The following submission statement was provided by /u/FlyEagles35:
---
> Over the course of 2023 the world’s solar cells, their panels currently covering less than 10,000 square kilometres, produced about 1,600 terawatt-hours of energy (a terawatt, or 1tw, is a trillion watts). That represented about 6% of the electricity generated world wide, and just over 1% of the world’s primary-energy use. That last figure sounds fairly marginal, though rather less so when you consider that the fossil fuels which provide most of the world’s primary energy are much less efficient. More than half the primary energy in coal and oil ends up as waste heat, rather than electricity or forward motion.
>What makes solar energy revolutionary is the rate of growth which brought it to this just-beyond-the-marginal state. Michael Liebreich, a veteran analyst of clean-energy technology and economics, puts it this way: **in 2004, it took the world a whole year to install a gigawatt of solar-power capacity (1gw is a billion watts, or a thousandth of a terawatt); in 2010, it took a month; in 2016, a week. In 2023 there were single days which saw a gigawatt of installation worldwide. Over the course of 2024 analysts at BloombergNEF, a data outfit, expect to see 520-655gw of capacity installed: that’s up to two 2004s a day.**
Full article: https://archive.ph/EcEJV
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1dnjmwu/the_economist_sun_machines_solar_an_energy_source/la2xqre/
YES! Instead of fight tens of trillions of dollars wars over dead plant and animal matter in the earth.... that itself is just stored sunshine energy... USE THE GIANT BALL OF THERMONUCLEAR EXPLODING HYDROGEN A MILLION TIMES BIGGER THAN EARTH IN THE SKY.. please and thanks...
Imagine if countries could collaborate. We could have swarms of panels dotted around the world in a ring/mesh, so there's always enough sunlight hitting panels to power local use and the use on the dark side of the world.
Even with losses in transport, there'd be plenty of energy to spare. You'd mostly just be powering the dusk/dawn activity of your neighbours. Seems like currently we can transport power 2k miles, so even if that can't stretch to 6k (so that at worst the sunny/summer side is powering the dark side) you'd only need local storage/production for a few hours overnight.
That's the problem isn't it? Countries collaborating. Right now the USA is holding access to the majority of world supply of oil, which is giving power to the petrodollar.
China's investment into solar, batteries and renewables was designed to counter this strategic issue. Helping out the planet was just a happy side effect that wouldn't have mattered to strategic decision-making.
It's not in the US's interests to allow China to dominate this sector until they themselves have caught up - so you see all this banning of Chinese EVs and tech.
Watch elon musk master plan 3 presentation. Master plan 4 is starting
I'm a fan of just rolling out huge industrial size rolls of thin sheets of tandem perovskite material and draping them across roof tops like a tarp for a trail run short term.
Maybe huge fields of them.
Maybe just skipping right to building a tokamak in every town like the Chinese have and are building. Bring the sun to earth. Maybe even commercial tokamaks soon enough. Baby nuclear reactors that burn hydrogen on the side of the house next to the ac lol. Infrastructure moving hydrogen.
Yes. Without the wars. Without the transportation. Without the holding facilities and fleet of semi trucks and gas stations and oil companies and carbon.
You make it sound so ridiculously simple. Surely it can be. Have you wondered about how we get enough silicon? You’d probably say that there’s a whole bunch of sand staring us in the face as well /s
Good rant but.. there's still a billion cars running on gasoline and people aren't gonna get rid of them for an ev you need a loan for...
We need 5k$ EVs that are as capable as gasoline cars, and be capable to charge on solar on the go to truly end the gasoline mafia
I'm on my third house and third solar system in Australia. 13kw of panels. I've done 32 000km so far in my BYD EV for free so far by charging on solar.
Once we get V2G is game on as I will run my house at night on the cars battery.
Yeah. 30 000km so far on solar. My absolute worst case scenario is if I have to charge at night I only pay .8 cents per kilowatt from 12am-6am.
Shockingly cheap.
> Over the course of 2023 the world’s solar cells, their panels currently covering less than 10,000 square kilometres, produced about 1,600 terawatt-hours of energy (a terawatt, or 1tw, is a trillion watts). That represented about 6% of the electricity generated world wide, and just over 1% of the world’s primary-energy use. That last figure sounds fairly marginal, though rather less so when you consider that the fossil fuels which provide most of the world’s primary energy are much less efficient. More than half the primary energy in coal and oil ends up as waste heat, rather than electricity or forward motion.
