Renewable energy investment fell 18% in 2016: study

January 12, 2017
Investment in renewable energies in Japan and China, the two key markets, fell significantly in 2016 on the previous year, the study found

Global investment in renewable energy dropped by 18 percent in 2016 due to sharp falls in equipment prices and a slowdown in China and Japan, a study found Thursday.

After reaching record levels in 2015, fell last year to $287.5 billion, according to researchers at Bloomberg New New Energy Finance (BNEF).

The fall was due in part to "further sharp falls in equipment prices, particularly in photovoltaics," it said.

But it also was down to a marked cooling in China and Japan, two key markets, where investment in renewable energies fell significantly on the previous year.

Following a record year in 2015, Chinese investment fell 26 percent to $87.8 billion, down from $119.1 billion, while in Japan it dropped 43 percent to $22.8 billion.

After boosting spending on clean energies with some of the most generous subsidies in the world, both nations are now shifting their focus, "cutting back on building new large-scale projects and digesting the capacity they have already put in place," said BNEF's Asia head, Justin Wu.

"The government is now focused on investing in grids and reforming the power market so that the renewables in place can generate to their full potential."

The renewable energy sector is growing rapidly, with 2016 a record year for offshore wind power where investment pledges rose 40 percent to $29.9 billion

Record year for wind

Despite falling oil prices, which tend to reduce investment in energy efficiency, the renewables sector is growing rapidly, with 2016 a record year for where investment pledges rose 40 percent to $29.9 billion.

The growth was driven by developers taking advantage of "improved economics" resulting from the availability of bigger turbines and better construction knowhow, the study said.

In the United States, investment in fell 7 percent to $58.6 billion, while in Canada, it slipped 46 percent to $2.4 billion.

Across the Asia-Pacific region, which accounts for 47 percent of the global figure, there was an overall fall of 26 percent to $135 billion, although Indian investment remained at almost the same level as 2015, at $9.6 billion

By contrast, Europe bucked the overall trend, with a slight increase of 3 percent to $70.9 billion, with the UK leading the pack for the third year in a row with investment of $25.9 billion, a rise of 2 percent.

Germany ploughed $15.2 billion into the sector, representing a 16 percent fall on 2015, while France invested $3.6 billion, down 5 percent on the previous year.

The picture was worse in developing countries where many projects did not secure funding before the year's end. South Africa saw investment fall 74 percent to $914 million, while it was down 80 percent in Chile to $821 million.

Explore further: Renewable energy investment heats up worldwide

Related Stories

China takes global lead in clean energy: report

January 7, 2017

China's overseas investment in renewable energy projects jumped last year by 60 percent to a record $32 billion (30 billion euros), marking its leadership in the global market for clean energy, a report said Friday.

Recommended for you

Apple closing iPhone security gap used by law enforcement

June 14, 2018

Apple is closing a security gap that allowed outsiders to pry personal information from locked iPhones without a password, a change that will thwart law enforcement agencies that have been exploiting the vulnerability to ...

25 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 12, 2017
The new electric vehicles and the better PV systems will reverse the investment trend and begin the main sequence of transportation and home power revolutions.
carbon_unit
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 12, 2017
The fall was due in part to "further sharp falls in equipment prices, particularly in photovoltaics," it said.

Perhaps it would be better to report installation trends in terms of additional capacity (kw) instead of or in addition to cost.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2017
The new electric vehicles and the better PV systems will reverse...
Intermittent renewables will depend on fossil fuels forever because cost-effective batteries/energy storage is more and more away from reality:
"... the price of lithium has gone thru the roof since gigafactory started buying."
https://pbs.twimg...WEAp.jpg
http://www.econom...supplies
Fossil fuel barons love renewables and support faux-environmentalists' efforts to shut down reliable carbon-free sources of energy.
https://uploads.d...a1f1.jpg
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2017
The fall was due in part to "further sharp falls in equipment prices, particularly in photovoltaics," it said.

Perhaps it would be better to report installation trends in terms of additional capacity (kw) instead of or in addition to cost.

