Bjørn Lomborg writes on his Facebook page:
We’re constantly being told how renewables are close to taking over the world.
We’re told they are so cheap they’ll undercut fossil fuels and reign supreme pretty soon.
That would be nice. If they were cheaper, they could cut our soaring electricity bills. With cheap and abundant power, they would push development for the world’s poorest. And it would, of course, fix climate change.
Unfortunately, it is also mostly an illusion. This short video shows you why renewables are not likely to take over the world anytime soon.
It is also crucial for us to know. The misapprehension that renewables are just about to take over makes many believe that we have all the technologies needed to go to zero CO₂. That we just need more political will. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth.
Jim Hansen, Al Gore’s climate advisor and the scientist who literally started the global warming worry in 1988 puts it clearly: “Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”
To fix climate change, we need to stop believing in the Easter Bunny and start realizing that without much better, cheaper, green technology, we won’t transition away from fossil fuels. That’s why we need to invest a lot more into green energy R&D. If we can help innovate green energy to become cheaper and better than fossil fuels, *everyone* will switch. Not just rich, well-meaning first-worlders, but also China, India and Africa.
The video shows how we’ve spent the last two centuries getting *off* renewable energy. In 1800, most energy came from our own back-breaking work, along with wood (for fire) and draught animals. Wind and water contributed in most places a tiny fraction. The 6% fossil fuel was almost entirely England starting up the industrial revolution with coal.
What made us rich over the next two centuries, was cheap and plentiful energy, almost exclusively from fossil fuels. It made it possible for us to have machines do much more of the hard work. By the end of the nineteenth century human labor made up 94 percent of all industrial work in the US. Today, it constitutes just 8 percent.
For the past half century, renewable energy has hovered around 13-14%, most of it wood burning in the world’s poorest regions (leading to the world’s leading environmental killer, indoor air pollution).
The International Energy Agency estimates that if *everyone* live up to their Paris promises (and other promises), we’ll get to 20% in 2040. Since almost no-one is actually performing on their Paris promises, the business-as-usual scenario of 16.5% is more likely.
The UN’s Climate Panel has devised 5 main scenarios (the SSPs), showcasing development over the rest of the century. Even the greenest scenario, the SSP1, will by the end of the century just get 45% of its energy from renewables.
The UN scenarios are without explicit climate policies, but the stories of SSP1 is centered around environmental focus: “The world shifts gradually, but pervasively, toward a more sustainable path, emphasizing more inclusive development that respects perceived environmental boundaries. Management of the global commons slowly improves, educational and health investments accelerate the demographic transition, and the emphasis on economic growth shifts toward a broader emphasis on human well-being. Driven by an increasing commitment to achieving development goals, inequality is reduced both across and within countries. Consumption is oriented toward low material growth and lower resource and energy intensity.”
To give you a sense of this: the SSP1 expects that by 2100, the average rich person in the world will have to get by on *half* the energy we have today (and this is final energy, not TPES). The average person in the developing world, while getting more energy than today will have to live with never getting to half on what the average rich person gets today. This is a scenario with little development, populated by very modest people and overall a very unrealistic world.
Sources:
Hansen equivalent to Tooth Fairy, https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/…/jim-hansen-presses-t…/…
Data is in TPES or TPED (but not dramatically different for final energy, with SSP1 in 2100 getting 39% of final energy from fossil fuels and 9% from wood.
“A brief history of energy” Roger Fouquet, International Handbook of the Economics of Energy, 2009 and International Energy Agency, data from 1971-2017 projections to 2040 from IEA latest World Energy Outlook 2018 (November 2018) and all five UN SSP scenarios, which are accessible here:https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/SspDb, and discussed here:www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300681
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Increased use of fossil fuels over the past two centuries also neatly corresponded to a decrease in child mortality from north of 500 per 1000 (yes, half of all children died before age five) to just 50 per 1000 worldwide and 1.6 per 1000 in Hong Kong. That rate had not budged for the 300,000 year history of homo sapiens, and yet magically with our mastery over energy from fossil fuels, it suddenly and dramatically dropped. Just try to tell me there is no causation with this correlation. We can now protect our children, where we could not before.
The threat is not from CO2 but from the power hungry nincompoops who either blithely or deliberately are ignorant of the most basic elements of human history.
”And it would, of course, fix climate change.”
Yes, of course it would. (Sarc.)
Eamon.
Bill Gates ‘thrilled’ by legislative boost for nuclear
The Nuclear Energy Leadership Act (NELA), bipartisan draft legislation which aims to accelerate the development of advanced nuclear technologies and re-establish US leadership in nuclear energy has been re-introduced to the US Senate.
Snip
“Yesterday, a bipartisan group of leaders in the US Senate introduced the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, which establishes an ambitious plan to accelerate the development of advanced nuclear reactor technologies,” Bill Gates, the technologist, business leader, and philanthropist, tweeted, with a link to Murkowski’s announcement. “I can’t overstate how important this is,” he said.
“To prevent the worst effects of climate change, we need to reach near-zero emissions on all the things that drive it – agriculture, electricity, manufacturing, transportation, and buildings – by investing in innovation across all sectors while deploying low cost renewables.
“Nuclear energy is one of these critical technologies. It’s ideal for dealing with climate change, because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that’s available 24 hours a day.
“I’m thrilled that senators from both sides of the aisle have come together to support advanced nuclear. This is exactly the kind of leadership our country needs to both solve the climate challenge and reassert our leadership in this important industry,” he said.
In his 2018 year-end blog, Gates, who co-founded the Microsoft Corp and chairs the TerraPower LLC nuclear energy venture, gave notice that he plans this year to “speak out more” about how the USA needs to regain its leading role in nuclear power research
Snip
It includes the authorisation of long-term power purchase agreements; the establishment of a long-term nuclear power purchase agreement pilot programme; advanced nuclear reactor research and development goals; a nuclear energy strategic plan; a versatile, reactor-based fast neutron source; advanced nuclear fuel security programmes; and a university nuclear leadership programme.
http://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Bill-Gates-thrilled-by-legislative-boost-for-nucle
Patrick Moore
It baffles me that you buy into the “climate crisis”. Do you know that CO2 is at historic lows? That CO2 is the source of C for all life? That the historical record does not implicate CO2 in warming? This tack will eventually be to the detriment of nuclear as it is false.
https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1112000562571165696
Note that Patrick Moore strongly supports nuclear, much to the chagrin of his former comrades in the environmental movement.
Harvesting low intensity energy sources has always been very expensive and always will be.
Thermodynamic law dictates this.
I think Renewable is likely to get a huge boost within 5-10 years purely because PV/battery will soon be the cheapest option for home electricity for a large proportion of the western world’s population.
-Investment returns and interest rates are historically low so investing in home PV rather than putting money in stocks actually starts to make financial sense – particularly in Europe where electricity is up to 2x as expensive as CONUS.
-PV is cheap enough (0.3/kW for modules, $2-3/kW installed)
-batteries are still too expensive; eg Tesla Powerwall costs ~$600/kWh, but that will come down by 3-4x soon as we know the batteries are now costing Tesla <$100/kWh and increasing competition from massively expanding electric car industry will drive their price down.
Add to that electric cars provide a great solution for backup power when the weather is cloudy etc.
One day they will find the postfact
Herðubreið diner sours near polar Björn gard.