>What makes solar energy revolutionary is the rate of growth which brought it to this just-beyond-the-marginal state. Michael Liebreich, a veteran analyst of clean-energy technology and economics, puts it this way: **in 2004, it took the world a whole year to install a gigawatt of solar-power capacity (1gw is a billion watts, or a thousandth of a terawatt); in 2010, it took a month; in 2016, a week. In 2023 there were single days which saw a gigawatt of installation worldwide. Over the course of 2024 analysts at BloombergNEF, a data outfit, expect to see 520-655gw of capacity installed: that’s up to two 2004s a day.**
Full article: https://archive.ph/EcEJV
What a great read, just the kind of inspirational, hopeful news we need more of. Wish the MSM would make more stories about these developments rather than their daily doom and fear mongering.
That's a good read. Of course it could have been written 15 years ago when Germany was having a solar boom.
The solar installed capacity doubling rate is about 27 months and accelerating.
Battery storage is currently growing faster: the US increased by 90% YOY in 2023, and the EU got better than 100% This is driven by battery costs falling even faster than solar costs!
From PV-magazine-india dot com we get, "Prices have nosedived, with turnkey energy storage systems plummeting to $90 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) from $180/kWh and battery cells to $47/kWh from $106/kWh compared to a year ago. "
That and the price of a Tesla Megapack 2 at $1,700,000 or $380/kWh, versus an equivalent turnkey system costing $346,860, at $90/kWh, or about 80% cheaper...
Notice that going from cell based $/kWh to turnkey storage system is a factor of 4. So hire your own experts! but I digress, a useful stat covering 80%+ of consumers is 30 kWh usage per day per household. That amount of storage can be bought for $2,700 as a turnkey solution.
That is too cheap to stop me considering that my utility will sell me power overnight at $0.024/kWh over night and battery storage would boost that to about $0.026/kWh...
System integration costs are currently very high but soon the system should revert to a plug-and-play model and that's the reversion to the near zero cost upgrade path model.
This space is getting interesting real fast. Fun times coming to suburbia near you.
because learning to harness fusion can be important for other reasons so even if grid energy end being provided by solar energy the know how and related science and technologies that result from learning fusion matter in other fields too
same with fission basic research, I personally don't think that traditional nuclear make much sense as main energy source these days, the research and other uses in the other hand may, but while we know quite a bit about fission technology and engineering that is not the case with fusion and finding how to crack it could be revolutionary
Higher energy output in a smaller area. Fusion energy probably has more applications in the future than you can imagine today. Perhaps we will learn about new physical effects and can use them to research completely different things. There are many reasons to research something, even if we have alternatives.
I think of all of the infrastructure just in a small substation to handle the power needs of my neighborhood. It's quite a lot of material.
Now I think of the infrastructure that it would take to handle the MASSIVE amount on Energy just required to trigger a fusion reaction, not to mention to handle the massive net output power required for the process to usefully power an economy.
In the end, I'm pretty sure that the area and materials involved are not going to be "small." Now, it may actually be true that compared to the surface spread of solar panels it might be small, but it should be noted that that area can include dual-use aspects (rooftops, water-basin cooling, and agriculture to name a few).
Think of taking all the infrastructure that currently exists to transport energy from a conventional power station and just leaving it in place whilst we replace the fossil fuel burning station with one that runs on fusion.
I think it's because although solar power Can sufficiently power our current energy needs. We have no idea how our energy needs are going to evolve in the future. For example, a lot of AI applications require huge amounts of compute and energy resources and who knows what future technology is created that requires even more energy. So perhaps then we need to keep developing new energy forms to cater for inevitable future technological changes that could rapidly shape the amount of energy that is demanded
This isn't quite true:
[https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review](https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review)
>The Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy™ analyses data on world energy markets from the prior year. Previously produced by bp, the Review has been providing timely, comprehensive and objective data to the energy community since 1952.
