The 200-300GW of capacity should translate to 200-600TWh/year of generated energy. That's a 5-10% growth of yearly generated renewable energy. If we can keep it at 5% yoy, it will take 112 years to replace that total energy consumption. At 10% it would take about 60 years.
I don't think it would be smart to bet on a linear-only growth. If course, a 100+ year exponential growth might be too optimistic. But I think we did not see the end of the hocky stick so far.
We also need to consider that we're talking about a global infrastructure project, so timescales of centuries are to be expected. Whoever thinks we could replace our global energy consumption completely within a couple of decades needs to reconsider.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth104/sites/www.e-educati...
It will take a long time because it will take a long time! So don’t even try!
No - it is entirely up to humans to decide how long it takes.
Energy generation is a huge industry. Emphasis on industry. And no wishful thinking from some climate-justice-hardliners will change that. There are literally the lives of billions of human beings depending on the availability of useful energy. Engineering and hard science has brought us to the point of cheap, renewable energy. Now we have to build up that capacity, but that takes time.
Your statement reads like a Maoist decree, putting ideological wants over practical realities. You read like you wish for hard, radical measures (that, of course, will only hurt the "class enemy") while you cannot be bothered with the details of how a solar panel or a wind turbine even works, let alone how it is produced and installed at scale.
So let me put that straight for you: It is not entirely up to humans to decide how long decarbonization takes. This is NOT some capitalist conspiracy. Building factories takes time and there is a limit of how many PV factories and offshore wind plants we can build today. Especially, when you want to do it in some environmentally friendly manner. We can of course accelerate the buildup for the next decade, and I would bet money on the fact that we already do exactly that.
Thermodynamic efficiencies mean that you need to have 2-3x less primary energy to get the same amount of final energy when your primary energy is already electric generation.
The UK went from 2% to 42% electrical generation from renewable sources (not including nuclear) and almost half of that increase happened between 2015 and 2020. That's only electricity, of course, but a good chunk of transportation is going to come off of fossil fuels in the next 10 years as well.
Most likely transitions will take a logistic curve, slow ramp-up, followed by a fast phase, followed by a slowing as the hardest problems are tackled.
What matters is the useful part and not the wasted part (released as mostly unwanted heat) in the transition to renewable.
For example electric cars uses one quarter of the energy of a fossil car for the same service (moving around).
Heat pump use one third or less of the energy to heat up water or air vs burning fossil fuels.
Etc...
Are you sure? Transport alone consumes around 40% of oil output. Replacing even a chunk of that with electric vehicles will cause electric demand to skyrocket. You'll be able to power around three to four times as many cars with the same amount of energy but primary energy is absolutely relevant because that energy is currently coming from oil.
>Heat pump use one third or less of the energy to heat up water or air vs burning fossil fuels.
Are you sure? My Furnace is 95% efficient and burns natural gas. My water heater is 75% efficient and also burns natural gas. Both devices are middle of the road and much more efficient options are available.
Even more than that, since charging EVs usually happens at night. And it's pretty easy to incentive EV users to do that.
Thermodynamically speaking this is an accounting trick, much like counting the cost of opening a curtain as an alternative to the energy cost of a lightbulb. But it’s a useful measure for consumers.