rates, assuming that we will continue expanding at the same rate until 2030. Would we close the x3 gap if we continue with business as usual?

Using the most recent six years of growth in renewable capacity per capita, we see that the world increased from 2.0 TW in 2016 to 3.4 TW in 2022 (IRENA, 2023), at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 9.0%. Let us assume, then, that we will continue growing 9.0% globally per year, reaching a whooping 6.7 TW of renewables by 2030.

Figure 2. Business-as-usual growth of global renewable installed capacity against required growth to match the x3 target by 2030

Source: Author, based on (COP28 et al., 2023; IRENA, 2023)

In contrast, what we need is an unprecedented 16.1% sustained growth rate from now until 2030. The largest annual growth rate we ever saw was 10.8% in 2020. If we continue growing at the same rate of 9% per year, we will be short by 4.5 TW (more than everything we have installed today). In fact, at current rates, we would not even reach a x2 growth of capacity by 2030.

Bigger picture of electricity capacity per capita

Let us not underestimate the quantities in question. Most experts agree that renewable capacity expansions would be covered by solar photovoltaic energy and wind energy (COP28 et al., 2023; IEA, 2023). Both are variable sources of electricity, requiring larger capacities to produce the same electricity as other technologies. Multiplying their share in the grids would also require better energy planning, grid operations, demand management systems, and some sort of energy storage. And we need to achieve terawatt-scale growth in seven years. And even if we do that, we will still have an average of 1,308 watts per capita in the world. Less than what we might need for a fulfilling life in a sustainable future.

Moreover, accounting for all energy sources, we already reached the 1,000 watts per capita global milestone in 2021. And the richest countries, at almost 2,700 watts per capita (double the x3 target), continue to increase their power supply yearly.

Figure 3. Electricity capacity per capita by global average, developed and developing countries, and x3 target by 2030

Source: Author, based on (COP28 et al., 2023; IRENA, 2023; UN DESA, 2022)

Now imagine the world with the same power supply as the richest countries. Imagine that the richest countries would still need more capacity per capita to account for the lower energy efficiencies (and utilisation rates) of renewable energy and the electrification of other energy sectors. Where is the lower limit for a net-zero life? Will it be 5,000 watts per capita? What about 10,000 watts per capita? The country with the highest levels in the world is Iceland, which benefits from its vast geothermal and hydropower potentials and stands at around 8,000 watts per capita. But as I said, renewables suffer from efficiency losses, especially beyond electricity supply. They lose around half of their energy generation (heat + electricity) due to transformation losses in Iceland (UNSD, 2022a). Granted, this is an outlier example, but it goes to show the steepness of the mountain we must climb.

I warn you of the limitations of this exercise. I am only looking at a small fraction of the situation. Furthermore, I do not call myself an expert in anything, but I acknowledge myself as a concerned human. And I speak from that perspective. Likewise, I do not intend to shame anyone for their actions. I encourage you to read the science behind global warming (starting with the IPCC reports) and familiarise yourself with your local government’s actions to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.

I, for instance, stood aghast when I learned as a teenager that the Mexican national oil and gas company PEMEX extracts crude oil, exports it to the US for refining, and then reimports the oil products. What? Then, I was almost too upset to be shocked when I learned earlier this year that PEMEX is one of the most indebted companies in the world (The Economist, 2023).

We are running out of time, amidst an ocean of fossil fuel phase-out dismissal or even denial (Lo, 2023; Megura & Gunderson, 2022; Si et al., 2023). Everywhere I look, I see misinformation and disengagement by citizens. I see greed and desperation for perpetuating the miserable acts of our present. In our societies, we have seen gruesome acts by some dictators, by some social groups, and by some individuals. We now see an act of cruelty by all of us.

I should refrain from my rant before I start growing more grey hair.

We, as citizens, can pressure our democracies to correct the course and be accountable to us, but we need transparency: upfront and in full. We also require more publicity in scientific reporting and explanation from the scientists themselves, so that everyone can make decisions aligned to their interests (Fung, 2013). This is not only necessary for your immediate benefit, but also for our children, and for the rest of us.

Everything written here is a personal reflection and is by no means educational, financial or professional advice in any way.
You are welcome to cite and refer reliable sources in the comment section down below.

References