So what is the time frame for when you are trying to hit Net Zero? This is the question that is so often neglected.
Is it 2050, like most climate activists say is essential to save the planet?
Or is it 2150 (or something like that)?
The answer to the question drives policy options.
If your answer is 2050, then I am extremely skeptical whether technological innovation (or anything short of the collapse of the world economy) can achieve the goal.
If the answer is 2150 (or something like that), then I would say that technological innovation makes success very likely, but it requires little if any government policy beyond funding R&D for new energy sources.
Thanks, Michael. If progress was going to be linear, then I would definitely be with you. However, my optimism that we can do much better than that lies in the fact that progress will not be linear going forward. On government support, some solutions probably will require support early in their development, and indeed governments' capacity to offer that support will vary. One would have to say that their capacity will be relatively constrained in the near-ish future, but in the developed world, I think that the will and the resources will be there. The bit that worries me much more is how fast coal can be phased out in China and India and the capital availability for low-carbon development of Sub-Saharan Africa. Very very challenging indeed.
The problem is that the current trajectory is unsustainable. Governments will run out of other peoples money. What happens when the spigot turns from todays fire hose to tomorrow’s annoying drip drip of the kitchen faucet? None of the businesses you mentioned are able to function on said drip. The key is indeed the pace and Michael above is dead right, the 2150-ish date matches much better with the finite nature of the FF energy system and prices will naturally be aligned with the new lower price of low CO2 energy solutions. The fact that your focus is in electricity generation and not the myriad other uses is a warning that you are still overly optimistic. Why not let the market take care of this?
Hey Chris - noted and agreed on near to medium term outlook of government funding. However, I don't agree that the technologies I reference above are dependent on government largesse - many many solutions provide inherent efficiencies that make them cheaper. But for sure, some of the stuff that is less mature needs some support to allow it to come down the cost curve. But that is for a finite period and then, indeed, the market decides. (That is the appropriate use of subsidies - to midwife in solutions that are better in the long run, but can't compete in their infancy.) And yes, the most progress is being made in electricity. HOWEVER, the electricity sector is going to be the most important. Many things that weren't previously in the electricity sector - road transport, space heating, even industrial heat - are going to gradually get moved into the electricity sector. There will remain significant chunks that require molecules - chemicals and plastics, aviation, probably shipping for some time (you can see more thoughts on that on my green molecules post - https://climatepodnotes.substack.com/p/green-molecules ). But we can make very significant progress will sufficient low-carbon electricity. I suspect that this will require scaling of denser forms of generation - advanced nuclear, geothermal, maybe fusion eventually - but people are also working on those. For the rest of it, yeah, it is going to be bloody difficult, and it isn't easy to see the path now. But that was part of my point - the path may not be clear to us at this point, but it would be incorrect to conclude from that that the path doesn't exist.
“I don’t agree that the technologies reference above are dependent on government largesse - many many solutions provide inherent efficiencies that make them cheaper“
Not so at system level. All the new electrical loads require firmer grids. We do not have enough generation, transformers, VAR control, transmission lines, distribution lines, home electrical capacity etc. but yes, in isolation a heat pump is more efficient than a gas boiler.
It's a good point. I'm not a "100% renewables" ideologue. Not by a long stretch. Those are real costs and are often ignored. We should be putting much more effort and resources in low-carbon baseload to reduce system costs, as well as making transmission easier to build. Of course the costs of adapting the grid pale in comparison to the costs of unmitigated climate change. Also, back at the start of the renewables build out people thought the grid would topple over at single digit penetration levels, which in many countries is now a distant memory.
So what is the time frame for when you are trying to hit Net Zero? This is the question that is so often neglected.
Is it 2050, like most climate activists say is essential to save the planet?
Or is it 2150 (or something like that)?
The answer to the question drives policy options.
If your answer is 2050, then I am extremely skeptical whether technological innovation (or anything short of the collapse of the world economy) can achieve the goal.
If the answer is 2150 (or something like that), then I would say that technological innovation makes success very likely, but it requires little if any government policy beyond funding R&D for new energy sources.
So which do you choose?
Thanks, Michael. If progress was going to be linear, then I would definitely be with you. However, my optimism that we can do much better than that lies in the fact that progress will not be linear going forward. On government support, some solutions probably will require support early in their development, and indeed governments' capacity to offer that support will vary. One would have to say that their capacity will be relatively constrained in the near-ish future, but in the developed world, I think that the will and the resources will be there. The bit that worries me much more is how fast coal can be phased out in China and India and the capital availability for low-carbon development of Sub-Saharan Africa. Very very challenging indeed.
The problem is that the current trajectory is unsustainable. Governments will run out of other peoples money. What happens when the spigot turns from todays fire hose to tomorrow’s annoying drip drip of the kitchen faucet? None of the businesses you mentioned are able to function on said drip. The key is indeed the pace and Michael above is dead right, the 2150-ish date matches much better with the finite nature of the FF energy system and prices will naturally be aligned with the new lower price of low CO2 energy solutions. The fact that your focus is in electricity generation and not the myriad other uses is a warning that you are still overly optimistic. Why not let the market take care of this?
Hey Chris - noted and agreed on near to medium term outlook of government funding. However, I don't agree that the technologies I reference above are dependent on government largesse - many many solutions provide inherent efficiencies that make them cheaper. But for sure, some of the stuff that is less mature needs some support to allow it to come down the cost curve. But that is for a finite period and then, indeed, the market decides. (That is the appropriate use of subsidies - to midwife in solutions that are better in the long run, but can't compete in their infancy.) And yes, the most progress is being made in electricity. HOWEVER, the electricity sector is going to be the most important. Many things that weren't previously in the electricity sector - road transport, space heating, even industrial heat - are going to gradually get moved into the electricity sector. There will remain significant chunks that require molecules - chemicals and plastics, aviation, probably shipping for some time (you can see more thoughts on that on my green molecules post - https://climatepodnotes.substack.com/p/green-molecules ). But we can make very significant progress will sufficient low-carbon electricity. I suspect that this will require scaling of denser forms of generation - advanced nuclear, geothermal, maybe fusion eventually - but people are also working on those. For the rest of it, yeah, it is going to be bloody difficult, and it isn't easy to see the path now. But that was part of my point - the path may not be clear to us at this point, but it would be incorrect to conclude from that that the path doesn't exist.
“I don’t agree that the technologies reference above are dependent on government largesse - many many solutions provide inherent efficiencies that make them cheaper“
Not so at system level. All the new electrical loads require firmer grids. We do not have enough generation, transformers, VAR control, transmission lines, distribution lines, home electrical capacity etc. but yes, in isolation a heat pump is more efficient than a gas boiler.
It's a good point. I'm not a "100% renewables" ideologue. Not by a long stretch. Those are real costs and are often ignored. We should be putting much more effort and resources in low-carbon baseload to reduce system costs, as well as making transmission easier to build. Of course the costs of adapting the grid pale in comparison to the costs of unmitigated climate change. Also, back at the start of the renewables build out people thought the grid would topple over at single digit penetration levels, which in many countries is now a distant memory.