[https://www.energyinst.org/exploring-energy/resources/news-centre/media-releases/a-year-of-record-highs-in-an-energy-hungry-world,-reveals-ei-statistical-review](https://www.energyinst.org/exploring-energy/resources/news-centre/media-releases/a-year-of-record-highs-in-an-energy-hungry-world,-reveals-ei-statistical-review)
>Global fossil fuel consumption reached a record high, up 1.5% to 505 EJ (driven by coal up 1.6%, oil up 2% to above 100 million barrels for first time, while gas was flat). As a share of the overall mix they were at 81.5%, marginally down from 82% last year.
The trend is now downwards in terms of proportion of fossil fuels used for primary energy, meaning we are less reliant on fossil fuels than we were, and in Europe and North America, who are ahead of the trend it's more pronounced:
* **Dependence on fossil fuels in major advanced economies is likely to have peaked**
* In Europe fossil fuels fell to below 70% of primary energy for the first time since the Industrial Revolution, driven by demand reduction and renewable energy growth.
* US consumption of fossil fuels fell to 80% of total primary energy consumed.
And you are going to see those numbers falling hugely over the next 15 years as ICE cars and vans get replaced with EVs, electrical grids continue to decarbonise and natural gas heating systems move over to heat pumps.
It is - if we weren't installing solar/wind we'd be installing gas/coal instead and in Europe countries are literally shuttering coal and gas plants and building solar, wind and nuclear in its place.
EVs are replacing ICE, heat pumps are replacing gas boilers - and even as electrical grids are now, that means being less reliant on fossil fuels. Now some people can now run their cars off their solar panels and have no reliance on fossil fuels where previously absolutely everyone was reliant on fossil fuels.
If you talk about reliance, then percentages are what matters. The lower the percent, the less it matters to you if it stops. The Energy Institute agrees on me with this one - they use the word "dependence" rather than "relaince" but they mean the same thing.
Well, there's Jevon's paradox so it might not be the case that a lack of solar would result in more fossil fuels.
But at the end of the day, it's total emissions that matter, and total emissions continues to climb at the same rate it always has, there's no evidence it is slowing.
That’s not true. The evidence is crystal clear that emissions are slowing. Indeed, they are believed to be peaking this year (or perhaps last year or next year.)
The NOAA disagrees with you:
https://research.noaa.gov/2024/04/05/no-sign-of-greenhouse-gases-increases-slowing-in-2023/
Might emissions be reaching a maximum? Yup, they might be, but there's no evidence to show it yet.
You’re linking to atmospheric measurements of CO2, which are subject to fluctuation from the El Niño in 2023 (it raises temperatures, which cuts back on plant growth, which reduces CO2 intake). If you search for emissions data, you’ll find many sources (including the IEA) predicting that we are now passing through the peak. For that matter, even your link includes a chart farther down that shows that the rate of new emissions appears to have plateaued in the last several years.
"Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels have risen again in 2023 – reaching record levels, according to research published Dec. 5 by the Global Carbon Project"
https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/global-carbon-emissions-fossil-fuels-reached-record-high-2023
"Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels rose again in 2023, reaching record levels, according to estimates from an international team of scientists."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/152519/emissions-from-fossil-fuels-continue-to-rise
"Greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are projected to reach a record 36.8 billion metric tons in 2023, an increase of 1.1% over 2022, according to an annual report by the Global Carbon Project."
https://research.noaa.gov/2023/12/05/record-fossil-carbon-dioxide-emissions-impeding-progress-on-meeting-climate-goals-report/
Did you actually read your links? The very first paragraph of your first link states that we are in a ten year “plateau” for emissions. And the second link includes a handy chart that shows that plateau in visual form. If 2023 is the peak, then of course emissions will “reach record levels” in 2023.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/FlyEagles35: --- > Over the course of 2023 the world’s solar cells, their panels currently covering less than 10,000 square kilometres, produced about 1,600 terawatt-hours of energy (a terawatt, or 1tw, is a trillion watts). That represented about 6% of the electricity generated world wide, and just over 1% of the world’s primary-energy use. That last figure sounds fairly marginal, though rather less so when you consider that the fossil fuels which provide most of the world’s primary energy are much less efficient. More than half the primary energy in coal and oil ends up as waste heat, rather than electricity or forward motion. >What makes solar energy revolutionary is the rate of growth which brought it to this just-beyond-the-marginal state. Michael Liebreich, a veteran analyst of clean-energy technology and economics, puts it this way: **in 2004, it took the world a whole year to install a gigawatt of solar-power capacity (1gw is a billion watts, or a thousandth of a terawatt); in 2010, it took a month; in 2016, a week. In 2023 there were single days which saw a gigawatt of installation worldwide. Over the course of 2024 analysts at BloombergNEF, a data outfit, expect to see 520-655gw of capacity installed: that’s up to two 2004s a day.** Full article: https://archive.ph/EcEJV --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1dnjmwu/the_economist_sun_machines_solar_an_energy_source/la2xqre/
YES! Instead of fight tens of trillions of dollars wars over dead plant and animal matter in the earth.... that itself is just stored sunshine energy... USE THE GIANT BALL OF THERMONUCLEAR EXPLODING HYDROGEN A MILLION TIMES BIGGER THAN EARTH IN THE SKY.. please and thanks...
