Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

OKIsItJustMe

(21,508 posts)
6. Who are you arguing with?
Thu Feb 27, 2025, 07:06 PM
Feb 2025

You’re saying a lot of stuff, most of it irrelevant to anything I have said. You’ve yet again posted the same table from an appendix. (Have you read the report?)


https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2024



1.5.3 Clean power needs to scale up faster to get on track for net zero emissions

While clean power is gaining momentum, today’s policy settings and market conditions do not deliver fast enough growth to move onto a pathway to net zero emissions. In the NZE Scenario, which does move countries collectively onto such a pathway, global clean power generation increases twice as fast to 2035 as in the STEPS. To close the gap between the STEPS and the NZE Scenario through to 2035, clean power needs to expand 1.5-times faster in China, 1.9-times faster in advanced economies, and three-times faster in the other emerging market and developing economies. The faster uptake of clean power in the NZE Scenario leads to an 85% reduction in unabated coal-fired power and a 55% reduction in unabated gas-fired power by 2035, compared with a 35% reduction for coal-fired power and virtually no change for natural gas in the STEPS. To create the widest path possible to net zero emissions, all clean power technologies make a bigger contribution to reducing emissions than they do in the STEPS, though these contributions are differentiated by how mature and accessible the technologies are, by their respective costs, and by technology preferences in various economies, which are often expressed through differences in national policies.



Despite their growth in the STEPS, solar PV and wind need to expand more than any other clean energy technologies to close the gap between the STEPS and the NZE Scenario, with the latter calling for an additional 7 000 TWh of solar PV and 5 000 TWh of wind by 2035 (Figure 1.17). The additional growth required in the NZE Scenario reflects the widespread availability of solar PV and wind, the strong policy support they enjoy in most countries and their cost advantages, since they are now the cheapest new sources of electricity in most markets. In the case of solar PV, it also reflects the excess manufacturing capacity that already exists, and which is anticipated to augment in the coming years (IEA, 2024d). A number of actions need to be taken to deliver the additional solar PV and wind called for in the NZE Scenario: these will vary from country to country but are likely in many cases to include taking immediate steps to address permitting and licensing issues, resolve grid connection delays and accelerate deployment of batteries and other energy storage technologies. Special efforts are needed to scale up financing for clean power in emerging market and developing economies outside China (section 1.8).

Vital as solar PV and wind are, the deployment of a wide set of dispatchable low-emissions sources, including hydropower, bioenergy and nuclear power, is essential for affordable and secure clean energy transitions. The NZE Scenario calls for about 1 000 TWh more hydro by 2035 than the STEPS does, and for about 650 TWh more bioenergy. While they are both mature technologies, their potential for growth is more limited than that of solar and wind, not least because of the limits on resource availability. There is also a gap of about 1 400 TWh between the NZE Scenario and the STEPS on nuclear power. This is significant, but much smaller than those for solar PV and wind: not all countries choose to use nuclear technology, and it involves relatively high initial costs and long construction times.

If the power sector is to lead the way to net zero emissions, new low-emissions options need to be brought to market by 2035. Small modular reactors are one of these technologies, and their development helps to accelerate the contribution of nuclear in the NZE Scenario. The deployment of carbon capture technologies and the use of low-emissions hydrogen and ammonia are also important, since they can be used to reduce emissions from existing coal- fired power plants which between them would use the entire remaining carbon budget to 1.5 °C if operated as they are today (IEA, 2022). By 2035, fossil fuels with CCUS and low- emissions hydrogen and ammonia start to make an impact in the NZE Scenario: together they deliver an additional 1 100 TWh over what is in the STEPS, setting them up to play an important part in decarbonising energy beyond 2035.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

As it's so dire, it's not amusing to see an antinuke quoting the two most pronuclear climate scientists in the world. NNadir Feb 2025 #1
I'm not "antinuke." OKIsItJustMe Feb 2025 #2
In my position, I hear a lot from people who tell me they're not antinukes who nevertheless drag out every idiotic... NNadir Feb 2025 #3
Simple questions OKIsItJustMe Feb 2025 #4
Spoken like a true "I'm not an antinuke" antinuke. QED. One might ask how long it will take the useless solar.... NNadir Feb 2025 #5
Who are you arguing with? OKIsItJustMe Feb 2025 #6
To your point around destruction of wilderness Pull_Left Feb 2025 #9
The first commercial nuclear reactor in the US was... NNadir Feb 2025 #10
Really appreciate the detailed response Pull_Left Feb 2025 #13
Let's not pretend that solar farms can only be built in the wilderness OKIsItJustMe Feb 2025 #11
Absolutely agree! Pull_Left Feb 2025 #12
Wherever and whenever they are built they will represent an unconcionable waste.. NNadir Feb 2025 #14
None of this is relevant to the OP OKIsItJustMe Feb 2025 #17
I certainly am very familiar with Jim Hansen and Pushkar Kharecha's work. I must have linked their highly cited... NNadir Mar 2025 #18
I should know better OKIsItJustMe Mar 2025 #19
Great post! Thanks for posting. Jim__ Feb 2025 #7
You're welcome OKIsItJustMe Feb 2025 #8
We can of course consider whether an appreciation of science... NNadir Feb 2025 #15
I have worked with several scientists, some of them I call friends. OKIsItJustMe Feb 2025 #16
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»James Hansen and Pushker ...»Reply #6