This is a sad example of incoherent, poorly thought-out boosterism.
There isn't enough time in the day to take down all of the bad or irrelevant arguments presented, but I'll try:
1. Of course adoption of new technology is not linear. It may be that we are on a path toward economically viable renewable energy for general application. Even if this is true, it will take a great deal of time to complete the transition - it took nearly 300 years for coal to replace wood as a primary energy source in Britain. Arguing that adoption is nonlinear is a non sequitur if the claim is that renewables are on the brink of becoming the primary source. It's especially irrelevant if the claim (not made here but apparently treated as axiomatic by the governing class) is that we "must" have Net Zero emissions by 2030 (or 2035, or 2050, or any other date).
2. Lagging vs. leading indicators - it's useful to think of flows vs. stocks for energy sources. Not addressed is the viability of the "flows" of new renewable energy facilities. There seems to be an assumption that renewable installations will continue exponential growth, without acknowledging that this implies exponential increases of subsidies, which will be harder and harder for cash-strapped governments to maintain. If our post-2008 era of extremely low interest rates is over, renewables become even less viable economically.
3. Turning points can produce disruptive change, but they're only obvious in hindsight. Based on contemporary accounts, we've been decisively turning away from oil for the last 50 years. Some day, these claims will undoubtedly be true, but there's no good evidence they're true now. It's rather odd to claim that the energy transition will result in both falling and higher prices for oil - did anyone read this article before publishing it?
4. "The largest areas of fossil fuel demand are the most vulnerable. Power, road transport, and low-temperature heat make up nearly 70 percent of fossil fuel demand, and they already face the threat of successful and rapidly growing renewable technologies." It's worth pointing out that this threat is driven entirely by legal and regulatory requirements, backed by subsidies for renewables. Once the cost of the subsidies and the implications of the carbon-free system become clear, I doubt they will continue to be politically viable, even to the avowedly progressive parties in the western world.
5. Of course the world isn't static - it's in constant motion. That doesn't mean that the changes are predictable, or that they will advance to meet the preferences of people who share the ecological aesthetic of the Rocky Mountain Institute. The claim that solar is the cheapest energy source in history, slipped in as if it were established fact, is a sly maneuver, but won't help when confronting the physics and economics.
6. It's true that climate change isn't the only motivation for pursuing renewable energy. Some of it is aesthetic, and pleases people who don't have to make it work. Some of it is rent-seeking, where elites steer public resources to favored causes. The rest of the claims in this section are evocatively poetic, but very short on claims of fact.
7. Increasing energy efficiency is a good thing, but totally irrelevant to whether or not we are in an "energy transition". If you accept the prior assumptions, increasing energy efficiency should decrease the demand for all energy, meaning less reason to construct new energy facilities of any type, including renewables. There's also a subtle shift from talking about "energy efficiency" (useful work extracted from input energy) to "energy intensity" (energy consumption per dollar of GDP). The change in energy intensity is related to a switch from manufacturing to services in the economy - less steel and aluminum, more insurance and banking. This entire section is irrelevant to whether there is, or should be, a transition to renewable energy.
8. "Lost in complexity" seems to argue that models are useless in predicting or analyzing the future of energy use. I actually agree with this claim, at least in part. But it makes a mockery of everything that came before, because the rest of the article is based precisely on the claim that the fundamentals are known, making the future predictable.
Rather than fluff like this, which tosses around undefined terms like "energy transition", we'd be better served by clear statements on subjects like these:
"What does the energy transition mean? Which old sources will be abandoned, and which new ones adopted? What's the timeframe to accomplish this transition?"
"What is the cost of implementing this transition? How will it be paid? How does this cause compete for scarce resources with things like providing comfortable standards of living for an ageing population, defending against threats from China and Russia, or expanding access to healthcare?"
"What is the experience in incorporating renewable energy into existing power systems? How much is feasible from an economic and technical standpoint? What further enabling technologies would be required to achieve any particular level of incorporation?"
"How much fossil fuel consumption is used for purposes other than electricity (fertilizer, plastics, chemicals, steel)? Are there alternatives for these applications?
