In early markets, hybrids always prevail because there’s not enough electric infrastructure. As it develops and people can charge their cars more easily, the share of EVs increases.
I read that new data centers are constrained by how much power (electricity) can be delivered. Are new data centers being powered with solar/battery systems? I read about gas turbines and anticipation of nuclear (fission, but also some hype about fusion). But I don't recall reading about big solar installations to power data center installations. (Except maybe in China.) Have I missed it?
Exponentials are killing us and, as Tomas says, are also providing hope. In an exponential meets exponential world, I think ‘predictions’ are peering into the mists.
Possibly space and it will give great power (excuse the pun) to those with launch capabilities - no longer the US but Musk/Bezos. But what about failure modes and why not just collect sunlight back on earth?
Re fusion, it seems to me that once the engineering challenge of controlling a plasma is overcome, the next one will be how to harness the output. Current fission reactors run water pipes to a steam turbine. Somehow I don’t think that’s a very practical idea for something hotter than the sun?
I have just completed my own project as part of a municipal endeavour to determine local GHG emissions.
As you say, exponentials everywhere - CO2 emissions, forcing function, sea-level. I am convinced we will hit 2C in 10 years and will need FF reductions of nominally 10% pa thereafter.
You give me hope it may be possible but we will still have to contend with a diminished natural world and economy. But better than hitting 4C by 2050.
I read your previous blog on a plentiful future and am unconvinced but respectful of the fact you have looked at both sides of things.
Many of your solar curves are installed capacity,not actual generation. Capacity is useless more than half of the time because of nighttime and clouds, so you need to look at actual generation or installed battery capacity. And when adding batteries as backup, you now need twice as many solar panels to charge the batteries for overnight USA. And for northern areas, like Europe you need more batteries and solar for charging them to cover the diminished daylight in winter and cloudier weather.
As for electric vehicles, American new car sales last year were less than 8% and are not growing quickly. And transportation also includes heavy trucks, trains, ships and aircraft, none of which, other than passenger trains, are being electrified except for small experimental tests.
Hmm about half of the graphs are capacity and the other half is electricity production.
Their connection is pretty straightforward too, as solar can produce electricity equivalent to 25% of the time.
So you 4x capacity and use batteries, and it’s broadly equivalent (up to ~70-90% of the time, when reliability costs start kicking in)
I don’t see how that changes anything!
The US is a laggard here because, among other things, it’s the world’s top oil producer. Please don’t look at one market and say “and therefore all other markets are like that”, that’s cherry picking!
Trains, trucks, buses and ships are also prone to electrification. The one that isn’t is air. That plus petrochemicals are the two use cases for oil in the medium term.
Excellent summary! I've been writing about this epic renewables revolution for years at The Weekly Anthropocene, and I just got back from in-person reporting across China.
Let’s skip over some secondary points, like how batteries merely store energy, not create it, and how the energy for EVs comes almost entirely from gas and coal. Or how wind turbines and solar farms require massive amounts of material and land, and may not produce more energy than was used to manufacture them.
Instead I’ll imagine your net zero utopia - how would that be “great for the environment”?
There are about 2 trillion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere (14.7 lb/in^2, 0.04%, etc).
How long after net zero is achieved before the “correct” level of CO2 is attained? OWID shows total worldwide emissions of 38.6 billion tons per year, 4.9 billion coming from the US.
That’s about 2% of the total, if all human CO2 emissions were net zero.
Of course human emissions are a small part of the total. The CO2 cycle will continue whether humans are involved or not.
But what is the “right” amount of CO2? Nobody knows. What if MORE CO2 would help green the earth?
There are a lot of very smart and sincere people like you who are genuinely concerned. But there are a lot of other very smart but cynical and greedy people who exploit your gullibility for their own reasons.
"Electricity went from less than 5% electric..." You sure ? :) Notice that the IEA officially announced that conventional peak oil happened back in 2018. So far, the current plateau relies almost exclusively on US tight oil a few other sources. But US tight oil isn't infinite either...
So obviously the Chinese government saw the data and decided that they'll do what must be done. While Trump pretends the data doesn't exist or something.
I have just completed my own project as part of a municipal endeavour to determine local GHG emissions.
As you say, exponentials everywhere - CO2 emissions, forcing function, sea-level. I am convinced we will hit 2C in 10 years and will need FF reductions of nominally 10% pa thereafter.
You give me hope it may be possible but we will still have to contend with a diminished natural world and economy. But better than hitting 4C by 2050.
I read your previous blog on a plentiful future and am unconvinced but respectful of the fact you have looked at both sides of things.
I read that new data centers are constrained by how much power (electricity) can be delivered. Are new data centers being powered with solar/battery systems? I read about gas turbines and anticipation of nuclear (fission, but also some hype about fusion). But I don't recall reading about big solar installations to power data center installations. (Except maybe in China.) Have I missed it?