Additionally the energy storage market seems to be taking off. A shift towards investment in the grid and storage aren't captured by investment numbers in renewables.

Added capacity from all renewables in 2015 was 153GW (more than half of all electricity capacity added worldwide). The numbers for 2016 aren't out yet, but according to this:
https://www.bloom...han-wind
Only wind and solar combined account for an added capacity of 129GW

(One thing that I find surprising is that new solar, as of last year, is already becoming cheaper than wind - both beating out fossil fuels without any subsidies)
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2017
Sorry, Willie, but nukes are dead.

Go here:
http://www.utilit.../433744/

11 cents/kWh WITH STORAGE.
You just lost.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2017
11 cents/kWh...
wasn't it 2¢/kWh?
...WITH STORAGE
and it's not even April first yet.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2017
It is the 21st Century, and we are shedding 20th Century technologies for better ones.

Show me a nuclear plant which can supply power at eleven cents/kWh while paying off its cost of construction. Then, what is the operating cost? How many overly-trained engineers are needed? What is done with the waste?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2017
It is the 21st Century, and we are shedding 20th Century technologies for better ones.
gskam = Baghdad Bob
Baghdad Bob, tell us where intermittent renewables(excluding hydro and geothermal) are fully replacing fossil fuels. Renewable is a fiasco in Germany, California, Vernon, etc., a joke in New York, all carbon-free nuclear power plants are being replaced by cheap coal and/or natural gas/fracking.
http://www.vox.co...coal-gas
"we are shedding 20th Century technologies for better ones", "better ones" means fossil fuels. LOL
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2017
Then, what is the operating cost?
"average nuclear production costs were the lowest of any thermal generation tech"
http://world-nucl...ext=.png
http://world-nucl...ing.aspx
Interesting, natural gas/fracking costs are intermittent.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2017
What is done with the waste?
Unlike other wastes(chemical carcinogenics from wind turbines and solar PV), the waste from nuclear is safely stored.
"WIPP Nuclear Waste Repository Reopens For Business"
http://www.forbes...usiness/
gkam
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2017
Yes, . . WIPP.

If you knew what happened there you would not bring it up. They could not even store gloves, overalls and tools safely, and had a fire and an explosion within weeks of each other.

It was shut for years, and now re-opened because it is the only place we have to put that nasty stuff. And it does NOT accept nuclear waste from commercial operations. It is government only, and from weapons work. We have NO place to put waste from nuclear powerplants.

How about your place?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2017
nukes are dead.
The overwhelming "success" of Germany Energiewende is an example for the world according to eco-nuts.
"German emissions increased in 2016 for a second year in a row as a result of the country closing one of its nuclear plants and replacing it with coal and natural gas"
"Less sunshine and wind meant less more power from solar/wind — a dramatic illustration of the limits of weather-dependent energy sources."
https://static1.s...mat=750w
https://static1.s...mat=750w
http://www.enviro...-closure
antigoracle
2 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2017
The government is now focused on investing in grids and reforming the power market so that the renewables in place can generate to their full potential.

Fascinating logic isn't it?
Or, just more spin from the AGW Cult as they realize the grid cannot handle the intermittent green power.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2017
They do not have to worry about intermittent power:

"Hawaii co-op signs deal for solar+storage project at 11¢/kWh"

http://www.utilit.../433744/
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2017
So investment in renewables fell because the price of renewables fell; in other words we kept doing the same thing or more but it cost less.

Sounds like progress to me.

Wasn't this just what the denier whiners were saying wouldn't happen? It was all gonna be so expensive we couldn't afford it.

Oops.

Just sayin'.
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2017
Oops.

Just sayin'.
-- Da Tard
As usual the ignorant Chicken Littles, who are incapable of an independent thought, falls for the AGW Cult's propaganda. Get someone with a brain to explain the lies and FAKE "science" of the AGW Cult to you Chicken Littles.

Oops.