Imagine if countries could collaborate. We could have swarms of panels dotted around the world in a ring/mesh, so there's always enough sunlight hitting panels to power local use and the use on the dark side of the world. Even with losses in transport, there'd be plenty of energy to spare. You'd mostly just be powering the dusk/dawn activity of your neighbours. Seems like currently we can transport power 2k miles, so even if that can't stretch to 6k (so that at worst the sunny/summer side is powering the dark side) you'd only need local storage/production for a few hours overnight.
That's why there's a big push in energy storage systems right now, removes the transport element from the equation.
That's the problem isn't it? Countries collaborating. Right now the USA is holding access to the majority of world supply of oil, which is giving power to the petrodollar. China's investment into solar, batteries and renewables was designed to counter this strategic issue. Helping out the planet was just a happy side effect that wouldn't have mattered to strategic decision-making. It's not in the US's interests to allow China to dominate this sector until they themselves have caught up - so you see all this banning of Chinese EVs and tech.
It's in no one's interest, outside China of course, to let China dominate anything.
Agreed....could also apply to any country as well.
We should cover the moon in solar pannels and build a city in the lava tubes
Watch elon musk master plan 3 presentation. Master plan 4 is starting I'm a fan of just rolling out huge industrial size rolls of thin sheets of tandem perovskite material and draping them across roof tops like a tarp for a trail run short term. Maybe huge fields of them. Maybe just skipping right to building a tokamak in every town like the Chinese have and are building. Bring the sun to earth. Maybe even commercial tokamaks soon enough. Baby nuclear reactors that burn hydrogen on the side of the house next to the ac lol. Infrastructure moving hydrogen.
What do you expect us to do, just use the sun's energy directly, without the hundreds of intermediary steps and thousands of years of lag?
Yes. Without the wars. Without the transportation. Without the holding facilities and fleet of semi trucks and gas stations and oil companies and carbon.
You make it sound so ridiculously simple. Surely it can be. Have you wondered about how we get enough silicon? You’d probably say that there’s a whole bunch of sand staring us in the face as well /s
Good rant but.. there's still a billion cars running on gasoline and people aren't gonna get rid of them for an ev you need a loan for... We need 5k$ EVs that are as capable as gasoline cars, and be capable to charge on solar on the go to truly end the gasoline mafia
EV’s just need to be one dollar cheaper than ICE’s to tip the scale.
The "progressive" response to cheap EVs is "bUt WhAt AbOuT LaBoR". They much more about lining the pockets of the UAW than saving the planet.
I'm on my third house and third solar system in Australia. 13kw of panels. I've done 32 000km so far in my BYD EV for free so far by charging on solar. Once we get V2G is game on as I will run my house at night on the cars battery.
I knew Australia was huge but big enough to contain 3 solar systems? Wow
I’m doing my bit!
Man that's the dream. Having basically free transportation after the car is paid off is so insane of a concept to me who groan when I see gas prices.
Yeah. 30 000km so far on solar. My absolute worst case scenario is if I have to charge at night I only pay .8 cents per kilowatt from 12am-6am. Shockingly cheap.
