It may not have been clear in this piece, so let me make it clear here: I believe the net-zero transition will ultimately be much easier and cheaper than even today's most optimistic estimates. The reason is that innovation is incredibly powerful, and many groups are working on numerous new technologies, such as novel battery chemistries, that will revolutionize energy in ways that are completely unforeseen.
You often hear the argument that "renewables rely on fossil fuels during manufacturing Inc mining the raw materials" and there is no way around that (at present).
The extreme version of that argument is that there isn't enough fossil fuel LEFT to actually transition the world, anyway.
I think the argument that we need fossil fuels to produce renewables is misleading at best. What we need is energy. Today, at least, most of our energy comes from fossil fuels. However, there is no physical reason why we cannot use renewable energy in place of fossil fuel energy.
I've never heard that we don't have enough fossil fuels for the transition. That sounds crazy to me.
Terrific charts! It would also be fun to plot similar charts for biomass and geothermal generation, both of which, iirc, EIA tended to over-estimate during much of this time period.
You seem to be hedging a bit in your narrative. Is your bottom line that nobody knows the future of energy, or that current projections by EIA and others are too pessimistic?
I think there must be a problem with EIA's modeling that goes beyond inherent uncertainties. As you say, they've failed even to predict very short-term developments. I think most of those short-term developments could have been predicted by looking at leading indicators (e.g., power plants under construction and other investments already made) that EIA, apparently, chooses to ignore. A further problem with EIA's projections is that even when we look at their other scenarios besides the reference case, the range of possible outcomes is generally too narrow, not reflecting the large uncertainties that you describe.
Let me hasten to add, though, that I have tremendous respect for EIA and anyone else who is willing to put their reputation on the line by making quantitative projections of this type. Taking pot-shots at someone else's projections is far easier (and safer) than making and publishing one's own.
Predictions are useful only as inputs into policy decisions. In practice they are not very importance. They, together with models of the harm from CO2 accumulation detrmng the optimal trajectory for a tax n net emissions, but becadue we will need ot ease into that tax, its ultimte level, movenents in the '50's and 60's are not important today Starte with $200 or $600, but START
The fracking boom merely delayed the reality of the Hubbert curve. It still applies. Now fracking has plateaued and is on course for decline. Fracking and deep sea drilling are industry evidence of declining EROI which will ultimately leave oil in the ground. I could provide you with other analysis.
Solar and wind require mining, their own contribution to overshoot and groundwater pollution in competition with agriculture in drought-ridden regions.
They also require vast amounts of diesel fuel. When there is no diesel, there are no renewables. From mining to transport diesel is required. The word renewable itself is a lie. The resources of our planet are not remotely renewable at the pace we wantonly exploit them.
At best, we could build one generation of so-called renewables.
"Yes, wind and solar are intermittent, but that’s a grid problem." But shouldn't the cost to the grid of solving the intermittency be attributed to wind and solar? How else can you make a fair comparison with nuclear if it doesn't cause "grid problems."
I believe all external costs should be reflected in the cost of energy. Right now, there are no costs associated with intermittency of wind and solar b/c all U.S. grids are dominated by fossil fuels, which counterbalance the intermittency. One day, there may be and solar and wind should pay those.
But we should also be putting costs of air pollution, climate change, geopolitical instability, etc. on fossil fuels. Those are enormous costs that would make fossil fuels completely noncompetitive.
Ultimately, though, energy developers just look at LCOE, which is why solar and wind are expanding so rapidly.
I hope you would concede that is a broad overstatement. There are already grids, e.g., California, that have to manage this problem. Also, do you think it makes sense to exclude the cost of any transmission changes needed to accommodate wind? I wouldn't even call that an externality, even though they have been externalized sometimes by regulators to encourage that resource.
CA manages the intermittency quite inexpensively, e.g., they have built out many GW of batteries. I do think that, if wind/solar need big transmission upgrades, those costs should be added to the energy, just as I'm sure you also agree that the external costs of fossil fuels should be added to those. Those costs, by the way, would swamp any additional costs of renewable energy.
You conveniently forgot to mention that wind and solar have received heavy government subsidies in the form of tax credits for the last two decades so there has been no free market element to supply and demand response. Let's see how that plays out after July 2026 when those credits expire. If your claim is that fossil fuels have received similar sized tax credits, back it up with data.
It may not have been clear in this piece, so let me make it clear here: I believe the net-zero transition will ultimately be much easier and cheaper than even today's most optimistic estimates. The reason is that innovation is incredibly powerful, and many groups are working on numerous new technologies, such as novel battery chemistries, that will revolutionize energy in ways that are completely unforeseen.
A good article in The Economist making the same point: https://www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2024/11/14/the-energy-transition-will-be-much-cheaper-than-you-think
You often hear the argument that "renewables rely on fossil fuels during manufacturing Inc mining the raw materials" and there is no way around that (at present).
