Researchers: World can reach 100% renewable energy system by/before 2050(helsinkitimes.fi)
helsinkitimes.fi
Researchers: World can reach 100% renewable energy system by/before 2050
https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/themes/themes/science-and-technology/22012-researchers-agree-the-world-can-reach-a-100-renewable-energy-system-by-or-before-2050.html
318 comments
It blows my mind that the very same people who can't seem to talk about anything but growing the economy don't see the incredible opportunity to grow the economy that building tons of new green tech represents. Like, completely replacing the world's energy infrastructure is more jobs (and money) than all the defense projects and military tech we could ever think up, combined.
It's almost like it was never about the economy, but just about keeping the existing set of corporations raking in the profits and protecting them from disruption.
It's almost like it was never about the economy, but just about keeping the existing set of corporations raking in the profits and protecting them from disruption.
Really glad to see this discussion! My former advisor, Mark Jacobson, is one of the authors of the paper cited in the article. His book "100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything" [1] is a good starting point for folks with a more technical background. I recently started working on my own version [2] for young people and beginners that uses code as a medium to explore these ideas.
Perhaps more directly relevant for the HN crowd, Tom Greenwood's book "Sustainable Web Design" [3] provides simple strategies for reducing the climate impacts of the software systems we build.
[1] https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook...
[2] https://goodenergy.cc
[3] https://abookapart.com/products/sustainable-web-design/
Perhaps more directly relevant for the HN crowd, Tom Greenwood's book "Sustainable Web Design" [3] provides simple strategies for reducing the climate impacts of the software systems we build.
[1] https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook...
[2] https://goodenergy.cc
[3] https://abookapart.com/products/sustainable-web-design/
I read these titles and always facepalm and laugh.
If you remove researchers who have differing opinions *of course* you’ll get the claims you want. Particularly, when those researchers are funded in a way that incentivizes particular claims.
Now to these easily debunked claims, look at energy production vs capacity vs consumption in Germany:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany
Even though renewable energy capacity is 60% renewables, energy consumption is only 10% renewables.
This is every country. Because renewable energy comes in bursts. This also doesn’t include the fact it costs a ton of fossil fuel energy to produce a lot of these renewable systems (solar, wind turbines, batteries).
I’m not saying this isn’t a “doable” goal, but only way you might get there by 2050 is destroying quality of life, population reduction and investing all resources into this space. You’d also have to force countries like China and Russia with force… so good luck.
If you remove researchers who have differing opinions *of course* you’ll get the claims you want. Particularly, when those researchers are funded in a way that incentivizes particular claims.
Now to these easily debunked claims, look at energy production vs capacity vs consumption in Germany:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany
Even though renewable energy capacity is 60% renewables, energy consumption is only 10% renewables.
This is every country. Because renewable energy comes in bursts. This also doesn’t include the fact it costs a ton of fossil fuel energy to produce a lot of these renewable systems (solar, wind turbines, batteries).
I’m not saying this isn’t a “doable” goal, but only way you might get there by 2050 is destroying quality of life, population reduction and investing all resources into this space. You’d also have to force countries like China and Russia with force… so good luck.
Has anyone seen any good explanations or visualisations of how long term storage would be achieved? For instance in Britain solar in winter has 1/10th of the output in summer, and we can have lulls in wind output for many days at a time. Using these resources to reduce gas use makes sense, but our current plans call for about 30% of electricity generated from gas using carbon capture and storage. How would this be handled under a 100% renewable scenario? Is it just generating Hydrogen?
Or it is that these intermittency gaps can be closed using long distance connectors? Has anyone done studies showing exactly where resources would need to be located and the length of connectors, modelled against weather and demand patterns?
Or it is that these intermittency gaps can be closed using long distance connectors? Has anyone done studies showing exactly where resources would need to be located and the length of connectors, modelled against weather and demand patterns?
Just like when dealing with the losing side of a war we need to have a serious debate into implementing an exit strategy for Oil&Gas companies.
We have plenty of technical solutions, but they will all continue to face an enormous amount of friction due to Oil&Gas profits/lobby.
We need a political solution and we need to have an honest debate on how to sunset a trillion dollar industry without them putting up a fight.
We have plenty of technical solutions, but they will all continue to face an enormous amount of friction due to Oil&Gas profits/lobby.
We need a political solution and we need to have an honest debate on how to sunset a trillion dollar industry without them putting up a fight.
> Many young people are depressed because they feel climate change cannot be stopped. We want to offer them hope by showing that our world can get all its energy needs from renewables at a price below that of fossil fuels
idk, to me saying that fossils can be replaced by 2050 is pretty much same as saying that climate change cannot be stopped. I think the discussion has largely moved from preventing the climate change to trying manage how bad it will be, as it seems pretty inevitable at this point.
idk, to me saying that fossils can be replaced by 2050 is pretty much same as saying that climate change cannot be stopped. I think the discussion has largely moved from preventing the climate change to trying manage how bad it will be, as it seems pretty inevitable at this point.