These are obviously complex questions, and no article or book could address all in any depth. But ignoring them gives boosters an unwarranted optimism that they can see all the solutions.
As for your ridiculous economic argument, #ByDefinition #UniversalHealthcare, and I mean a really quality policy that covers optical dental and mental health as well as things like Cadillac policy holders receive that amount of money in their paycheck since it’s already built into the corporate system on and on and on could be achieved for $5000 less per taxpayer liability per year than the 11,000 liability each tax for your face is now for just Medicaid and Medicare serving only 140 million people.
The main economic factor you and most people are completely missing or intentionally unaware of is the speed sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere is needed by an unbelievable, unimaginable tonnage. All of that carbon could be formed into a very valuable substance. Basically lining itself out as the greatest economic opportunity in the history of legal tender . Your naysay fossil fuel agitprop fellation bullshit is pathetic.
That means nothing in terms of the climate crisis. That needs done in terms of eco-habitat restoration. It would take 20 million trees to absorb the carbon emitted by the United States alone in one year.
No the statistically significant or relevant action.
We certainly do have to have a net 0 and we also have to have the two crustacean of carbon from the atmosphere turned into a valuable solid. Those are two absolutes. And they should’ve been online by now on a massive scale. If we would’ve started during the Clinton era, we could’ve spent one or 1.5% of GDP and have a handle on this. But no, we let people like you and your fossil fuel fellation buddies steer policy.
I ❤️ the RMI and have a family member who is a member, so I was very prepared to object to your criticisms. On reading them and as much as I respect the RMI and it's aspirations, concede you make some valid points. I love good analytic thinking even when for emotional reasons I'm predisposed to oppose some of the conclusions.
The problem with the energy transition is that it is far too late: Climate catastrophes are not waiting until we bring the atmospheric CO2 down – it is not about carbon neutrality, it is about CO2 levels remaining as high as millions of years ago. There are vicious cycles; all ice of the globe except ice on the high mountains of Antarctica will keep melting. Weather events are rapidly becoming more frequent and much more deadly, many densely populated areas become unlivable and there will most likely be violence worldwide. We are moving towards a collapse of many civilizations. Our only hope is radical government actions that completely restructure our industries and land management - we must save energy and resources in every way possible and realize what is described in humanecivilization.org, drawdown.org, and other sources. Government actions must be more dramatic than after the attack on Pearl Harbor when all industries had to revamp and work for government contracts in the war efforts. If we lead, we can expect China, India and most other countries to follow.
Heinz Aeschbach, MD, president of Humane Civilization worldwide
More important than net zero is the sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere at least 2.5 trillion yes trillion with the T tons of the approximately 3,5 trillion tons that we have emitted, and the entirety of the industrial revolution.
The level if stupidity in this post is truly mind blowing. One third of fossil fuel production is used for fertilizers. More is used for plastics. Diesel is used for mining processing and refining metals used for renewables, and to transport renewables.
2 major offshore wind projects in the Atlantic have been canceled because the numbers no longer make sense.
Coal is used for steel production. The cost of thousands of miles of new high voltage transmission lines runs in the trillions. The wind solar battery and transmission lines needed would require land the size of Texas, and land the size of New Jersey to dispose of the toxic waste. The fact is you can't electrify air transportation, heavy machinery, shipping and other significant sectors of the economy.
You must be afflicted with a major case of rectal cranial inversion to publish this garbage.
Toxic conventional agrabusiness model is killing the soil. We can easily feed the planet organically. I am living proof of that. I outgrow all my conventional neighbors in every single row, crop or small green, forage, and fruit. Aside from corn. It should not be part of the human diet. So the 15 to 18% that I grow less of is not relevant because at least 40% of all the corners this goes to ethanol. The dumbest Brown is fuel imaginable. It takes 5 quarts of gasoline to make a gallon of ethanol.
Moving forward
The wind farm cancellations have nothing to do with their efficiency or the legitimacy of the method. It’s a political situation. And I’m quite sure you know that. Don’t be an asshole. That’s not exactly a hard rule or a high bar is it? I’m in my God Boy, did you go to kindergarten, so please and thank you, open doors, be nice you know that kind of stuff. ....?
