22 ms·

World shift to clean energy is unstoppable, IEA report says

49 points by ljf 3y ago

bArray 3y ago
> The world is on an "unstoppable" shift towards renewable energy but the phase down of fossil fuels is not happening quickly enough, a new report says. I would not be making such claims with a global recession and wars increasingly prevalent. A lot of legislation around clean energy may be pushed aside for economic or security purposes. > But it warned that emissions were still too high to prevent temperatures rising above a key threshold of 1.5C. What makes 1.5C key? Why not 2C [1]? And is this normalised for background rise vs actual rise? The earth's temperature has risen fast in the past too [2]. > The report said the growth in clean energy and technologies was "impressive". In 2020, one in 25 cars sold was electric. Just three years later this number has risen to one in five. Vehicle emissions are: (manufacturing + running) / years_of_service By far the most environmentally friendly thing to do currently is to keep existing vehicles running for longer, until they are eventually traded for something more efficient. I'm yet to be convinced that these EV batteries will serve out the 10 years they claim and they also have a higher emissions for manufacturing. They are also only as environmentally friendly as the energy generation which is continuously under threat and very difficult to scale without significant investment. That said, if you really want to make a dent, start tackling the shipping industry rather than the individual. This is where we make big changes quickly [3]. The emissions from these ships is also likely directly acidifying our oceans too. Then put in some regulation/tax regarding the import of materials or goods from countries that do not have good emissions standards. This would force Countries like China to clean up their act and stop Countries outsourcing their carbon emissions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_degree_climate_target https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_degree_climate_target [2] https://www.science.org/content/article/500-million-year-survey-earths-climate-reveals-dire-warning-humanity https://www.science.org/content/article/500-million-year-sur... [3] https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/cruise-ships-europe-emissions-pollution-b2358009.html https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/cruise-...
- Propelloni 3y ago
  > I would not be making such claims with a global recession and wars increasingly prevalent. A lot of legislation around clean energy may be pushed aside for economic or security purposes. The economics of renewables are favorable in comparison to fossil fuels, even when you remove all subsidies. What makes them appear more expensive today is that the infrastructure for fossil energy carriers is already there, the one for renewables is often just being built. Obviously there is a tipping point somewhere in the future. Unfortunatly, time is the one thing we don't have. > What makes 1.5C key? Why not 2C [1]? And is this normalised for background rise vs actual rise? The Wikipedia link you provided alludes to the reasoning why 1.5 °C are key. The article also links to a longer piece by the IPC explaining the reasoning. > The earth's temperature has risen fast in the past too [2]. True, the changes in temperature earth has experienced over the last 500 millions years are vastly larger than 2 °C. Only 400 millions years ago oceans were hot baths with a thriving ecosphere! From this vantage point the "there is no planet B" slogan seems less clever, agreed. Climate change will not end earth or nature in general, both will be fine. It will just end the living conditions in which humanity can thrive or even survive. > By far the most environmentally friendly thing to do currently is to keep existing vehicles running for longer, until they are eventually traded for something more efficient. I'm yet to be convinced that these EV batteries will serve out the 10 years they claim and they also have a higher emissions for manufacturing. There are 10-year old EV on the road today. Their batteries are still working. Even so, recycling batteries is possible and on the verge of economic feasibility. There are numerous service providers and some say there is going to be big money in it. According to Argonne's GREET model the break-point, where an EV shows a smaller overall environmental footprint versus an ICEV, is somewhere around the 20000km mark [1][5]. The environmental damage caused by an ICEV over its lifetime therefore exceeds the damage caused by an EV and it becomes worse the longer the ICEV runs. Maybe cars in general are just not the ideal solution if reducing environmental damage is the priority? I don't know. Anyhow, considering that driving ICE cars is not banned anywhere, you can go this route. Some nations have banned admitting new ICEs, but that is not the same. > They are also only as environmentally friendly as the energy generation which is continuously under threat and very difficult to scale without significant investment. That is actually a strength of EV. Any improvement in electricty generation and distribution is immediatly applicable to EV. And it is not hard, only expensive in terms of money. But drilling oil wells, building nuclear power plants, or coal mines is also expensive in terms of money, so what? I do not understand the remark concerning threats. How is