Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ken Fabian's avatar

Renewables have been crossing some tipping points on cost and nothing is the same and it hasn't even taken long for that to be apparent; barely one decade between solar being a bit of high cost electricity as empty gesturing, to show governments take global warming seriously to solar being the most built new electricity generation in the world, whether governments have commitment to emissions reductions or not. By a very large margin. That quickly. With a capacity factor of 25% the growth in solar is like adding a hundred 1GW nuclear plants a year, already. The IEA expects solar cell production to reach 1TW per year by 2025.

As an Australian I remember the South Australia "Big Battery" and the fierce derision it got - just seven years ago; Australia has about 20X that amount of battery installed since then, that quickly - and they are cutting gas peakers out as well as being nail in coffin for coal. The only not-renewables being built in Australia is a small gas peaker plant by decree of climate science denier previous government - and it's economics are doubtful.

That was all without restricting fossil fuels in any substantive way (and often giving strong support and subsidy to grow their use, even above and beyond the "if renewables get emissions reductions money for stuff that doesn't work, so should fossil fuel companies" - ie billions wasted on CCS and other greenwashing.

We are getting RE now because of market forces; that isn't the same thing as a plan to reach zero emissions but it shifts the Overton Window and makes it possible for governments to have plans with real ambition. I expect the real world impacts of global warming will combine with growing confidence in renewable energy to grow real commitment. But I expect fierce, well funded opposition and obstruction too - from an amoral industry that fiercely resists being accountable for global warming and other harms.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

I am not sure any of this matters. The goal is supposed to be to radically reduce global carbon emissions to achieve global Net Zero by 2050. The implicit assumption of this article is that increased renewables reduce fossil fuel usage. I am skeptical.

I issue you and your readers a challenge to prove the single most component of this assumption:

https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/prove-that-solarwind-replaces-fossil

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?