The amount of coal needed to produce steel is left in one percent of the total fossil fuel emissions. Shove that shit all the way up your rectum.
The proper grid design, no matter the source of energy are micro grid and community source to power. Needing barely any new transmission lines. Oh, that is based on the poorest design possible. Incredibly disingenuous of you.
Lastly, there is no toxic waste 100% of both win turbines, solar, photovoltaic, panels, and the batteries used to store. The energy are completely recyclable. An obvious must going into the future.
You just dumped a big old train load a stupid. I would hide if I were you.
I partially agree with you. Direct carbon pricing, as with a US national Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustment Tariff (citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend) is preferred by economists across the political spectrum (clcouncil.org/media/EconomistsStatement.pdf). Incentivizing renewables is arguably "less bang for the buck", one reason being that incentives can be gamed more easily than direct carbon pricing. And command-and-control measures, i.e. restrictive regulations, run up against the US Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Those who wish to see progress toward decarbonization of the US and global economies, must be aware of the political environment. As of 2023, carbon pricing has not won the approval of US voters, and SCOTUS has weakened or struck down several executive actions aimed at limiting aggregate US emissions. The federal government has not completely failed to incentivize renewables, however. The most significant US collective (i.e. government) actions to date are the "Inflation Reduction Act" of 2022, and the "Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act" enacted at the same time. Both are flawed and inadequate to eliminate our aggregate greenhouse emissions by themselves. In the opinions of people I trust, however, they're far better than nothing. That's a good enough reason to keep Democrats in office!
You never touched on the two absolute certainty’s that must happen. The stopping of burning fossil fuels and sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere pretty lame.
We can do anything we want with the market. We have proven that there’s not a single free market sector in the entire country. You haven’t removed any carbon in a single thing you’ve mentioned. The sequestration from the atmosphere formed into a solid, is an absolute mandated prerequisite.
Thank you for this beautiful summary of the misunderstandings and false equivalences that we can all be guilty of when trying to get our heads around the current energy transition. It chimes very true with my own experience of reading renowned leaders of business and policy forecasting incremental change in areas such as EV uptake over the next decade. Reality and their predictions can start to part ways within months of publishing, and their next statement has dates and percentages revised, but never drastically enough to keep up, and the cycle begins again.
I think this reveals a lack of comprehension at a structural level, at the level of how these changes are organised. You’ll never get a mathematical progression to fit with an exponential one, whichever initial conditions you set.
That’s so irrelevant. The current system is 100% unsustainable. I believe that is killing all life on the planet. I mean that might be a big deal someday.
We know there are two absolute that must happen this year we make it so the greater chance of less suffering our children and grandchildren will need to deal with. The stoppage of burning as much fossil fuel as possible like 95% and the sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere, forming into a valuable solid such as carbon fiber. There are 10 entities right now sequestering from the atmosphere for between 600 and $1200 per ton. Considering quality carbon fiber goes anywhere from 2$4000-$32,000 per ton it is easily the greatest economic opportunity in the history of legal tender. A very long list of quite valuable things can be made besides, that item. Architectural, structural pieces, nanotubes, train parts on and on and on and on. This is the greatest opportunity in the history of mankind. It either will make us a kind and just society orienting our brains to the reality of being part of nature and it coexisting, or it will end us. Soon.
Can you suggest what a wild cat research scientist might do with a previously unseen solution to bringing wind and solar into a state of base load, or improving elevated water power from the dismal 15% efficiency of turbines to a real 85% efficiency? Or removing the 'middle man' from the electrical grid and bringing energy generation locally into the local government where profit is not allowed? Resulting in the price of electricity to drop by 89% or more?
Encourage individual or community based power generation. Never rely on a corporation or the government for anything that’s dearly important to you like power or food.
Contrary to the assumption in Item 7, gains in energy intensity (i.e. energy per GDP) are not necessarily gains in genuine energy efficiency. If GDP increases more rapidly than energy production/use, then a decrease in energy intensity results in an increase in energy production/use. Surely RMI people understand this?