I like Vaclav Smil’s shorthand tool for assessing these claims. Be suspicious of any predicted year for full renewable rollout that ends in a zero or a five.
The tipping point has come and gone as far as the climate trajectory goes, although actions taken today will reduce the slope of the trajectory say 50 years from now. When you throw the rudder over on the Titanic too late, you must prepare for the impact. Hence this kind of messaging is rather futile:
> "Many young people are depressed because they feel climate change cannot be stopped. We want to offer them hope by showing that our world can get all its energy needs from renewables at a price below that of fossil fuels. When we first proposed this, we were ridiculed, but this paper shows our ideas are now scientific mainstream", says Auke Hoekstra from the Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands."
The one (going to 100% renewables) no longer implies the other (stabilizing the climate system within the lifetime of anyone alive today). Hugely expensive steps must be taken - retreat from flood plains that will be experiencing 500-year floods every 5 years, securing water supplies to survive epic droughts (with the additional loss of much of the seasonal snowpack in many regions), building termite-mound like architecture to handle the record heat waves, moving critical infrastructure back from the coastlines to deal with rising sea levels and saltwater intrusion, dealing with insects that love these new warm conditions, etc.
On top of that, replacing the existing fossil fuel infrastructure is going to cost trillions and require a complete reorganization of the global economic system - just look at all the oil tankers, pipelines, internal combustion engines, gas-and-coal fired power plants. No time to watch TikTok videos, it's going to be work, work, work. Scaling up industrial production of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries by a factor of what, 100X? Better get busy, humans.
Think of it more as an exciting challenge, adapting to these frightening new conditions - interesting times!. Of course, we'll have to raid the wealth of the fossil fuel sector and their investors to pay for all this adaptation and industrial development. Sticking the major producers with the bill makes optional sense. Implementing a ban on the global trade in fossil fuels would also be reasonable under these conditions (note that this was the first major step in eliminating the practice of chattel slavery, for comparison).
> "Many young people are depressed because they feel climate change cannot be stopped. We want to offer them hope by showing that our world can get all its energy needs from renewables at a price below that of fossil fuels. When we first proposed this, we were ridiculed, but this paper shows our ideas are now scientific mainstream", says Auke Hoekstra from the Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands."
The one (going to 100% renewables) no longer implies the other (stabilizing the climate system within the lifetime of anyone alive today). Hugely expensive steps must be taken - retreat from flood plains that will be experiencing 500-year floods every 5 years, securing water supplies to survive epic droughts (with the additional loss of much of the seasonal snowpack in many regions), building termite-mound like architecture to handle the record heat waves, moving critical infrastructure back from the coastlines to deal with rising sea levels and saltwater intrusion, dealing with insects that love these new warm conditions, etc.
On top of that, replacing the existing fossil fuel infrastructure is going to cost trillions and require a complete reorganization of the global economic system - just look at all the oil tankers, pipelines, internal combustion engines, gas-and-coal fired power plants. No time to watch TikTok videos, it's going to be work, work, work. Scaling up industrial production of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries by a factor of what, 100X? Better get busy, humans.
Think of it more as an exciting challenge, adapting to these frightening new conditions - interesting times!. Of course, we'll have to raid the wealth of the fossil fuel sector and their investors to pay for all this adaptation and industrial development. Sticking the major producers with the bill makes optional sense. Implementing a ban on the global trade in fossil fuels would also be reasonable under these conditions (note that this was the first major step in eliminating the practice of chattel slavery, for comparison).
Now add a political researcher to the group and see that percentage drop rapidly
The issue isn't that we as a race can reach 100% renewable energy, it's at what cost? Right now displacing fossil fuels comes at such an enormous financial cost it's an all of humanity thing or none (or very little) of humanity thing. Also there would be such high costs for poor nations that rich nations would have to pay way more than their proportional share. Sadly it's wishful thinking to get the entire human population/their respective representatives and despots to agree to solve this problem. Our best hope is that a new technological solution with near zero marginal cost emerges and displaces fossil fuels as much as possible.
It's all about the tradeoff. 100% renewable energy would nuke the economy.
I find this highly unlikely, but then again I'm not a "researcher", so what do I know?
I’ve researched this extensively and I don’t agree, so there’s that.
This is a common insidious tactic of the media…pay attention to how presumptuous they are especially in headlines. I can’t even keep track of how many baseless claims they make as if they’re accepted fact anymore.