renewable energy any more threatened than fossil fuels? > That said, if you really want to make a dent, start tackling the shipping industry rather than the individual. This is where we make big changes quickly [3]. The emissions from these ships is also likely directly acidifying our oceans too. This is a worthwhile target. But 1) why only do one or the other if we can do both? And 2) shipping may be causing significant damage, but there are relativly few ships around (around 100000 [2]). You get scaling effects far beyond the effect of more environmental friendly shipping when you tackle the billion+ cars on this planet, too [3]. > Then put in some regulation/tax regarding the import of materials or goods from countries that do not have good emissions standards. This would force Countries like China to clean up their act and stop Countries outsourcing their carbon emissions. That's a good idea! Let's see how the CBAM works out. It goes into effect in January 2024. [4] [1] https://www.anl.gov/topic/greet https://www.anl.gov/topic/greet [2] https://unctad.org/publication/handbook-statistics-2022 https://unctad.org/publication/handbook-statistics-2022 [3] https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2021/06/how-many-cars-are-there-in-the-world/ https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2021/06/how-many-cars-are-the... [4] https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustme... [5] Found this later: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-d...
pjc50 3y ago
> "Governments, companies and investors need to get behind clean energy transitions rather than hindering them," Mr Birol said. Well, yes. There's a lot of investment that will become stranded in the transition, and that's going to try to stop it for as long as possible. But thanks to other investment, solar cells have become incredibly cheap and we can get a lot of our energy from Big Photodiode. The battery investment curve is happening as well. Not as fast as anything silicon-based, and you can safely ignore individual dramatic tech announcements, but the power of thousands of engineers each shaving off 0.1% of the cost year on year accumulates.
- pydry 3y ago
  >There's a lot of investment that will become stranded in the transition, and that's going to try to stop it for as long as possible. I wish more people appreciated this. There's a lot of money available to push covert anti-renewable messages. It gets pumped from think tanks into the media with messaging designed to make the reader feel smart about repeating their "skeptical" take. It then works its way on hacker news with somebody quite honestly saying something like "I'm pro renewables but...", quite unaware of the money flows driving their beliefs.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Who, for example, will be paying for reworking the stock of old housing in a lot of European countries? Stranded assets are not just an issue for big investors and corporations.
    - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
      You can pay for a house refit with future fuel savings and governments can add incentives paid for with lower health costs. The timeline might be long enough that people, especially landlords who don't have to live in the drafty, cold building or pay the fuel costs, won't do it without various carrots and sticks but that's totally different from a stranded asset.
      - 3y ago
newsclues 3y ago
So unstoppable… https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37995384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37995384 Fossil fuels aren’t going away, but maybe the future isn’t everyone in their own massive and heavy personal vehicles with a huge battery mined far away, maybe the future with less fossil fuels is more people walking and biking rather than driving
pelasaco 3y ago
I think nobody disputes if the shift to clean energy is unstoppable or not. The question and controversy is around the time frame.
mrangle 3y ago
>"Governments, companies and investors need to get behind clean energy transitions rather than hindering them," Mr Birol said. To me, this doesn't couch clean energy as an unstoppable force. It couches its supposed unstoppableness as very wishful thinking. Similar to The Secret. Manifest it in speech, and it will be so. In the human and animal Kingdoms, there will never be an unstoppable force toward voluntary use of less energy. It will always be forced and eminently, inherently stoppable. Market forces will always find a way to maximize energy use. In contrast, governments will always be transitory, unstable, corrupt, and, yes, will eventually take the easy route as well (as an experession of the physical laws of energy).
mrangle 3y ago
Once the West percieves itself to be removed from its existential battle with the East, this clean energy hand waving will be put squarely in the rear view. For better or worse. Though, any continued propaganda on the matter is mostly harmless to beneficial for undemocratic governance (forced policy with desired downstream effects on restricting the population). And so that may continue. To test this logic, ask yourself if the West would adopt clean energy even if it meant losing to the East. The answer is obviously no. And it hasn't. And it won't. In fact, energy use will be maximized, by any means, to cement as much of a permanent advantage as can be gained. Now, and in the future once we are no longer being threatened by Eastern energy supplies.