Furthermore, re Item 2, the fact that fossil fuels contributed 80% of global total final energy consumption in 2019, the same as in 2009, should be of great concern, It shows that, if we want renewable energy (RE) to replace all fossil fuels before, say, 2050, then the growth in energy consumption must be slowed down. At present, RE is chasing a retreating target. The temporary pause in consumption during the peak of the COVID pandemic should not be grounds for complacency.
To complete the transition to 100% RE (substituting for all fossil energy consumption) rapidly, we must face the barriers frankly.
I became a big fan of RMI 30 years ago, when they were pushing low-flow shower heads, compact-fluorescent lights, and ultralight hydrogen-powered cars. Turns out they were right about the lights but wrong about the cars. They were also wrong about nuclear energy. So I'm a little skeptical of them now. I'd have a more favorable view if they'd own up to having been wrong about some things in the past. Have they ever done that?
If energy becomes cheaper and we increase efficiency, most people want bigger cars/SUVs, larger and m comfortably heated or cooled houses, and generally more consumption. Governments must create alternatives to our wasteful transportation system, work towards mostly plant-based diets, and compel people to greatly decrease consumption. The result of the proposals of Humane Civilization Worldwide will not only help to decrease atmospheric CO2 within years rather than decades, it will result in people being healthier, simpler living with more interpersonal connectedness.
Heinz Aeschbach, MD, president of Humane Civilization worldwide (humanecivilization.org)
Perplexities galore in this discussion. I find myself in agreement with a little of every post's arguments All make some good points it seems to me. Not liked are abusive posts.
All in all, a delightful discussion. Well worth re-reading. Five stars! ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Good to see Simon Sharpe onboard here - still hoping for a review of Five Times Faster from Andy. It made a lot of sense to me, but I did wonder whether there were nuances about risk assessment (and Simon's assertion that it's really not done very much) that are worth teasing out
I think that you are missing the point. The goal of the Green energy transition is to radically reduce global fossil fuels usage. This is clearly not happening. Renewable energy is in addition to fossil fuels, instead of replacing fossil fuels.
That's about to change. A newly developed wind turbine system has been developed that will make base load wind common place. Watch the Philippines this year. Electricity will be generated locally using local government equipment, meaning no profit in the electricity generated. This means electric costs drop by 90% with a fully wind driven process. Every single local populace will want to build these things this year, not next! No patents here all free to use.
We’ll see. Most seemingly amazing technological innovations flop when they enter the harsh world of reality. I hope that you are right, but I remain skeptical.
A priori correct expectations are better than incorrect expectations, but correct expectations have to be contingent on policy.
Maybe the answer to the question posed is that they are less optimistic about the creation of policies to incentivize the adoption of low cost zero and negative net CO2 emitting technologies.
That's about to change. A newly developed wind turbine system has been developed that will make base load wind common place. Watch the Philippines this year. Electricity will be generated locally using local government equipment, meaning no profit in the electricity generated. This means electric costs drop by 90% with a fully wind driven process. Every single local populace will want to build these things this year, not next! No patents here all free to use.
That's about to change. A new wind turbine system has been developed that will make base load wind common place. Watch the Philippines this year. Electricity will be generated locally using local government equipment, meaning no profit in the electricity generated. This means electric costs drop by 90% with a fully wind driven process. Every single local populace will want to build these things this year, not next! No patents here all free to use.
This is a sad example of incoherent, poorly thought-out boosterism.
There isn't enough time in the day to take down all of the bad or irrelevant arguments presented, but I'll try:
1. Of course adoption of new technology is not linear. It may be that we are on a path toward economically viable renewable energy for general application. Even if this is true, it will take a great deal of time to complete the transition - it took nearly 300 years for coal to replace wood as a primary energy source in Britain. Arguing that adoption is nonlinear is a non sequitur if the claim is that renewables are on the brink of becoming the primary source. It's especially irrelevant if the claim (not made here but apparently treated as axiomatic by the governing class) is that we "must" have Net Zero emissions by 2030 (or 2035, or 2050, or any other date).
2. Lagging vs. leading indicators - it's useful to think of flows vs. stocks for energy sources. Not addressed is the viability of the "flows" of new renewable energy facilities. There seems to be an assumption that renewable installations will continue exponential growth, without acknowledging that this implies exponential increases of subsidies, which will be harder and harder for cash-strapped governments to maintain. If our post-2008 era of extremely low interest rates is over, renewables become even less viable economically.