This is a common insidious tactic of the media…pay attention to how presumptuous they are especially in headlines. I can’t even keep track of how many baseless claims they make as if they’re accepted fact anymore.
They could start by not commuting to the office/university
Cue substance free ideological posting in 3... 2...
Why not offer a small list of most relevant studies then? I can claim there are hundreds of studies and that MIGHT be true or not, offer a small glimpse is not only useful to teach readers looking for sources but also to prove I've done my research not just claim to have done it.
Beside that: I doubt. Cyclically we see promise, like IBM research that cyclically say they achieve a hyper-big advances in storage, something that "in the near future" can store Zettabyte of data in a rice grain etc, and I still have to see anything even similar. I have built my new home, just six years ago, well insulated, airtight, with proper ventilation, recently upgraded from passive temperature recovery (classic VMC with a paper heat-exchanger) to a heat-pump one, with a small p.v. and lithium storage, all electric again with heat-pumps etc. well it can potentially be "autonomous" IF I'm willing to waste a very big amount of money in a very big battery, much more space for solar panels to have enough energy to recharge the bigger battery AND still depending on a grid or generator for backup because a "reasonably bigger" battery (BEVs alike size) suffice to be comfortable just from a day to the next. Just two day means I need more land to harvest enough energy from the Sun. Oh and that being in France south Alps so in a significantly sunny place. Oh I'm just talking about a home, not a factory.
Sure we can already made let's say a glass production AND recycling factory 100% circular and renewable, we just need mountain hydro nearby. Enough, perhaps, if we are Norway with many mountains, water, little population. Or maybe Iceland with geothermal. Hardly for France.
So far we have seen MANY promises in terms of new battery tech, but essentially nothing really ready. Potentially in 2050 we can even have finally achieved nuclear fusion, witch is renewable formally. But we can't forecast that. It's a hope. It might be even computed in a game-of-if: if we finally discover a battery tech with this and that characteristic we can produce on scale with this and that intensity what time it take to spread it? It's still a study, but just an hypothetical one.
What we see so far is that FOR HOMES we can made single-family homes almost everywhere and power that with electricity only at rate "small enough" to be sustainable even at some arctic latitudes. This on scale means we need abandon dense tall-buildings since YES, we can made them TODAY with similar energy needs BUT we can't really upgrade them in the future, so to be future proof we need homes like cars, with a longer life-cycle but still small enough to be created and re-created after a certain amount of times (like a single human life) to align them with current needs and tech at any point in time. It might be doable if we agree to do so even before 2050 at least in western world, but I see no real push to do so. Just few do so on their own, no plans to design a new society seems to go in that direction, UN New Urban Agenda goes actually in the OPPOSITE direction. The rest are collection of dreams.
Beside that: I doubt. Cyclically we see promise, like IBM research that cyclically say they achieve a hyper-big advances in storage, something that "in the near future" can store Zettabyte of data in a rice grain etc, and I still have to see anything even similar. I have built my new home, just six years ago, well insulated, airtight, with proper ventilation, recently upgraded from passive temperature recovery (classic VMC with a paper heat-exchanger) to a heat-pump one, with a small p.v. and lithium storage, all electric again with heat-pumps etc. well it can potentially be "autonomous" IF I'm willing to waste a very big amount of money in a very big battery, much more space for solar panels to have enough energy to recharge the bigger battery AND still depending on a grid or generator for backup because a "reasonably bigger" battery (BEVs alike size) suffice to be comfortable just from a day to the next. Just two day means I need more land to harvest enough energy from the Sun. Oh and that being in France south Alps so in a significantly sunny place. Oh I'm just talking about a home, not a factory.
Sure we can already made let's say a glass production AND recycling factory 100% circular and renewable, we just need mountain hydro nearby. Enough, perhaps, if we are Norway with many mountains, water, little population. Or maybe Iceland with geothermal. Hardly for France.
So far we have seen MANY promises in terms of new battery tech, but essentially nothing really ready. Potentially in 2050 we can even have finally achieved nuclear fusion, witch is renewable formally. But we can't forecast that. It's a hope. It might be even computed in a game-of-if: if we finally discover a battery tech with this and that characteristic we can produce on scale with this and that intensity what time it take to spread it? It's still a study, but just an hypothetical one.
What we see so far is that FOR HOMES we can made single-family homes almost everywhere and power that with electricity only at rate "small enough" to be sustainable even at some arctic latitudes. This on scale means we need abandon dense tall-buildings since YES, we can made them TODAY with similar energy needs BUT we can't really upgrade them in the future, so to be future proof we need homes like cars, with a longer life-cycle but still small enough to be created and re-created after a certain amount of times (like a single human life) to align them with current needs and tech at any point in time. It might be doable if we agree to do so even before 2050 at least in western world, but I see no real push to do so. Just few do so on their own, no plans to design a new society seems to go in that direction, UN New Urban Agenda goes actually in the OPPOSITE direction. The rest are collection of dreams.
