The renewable energy revolution is happening faster than you think
newscientist.com
newscientist.com
And yet carbon emissions still increased by ~1% last year [1]. As it has for decades.
It's gone from greenwashing to outright lies. The atmosphere doesn't care about your political successes, or the relative percentage of energy sources, or the economics of renewables - only absolute tonnage of CO2e.
This is a great example of the "shifting metrics" fallacy. Instead of measuring the thing that matters, you measure the progress of the proposed solution and claim success regardless of meeting the original goal.
We need to demand better from journalists.
> It is even looking like we may soon see the beginning of the end for fossil fuels
Counterpoint: renewables absolutely require fossil fuels for mining, transport, manufacturing, installation, maintenance and recycling. Solar panels and wind turbines cannot provide the energy to deploy new panels or turbines, not even as a demonstration, let alone at a scale that would "end" fossil fuels. In a very concrete and objective sense, these technologies are not at all "renewable" - they're an effective mechanism to extend the energy output of a barrel of oil, not to replace it.
Yes, we should be reversing a lot harder than we are, but we are reversing.
> renewables absolutely require fossil fuels for mining, transport, manufacturing, installation, maintenance and recycling.
That's not true. Producing cement from limestone releases carbon and the production of steel requires carbon, but there are alternative processes for both in development. Pretty much everything else you mentioned just requires energy and/or heat, energy which can be provided by electricity either directly or indirectly via hydrogen or synthetic fuels. If a CAT 793 can run on electricity, anything can.
P.S. using 2022 numbers is disingenuous. I could show you 2021 numbers which tell a completely different story. 2021+2022 numbers are far more indicative.
Yes, all those processes require heat and energy. That's the point. How do you intend to distribute that energy across the global supply chain without a dense liquid fuel? It's never been done (though it is theoretically possible). Once we have renewables that can build other renewables without a drop of oil in the process, that's the beginning of a plan to end fossil fuels. I'm hopeful but all I can say is - prove it and we have something to talk about. Beyond that, it's a hypothetical.
> How do you intend to distribute that energy across the global supply chain without a dense liquid fuel?
Power lines and local generation are more efficient than transporting liquid fuels.
> prove it and we have something to talk about.
That's what the article is about. It's not theoretical anymore. The grid is decarbonizing.
On a larger scale, politics plays the blame game, industry shifts CO2 certificates, and everyone tries to keep doing what they’re doing while painting a thin green veneer on it.
But what is good is solar and wind power, heat pumps and electric cars. These are finally starting to happen at scale. Celebrate the good and excoriate the bad like sham CO2 certificates, but don't stand in the way of progress.
The US and the other developed economies have a static energy consumption. More of the energy is produced by renewables. Solar grows by double digits each year, and wind grows less, but from a higher point. If you check the eia.gov site [1], you'll see that 60% comes from fossil fuel and 40% from nuclear + renewables. Wind and solar total about 10%. But the growth of wind and solar in one decade (2012-2022) was by a factor of 4.
China and India are still developing. Their energy use increases. They add a lot of renewables, but also a lot of coal. At some point they'll start reducing the coal, because the renewables will be more than capable of keeping up with increase in energy consumption.
You are grumbling that we put 1% more CO2 in the air. What exactly would you change?
[1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
Yes they can.
If you want to wait a few hundred years to bootstrap the entire industry just using wind and solar energy (once we have the first solar panel) then we can do that. It makes more sense to get it done quicker though.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_widt...