3. Turning points can produce disruptive change, but they're only obvious in hindsight. Based on contemporary accounts, we've been decisively turning away from oil for the last 50 years. Some day, these claims will undoubtedly be true, but there's no good evidence they're true now. It's rather odd to claim that the energy transition will result in both falling and higher prices for oil - did anyone read this article before publishing it?
4. "The largest areas of fossil fuel demand are the most vulnerable. Power, road transport, and low-temperature heat make up nearly 70 percent of fossil fuel demand, and they already face the threat of successful and rapidly growing renewable technologies." It's worth pointing out that this threat is driven entirely by legal and regulatory requirements, backed by subsidies for renewables. Once the cost of the subsidies and the implications of the carbon-free system become clear, I doubt they will continue to be politically viable, even to the avowedly progressive parties in the western world.
5. Of course the world isn't static - it's in constant motion. That doesn't mean that the changes are predictable, or that they will advance to meet the preferences of people who share the ecological aesthetic of the Rocky Mountain Institute. The claim that solar is the cheapest energy source in history, slipped in as if it were established fact, is a sly maneuver, but won't help when confronting the physics and economics.
6. It's true that climate change isn't the only motivation for pursuing renewable energy. Some of it is aesthetic, and pleases people who don't have to make it work. Some of it is rent-seeking, where elites steer public resources to favored causes. The rest of the claims in this section are evocatively poetic, but very short on claims of fact.
7. Increasing energy efficiency is a good thing, but totally irrelevant to whether or not we are in an "energy transition". If you accept the prior assumptions, increasing energy efficiency should decrease the demand for all energy, meaning less reason to construct new energy facilities of any type, including renewables. There's also a subtle shift from talking about "energy efficiency" (useful work extracted from input energy) to "energy intensity" (energy consumption per dollar of GDP). The change in energy intensity is related to a switch from manufacturing to services in the economy - less steel and aluminum, more insurance and banking. This entire section is irrelevant to whether there is, or should be, a transition to renewable energy.
8. "Lost in complexity" seems to argue that models are useless in predicting or analyzing the future of energy use. I actually agree with this claim, at least in part. But it makes a mockery of everything that came before, because the rest of the article is based precisely on the claim that the fundamentals are known, making the future predictable.
Rather than fluff like this, which tosses around undefined terms like "energy transition", we'd be better served by clear statements on subjects like these:
"What does the energy transition mean? Which old sources will be abandoned, and which new ones adopted? What's the timeframe to accomplish this transition?"
"What is the cost of implementing this transition? How will it be paid? How does this cause compete for scarce resources with things like providing comfortable standards of living for an ageing population, defending against threats from China and Russia, or expanding access to healthcare?"
"What is the experience in incorporating renewable energy into existing power systems? How much is feasible from an economic and technical standpoint? What further enabling technologies would be required to achieve any particular level of incorporation?"
"How much fossil fuel consumption is used for purposes other than electricity (fertilizer, plastics, chemicals, steel)? Are there alternatives for these applications?
These are obviously complex questions, and no article or book could address all in any depth. But ignoring them gives boosters an unwarranted optimism that they can see all the solutions.
Excellent riposte
As for your ridiculous economic argument, #ByDefinition #UniversalHealthcare, and I mean a really quality policy that covers optical dental and mental health as well as things like Cadillac policy holders receive that amount of money in their paycheck since it’s already built into the corporate system on and on and on could be achieved for $5000 less per taxpayer liability per year than the 11,000 liability each tax for your face is now for just Medicaid and Medicare serving only 140 million people.
The main economic factor you and most people are completely missing or intentionally unaware of is the speed sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere is needed by an unbelievable, unimaginable tonnage. All of that carbon could be formed into a very valuable substance. Basically lining itself out as the greatest economic opportunity in the history of legal tender . Your naysay fossil fuel agitprop fellation bullshit is pathetic.
Yes lost in the real world lol
Dere dems trees! Plant baby plant like your life depends on it cause it does!!
