Economically recoverable is an important point - also - sorry - we don’t produce fossil fuels any more - we extract them - I believe I explained that in detail right down to the annual exajoule content
Good general analysis, but missing important detail:
1) the real price of renewables isn't what is generally shown (price per kWh generated) but should also include the cost of maintaining backup for intermittency. When overcapacity, battery storage and fossil fuel backup are included, the real cost is still much higher than gas. I agree that costs will continue to fall, but exponential isn't forever, there is an s-curve. Not yet clear what the real cost will be by the time the curve straightens out.
2) conspicuous by its absence in the article is the word 'nuclear'. I agree fossils are on the way out, but a large part of the replacement will be nuclear not wind / solar. Simple calculations of the total land use and expense of replacing all global energy use with wind / solar will show why.
3) countries with no reliable electrical infrastructure like Pakistan will take any electricity over none, so intermittent solar for household is good enough. As countries develop they will want more reliable supply, ie nuclear. Developing countries needing always-available energy for industry will rely on cheapest available supply which for the next decade will still be fossil fuel. And already-built plants will mostly keep running until send of life
Bottom line, fossil fuels will still be a large part of energy supply for 30-40 years, and an important minority for decades after
Fair points but the trend of solar and batteries is so fast that the lcoe as you mention is now lower than operating fossil plants / see eg Ember or Lazard latest works
Nuclear has been a part of the energy system for over 80 years and accounts for less generating power now than solar wind - it has real limitations economically and scalability wise hence its mid-tier status almost a century - and without France and China it would be niche
Reliable supply comes from ubiquitous energy devices with Infinute energy sources eg daylight and air movement - if nuclear is the solution - why is it not everywhere except in 300 reactors in a few countries ? Accounting for less than 5% global energy ?
Renewables seem like a lie in the sky for reasons of energy density, base load needs, rare metal depletions (eg lithium), their finite life cycles (ie they all need replacing every 25 years), the rising energy costs & environmental destruction of their mining and production, the completely absurd scale of it all, and the empirical fact that we're just adding them to our ever-rising consumption, like a strawberry on top - see your graph and/or Jevons paradox.
Despite our best efforts and our politicians blah blah blah, "renewables" contribute a puny 3% of total global energy production. 80% of it comes from fossil fuels, which have their own problems, not least declining EROI and the overpowering entrenched economic and political interests.
For these reasons and many more, we couldn't transition to a sustainable world even if we gave it our best efforts.
Really interesting article. For us to become carbon free relies on silicon technology in battery tech rather than graphite nodes. This is certainly possible but wide scale usage is still 10y away really.
Why when we discuss a carbon free future is nuclear fusion never mentioned? Fission has its upsides and downsides, not least cost, but fusion offers a better future. Have you done any research into this?
Thanks Nicholas - I have not researched fusion too much as like fission it is not a scalable universal teach like wind and solar. - and it’s long-term timeframe likely means it would not eat into todays emissions problems early enough to make an impact - thanks
Economically recoverable is an important point - also - sorry - we don’t produce fossil fuels any more - we extract them - I believe I explained that in detail right down to the annual exajoule content
Good general analysis, but missing important detail:
1) the real price of renewables isn't what is generally shown (price per kWh generated) but should also include the cost of maintaining backup for intermittency. When overcapacity, battery storage and fossil fuel backup are included, the real cost is still much higher than gas. I agree that costs will continue to fall, but exponential isn't forever, there is an s-curve. Not yet clear what the real cost will be by the time the curve straightens out.
2) conspicuous by its absence in the article is the word 'nuclear'. I agree fossils are on the way out, but a large part of the replacement will be nuclear not wind / solar. Simple calculations of the total land use and expense of replacing all global energy use with wind / solar will show why.
3) countries with no reliable electrical infrastructure like Pakistan will take any electricity over none, so intermittent solar for household is good enough. As countries develop they will want more reliable supply, ie nuclear. Developing countries needing always-available energy for industry will rely on cheapest available supply which for the next decade will still be fossil fuel. And already-built plants will mostly keep running until send of life
Bottom line, fossil fuels will still be a large part of energy supply for 30-40 years, and an important minority for decades after
Fair points but the trend of solar and batteries is so fast that the lcoe as you mention is now lower than operating fossil plants / see eg Ember or Lazard latest works
Nuclear has been a part of the energy system for over 80 years and accounts for less generating power now than solar wind - it has real limitations economically and scalability wise hence its mid-tier status almost a century - and without France and China it would be niche
Reliable supply comes from ubiquitous energy devices with Infinute energy sources eg daylight and air movement - if nuclear is the solution - why is it not everywhere except in 300 reactors in a few countries ? Accounting for less than 5% global energy ?
Renewables seem like a lie in the sky for reasons of energy density, base load needs, rare metal depletions (eg lithium), their finite life cycles (ie they all need replacing every 25 years), the rising energy costs & environmental destruction of their mining and production, the completely absurd scale of it all, and the empirical fact that we're just adding them to our ever-rising consumption, like a strawberry on top - see your graph and/or Jevons paradox.
Despite our best efforts and our politicians blah blah blah, "renewables" contribute a puny 3% of total global energy production. 80% of it comes from fossil fuels, which have their own problems, not least declining EROI and the overpowering entrenched economic and political interests.
For these reasons and many more, we couldn't transition to a sustainable world even if we gave it our best efforts.
I would be happy to learn why I'm wrong 🙏🏻
Really interesting article. For us to become carbon free relies on silicon technology in battery tech rather than graphite nodes. This is certainly possible but wide scale usage is still 10y away really.
Why when we discuss a carbon free future is nuclear fusion never mentioned? Fission has its upsides and downsides, not least cost, but fusion offers a better future. Have you done any research into this?
For sure
Thanks Nicholas - I have not researched fusion too much as like fission it is not a scalable universal teach like wind and solar. - and it’s long-term timeframe likely means it would not eat into todays emissions problems early enough to make an impact - thanks
A fair point. I aim to do some number crunching on the topic so watch out for my piece when it drops and hopefully we can discuss further
Got it - disagree
Please read my latest piece pointing out how the earth has created fossil fuels but that epoch is over
They - fossil fuels- are the exact opposite wind and daylight - they are finite on human timeframes - please read inorganic energy post. Thanks