Just sayin'. NOT.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2017
..the AGW Cult ...
Be cool! the AGW is not to be taken so seriously, it's just a distraction to waste taxpayers' money, if it were serious the so-called environmentalists would not be fighting vigorously to shut down reliable sources of carbon-free energy to be replaced by intermittent renewables backed up by cheap coal and/or natural gas/fracking.
They do not have to worry about intermittent power:
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2017
"Be cool! the AGW is not to be taken so seriously,"
------------------------------------

Yeah, and them old Fukushima meltdowns will only cost $190,000,000,000 to "clean up", which means putting the intensely-radioactive stuff somewhere else, to contaminate it, too.

Pay no attention to reality.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2017
Fukushima ... Pay no attention to reality.
Natural radioactivity: Kerala(35 mSv), Ramsar(700 mSv), Guarapari(800 mSv); in contrast to Chernobyl(5 mSv) and Fukushima(20 mSv). But even so keep replacing perfectly safe carbon-free nuclear power plants by "intermittent unicorn energy + fossil fuels".
https://pbs.twimg...5hly.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...xpTm.png
https://actinidea...2015/10/
https://actinidea...ys-over/
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2017
Willie, we cannot even see what is going on in those intensely-radioactive pits because they are so deadly they even kill our hardened electronics. The specially-hardened robots die.

This is not "background" radiation, Willie, this is life-killing radiation. Why do you think they admit it will cost at least $190,000,000,000 to "clean up"?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2017
...they are so deadly ... this is life-killing radiation...
Interesting that no one has ever been killed by commercial nuclear power neither in the U.S. nor in any Western country nor in Fukushima, meanwhile air pollution from fossil fuels kill millions of people each year worldwide.
Nice job gskam! Fossil fuel barons should thank fearmongers like you, now the fossil fuel industry is less and less compelled to face a fair competition with a statistically safe/reliable source of carbon-free energy. They already know that "fossil not a bridge; it's a plank for the inherently intermittent sunshine&breeze/unicorn energy" because batteries/energy storage is ever more prohibitively expensive: "... the price of lithium has gone thru the roof since gigafactory started buying"
https://pbs.twimg...WEAp.jpg
http://www.econom...supplies
barakn
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2017
Fossil fuel barons should thank fearmongers like you, now the fossil fuel industry is less and less compelled to face a fair competition with a statistically safe/reliable source of carbon-free energy.
Show me a nuclear power plant that was built without concrete or steel and is powered by nuclear material that wasn't extracted from the earth using petroleum-powered mining equipment and then you can make that claim. Until then, you're a liar, WillieWard.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2017
In this way, show me a wind/solar power plant that was built without concrete or steel that wasn't extracted from the earth using petroleum-powered mining equipment.
Nuclear is proven to be able power safely submarines, aircraft-carriers (Minitz 194 MW 20 years without refueling), russian icebreakers, airplanes and even cars(Nucleon), while a car 100% powered by sunshine and breeze hardly can displace its own weight.
https://pbs.twimg...fYrP.jpg
By the way, where are the wind-powered ships? In the medieval ages.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2017
How much does it cost when a PV panel destructs? How much for a coal dust explosion?

Just wondering, because they now admit just "cleaning up" Fukushima will cost at least $190,000,000,000 in the next 40 years. What do you want to bet it will be over budget and timetable?

Nobody has invented the equipment to even see in there, Willie. The radiation is too intense.

I see we lost a wind turbine last year. I will look up how much damage it did and the cost. We can compare.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2017
deaths from last nuclear incident = ZERO
$190,000,000,000
For sociopaths like you, it's much more inexpensive to let millions of lives get lost due to air pollution from fossil fuels.
The radiation is too intense.
Congratulations gskam! Continue with your nice job in favor of the fossil fuel industry by fabricating antinuclear scaremongering tales. The fossil fuel barons are so proud of you.
"The immediate cost of air pollution: millions of lives lost"
"More than 5 million people died from air pollution in 2013"
"Globally, air pollution disproportionately affects newborns and the elderly"
"Worldwide, air pollution from sources such as vehicles and coal-fired power plants was responsible for the largest number of deaths in 2013"
http://www.humano...es-lost/

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.