That means nothing in terms of the climate crisis. That needs done in terms of eco-habitat restoration. It would take 20 million trees to absorb the carbon emitted by the United States alone in one year.
No the statistically significant or relevant action.
We certainly do have to have a net 0 and we also have to have the two crustacean of carbon from the atmosphere turned into a valuable solid. Those are two absolutes. And they should’ve been online by now on a massive scale. If we would’ve started during the Clinton era, we could’ve spent one or 1.5% of GDP and have a handle on this. But no, we let people like you and your fossil fuel fellation buddies steer policy.
I ❤️ the RMI and have a family member who is a member, so I was very prepared to object to your criticisms. On reading them and as much as I respect the RMI and it's aspirations, concede you make some valid points. I love good analytic thinking even when for emotional reasons I'm predisposed to oppose some of the conclusions.
"Concentrating on the size of the fossil fuel system today is like focusing on the large number of horses in 1900 —"
Excellent essay, Thanks 👍 .
The problem with the energy transition is that it is far too late: Climate catastrophes are not waiting until we bring the atmospheric CO2 down – it is not about carbon neutrality, it is about CO2 levels remaining as high as millions of years ago. There are vicious cycles; all ice of the globe except ice on the high mountains of Antarctica will keep melting. Weather events are rapidly becoming more frequent and much more deadly, many densely populated areas become unlivable and there will most likely be violence worldwide. We are moving towards a collapse of many civilizations. Our only hope is radical government actions that completely restructure our industries and land management - we must save energy and resources in every way possible and realize what is described in humanecivilization.org, drawdown.org, and other sources. Government actions must be more dramatic than after the attack on Pearl Harbor when all industries had to revamp and work for government contracts in the war efforts. If we lead, we can expect China, India and most other countries to follow.
Heinz Aeschbach, MD, president of Humane Civilization worldwide
More important than net zero is the sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere at least 2.5 trillion yes trillion with the T tons of the approximately 3,5 trillion tons that we have emitted, and the entirety of the industrial revolution.
Absolutely
The level if stupidity in this post is truly mind blowing. One third of fossil fuel production is used for fertilizers. More is used for plastics. Diesel is used for mining processing and refining metals used for renewables, and to transport renewables.
2 major offshore wind projects in the Atlantic have been canceled because the numbers no longer make sense.
Coal is used for steel production. The cost of thousands of miles of new high voltage transmission lines runs in the trillions. The wind solar battery and transmission lines needed would require land the size of Texas, and land the size of New Jersey to dispose of the toxic waste. The fact is you can't electrify air transportation, heavy machinery, shipping and other significant sectors of the economy.
You must be afflicted with a major case of rectal cranial inversion to publish this garbage.
Toxic conventional agrabusiness model is killing the soil. We can easily feed the planet organically. I am living proof of that. I outgrow all my conventional neighbors in every single row, crop or small green, forage, and fruit. Aside from corn. It should not be part of the human diet. So the 15 to 18% that I grow less of is not relevant because at least 40% of all the corners this goes to ethanol. The dumbest Brown is fuel imaginable. It takes 5 quarts of gasoline to make a gallon of ethanol.
Moving forward
The wind farm cancellations have nothing to do with their efficiency or the legitimacy of the method. It’s a political situation. And I’m quite sure you know that. Don’t be an asshole. That’s not exactly a hard rule or a high bar is it? I’m in my God Boy, did you go to kindergarten, so please and thank you, open doors, be nice you know that kind of stuff. ....?
The amount of coal needed to produce steel is left in one percent of the total fossil fuel emissions. Shove that shit all the way up your rectum.
The proper grid design, no matter the source of energy are micro grid and community source to power. Needing barely any new transmission lines. Oh, that is based on the poorest design possible. Incredibly disingenuous of you.
Lastly, there is no toxic waste 100% of both win turbines, solar, photovoltaic, panels, and the batteries used to store. The energy are completely recyclable. An obvious must going into the future.
You just dumped a big old train load a stupid. I would hide if I were you.
That is either 100% completely untrue or 180° out of context. I’m not even going to bother to refute that stupid shit.
There is one gigantic indicator you have completely omitted. Probably should have been number one on the list.
