The Troubled Energy Transition

Written by Daniel Yergin, Peter Orszag, and Atul Arya.

In 2024 global production of wind and solar energy reached record levels…Yet 2024 was a record year in another regard, as well: the amount of energy derived from oil and coal also hit all-time highs…In other words, what has been unfolding is not so much an “energy transition” as an “energy addition.”…

This was not how the energy transition was expected to proceed…But the realities of the global energy system have confounded those expectations, making clear that the transition—from an energy system based largely on oil, gas, and coal to one based mostly on wind, solar, batteries, hydrogen, and biofuels—will be much more difficult, costly, and complicated than was initially expected…As a result, the world is far from on track to achieve the often stated target of reaching, by 2050, “net-zero emissions”…

The International Energy Agency projected in 2021 that, for the world to meet 2050 targets, greenhouse gas emissions would need to decline from 33.9 gigatons in 2020 to 21.2 gigatons in 2030; thus far, emissions have gone in the other direction, reaching 37.4 gigatons in 2023 (and there’s no reason to think that a 40 percent decline in just seven years will be remotely feasible)…

Part of the problem is sheer cost: many trillions of dollars, with great uncertainty as to who is to pay it. Part of the problem is the failure to appreciate that climate goals do not exist in a vacuum. They coexist with other objectives—from GDP growth and economic development to energy security and reducing local pollution—and are complicated by rising global tensions, both East-West and North-South. And part of the problem is how policymakers, business leaders, analysts, and activists expected the transition to go, and how plans were shaped accordingly.

DB2

5 Likes

I have said before and I’ll say again, we humans have an infinite appetite for energy. More than food, more than sex, more than chocolate.

“If you build it they will come” could have been about energy instead of baseball, and I am convinced that we will not stop until every carbonated molecule of coal, oil, gas, sunlight, and water power has been consumed, or at least until the earth over warms and kills us all.

I expect to be returning my carbon to the earth by then, but if someone is still around, please note my prediction for posterity in case more advanced and thoughtful life forms arise and wonder how we managed to kill ourselves and our planet.

4 Likes

They do tell us that intermittant green energy like wind and solar require backups. For now often natural gas. As time goes on better backups and more green capacity should make a difference.

At minimum green energy preserves fossil fuels for future generations.

The present administration’s “energy dominance” policy makes it clear the program is to produce and burn as much carbon fuel as possible, as fast as possible, to make as much loot as possible NOW. They don’t care one whit about the future, because they will have moved on by then. Just like any Welchist “JC”.

Steve

8 Likes

It’s not just humans, it’s the entire universe. That’s how it was created, or formed, whichever verbiage pleases you. Stars burn and burn and burn for billions of years, until they “go out”. The universe constantly expands with ever increasing entropy.

New life forms ALWAYS arise, and old life forms ALWAYS disappear (go extinct). That’s how life has worked, and continues to work, since the beginning of time (or at least since the beginning of life forms).

2 Likes

Sure, I’m just not convinced that burning up the only planet we will ever be able to inhabit is the smartest strategy. Even if you’re going broke, going broke slower is smarter than doing it all at once.

I went to a lecture by Neil DeGrasse Tyson last week. Terrific night, a 2-hour lecture on Astrophysics and lots of other stuff. Worth it at twice the price.

Anyway, one thing he said struck me: We share 98.5% of our DNA with the chimpanzee. And the difference is, hang a banana a little too high to reach and the chimp will figure out to slide a box over and get the banana.

But say to the chimp “Just slide the box over” and he will have no idea what you mean. You can’t gesticulate it to him, you can’t communicate with him in any way: he’s a chimp.

Now imagine there’s a life form that has an “extra” 1.5% of that DNA part that makes them smart over us. They would look at us like we look at chimps. We would not be able to communicate with them. They would laugh and point at us for how dumb we are. They might keep us in zoos, or maybe have safaris to observe us in the wild. But we would have no chance of communication with them, they’d be in an altogether different plane, as we are with the banana wanting chimp.

I have hope that this advanced species would be smart enough not to burn up their home planet, or possibly to figure out how to bend the rules of space-time to be able to reach other worlds, something we are surely never going to do. Meanwhile we burn a million years worth of sequestered carbon every year , and think (as we used to) that rivers are so big they can never be polluted, the ocean is so big it can never be ruined, and that the sky is so enormous there’s no way our factories could ever cause it to change.

Sadly, like most crises, I suspect we will not fully realize it until it is too late.

6 Likes

When the world had a population in the millions (or even a billion or 2), that was probably true.

2 Likes

Net Zero is powered by Ideology. Economics is highlighting reality.

The Captain

1 Like

Incorrect, chimps, gorillas, and orangs have all been taught sign language. I personally have observed Koko and she seemed remarkably like a young human in her use of language.

1 Like

Do you know sign language? If not…

If another person speaks a language you don’t speak, one of you can learn the other’s language. So, learn the language and you can communicate.

The International Energy Agency projected in 2021 that, for the world to meet 2050 targets, greenhouse gas emissions would need to decline from 33.9 gigatons in 2020 to 21.2 gigatons in 2030;

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It might be informative to see where the greenhouse gases are being released. Below are the CO2 emissions from energy for each region of the globe, from the Statistical Review of World Energy. Years 2000, 2012 and 2023 are listed, to show how things are changing over time.

CO2 emissions from energy, millions of tons
               2000      2012      2023
N. America     6644      6134      5649    
S. America      925      1301      1308
Europe         4801      4537      3547
CIS            1802      2085      2179
Middle East    1048      1820      2258
Africa          793      1138      1335
Asia Pacific   7685    15,237    18,853
 -----------   -----   -------   -------
Total        23,699    32,252    35,130

Below is the same table, with percentages of the total for each year.

               2000     2012     2023
N. America     28%       19%      16%  
S. America       4        4        4
Europe          20       14       10
CIS              8        6        6
Middle East      4        6        6
Africa           3        4        4
Asia Pacific    32       47       54
-------------  ----     ----     ----
Total          100      100      100

North America and Europe have declined, as well as their percentage shares. Asia-Pacific, which includes India, has increased the most, both in absolute terms and percentage. Of all the coal that will be burned this year, over half of it will be in China.

_ Pete

The backlash to the proposed rates — which called for an 11.4% increase for electricity and 13.3% for gas — illustrated what could be a thorny issue for decades to come: persuading New Yorkers to absorb some of the cost of the state’s transition to green energy.

Many utility customers are in favor of upgrading the power grid in pursuit of the state’s renewable energy goals, but many also appear to be balking at paying more.

DB2