[deleted]
the establishment just loves to latch onto a narrative and push it till....either they win...or... there's a civil war...
How many paid "experts" do you need to "set the Science"?
Tell that to the electric grid. Natural gas is still king in the U.S, and always will be. That's because it's the only power source that can scale with demand. When everyone turns their AC on in the summer, or heat in the winter, renewables can only offset the cost.
Ah, linear extrapolationists are again at their game.
The world doesn't need 100% renewable energy, and does not need to build enormous power storage farms to deal with unstable power supply from solar and wind. The correct answer is nuclear power, and the sooner people will stop having NDS (Nuclear Derangement Syndrome), the better for humanity.
The world doesn't need 100% renewable energy, and does not need to build enormous power storage farms to deal with unstable power supply from solar and wind. The correct answer is nuclear power, and the sooner people will stop having NDS (Nuclear Derangement Syndrome), the better for humanity.
> energy storage
The thing no one talks about.
A battery that can store energy over 24 hours costs more than an equivalent nuclear power plant, loses half it's capacity within a decade and has never been build.
The closest one in South Australia could match a nuclear plant for all of 10 minutes and still needed the solar panel and wind generation to work.
We're out of time. We don't have another 40 years to wait for renewables to mature.
The thing no one talks about.
A battery that can store energy over 24 hours costs more than an equivalent nuclear power plant, loses half it's capacity within a decade and has never been build.
The closest one in South Australia could match a nuclear plant for all of 10 minutes and still needed the solar panel and wind generation to work.
We're out of time. We don't have another 40 years to wait for renewables to mature.
The world could reach 100% renewable energy by next year if every citizen took a massive cut to their quality of life.
And it isn't going to happen at all if at least some citizens don't take a cut to their quality of life (compared to what they could have had with no action)
So it's a trade-off....
And it isn't going to happen at all if at least some citizens don't take a cut to their quality of life (compared to what they could have had with no action)
So it's a trade-off....
We've already allowed narrow-field experts to largely dicate our policy re: covid response, and the results are worse than the disease. Let's hope more people are brought into decision making this time.
Renewable energy is a lot less energy dense than oil or nuclear. Just to maintain renewable energy projects we need to re-invest about 25% of its energy output to keep it going long-term. This 25% needs to come from your living standards. Compare that to oil of about 10% and nuclear of less than 5%. Going green means that we loose productivity and have less money available on non-essential products and services. And many "greens" think they can keep their iPhone - I dont think so -, far away vacation - nope -, having a car - maybe a tiny one which you share with the whole family (incl. uncles and aunts).
Nonsense because non of it is actually renewable.
There is an insane amount of commodity input into so called renewable energy sources.
And what happens once you have two or more dry, becalmed winters, going to be hellishly cold when there is no juice in the battery and you've killed all meaningful hydrocarbon energy sources. On a long enough time line you will eventually not have enough storage to cover these scenarios. The idiocy of the narrative "climate change makes the climate unpredicable, solution become dependent on the climate", fucking moronic.
The EU could be a revelation of what's to come. The current drought has brought hydro to it's limits, the progressive liberal foreign policy has starved it of hydrocarbons. If this winter is cold and becalmed europe will collapse and all of you bleeding heart liberal bear responsibility for the millions who will die.
And if we do get through this winter we'll have the massive global shortfall in food due to the war on fertilizer both the Netherlands and Canada are waging.
You know what, fuck the animals and fuck the climate I want to be able to eat and not freeze to death.
No credit no control. No vote no power.
There is an insane amount of commodity input into so called renewable energy sources.
And what happens once you have two or more dry, becalmed winters, going to be hellishly cold when there is no juice in the battery and you've killed all meaningful hydrocarbon energy sources. On a long enough time line you will eventually not have enough storage to cover these scenarios. The idiocy of the narrative "climate change makes the climate unpredicable, solution become dependent on the climate", fucking moronic.
The EU could be a revelation of what's to come. The current drought has brought hydro to it's limits, the progressive liberal foreign policy has starved it of hydrocarbons. If this winter is cold and becalmed europe will collapse and all of you bleeding heart liberal bear responsibility for the millions who will die.
And if we do get through this winter we'll have the massive global shortfall in food due to the war on fertilizer both the Netherlands and Canada are waging.
You know what, fuck the animals and fuck the climate I want to be able to eat and not freeze to death.
No credit no control. No vote no power.
Technology isn't what's stopping us from saving the planet, greedy corporations and corrupt politicians are.