>The result is a holistic vision of the transition towards a net-negative greenhouse gas emissions economy that can limit global warming to 1.5°C The research

>The result is a holistic vision of the transition towards a net-negative greenhouse gas emissions economy that can limit global warming to 1.5°C The research in question ignores the fact that we've already passed that level. >However, a clear deficit and research gap exist, since a detailed description of the industry sector, i.e. separated major industries such as cement, iron and steel, chemicals, aluminum, pulp and paper, etc., is lacking in almost all cases. Therefore, a full defossilization of the non-energy feedstock demand of the industry sector has not been modelled in global 100% RE analysis. The research in question conveniently says "we don't really know how much industries use, but surely it can't be that bad right ? Anyways, we're not taking it into account" >The industry sector is described in detail in Pursiheimo et al. [145], though the authors admit that TIMES, the model used, was not capable of applying full power-to-X functionality for the industry sector, thus fossil hydrocarbon inputs to the industry sector were still required by the model. Similarly, Teske et al. [125] and Luderer et al. [146] mention that the chemical industry is still fully based on fossil fuels. The research in question confirms that the whole industrial sector still requires massive amounts of hydrocarbons. Overall, all these full renewable grids papers assume one critical thing: a complete change of all of our infrastructure, to add storage, better grid organisation, and overall a complete rework of... everything. While that's a lofty goal, looking at the reality where we can't even phase out simple things makes it quite unbelievable. Everything is possible if you ignore reality.