Systems analyst | independent consultant | project manager | climate policy advocate | communicator & educator
Hopium needs no miracles? I’m afraid this post ignores the demographic reality of the world. While western economies can switch over to renewables and produce the same with less energy, the economy in Africa is still in its infancy, while the population is exploding. And one could say the Asian economy is in a juvenile stage, the point being it is still growing but much closer to maturity. World energy consumption will likely rise for at least for another half a century or so (that is if natural support systems hold out and global conflict is contained). I think we need to get real about the continued demand for ff, in particular in the developing world. Also we cannot ignore the dwindling ore densities of critical minerals that will at some point make renewables more expensive and more environmentally damaging. Since ff is still an abundant and cheap energy resource I think we need to worry about avoiding emissions from the ff stocks. That’s why I support a carbon takeback obligation (#CTBO). This policy proposal aims to phase out emissions and in my opinion would make the ff industry an active player in the energy transition
Do you wonder / worry whether renewables will ever be able to replace fossil fuels? Well, I used to, but no more. I asked myself the same question more than often. It’s only when I stumbled upon this brilliant book review by Niall Enright that I understood that my vision had been blurred by the the contiuous flow of misinformation and negativite framing. Bill McKibben, the famous US environmentalist, starts his foreword to the book 'No Miracles Needed' by Mark Jacobson with the following quote: “This is among the most important books you’ll ever read, because it lays out in clear and frank terms the great problem of our age, and the great solution.” The 350+ page book sets out how we could transition our energy system away from a dependency on fossil fuels to one entirely powered by Wind, Water and Solar (WWS). Niall Enright reviewed the book, and came to these key conclusions: 👉 Because so much of our existing energy system uses highly inefficient fossil fuels the replacement by WWS technologies needs much less power. Globally, average demand would be 20.4 TW of power in a fossil fuel ‘business as usual’ 2050 scenario, but only 8.9 TW in the WWS 2050 scenario. That is 56% less energy demand. In other words, the WWS energy system will be only 44% of the size of the fossil fuel system. 💡💡 👉 38% of the decrease is due to the inherent inefficiency of fossil fuels. A further 11% reduction in global energy demand arises from the very large energy consumption of the fossil fuels extraction, processing and transportation systems which will no longer be needed in a WWS energy system. We get a 49% reduction in end use energy demand by switching away from fossil fuels. This is sometimes referred to as 'the primary energy fallacy' which is why fossil fuels proponents quote energy in fossil fuel equivalents to make the transition appear more difficult than it really is. 💡💡 👉 The model assumed an additional 7% overall improvement in efficiency from ancillary action like insulation. That is very conservative in my view and there is even further room for improvement. 💡💡 👉 In the WWS 2050 global system we will only have 12% losses from “shedding”, also known as curtailment. In effect we need to overbuild the system by this amount to ensure supply meets demand every 30 seconds. This is much lower than many folks who are anti-renewables quote. 💡💡 So, whoever’s telling us it can not be done, is either misinformed, or has other interests. Some of the assumptions used in the book are indeed very conservative, adding to the credibility of the findings. Don' t let any lobbyist or politician fool you. The energy transition cannot be stopped, our energy will be clean. The future looks bright. 🌿 cc MyGrid #energy #renewableenergy #energytransition #oilandgas
Correspondent bij Naturalis
2moBeware if greenwashing.