49 points by ljf 3y ago

> The world is on an "unstoppable" shift towards renewable energy but the phase down of fossil fuels is not happening quickly enough, a new report says. I would not be making such claims with a global recession and wars increasingly prevalent. A lot of legislation around clean energy may be pushed aside for economic or security purposes. > But it warned that emissions were still too high to prevent temperatures rising above a key threshold of 1.5C. What makes 1.5C key? Why not 2C [1]? And is this normalised for background rise vs actual rise? The earth's temperature has risen fast in the past too [2]. > The report said the growth in clean energy and technologies was "impressive". In 2020, one in 25 cars sold was electric. Just three years later this number has risen to one in five. Vehicle emissions are: (manufacturing + running) / years_of_service By far the most environmentally friendly thing to do currently is to keep existing vehicles running for longer, until they are eventually traded for something more efficient. I'm yet to be convinced that these EV batteries will serve out the 10 years they claim and they also have a higher emissions for manufacturing. They are also only as environmentally friendly as the energy generation which is continuously under threat and very difficult to scale without significant investment. That said, if you really want to make a dent, start tackling the shipping industry rather than the individual. This is where we make big changes quickly [3]. The emissions from these ships is also likely directly acidifying our oceans too. Then put in some regulation/tax regarding the import of materials or goods from countries that do not have good emissions standards. This would force Countries like China to clean up their act and stop Countries outsourcing their carbon emissions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_degree_climate_target https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_degree_climate_target [2] https://www.science.org/content/article/500-million-year-survey-earths-climate-reveals-dire-warning-humanity https://www.science.org/content/article/500-million-year-sur... [3] https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/cruise-ships-europe-emissions-pollution-b2358009.html https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/cruise-...

Propelloni 3y ago
> I would not be making such claims with a global recession and wars increasingly prevalent. A lot of legislation around clean energy may be pushed aside for economic or security purposes. The economics of renewables are favorable in comparison to fossil fuels, even when you remove all subsidies. What makes them appear more expensive today is that the infrastructure for fossil energy carriers is already there, the one for renewables is often just being built. Obviously there is a tipping point somewhere in the future. Unfortunatly, time is the one thing we don't have. > What makes 1.5C key? Why not 2C [1]? And is this normalised for background rise vs actual rise? The Wikipedia link you provided alludes to the reasoning why 1.5 °C are key. The article also links to a longer piece by the IPC explaining the reasoning. > The earth's temperature has risen fast in the past too [2]. True, the changes in temperature earth has experienced over the last 500 millions years are vastly larger than 2 °C. Only 400 millions years ago oceans were hot baths with a thriving ecosphere! From this vantage point the "there is no planet B" slogan seems less clever, agreed. Climate change will not end earth or nature in general, both will be fine. It will just end the living conditions in which humanity can thrive or even survive. > By far the most environmentally friendly thing to do currently is to keep existing vehicles running for longer, until they are eventually traded for something more efficient. I'm yet to be convinced that these EV batteries will serve out the 10 years they claim and they also have a higher emissions for manufacturing. There are 10-year old EV on the road today. Their batteries are still working. Even so, recycling batteries is possible and on the verge of economic feasibility. There are numerous service providers and some say there is going to be big money in it. According to Argonne's GREET model the break-point, where an EV shows a smaller overall environmental footprint versus an ICEV, is somewhere around the 20000km mark [1][5]. The environmental damage caused by an ICEV over its lifetime therefore exceeds the damage caused by an EV and it becomes worse the longer the ICEV runs. Maybe cars in general are just not the ideal solution if reducing environmental damage is the priority? I don't know. Anyhow, considering that driving ICE cars is not banned anywhere, you can go this route. Some nations have banned admitting new ICEs, but that is not the same. > They are also only as environmentally friendly as the energy generation which is continuously under threat and very difficult to scale without significant investment. That is actually a strength of EV. Any improvement in electricty generation and distribution is immediatly applicable to EV. And it is not hard, only expensive in terms of money. But drilling oil wells, building nuclear power plants, or coal mines is also expensive in terms of money, so what? I do not understand the remark concerning threats. How is renewable energy any more threatened than fossil fuels? > That said, if you really want to make a dent, start tackling the shipping industry rather than the individual. This is where we make big changes quickly [3]. The emissions from these ships is also likely directly acidifying our oceans too. This is a worthwhile target. But 1) why only do one or the other if we can do both? And 2) shipping may be causing significant damage, but there are relativly few ships around (around 100000 [2]). You get scaling effects far beyond the effect of more environmental friendly shipping when you tackle the billion+ cars on this planet, too [3]. > Then put in some regulation/tax regarding the import of materials or goods from countries that do not have good emissions standards. This would force Countries like China to clean up their act and stop Countries outsourcing their carbon emissions. That's a good idea! Let's see how the CBAM works out. It goes into effect in January 2024. [4] [1] https://www.anl.gov/topic/greet https://www.anl.gov/topic/greet [2] https://unctad.org/publication/handbook-statistics-2022 https://unctad.org/publication/handbook-statistics-2022 [3] https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2021/06/how-many-cars-are-there-in-the-world/ https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2021/06/how-many-cars-are-the... [4] https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustme... [5] Found this later: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-d...