Will cover that very soon! From two angles. Think also space!
Exponentials are killing us and, as Tomas says, are also providing hope. In an exponential meets exponential world, I think ‘predictions’ are peering into the mists.
Possibly space and it will give great power (excuse the pun) to those with launch capabilities - no longer the US but Musk/Bezos. But what about failure modes and why not just collect sunlight back on earth?
Re fusion, it seems to me that once the engineering challenge of controlling a plasma is overcome, the next one will be how to harness the output. Current fission reactors run water pipes to a steam turbine. Somehow I don’t think that’s a very practical idea for something hotter than the sun?
Outstanding Tomas,
I have just completed my own project as part of a municipal endeavour to determine local GHG emissions.
As you say, exponentials everywhere - CO2 emissions, forcing function, sea-level. I am convinced we will hit 2C in 10 years and will need FF reductions of nominally 10% pa thereafter.
You give me hope it may be possible but we will still have to contend with a diminished natural world and economy. But better than hitting 4C by 2050.
I read your previous blog on a plentiful future and am unconvinced but respectful of the fact you have looked at both sides of things.
It will happen indeed!
And soon.
How soon is hard to tell. That’s the thing with exponentials.
What’s hopeful is that now the optimistic scenario is the CURRENT trajectory!
Many of your solar curves are installed capacity,not actual generation. Capacity is useless more than half of the time because of nighttime and clouds, so you need to look at actual generation or installed battery capacity. And when adding batteries as backup, you now need twice as many solar panels to charge the batteries for overnight USA. And for northern areas, like Europe you need more batteries and solar for charging them to cover the diminished daylight in winter and cloudier weather.
As for electric vehicles, American new car sales last year were less than 8% and are not growing quickly. And transportation also includes heavy trucks, trains, ships and aircraft, none of which, other than passenger trains, are being electrified except for small experimental tests.
Hmm about half of the graphs are capacity and the other half is electricity production.
Their connection is pretty straightforward too, as solar can produce electricity equivalent to 25% of the time.
So you 4x capacity and use batteries, and it’s broadly equivalent (up to ~70-90% of the time, when reliability costs start kicking in)
I don’t see how that changes anything!
The US is a laggard here because, among other things, it’s the world’s top oil producer. Please don’t look at one market and say “and therefore all other markets are like that”, that’s cherry picking!
Trains, trucks, buses and ships are also prone to electrification. The one that isn’t is air. That plus petrochemicals are the two use cases for oil in the medium term.
As Arjun Murti has explained at length, peak oil is decades away. One link:
https://arjunmurti.substack.com/p/obliterating-peak-oil-demand-a-progress
Just skimmed it. No mention of the biggest force, electrification/solar/batteries
Also overfitting to the EU EV slump from a few years ago, which as I mention is unlikely to be valid for long
Excellent summary! I've been writing about this epic renewables revolution for years at The Weekly Anthropocene, and I just got back from in-person reporting across China.
Great!
Send it to Trump.
Let’s skip over some secondary points, like how batteries merely store energy, not create it, and how the energy for EVs comes almost entirely from gas and coal. Or how wind turbines and solar farms require massive amounts of material and land, and may not produce more energy than was used to manufacture them.
Instead I’ll imagine your net zero utopia - how would that be “great for the environment”?
There are about 2 trillion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere (14.7 lb/in^2, 0.04%, etc).
How long after net zero is achieved before the “correct” level of CO2 is attained? OWID shows total worldwide emissions of 38.6 billion tons per year, 4.9 billion coming from the US.
That’s about 2% of the total, if all human CO2 emissions were net zero.
Of course human emissions are a small part of the total. The CO2 cycle will continue whether humans are involved or not.
But what is the “right” amount of CO2? Nobody knows. What if MORE CO2 would help green the earth?
There are a lot of very smart and sincere people like you who are genuinely concerned. But there are a lot of other very smart but cynical and greedy people who exploit your gullibility for their own reasons.
"Electricity went from less than 5% electric..." You sure ? :) Notice that the IEA officially announced that conventional peak oil happened back in 2018. So far, the current plateau relies almost exclusively on US tight oil a few other sources. But US tight oil isn't infinite either...
So obviously the Chinese government saw the data and decided that they'll do what must be done. While Trump pretends the data doesn't exist or something.
Outstanding Tomas,
I have just completed my own project as part of a municipal endeavour to determine local GHG emissions.
As you say, exponentials everywhere - CO2 emissions, forcing function, sea-level. I am convinced we will hit 2C in 10 years and will need FF reductions of nominally 10% pa thereafter.
You give me hope it may be possible but we will still have to contend with a diminished natural world and economy. But better than hitting 4C by 2050.
I read your previous blog on a plentiful future and am unconvinced but respectful of the fact you have looked at both sides of things.