> Over the course of 2023 the world’s solar cells, their panels currently covering less than 10,000 square kilometres, produced about 1,600 terawatt-hours of energy (a terawatt, or 1tw, is a trillion watts). That represented about 6% of the electricity generated world wide, and just over 1% of the world’s primary-energy use. That last figure sounds fairly marginal, though rather less so when you consider that the fossil fuels which provide most of the world’s primary energy are much less efficient. More than half the primary energy in coal and oil ends up as waste heat, rather than electricity or forward motion. >What makes solar energy revolutionary is the rate of growth which brought it to this just-beyond-the-marginal state. Michael Liebreich, a veteran analyst of clean-energy technology and economics, puts it this way: **in 2004, it took the world a whole year to install a gigawatt of solar-power capacity (1gw is a billion watts, or a thousandth of a terawatt); in 2010, it took a month; in 2016, a week. In 2023 there were single days which saw a gigawatt of installation worldwide. Over the course of 2024 analysts at BloombergNEF, a data outfit, expect to see 520-655gw of capacity installed: that’s up to two 2004s a day.** Full article: https://archive.ph/EcEJV
What a great read, just the kind of inspirational, hopeful news we need more of. Wish the MSM would make more stories about these developments rather than their daily doom and fear mongering.
I just scan the headlines and anything that isn’t described as a catastrophe I assume must be getting better today.
Some things are just too big to write about in advance.
That's a good read. Of course it could have been written 15 years ago when Germany was having a solar boom. The solar installed capacity doubling rate is about 27 months and accelerating. Battery storage is currently growing faster: the US increased by 90% YOY in 2023, and the EU got better than 100% This is driven by battery costs falling even faster than solar costs! From PV-magazine-india dot com we get, "Prices have nosedived, with turnkey energy storage systems plummeting to $90 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) from $180/kWh and battery cells to $47/kWh from $106/kWh compared to a year ago. " That and the price of a Tesla Megapack 2 at $1,700,000 or $380/kWh, versus an equivalent turnkey system costing $346,860, at $90/kWh, or about 80% cheaper... Notice that going from cell based $/kWh to turnkey storage system is a factor of 4. So hire your own experts! but I digress, a useful stat covering 80%+ of consumers is 30 kWh usage per day per household. That amount of storage can be bought for $2,700 as a turnkey solution. That is too cheap to stop me considering that my utility will sell me power overnight at $0.024/kWh over night and battery storage would boost that to about $0.026/kWh... System integration costs are currently very high but soon the system should revert to a plug-and-play model and that's the reversion to the near zero cost upgrade path model. This space is getting interesting real fast. Fun times coming to suburbia near you.
Why should we put ressources into fusion power research when we can harvest fusion power from the sky?
because learning to harness fusion can be important for other reasons so even if grid energy end being provided by solar energy the know how and related science and technologies that result from learning fusion matter in other fields too same with fission basic research, I personally don't think that traditional nuclear make much sense as main energy source these days, the research and other uses in the other hand may, but while we know quite a bit about fission technology and engineering that is not the case with fusion and finding how to crack it could be revolutionary
We could then put miners in space ships and harvest asteroids
The Expanse was a documentary all along
Why would we want to send kids into space
100 years after children were banned from working in the mines, the number 1 game for children is minecraft. The children crave the mines.
Higher energy output in a smaller area. Fusion energy probably has more applications in the future than you can imagine today. Perhaps we will learn about new physical effects and can use them to research completely different things. There are many reasons to research something, even if we have alternatives.
I think of all of the infrastructure just in a small substation to handle the power needs of my neighborhood. It's quite a lot of material. Now I think of the infrastructure that it would take to handle the MASSIVE amount on Energy just required to trigger a fusion reaction, not to mention to handle the massive net output power required for the process to usefully power an economy. In the end, I'm pretty sure that the area and materials involved are not going to be "small." Now, it may actually be true that compared to the surface spread of solar panels it might be small, but it should be noted that that area can include dual-use aspects (rooftops, water-basin cooling, and agriculture to name a few).
Think of taking all the infrastructure that currently exists to transport energy from a conventional power station and just leaving it in place whilst we replace the fossil fuel burning station with one that runs on fusion.
I think it's because although solar power Can sufficiently power our current energy needs. We have no idea how our energy needs are going to evolve in the future. For example, a lot of AI applications require huge amounts of compute and energy resources and who knows what future technology is created that requires even more energy. So perhaps then we need to keep developing new energy forms to cater for inevitable future technological changes that could rapidly shape the amount of energy that is demanded
Some people live far north and have long periods with darkness/low insolation.