1 The failure of the federal government to incentivize renewables and legislate the true cost of fossil fuels upon the extractor, producer, and user.
2 Absence of government policy concerning its own policy and daily existence. (all vehicle purchases, being EV, for instance.)
3 the absolute failure of a simple solution to suppress dissemination of bovine fecal matter. Especially online.
A simple legislative mandate of “absolute 100% positive verification of account holder identity”
Would illuminate 90% of fake azz intentionally propagandist, sock puppet nonsense.
I’m sure this is a tiny fraction of federal government actions that would be instituted if it weren’t for the donor class loyalty.
I partially agree with you. Direct carbon pricing, as with a US national Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustment Tariff (citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend) is preferred by economists across the political spectrum (clcouncil.org/media/EconomistsStatement.pdf). Incentivizing renewables is arguably "less bang for the buck", one reason being that incentives can be gamed more easily than direct carbon pricing. And command-and-control measures, i.e. restrictive regulations, run up against the US Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Those who wish to see progress toward decarbonization of the US and global economies, must be aware of the political environment. As of 2023, carbon pricing has not won the approval of US voters, and SCOTUS has weakened or struck down several executive actions aimed at limiting aggregate US emissions. The federal government has not completely failed to incentivize renewables, however. The most significant US collective (i.e. government) actions to date are the "Inflation Reduction Act" of 2022, and the "Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act" enacted at the same time. Both are flawed and inadequate to eliminate our aggregate greenhouse emissions by themselves. In the opinions of people I trust, however, they're far better than nothing. That's a good enough reason to keep Democrats in office!
You never touched on the two absolute certainty’s that must happen. The stopping of burning fossil fuels and sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere pretty lame.
We can do anything we want with the market. We have proven that there’s not a single free market sector in the entire country. You haven’t removed any carbon in a single thing you’ve mentioned. The sequestration from the atmosphere formed into a solid, is an absolute mandated prerequisite.
There are two absolute prerequisites to saving complex life form on planet earth.
1 The stopping of fossil fuel extraction and use.
2 sequestering carbon from the atmosphere, and forming it into a valuable solid.
These two policy real world mandates should be incentivized and rewarded at every opportunity.
Thank you for this beautiful summary of the misunderstandings and false equivalences that we can all be guilty of when trying to get our heads around the current energy transition. It chimes very true with my own experience of reading renowned leaders of business and policy forecasting incremental change in areas such as EV uptake over the next decade. Reality and their predictions can start to part ways within months of publishing, and their next statement has dates and percentages revised, but never drastically enough to keep up, and the cycle begins again.
I think this reveals a lack of comprehension at a structural level, at the level of how these changes are organised. You’ll never get a mathematical progression to fit with an exponential one, whichever initial conditions you set.
That’s so irrelevant. The current system is 100% unsustainable. I believe that is killing all life on the planet. I mean that might be a big deal someday.
We know there are two absolute that must happen this year we make it so the greater chance of less suffering our children and grandchildren will need to deal with. The stoppage of burning as much fossil fuel as possible like 95% and the sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere, forming into a valuable solid such as carbon fiber. There are 10 entities right now sequestering from the atmosphere for between 600 and $1200 per ton. Considering quality carbon fiber goes anywhere from 2$4000-$32,000 per ton it is easily the greatest economic opportunity in the history of legal tender. A very long list of quite valuable things can be made besides, that item. Architectural, structural pieces, nanotubes, train parts on and on and on and on. This is the greatest opportunity in the history of mankind. It either will make us a kind and just society orienting our brains to the reality of being part of nature and it coexisting, or it will end us. Soon.
Can you suggest what a wild cat research scientist might do with a previously unseen solution to bringing wind and solar into a state of base load, or improving elevated water power from the dismal 15% efficiency of turbines to a real 85% efficiency? Or removing the 'middle man' from the electrical grid and bringing energy generation locally into the local government where profit is not allowed? Resulting in the price of electricity to drop by 89% or more?
Encourage individual or community based power generation. Never rely on a corporation or the government for anything that’s dearly important to you like power or food.