The extreme version of that argument is that there isn't enough fossil fuel LEFT to actually transition the world, anyway.
What's your thoughts on that?
I think the argument that we need fossil fuels to produce renewables is misleading at best. What we need is energy. Today, at least, most of our energy comes from fossil fuels. However, there is no physical reason why we cannot use renewable energy in place of fossil fuel energy.
I've never heard that we don't have enough fossil fuels for the transition. That sounds crazy to me.
Tom Murphy was writing stuff along those lines shortly before the peak oil frenzy subsided.
Terrific charts! It would also be fun to plot similar charts for biomass and geothermal generation, both of which, iirc, EIA tended to over-estimate during much of this time period.
You seem to be hedging a bit in your narrative. Is your bottom line that nobody knows the future of energy, or that current projections by EIA and others are too pessimistic?
I think there must be a problem with EIA's modeling that goes beyond inherent uncertainties. As you say, they've failed even to predict very short-term developments. I think most of those short-term developments could have been predicted by looking at leading indicators (e.g., power plants under construction and other investments already made) that EIA, apparently, chooses to ignore. A further problem with EIA's projections is that even when we look at their other scenarios besides the reference case, the range of possible outcomes is generally too narrow, not reflecting the large uncertainties that you describe.
Let me hasten to add, though, that I have tremendous respect for EIA and anyone else who is willing to put their reputation on the line by making quantitative projections of this type. Taking pot-shots at someone else's projections is far easier (and safer) than making and publishing one's own.
Great info! It would be interesting to see a combined chart for total energy use and projections from all sources of primary energy combined.
Predictions are useful only as inputs into policy decisions. In practice they are not very importance. They, together with models of the harm from CO2 accumulation detrmng the optimal trajectory for a tax n net emissions, but becadue we will need ot ease into that tax, its ultimte level, movenents in the '50's and 60's are not important today Starte with $200 or $600, but START
The fracking boom merely delayed the reality of the Hubbert curve. It still applies. Now fracking has plateaued and is on course for decline. Fracking and deep sea drilling are industry evidence of declining EROI which will ultimately leave oil in the ground. I could provide you with other analysis.
Solar and wind require mining, their own contribution to overshoot and groundwater pollution in competition with agriculture in drought-ridden regions.
They also require vast amounts of diesel fuel. When there is no diesel, there are no renewables. From mining to transport diesel is required. The word renewable itself is a lie. The resources of our planet are not remotely renewable at the pace we wantonly exploit them.
At best, we could build one generation of so-called renewables.
Refute my argument.
Good news. This all refers to energy used for generating electricity and excludes other uses of energy - or am I missing something?
Or perhaps I read it too fast.
This focused on electricity only. But I think the lesson applies to all energy.
"Yes, wind and solar are intermittent, but that’s a grid problem." But shouldn't the cost to the grid of solving the intermittency be attributed to wind and solar? How else can you make a fair comparison with nuclear if it doesn't cause "grid problems."
I believe all external costs should be reflected in the cost of energy. Right now, there are no costs associated with intermittency of wind and solar b/c all U.S. grids are dominated by fossil fuels, which counterbalance the intermittency. One day, there may be and solar and wind should pay those.
But we should also be putting costs of air pollution, climate change, geopolitical instability, etc. on fossil fuels. Those are enormous costs that would make fossil fuels completely noncompetitive.
Ultimately, though, energy developers just look at LCOE, which is why solar and wind are expanding so rapidly.
I hope you would concede that is a broad overstatement. There are already grids, e.g., California, that have to manage this problem. Also, do you think it makes sense to exclude the cost of any transmission changes needed to accommodate wind? I wouldn't even call that an externality, even though they have been externalized sometimes by regulators to encourage that resource.
CA manages the intermittency quite inexpensively, e.g., they have built out many GW of batteries. I do think that, if wind/solar need big transmission upgrades, those costs should be added to the energy, just as I'm sure you also agree that the external costs of fossil fuels should be added to those. Those costs, by the way, would swamp any additional costs of renewable energy.
Calling it a "grid problem" is a convenient way to dodge the issue.
You conveniently forgot to mention that wind and solar have received heavy government subsidies in the form of tax credits for the last two decades so there has been no free market element to supply and demand response. Let's see how that plays out after July 2026 when those credits expire. If your claim is that fossil fuels have received similar sized tax credits, back it up with data.
Yes, there are lots of subsidies for fossil fuels. E.g., I wrote this recently: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-war-in-iran-shows-us-another
See also: https://www.imf.org/en/topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies
Errrr and the fossil fuel industry has done it all on their lonesome, with no government support, tax breaks, subsidies or grants? 😂😂😂🤣