The title of this article is crucial to understanding whether "net zero" is a realistic proposition. Here is a short video which succinctly explains the issue and why renewables will never be the solution. They may play a small role, but going down the route of trying to replace all fossil fuels with them is simply a foolish fantasy.
How Much Energy Will the World Need? - YouTube
The Chinese and most of the developing world understands this already, but they keep the pretence going in order to weaken the gullible and naive Western governments which are willing to go along with it
This is the solutions project out of Stanford University. Great Britain benfits greatly from going 100% RE,
ReplyDeletehttps://thesolutionsproject.org/what-we-do/inspiring-action/why-clean-energy/#/map/countries/location/GBR
Reducing Energy Demand
Improving energy efficiency and powering the grid with electricity from the wind water and sun positively reduces the overall energy demand
62% demand reduction is possible going to 100% renewable energy.
Health cost savings per year:
$137.1B
2.90% of country GDP
Lives lost to air pollution that we could save each year:
13,823
The transition pays for itself in as little as 1.4 years from air pollution and climate cost savings alone
Average Energy Costs in 2050
11.16¢
/kWh* with fossil fuels
7.98¢
/kWh* with 100% renewable energy
Fossil Fuels & Nuclear Energy
Wind, Water & Solar
Money in your Pocket
Energy cost savings per person:
$368
Energy, health, and climate
cost savings per person:
$5,819
https://thesolutionsproject.org/what-we-do/inspiring-action/why-clean-energy/#/map/countries/location/ALL
ReplyDeleteHealth Cost Savings
Health cost savings per year:
$30002B
9.29% of total GDP
Lives lost to air pollution that we could save each year:
5,285,036
The transition pays for itself in as little as 1.4 years from air pollution and climate cost savings alone
What you are overlooking is that renewables cannot provide the affordable reliable energy that a modern country needs. The savings you quote are just some theoretical calculations based on computer models.
ReplyDeleteBloomberg disagrees with you. Natural gas has hit the roof in prices and has possible unstable supply. RE is all yours that other countries can't cut off. That is energy security that saves money.
Deletehttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-17/renewables-rise-saved-eu-11-billion-in-gas-imports-since-russia-s-ukraine-war
Growth in Renewables Saved the EU $11 Billion in Gas Imports Since the War
Wind and solar produced a quarter of the EU’s electricity between March and September this year, according to a study by E3G and Ember
In your coutnry, RE saves the consume money.
ReplyDeletehttps://thesolutionsproject.org/what-we-do/inspiring-action/why-clean-energy/#/map/countries/location/GBR
Average Energy Costs in 2050
11.16¢
/kWh*
7.98¢
/kWh*
Fossil Fuels & Nuclear Energy
Wind, Water & Solar
11.6 is fossil fuel price
Delete7.98 is RE price
If renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels then why are places where renewables are most developed, like California or Germany, the most expensive for energy?
ReplyDeleteThere's Iowa.
Delete