 |
| Source |
To avoid catastrophic climate change we need to cut emissions by 95% by 2050. This implies an annual cut of 10% per annum, compounded. And this will be very hard to achieve. But a 5% per annum cut, compounded, will still reduce emissions by 80% by 2050 and 90% by 2060. And a 5% per annum cut is eminently achievable.
Using Australia as an example, let's see how.
Let's start with electricity generation. Snowy Hydro (which is owned by the Federal Government, and was founded, a bit like the US's TVA, to hold government owned hydro dams) has stated that wind and solar now cost A$40/MWh. This compares with the cost of coal-fired generation, just for the fuel, of $56/MWh, and for new coal of $110-$130/MWh. Since supply of any individual wind or solar farm is intermittent, you need to add storage to the system to cover periods of low supply. This is called "firming". Snowy Hydro stated that "firm" supply from its renewables PPAs (power purchase agreements) cost $60-$70/MWh, an additional cost of $20-$30/MWh (presumably the higher cost of firming is for solar). In other words, renewables are half the price of new coal, and only marginally more expensive than the cost of fuel for existing coal. And renewables/storage keep on falling in cost. They'll just keep on getting cheaper and cheaper. So, switching to a 100% renewables grid should in principle be easy. In practice, it'll be harder. Regulators still haven't got their heads around the feasibility of a 100% green grid. Existing coal-generated supply will have to be carefully retired with the necessary replacements already built before the existing power stations are closed down. High voltage grid connections will need to be built. For example, the wind in South Australia blows at different times and strengths form the wind in eastern Victoria. High voltage interconnectors will allow regions to buy power from other regions when their own wind and solar farms are producing too little and sell it when they are producing too much. But none of these issues is especially difficult.
So if we were to transition to 100% green renewables over the next 15 years, that would cut total emissions (ceteris paribus) by a compound 3% per annum.
Stationary energy (18% of the total) is mostly direct use of fossil fuels to produce heat, steam or pressure. It can be replaced by electricity. If this electricity is produced from 100% renewables, then that will in time cut total emissions by another 18%. Let's say that we replace all stationary energy over the next 20 years by electricity. That would cut emissions by another 1% per annum.
About half of the emissions in Transport comes from cars, with the rest coming from commercial transport (rail/air/domestic shipping). Transport contributes 19% to emissions. EVs are already cheaper to run than ICEVs (internal combustion engine vehicles) because they're 5 times as efficient and electricity is cheaper than petrol/diesel. But their up-front cost ("sticker price") is still higher than petrol-driven cars. Even Tesla's $35,000 Model 3, which has the same "sticker price" as the average US car/light truck, is still too expensive for poor people. On the other hand, it's a luxury car. China is making lots of very cheap, low range, EVs which for the most part are still only available in China. For now—it won't be long before they're also being exported. Honda plans an EV with 300 kms range to be made in China, selling for US$18,000 by 2020. Already, Chinese car manufacturer, Kandi is selling an EV in the US for $20,000. By 2025, 50% of car sales will be PHEVs or EVs. By 2030, 100% will be. If it takes 10 years for the entire car and truck fleet to be replaced by EVs/PHEVs, then by 2040, most of the emissions from transport will be gone (air and sea will still need action). This will reduce emissions by another 1% per annum.
So we get our 5% per annum reduction. And that's before we do anything about fugitive emissions (gas leaks), industrial processes (industrial processes are iron and steel, chemicals and emissions from products that are replacing ozone depleting substances) and agriculture. The Labor (Australian Labor Party, or ALP) opposition has a target of a 45% cut by 2030 in total emissions and plans to achieve this by using a cap-and-trade system applicable to any enterprise emitting more than 25,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum. This has produced faux rage among the Right and shrill, misleading articles from the Murdochcracy, but Labor seems very likely to win May's Federal election despite this. Australia will prolly cut its emissions by 5% per annum on average for the next 20 years, and having done it, we'll find it easy to keep on doing it, until our CO2 and methane emissions are negligible.
Can the world do this too? Certainly. It will be harder for developing countries, because their electricity demand is growing rapidly, in line with their economic growth. The key here is to ensure that all new generation capacity is renewables plus "firming"—in other words, no new coal power stations. Developing countries have a young coal fleet, but even here, the rapid cost declines for renewables will make all coal power stations horribly uneconomic by the early 2020s. I expect emissions in developing countries will only start falling in the early 2020s. This will mean that global emissions for the next few years will only fall by 3% per annum even if developed countries achieve reductions of 5% per annum. But let's say the world as a whole achieves 3% per annum cuts on average between now and 2050 (and it will be higher, as the transition to a green grid and EVs accelerates). That still translates to a 60% decline by 2050 and a 70% decline by 2060. Not enough, but far better than business as usual. The paid shills for fossil fuels have shifted from "there's no global warming" to "it's not us" to "it's too late to do anything about it". This is crap. It's not too late, and we can do something about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment