In May 2024 the clean energy think tank Ember published a worldwide Review of electricity generation that announced a profoundly important historical turning point. Electrification is key to the new energy system that is being built around the world. Electricity generation is one process we do know how to decarbonize. With concerted action, net neutrality is within reach in electric power generation for OECD countries by the 2030s and for the whole world by 2045. Furthermore, as Ember points out, electrification will replace “fossil fuel burning that currently takes place in car and bus engines, boilers, furnaces and other applications”.
I feel that the American protectionism is not just about protecting manufacturing of panels and vehicles. (It is.) The more subtle protectionist undercurrent is protecting Big Oil and the propaganda to the public of the high price of green energy. Thus, Europe is also caught in the trap.
"The response of Western politicians? Protectionism. Of course there are complex motives. They need to build coalitions to sustain the energy transition. They are worried about the CCP regime in China. They want to escape extreme dependence on imported sources of energy (though of course in the renewable space it is capital equipment not energy they are importing)."
The protectionism and the debate about it are also a way to make the story of this remarkable green-energy transition all about US, when - as the report clearly shows - we're mostly a sideshow, the action is all in China. Future historians may not give much attention to whether the US/EU were protectionist or not, it may end up not mattering that much, we're just not as important as we think we are. I draw some comfort from that, knowing that even if Donald Trump is elected, he can't singlehandedly derail the green-energy revolution, because he got himself elected President of the wrong country.
You realise more oil is being pumped under Biden that Trump? Partisan politics, not being able to think of the country and everything in it as part of a whole and instead finding division in absolutely everything is more than half the US problem.
Yes, I do, in fact I've posted comments on that fact more than once right here. It's also true that Trump has promised to kill all offshore wind projects and held a meeting with oil executives where he said "Gimme a billion dollars and I'll do whatever you want." Biden had been good for the climate in some ways, and a huge disappointment in others, but Trump would be an unmitigated disaster. Fortunately, as the article points out, he can only fuck up a relatively small part of our global system.
Well I suppose when you get rid of your current clown show (on both sides) Americans might try handing the ropes off to a President that is not an octogenarian . Same could be said for the Senate. It's no wonder there's no consensus when the country is run by people who recall Vietnam more vividly than what they had for breakfast.
It's a two-party system. One party acknowledges climate change is real and has done some things to regulate fossil-fuel consumption and to promote renewable energy. The other party claims it's all a hoax, promises to tear out all coastal wind turbines and promises oil executives whatever they want in return for a $1 billion bribe.
This is such a great article, I hesitate to comment. But the cost of solar is SO geographically dependent, and here in Australia the cost is now about 0.025 ($/kW.hr), way below the 0.1 in your excellent chart. This makes the Chinese, and some others, even more amazing. The good news is that the lower price will apply in most tropical regions. There is SOME hope that will be the sort of number for offshore solar in the “doldrums “, as ocean is a lot cheaper than land.
This is such a great article, I hesitate to comment. But the cost of solar is SO geographically dependent, and here in Australia the cost is now about 0.025 ($/kW.hr), way below the 0.1 in your excellent chart. This makes the Chinese, and some others, even more amazing. The good news is that the lower price will apply in most tropical regions. There is SOME hope that will be the sort of number for offshore solar in the “doldrums “, as ocean is a lot cheaper than land.
The April 2024 Global Energy Monitor gives us a completely different valuation of China coal power plants energy production, with an increase in new plant construction for the fourth consecutive year and 268 GW currently under study, up from 249 GW in 2022.
This article makes the incorrect assumption that increased green energy production leads to decreased fossil fuel consumption. This is not true.
Green energy is largely in addition to fossil fuels, not instead of. That is why global fossil fuel usage keeps increasing. And it will likely stay that way for many decades.
"Demand growth in 2024 is expected to be higher than in 2023 (+968 TWh) but clean generation growth is forecast to be even greater (+1300 TWh), leading to a 2% fall in global fossil generation (-333 TWh)."
Increased electricity generation from clean energy means reduced fossil fuel use for electricity generation. Yes, I know we use fossil fuels for other things besides electricity generation, especially transportation, increased use of electric vehicles means we'll be using less fossil fuels for that too.
A prediction of the future is not an outcome, and global electricity demand is not very relevant a metric for many reasons.
For one, electricity is only a small part of the overall energy system, the rest of which is dominated by fossil fuels. More importantly, electricity only flows within regional grids not across the globe. It is easy to have decreased demand in one grid, but it has no effect on the rest of the globe. Renewable electricity is also typically produced at a different time than it needs to be consumed. So fossil fuels are likely to still keep going up, even with those optimistic predictions.
Just one example: China is still constructing a large number of coal power plants despite also constructing wind and solar. That increased coal will be bigger than all other decreases in fossil fuel consumption in the rest of the world.
I think that there is some Green substitution in Spain, but not likely very much.
Most importantly, Spain is in one of the few populated regions where solar and wind are feasible (though not necessarily cost-effective). Nations cannot remake their geography.
Other nations cannot follow the path of Western Europe because they do not have the geography of Western Europe.
I think I'll just wait and see, thanks. What I'm interested in is the longer-term trend where increasing electrification and renewables drive down demand for fossil fuels. Whether fossil fuels peak this year or next year or three years from now isn't that important, IMO.
If you are mainly concerned about the long-term trend, it is far more cost-effective to innovation new energy technologies that are superior to fossil fuels, solar and wind.
No, the point of the Green energy transition is to radically reduce and then virtually eliminate carbon emissions from fossil fuel usage. If total fossil fuels usage keeps going up, then it does not matter what happens with wind and solar. Nor does it matter if electricity usage keeps increasing.
Not sure what the disagreement is here, the goal is to cut fossil fuel use by taking things that used to be done with fossil fuels (like driving a car) and doing them with electricity, and then generating the electricity with renewables. What's happening in China now is encouraging, because it not only shows this is possible, but that it's happening now, and faster than most of us thought possible.
Posting a link to your own Substack with every reply gets you more Substack subscriptions? Good to know! I'm sure THOUSANDS of lurkers are out there reading our conversation!
It is not so much the links. It is that every one of your replies pushes our discussion up the ranks of comments so more people view it. And the fact that they can see that I am presenting rational replies to your snark. It boosts my credibility.
For example, I got six subscriptions since your first reply.
That's great, glad to help. I think you should have like-minded people to commiserate with as your anti-renewables outlook is rejected by a larger and larger portion of the population. It can be lonely being on the wrong side of history.
Also, it's just a darn shame that all the people lovin' your ideas enough to subscribe can't take a moment to click on the "like" button below your posts.
Oh, and I almost forgot the most important positive trend: the massive expansion of cheap shale oil and gas ultimately dooms the Green energy agenda and massively boosts American economic power.
If the Left does not radically transform its policies, particularly by ditching Green energy policies, they will consign themselves to electoral oblivion.
No, actually I am very happy that people are finally seeing through the Green agenda. Greens parties are losing rapidly support in European elections. The Dutch just moved to increase natural gas drilling and construction of more nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is finally starting to become popular in Europe again, particularly France and Sweden. Inflation and the economy are key agenda items that far surpass climate in voters mind.
Plus climate researchers are finally pushing back on the ridiculous assumptions of RCP 8.5. Soon they will realize that realistic assumptions completely undermine the idea of a climate crisis.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine, the cut-off of Russian gas, and the massive energy problems for German industry seems to be a major turning point.
I think that it is only going to get worse for Greens, particularly if German manufacturing implodes.
Apparently the chinese call the communist party the CPC. And yet most western commentators call them the CCP. Why dont we/you refer to them by the title they have adopted? Would you find it amusing if they referred to the USA as the UAS? It is childish.
I feel that the American protectionism is not just about protecting manufacturing of panels and vehicles. (It is.) The more subtle protectionist undercurrent is protecting Big Oil and the propaganda to the public of the high price of green energy. Thus, Europe is also caught in the trap.
What about the numbers that show China as the biggest user of coal? Doesn’t that offset the renuable good stuff?
"The response of Western politicians? Protectionism. Of course there are complex motives. They need to build coalitions to sustain the energy transition. They are worried about the CCP regime in China. They want to escape extreme dependence on imported sources of energy (though of course in the renewable space it is capital equipment not energy they are importing)."
The sole motivation is to punish China.
The protectionism and the debate about it are also a way to make the story of this remarkable green-energy transition all about US, when - as the report clearly shows - we're mostly a sideshow, the action is all in China. Future historians may not give much attention to whether the US/EU were protectionist or not, it may end up not mattering that much, we're just not as important as we think we are. I draw some comfort from that, knowing that even if Donald Trump is elected, he can't singlehandedly derail the green-energy revolution, because he got himself elected President of the wrong country.
You realise more oil is being pumped under Biden that Trump? Partisan politics, not being able to think of the country and everything in it as part of a whole and instead finding division in absolutely everything is more than half the US problem.
Yes, I do, in fact I've posted comments on that fact more than once right here. It's also true that Trump has promised to kill all offshore wind projects and held a meeting with oil executives where he said "Gimme a billion dollars and I'll do whatever you want." Biden had been good for the climate in some ways, and a huge disappointment in others, but Trump would be an unmitigated disaster. Fortunately, as the article points out, he can only fuck up a relatively small part of our global system.
Well I suppose when you get rid of your current clown show (on both sides) Americans might try handing the ropes off to a President that is not an octogenarian . Same could be said for the Senate. It's no wonder there's no consensus when the country is run by people who recall Vietnam more vividly than what they had for breakfast.
It's a two-party system. One party acknowledges climate change is real and has done some things to regulate fossil-fuel consumption and to promote renewable energy. The other party claims it's all a hoax, promises to tear out all coastal wind turbines and promises oil executives whatever they want in return for a $1 billion bribe.
So yeah, a real "both sides" situation here.
Good news, the renewable-energy skeptics and the electric-vehicle skeptics can suck it.
This is such a great article, I hesitate to comment. But the cost of solar is SO geographically dependent, and here in Australia the cost is now about 0.025 ($/kW.hr), way below the 0.1 in your excellent chart. This makes the Chinese, and some others, even more amazing. The good news is that the lower price will apply in most tropical regions. There is SOME hope that will be the sort of number for offshore solar in the “doldrums “, as ocean is a lot cheaper than land.
This is such a great article, I hesitate to comment. But the cost of solar is SO geographically dependent, and here in Australia the cost is now about 0.025 ($/kW.hr), way below the 0.1 in your excellent chart. This makes the Chinese, and some others, even more amazing. The good news is that the lower price will apply in most tropical regions. There is SOME hope that will be the sort of number for offshore solar in the “doldrums “, as ocean is a lot cheaper than land.
The April 2024 Global Energy Monitor gives us a completely different valuation of China coal power plants energy production, with an increase in new plant construction for the fourth consecutive year and 268 GW currently under study, up from 249 GW in 2022.
This article makes the incorrect assumption that increased green energy production leads to decreased fossil fuel consumption. This is not true.
Green energy is largely in addition to fossil fuels, not instead of. That is why global fossil fuel usage keeps increasing. And it will likely stay that way for many decades.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/prove-that-solarwind-replaces-fossil
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/can-increased-windsolar-retire-us
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/can-increased-windsolar-retire-asian
It's right there in the article:
"Demand growth in 2024 is expected to be higher than in 2023 (+968 TWh) but clean generation growth is forecast to be even greater (+1300 TWh), leading to a 2% fall in global fossil generation (-333 TWh)."
Increased electricity generation from clean energy means reduced fossil fuel use for electricity generation. Yes, I know we use fossil fuels for other things besides electricity generation, especially transportation, increased use of electric vehicles means we'll be using less fossil fuels for that too.
A prediction of the future is not an outcome, and global electricity demand is not very relevant a metric for many reasons.
For one, electricity is only a small part of the overall energy system, the rest of which is dominated by fossil fuels. More importantly, electricity only flows within regional grids not across the globe. It is easy to have decreased demand in one grid, but it has no effect on the rest of the globe. Renewable electricity is also typically produced at a different time than it needs to be consumed. So fossil fuels are likely to still keep going up, even with those optimistic predictions.
Just one example: China is still constructing a large number of coal power plants despite also constructing wind and solar. That increased coal will be bigger than all other decreases in fossil fuel consumption in the rest of the world.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-10/china-leads-global-coal-power-surge-as-capacity-climbs-to-record
The whole point of the article is that electricity is a GROWING share of the energy system. Deliberately so, because it's easier to decarbonize.
I will bet you that, barring an economic recession, global fossil fuel usage will increase in 2024.
Do you disagree?
It's trivial to show that in countries like Spain, fossil fuel usage has decreased due to renewables. Why wouldn't this trend continue elsewhere?
