[ad_1]
In addition, we have a political transformation coming in a few weeks when the climate-science denier maliciously occupying the White House is ousted by a president who not only acknowledges that we have a severe climate crisis on our hands but also has nominated a few people for high posts who can legitimately be called climate hawks. Rejoining the Paris Agreement and committing to taking stronger action could change the international dynamic for meeting the goal of keeping global temperature rise this century to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
This good news is undermined by a big problem. We aren’t moving fast enough in the United States and neither are other nations in pushing the spread of these technologies and curbing emissions with enough vigor or speed.
And particularly for Americans, another problem. Even if we win both Senate seats in the Georgia run-off race, there will still be a large cohort of congressional Republicans who think the basic facts of climate change are debatable (or say so to keep those corporate campaign dollars flowing in the door). They are enabled by a cohort of less reactionary Republicans and a few Democrats who claim to accept climate science but prove they don’t really by dragging their feet when it comes to supporting serious legislation that accelerates these interconnected transformations.
In October, BloombergNEF, a provider of research into clean energy, advanced transportation, and innovative technologies and commodities published its New Energy Outlook 2020. (Without paying a fortune, only the 30-page executive summary is available to the general public.) The report analyzes current data and trends to make its Economic Transition Scenario (ETS) forecasts and projections regarding the spread of available technologies up to 2050. In its Climate Scenario, the BNEF team scrutinized possible pathways to lower greenhouse gas emissions. This year their focus was on the clean electricity and green hydrogen pathway.
What their data show that countless other researchers have also found—we’re simply not moving quickly enough to curb emissions and transform any sector. Not even with solar and wind now the cheapest option for new electrical generation here and in dozens of other nations.
BNEF’s ETS forecasts for 2050 show a mixed bag with some obvious positives. But taken as a whole, while progress is being made, not enough is happening fast enough. Scientists say without policy changes we’re consequently headed for a rise of 3 degrees C by 2100. A devastating outcome.
While the ETS forecasts cumulative emissions from all sectors will fall each year between now until 2050, total emissions in 30 years under this scenario would still be twice what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says is the carbon budget we have remaining for a 67% chance of limiting global warming to less than 2 degrees above preindustrial levels. BNEF forecasts an estimated 2.2 degrees of global warming by 2050, and 3.3 degrees by the end of the 21st century.
• Direct emissions from transportation peak in 2033, up about 10% from 2019, according to the report. By 2050, sales of electric vehicles will have reduced emissions by 12% below the pre-pandemic levels. And oil consumption in the transport sectors will fall from today’s 47 million barrels per day to 27.7 million barrels per day by 2050. But, as BNEF notes, this is nowhere near a “climate-safe trajectory.”
• By 2050, EVs are forecast to constitute 73% of all vehicle sales and make up 54% of the global passenger-car fleet, though higher in other places, up perhaps to 80% in Europe, the U.S., and China. Of the 1.5 billion passenger vehicles on the road in 2050, BNEF says 800 million will be EVs. A big part of this transition will be the continuing plunge in battery prices, already down 86% since 2010 and likely to cost less than 50% of today’s price by 2030. But having nearly half the planet’s vehicles still consuming fossil fuel 30 years from now is not a “climate-safe trajectory” either.
• Worldwide electricity-generating capacity soars between now and 2050, BNEF states. Renewables rise from 35% in 2019—almost half of which is hydro—to 68% in 2050, as wind and photovoltaics expand rapidly. Fossil fuel-generating capacity drops to 24% in 2050, from 56% in 2019. Again, not a “climate-safe trajectory.”
• In 2050, the report forecasts, Europe, wind and photovoltaics will account for 74% of electricity. Wind dominates with more than 50% of generating capacity in 2050. Coal use is practically gone in Europe by 2030, with gas use falling to just 10% of generation in 2050. Gas will still account for 33% of generation capacity in the United States in 2050, with wind growing to 24%, from 8% in 2019. Coal-fired power in China falls to 16% of total generation in 2050, down from 64% today. Renewables in China will make up 59% of capacity and 54% of generation, respectively, in 2050. China’s electricity mix would then be 82% zero carbon, with emissions 62% below 2020.
• Electric vehicles will only provide a third of commercial-vehicle kilometers traveled in 2050.
• In shipping, fossil fuel use will only decrease over 2019 by 8% in 2050 and emissions by only 30%.
• Fossil-derived jet fuel is forecast to be used for more than 98.5% of all aircraft kilometers flown in 2050.
• Today’s passenger rail is 76% electric and this hits 84% in 2050. Freight rail is just 56% electric now, going to 70% by 2050.
• Natural gas use in buildings will expand 33% between 2019 and 2050, according to the BNEF.
• Emissions from energy use in buildings will rise 26% between 2019 and 2050, the researchers calculate. Most of this will come from growth in gas and oil use in India and other rapidly developing countries. Emissions in China, the U.S. and Europe will increase as well, but not nearly so much.
BNEF’s Climate Scenario presents a much better picture, with significantly lower emissions and a more extensive electrification than the ETS. But getting there would require the efforts of national governments from Washington to Beijing, Strasbourg to Canberra. And “there” in that hypothetical scenario still doesn’t go far enough.
The report concludes:
Expanding and decarbonizing the power system to stay on track for warming of as much as 1.75 degrees Celsius would require around $35.1 trillion of investment in power generation assets and batteries over the next three decades. That is almost double the $15.1 trillion needed under our Economic Transition Scenario. Add to this $28.7 trillion for the power grid, between $11.6 trillion and $35.1 trillion for additional, dedicated power capacity to manufacture hydrogen, between $0.7 trillion and $2.7 trillion for hydrogen storage, and between $1.9 trillion and $28 trillion for hydrogen transport. Altogether, our clean-electricity and green-hydrogen pathway to well below 2 degrees requires between $78 trillion and $130 trillion of new investment between now and 2050.
More and faster, please.
[ad_2]
Source link