If you would like to see it in motion let me know and I will send you Barangay contacts
How do we price in the inevitable population and economic growth in Africa over the next 20 years.
Contrary to the assumption in Item 7, gains in energy intensity (i.e. energy per GDP) are not necessarily gains in genuine energy efficiency. If GDP increases more rapidly than energy production/use, then a decrease in energy intensity results in an increase in energy production/use. Surely RMI people understand this?
Furthermore, re Item 2, the fact that fossil fuels contributed 80% of global total final energy consumption in 2019, the same as in 2009, should be of great concern, It shows that, if we want renewable energy (RE) to replace all fossil fuels before, say, 2050, then the growth in energy consumption must be slowed down. At present, RE is chasing a retreating target. The temporary pause in consumption during the peak of the COVID pandemic should not be grounds for complacency.
To complete the transition to 100% RE (substituting for all fossil energy consumption) rapidly, we must face the barriers frankly.
I became a big fan of RMI 30 years ago, when they were pushing low-flow shower heads, compact-fluorescent lights, and ultralight hydrogen-powered cars. Turns out they were right about the lights but wrong about the cars. They were also wrong about nuclear energy. So I'm a little skeptical of them now. I'd have a more favorable view if they'd own up to having been wrong about some things in the past. Have they ever done that?
If energy becomes cheaper and we increase efficiency, most people want bigger cars/SUVs, larger and m comfortably heated or cooled houses, and generally more consumption. Governments must create alternatives to our wasteful transportation system, work towards mostly plant-based diets, and compel people to greatly decrease consumption. The result of the proposals of Humane Civilization Worldwide will not only help to decrease atmospheric CO2 within years rather than decades, it will result in people being healthier, simpler living with more interpersonal connectedness.
Heinz Aeschbach, MD, president of Humane Civilization worldwide (humanecivilization.org)
Fossil fuel misdirection stop eating meat loser trolls not welcome here.
Perplexities galore in this discussion. I find myself in agreement with a little of every post's arguments All make some good points it seems to me. Not liked are abusive posts.
All in all, a delightful discussion. Well worth re-reading. Five stars! ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Good to see Simon Sharpe onboard here - still hoping for a review of Five Times Faster from Andy. It made a lot of sense to me, but I did wonder whether there were nuances about risk assessment (and Simon's assertion that it's really not done very much) that are worth teasing out
I think that you are missing the point. The goal of the Green energy transition is to radically reduce global fossil fuels usage. This is clearly not happening. Renewable energy is in addition to fossil fuels, instead of replacing fossil fuels.
That's about to change. A newly developed wind turbine system has been developed that will make base load wind common place. Watch the Philippines this year. Electricity will be generated locally using local government equipment, meaning no profit in the electricity generated. This means electric costs drop by 90% with a fully wind driven process. Every single local populace will want to build these things this year, not next! No patents here all free to use.
We’ll see. Most seemingly amazing technological innovations flop when they enter the harsh world of reality. I hope that you are right, but I remain skeptical.
A priori correct expectations are better than incorrect expectations, but correct expectations have to be contingent on policy.
Maybe the answer to the question posed is that they are less optimistic about the creation of policies to incentivize the adoption of low cost zero and negative net CO2 emitting technologies.
I will repeat ...
That's about to change. A newly developed wind turbine system has been developed that will make base load wind common place. Watch the Philippines this year. Electricity will be generated locally using local government equipment, meaning no profit in the electricity generated. This means electric costs drop by 90% with a fully wind driven process. Every single local populace will want to build these things this year, not next! No patents here all free to use.
A valuable list of sources of misperception on energy trends. But how do you counter arguments, like that of Resources for the Future, that we're still in energy ADDITION mode, not an energy transition? (See here: https://www.rff.org/news/media-highlights/despite-renewables-growth-there-has-never-been-an-energy-transition/). More from me on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xMimQzFITk
I will repeat ...
That's about to change. A new wind turbine system has been developed that will make base load wind common place. Watch the Philippines this year. Electricity will be generated locally using local government equipment, meaning no profit in the electricity generated. This means electric costs drop by 90% with a fully wind driven process. Every single local populace will want to build these things this year, not next! No patents here all free to use.