No, it is actually not trivial at all. Look at my previous article on nations that decreased coal usage (admittedly not the same as fossil fuels)
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/nations-that-have-drastically-reduced
Other competing explanations:
1) Very high taxes on fossil fuels.
2) Substantial increases in natural gas
3) A stagnant economy since 2007
I think that there is some Green substitution in Spain, but not likely very much.
Most importantly, Spain is in one of the few populated regions where solar and wind are feasible (though not necessarily cost-effective). Nations cannot remake their geography.
Other nations cannot follow the path of Western Europe because they do not have the geography of Western Europe.
How do you measure global fossil usage? In TWh?
I think I'll just wait and see, thanks. What I'm interested in is the longer-term trend where increasing electrification and renewables drive down demand for fossil fuels. Whether fossil fuels peak this year or next year or three years from now isn't that important, IMO.
If you are mainly concerned about the long-term trend, it is far more cost-effective to innovation new energy technologies that are superior to fossil fuels, solar and wind.
Green energies are simply not going to get there.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/innovating-the-next-energy-revolution
Well, if you do not believe that we need to get to global Netzero by 2050, then fine. But if that is the goal, then we are way way behind schedule.
No, the point of the Green energy transition is to radically reduce and then virtually eliminate carbon emissions from fossil fuel usage. If total fossil fuels usage keeps going up, then it does not matter what happens with wind and solar. Nor does it matter if electricity usage keeps increasing.
Not sure what the disagreement is here, the goal is to cut fossil fuel use by taking things that used to be done with fossil fuels (like driving a car) and doing them with electricity, and then generating the electricity with renewables. What's happening in China now is encouraging, because it not only shows this is possible, but that it's happening now, and faster than most of us thought possible.
If you do not know what the disagreement is, then you probably should not have responded to my comment in the first place.
Please reread my first comment. That may be your goal, but that is not what is happening.
My point is that solar and wind are in addition to increasing usage of fossil fuels, not instead of. And China is a great example of that happening.
Yes, fossil fuels are growing faster than most of us thought possible.
Thanks so much for all the replies. It is getting a lot of new subscriptions for my Substack column.
Posting a link to your own Substack with every reply gets you more Substack subscriptions? Good to know! I'm sure THOUSANDS of lurkers are out there reading our conversation!
How many new subscriptions have you gotten?
Mine is eight inches... er... I mean I got eight subscribers out of this argument. Yeah, that's it. EIGHT.
Yeah, ill considering that you do not write articles.
I would show my list of new subscribers today as proof, but I cannot show their names.
It is not so much the links. It is that every one of your replies pushes our discussion up the ranks of comments so more people view it. And the fact that they can see that I am presenting rational replies to your snark. It boosts my credibility.
For example, I got six subscriptions since your first reply.
That's great, glad to help. I think you should have like-minded people to commiserate with as your anti-renewables outlook is rejected by a larger and larger portion of the population. It can be lonely being on the wrong side of history.
Also, it's just a darn shame that all the people lovin' your ideas enough to subscribe can't take a moment to click on the "like" button below your posts.
Oh, and I almost forgot the most important positive trend: the massive expansion of cheap shale oil and gas ultimately dooms the Green energy agenda and massively boosts American economic power.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-greens-should-love-fracking
You might be interested in one of my most popular articles:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-left-has-hit-a-historical-dead
If the Left does not radically transform its policies, particularly by ditching Green energy policies, they will consign themselves to electoral oblivion.
Oh, yes, and the clear national security threats from Russia and China make energy security and military manufacturing far more important.
No, actually I am very happy that people are finally seeing through the Green agenda. Greens parties are losing rapidly support in European elections. The Dutch just moved to increase natural gas drilling and construction of more nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is finally starting to become popular in Europe again, particularly France and Sweden. Inflation and the economy are key agenda items that far surpass climate in voters mind.
Plus climate researchers are finally pushing back on the ridiculous assumptions of RCP 8.5. Soon they will realize that realistic assumptions completely undermine the idea of a climate crisis.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine, the cut-off of Russian gas, and the massive energy problems for German industry seems to be a major turning point.
I think that it is only going to get worse for Greens, particularly if German manufacturing implodes.
Apparently the chinese call the communist party the CPC. And yet most western commentators call them the CCP. Why dont we/you refer to them by the title they have adopted? Would you find it amusing if they referred to the USA as the UAS? It is childish.
In Spanish they use EEUU and I don't really think much of it.