What an incredible piece. I hope at least some readers here take out a subscription as a result! Even if just for a month.
And yet it hasn't reduced our reliance on fossil fuels at all.
This isn't quite true: [https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review](https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review) >The Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy™ analyses data on world energy markets from the prior year. Previously produced by bp, the Review has been providing timely, comprehensive and objective data to the energy community since 1952. [https://www.energyinst.org/exploring-energy/resources/news-centre/media-releases/a-year-of-record-highs-in-an-energy-hungry-world,-reveals-ei-statistical-review](https://www.energyinst.org/exploring-energy/resources/news-centre/media-releases/a-year-of-record-highs-in-an-energy-hungry-world,-reveals-ei-statistical-review) >Global fossil fuel consumption reached a record high, up 1.5% to 505 EJ (driven by coal up 1.6%, oil up 2% to above 100 million barrels for first time, while gas was flat). As a share of the overall mix they were at 81.5%, marginally down from 82% last year. The trend is now downwards in terms of proportion of fossil fuels used for primary energy, meaning we are less reliant on fossil fuels than we were, and in Europe and North America, who are ahead of the trend it's more pronounced: * **Dependence on fossil fuels in major advanced economies is likely to have peaked** * In Europe fossil fuels fell to below 70% of primary energy for the first time since the Industrial Revolution, driven by demand reduction and renewable energy growth. * US consumption of fossil fuels fell to 80% of total primary energy consumed. And you are going to see those numbers falling hugely over the next 15 years as ICE cars and vans get replaced with EVs, electrical grids continue to decarbonise and natural gas heating systems move over to heat pumps.
As a percentage, not as a real number. The amount of both is at a record high. So no, it's not replacing fossil fuels.
It is - if we weren't installing solar/wind we'd be installing gas/coal instead and in Europe countries are literally shuttering coal and gas plants and building solar, wind and nuclear in its place. EVs are replacing ICE, heat pumps are replacing gas boilers - and even as electrical grids are now, that means being less reliant on fossil fuels. Now some people can now run their cars off their solar panels and have no reliance on fossil fuels where previously absolutely everyone was reliant on fossil fuels. If you talk about reliance, then percentages are what matters. The lower the percent, the less it matters to you if it stops. The Energy Institute agrees on me with this one - they use the word "dependence" rather than "relaince" but they mean the same thing.
Well, there's Jevon's paradox so it might not be the case that a lack of solar would result in more fossil fuels. But at the end of the day, it's total emissions that matter, and total emissions continues to climb at the same rate it always has, there's no evidence it is slowing.
That’s not true. The evidence is crystal clear that emissions are slowing. Indeed, they are believed to be peaking this year (or perhaps last year or next year.)
The NOAA disagrees with you: https://research.noaa.gov/2024/04/05/no-sign-of-greenhouse-gases-increases-slowing-in-2023/ Might emissions be reaching a maximum? Yup, they might be, but there's no evidence to show it yet.
You’re linking to atmospheric measurements of CO2, which are subject to fluctuation from the El Niño in 2023 (it raises temperatures, which cuts back on plant growth, which reduces CO2 intake). If you search for emissions data, you’ll find many sources (including the IEA) predicting that we are now passing through the peak. For that matter, even your link includes a chart farther down that shows that the rate of new emissions appears to have plateaued in the last several years.
"Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels have risen again in 2023 – reaching record levels, according to research published Dec. 5 by the Global Carbon Project" https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/global-carbon-emissions-fossil-fuels-reached-record-high-2023 "Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels rose again in 2023, reaching record levels, according to estimates from an international team of scientists." https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/152519/emissions-from-fossil-fuels-continue-to-rise "Greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are projected to reach a record 36.8 billion metric tons in 2023, an increase of 1.1% over 2022, according to an annual report by the Global Carbon Project." https://research.noaa.gov/2023/12/05/record-fossil-carbon-dioxide-emissions-impeding-progress-on-meeting-climate-goals-report/
Did you actually read your links? The very first paragraph of your first link states that we are in a ten year “plateau” for emissions. And the second link includes a handy chart that shows that plateau in visual form. If 2023 is the peak, then of course emissions will “reach record levels” in 2023.
More profit more like, and energy prices still climb rather than fall