Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday September 19 2022, @08:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the turning-green-into-greenbacks dept.

New study shows a fast transition to clean energy is cheaper than slow or no transition:

Transitioning to a decarbonised energy system by around 2050 is expected to save the world at least $12 trillion, compared to continuing our current levels of fossil fuel use, according to a peer-reviewed study today by Oxford University researchers, published in the journal Joule.

The research shows a win-win-win scenario, in which rapidly transitioning to clean energy results in lower energy system costs than a fossil fuel system, while providing more energy to the global economy, and expanding energy access to more people internationally.

The study's 'Fast Transition' scenario, shows a realistic possible future for a fossil-free energy system by around 2050, providing 55% more energy services globally than today, by ramping up solar, wind, batteries, electric vehicles, and clean fuels such as green hydrogen (made from renewable electricity).

[...] 'There is a pervasive misconception that switching to clean, green energy will be painful, costly and mean sacrifices for us all – but that's just wrong,' says Doyne Farmer, the Professor of Mathematics who leads the team that conducted the study at the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School. 'Renewable costs have been trending down for decades. They are already cheaper than fossil fuels, in many situations, and our research shows they will become cheaper than fossil fuels across almost all applications in the years to come. And, if we accelerate the transition, they will become cheaper faster. Completely replacing fossil fuels with clean energy by 2050 will save us trillions.'

[...] Professor Farmer continues, 'The world is facing a simultaneous inflation crisis, national security crisis, and climate crisis, all caused by our dependence on high cost, insecure, polluting, fossil fuels with volatile prices. This study shows ambitious policies to accelerate dramatically the transition to a clean energy future, as quickly as possible, are not only urgently needed for climate reasons, but can save the world trillions in future energy costs, giving us a cleaner, cheaper, more energy secure future.'

Journal Reference:
Rupert Way, Matthew C. Ives, Penny Mealy, J. Doyne Farmer, Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition [open], Joule, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.joule.2022.08.009


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 20 2022, @01:11AM (4 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 20 2022, @01:11AM (#1272483) Journal

    Are we going to strip mine the globe, to get all those minerals for batteries, solar panels, wind generators, etc? Gonna destroy the earth, to save the earth? Sounds a lot like fucking for chastity, or killing for democracy.

    An acquaintance is considering going solar. I told him that right up front, he needs a HUGE battery - something comparable to an electric forklift battery. "Oh, those are expensive!" Well, you buy that big battery now, or you continue to expand your little battery system for years, because it lacks capacity.

    Forget the lead/acid vs lithium vs whatever. Everyone is going to need that storage capacity somewhere, whether in your home, or on the grid. The more we rely on renewables, the more we'll need that capacity.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Redundant=1, Interesting=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by weirsbaski on Tuesday September 20 2022, @08:58AM

    by weirsbaski (4539) on Tuesday September 20 2022, @08:58AM (#1272525)

    Are we going to strip mine the globe, to get all those minerals for batteries, solar panels, wind generators, etc?

    Hmm, shouldn't we have that same level of concern for strip-mining the globe for minerals to build coal and natural-gas generators (they need wires and magnets too!), ingredients to make concrete for hydro dams, batteries for ICE cars, etc?

    Of course, solar panels and wind generators still have an advantage: once built, we don't need additional strip-mining to source sunlight and wind for their ongoing operation, which puts them a little above natural-gas and a big step above coal.

    And also, "used" sunlight and wind doesn't have to be re-buried, so solar/wind won't be the source of huge coal-slurry-style spills like this one:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by gnuman on Tuesday September 20 2022, @11:19AM (2 children)

    by gnuman (5013) on Tuesday September 20 2022, @11:19AM (#1272543)

    Are we going to strip mine the globe, to get all those minerals for batteries, solar panels, wind generators, etc?

    No, we strip mine it to burn it all instead, right? That's better for you?

    Also, solar panels are mostly ... sand. Wind generators are just regular generators -- nothing special and recyclable. Even batteries can be made of non-rare materials, like iron instead of cobalt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery [wikipedia.org]

    It's kind of sad that 1000kg of batteries per house will "destroy the planet" but 200x-1000x as much in building materials is "oh, that's just normal, carry on!". It's almost like an argument that eating plants will destroy the planet but eating beef is green .... because Beef Lobby convinced me that cows eat grass?

    Forget the lead/acid vs lithium vs whatever. Everyone is going to need that storage capacity somewhere, whether in your home, or on the grid. The more we rely on renewables, the more we'll need that capacity.

    Hydroelectric dams are already de-factro pumped storage solutions. They are automatic multipliers of interruptible generators. Any area with 30+% hydroelectric power can go full renewable without additional storage on the grid. They may need to install additional generators on those dams, but that's all.

    • (Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 20 2022, @02:12PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 20 2022, @02:12PM (#1272563) Journal

      No, we strip mine it to burn it all instead, right? That's better for you?

      Point taken. However, coal and oil are relatively clean mining operations, compared to a lot of other resources.

      It's kind of sad that 1000kg of batteries per house will "destroy the planet" but 200x-1000x as much in building materials is "oh, that's just normal

      Uhhhhmmm, I'm not sure that building materials is relevant to discussions about energy sources? But, since you brought it up, we need to start building homes, offices, and other structures to be more energy efficient. I think the least energy efficient structure on the planet are mobile homes. Damned things should be outlawed, IMO. There are a lot of other modifications we can make to permanent structures, starting with better insulation, better choices of building materials, going on to digging into the ground to build, as opposed to building right on top of the soil.

      Hydroelectric dams are already de-factro pumped storage solutions.

      That's fine, when there is water to power them. Have you seen the lakes around the nation? Check out Hoover dam - https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2022/05/photos-water-levels-in-lake-mead-record-lows/629900/ [theatlantic.com] I realize that photo is a few months old now, but none of those lakes are going to fill again, any time soon. Hydro isn't going away any time soon, but I think we're going to find it far less reliable in the future.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2022, @02:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2022, @02:30PM (#1272567)

      Solar panels are mostly "sand".

      Sand that is heated to 1450C in order to grow the crystals required to make CPUs and... solar cells. That shit isn't free.