pjc50 3y ago

> "Governments, companies and investors need to get behind clean energy transitions rather than hindering them," Mr Birol said. Well, yes. There's a lot of investment that will become stranded in the transition, and that's going to try to stop it for as long as possible. But thanks to other investment, solar cells have become incredibly cheap and we can get a lot of our energy from Big Photodiode. The battery investment curve is happening as well. Not as fast as anything silicon-based, and you can safely ignore individual dramatic tech announcements, but the power of thousands of engineers each shaving off 0.1% of the cost year on year accumulates.

pydry 3y ago
>There's a lot of investment that will become stranded in the transition, and that's going to try to stop it for as long as possible. I wish more people appreciated this. There's a lot of money available to push covert anti-renewable messages. It gets pumped from think tanks into the media with messaging designed to make the reader feel smart about repeating their "skeptical" take. It then works its way on hacker news with somebody quite honestly saying something like "I'm pro renewables but...", quite unaware of the money flows driving their beliefs.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Who, for example, will be paying for reworking the stock of old housing in a lot of European countries? Stranded assets are not just an issue for big investors and corporations.
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    You can pay for a house refit with future fuel savings and governments can add incentives paid for with lower health costs. The timeline might be long enough that people, especially landlords who don't have to live in the drafty, cold building or pay the fuel costs, won't do it without various carrots and sticks but that's totally different from a stranded asset.
    - 3y ago

newsclues 3y ago

So unstoppable… https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37995384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37995384 Fossil fuels aren’t going away, but maybe the future isn’t everyone in their own massive and heavy personal vehicles with a huge battery mined far away, maybe the future with less fossil fuels is more people walking and biking rather than driving

pelasaco 3y ago

I think nobody disputes if the shift to clean energy is unstoppable or not. The question and controversy is around the time frame.

mrangle 3y ago

>"Governments, companies and investors need to get behind clean energy transitions rather than hindering them," Mr Birol said. To me, this doesn't couch clean energy as an unstoppable force. It couches its supposed unstoppableness as very wishful thinking. Similar to The Secret. Manifest it in speech, and it will be so. In the human and animal Kingdoms, there will never be an unstoppable force toward voluntary use of less energy. It will always be forced and eminently, inherently stoppable. Market forces will always find a way to maximize energy use. In contrast, governments will always be transitory, unstable, corrupt, and, yes, will eventually take the easy route as well (as an experession of the physical laws of energy).

mrangle 3y ago

Once the West percieves itself to be removed from its existential battle with the East, this clean energy hand waving will be put squarely in the rear view. For better or worse. Though, any continued propaganda on the matter is mostly harmless to beneficial for undemocratic governance (forced policy with desired downstream effects on restricting the population). And so that may continue. To test this logic, ask yourself if the West would adopt clean energy even if it meant losing to the East. The answer is obviously no. And it hasn't. And it won't. In fact, energy use will be maximized, by any means, to cement as much of a permanent advantage as can be gained. Now, and in the future once we are no longer being threatened by Eastern energy supplies.