
Originally Posted by
LeeLau
This is the "optimistic" fix
According to recent projections by the Canada Energy Regulator, or CER, industry will have to:
scale up wind and solar production by more than 10 times;
increase controversial carbon capture and storage by 34 to 39 times;
beef up direct air capture (a nascent technology) by 4,600 to 5,500 times its current world capacity;
increase hydrogen production to 12 per cent of energy supply from nearly nothing;
nearly triple nuclear power;
reduce per capita energy consumption by up to 40 per cent;
decrease fossil fuel production by up to 70 per cent; and
triple the ability of Canadian forests to sequester carbon.
But the "realistic" fix per the author is per xyzs quote
Int'l Energy Agency projections estimate that to be on track towards 2050 net zero by 2030, we can get about 75-80% of the way there with tech that's already market ready/proven (wind/solar/etc). From 2030-2050 the original estimate a few years ago was that 50% of achieving that goal would depend on tech earlier in development/unproven in the market (small scale nuclear, fusion, carbon capture, hydrogen, etc). For some good news, that 50% was recently revised down to 35-40%, which is a huge leap in just a few years.
In both timelines, behavior change was only estimated to contribute 3-5% of the reductions needed to get to net zero. It's very, very hard to get people ot change their behavior, even though it's the knee-jerk solution we all instinctively reach for.
I work in climate tech innovation presently. Two things I'd observe are:
1) The pace of innovation in new solutions is really amazing. Astounding even. America's innovation engine + Europe's (which is 10 years ahead of NA from regulatory/culture perspective re: climate) are operating at full tilt to solve the many solutions to make a lot of different tech market ready and scaleable.
2) A few years ago we had the first instance of GDP growth detaching from growth in emissions for the first time in history. Emissions flattened out (in NA at least), now if you check NYT this morning data centers + new manufacturing (including that for cleantech) are driving those emissions back up.
2) The pace of deployment is the most humbling. Carbon capture basically needs to scale to the size of today's oil industry in the coming decades, along with other tech. And testing the viability of all this new tech at each new order of magnitude scale of deployment (in the carbon capture example, 1 ton v. 100 v. 1,000 v 100,000, etc) yields new challenges.
In a lot of ways we've gotten from 0-10 in the past 20 years with clean tech, and now we need to go from 10-100. And frankly that's without making assumptions about changes in global economic systems, which I have no real insight into (have bet my career on the techno optimistic angle b/c it seems most realistic to making any real dent in the near future).
There's serious cause for hope, dosed with serious humility about the scale of the challenge IMO
"We're in the eye of a shiticane here Julian, and Ricky's a low shit system!" - Jim Lahey, RIP
Former Managing Editor @ TGR, forever mag.
Bookmarks