Total phaseout of fossil fuels

[amadeus]

SimCity 3000? Please. We all know SC2K is the superior game.

Now the question is it “fair?” I would say yes in that a poor country today can become a rich country far more quickly than it took the initial industrialized economies to develop. For the U.S., UK, and Germany, it took 80, 100 years? In the 20th century, Korea turned into a major economy in just a generation, and probably with relatively less environmental degradation.

Whether or not it is fair though doesn’t answer the questions of if it is plausible or even desirable. I want a clean environment, but not if it means I have to go without heat or food.

 

[Broken_Erika]

SimCity 3000? Please. We all know SC2K is the superior game.

I couldn't find the SC2K one.......

 

[Moriarte]

Really it is not that complicated:
1. Increasing our global energy use = BAD
2. Reducing our global energy use = GOOD

Well, the history of humankind is the process of increasing energy use. It is what happens, whether we want it or not. We have Kardashev scale as a an observation and extrapolation of that process to the very distant future. Increasing global energy use has been good thing, because it enabled us to have better, longer life: better agriculture, better technology, better medicine, better recreation. Directly, or by extension, it is also hurting inhabitants of our planet. We are at a difficult point as we need to go nuclear fusion/fission on a massive scale in order to break the next barrier and have 10x more energy without cooking the planet. Then another 10x with the next revolution, and so on.

The conversation that implies that we, (some of us) instead of going nuclear and branching out to other sources of alternative energy need to stop developing right NOW, while others, blessed by the wheel of destiny and the norm of profitability can continue producing energy at high rates, because they were born in more prosperous places - is a one sided conversation. A patronising monologue, with ears closed. A number of less developed countries will not stop polluting, because they don't want to exclude themselves from the race. They will not reduce their aspirations in life. So, one correct solution would be to help us and them get better, cleaner energy sources, get us a lot more energy, not prohibit them from developing altogether by capping their energy production capability.

I understand there are infinite practical problems with that line of thinking too. Still, I find your number 1 exceedingly hopeful and not in line with our history.

 

[Arwon]

Really it is not that complicated:
1. Increasing our global energy use = BAD
2. Reducing our global energy use = GOOD

Of course, you can reduce energy use even while increasing final/end use just by replacing the primary consumption of combusted fossil fuels with non combusted renewable electricity.

 

[soundjata]

Well, the history of humankind is the process of increasing energy use. It is what happens, whether we want it or not. We have Kardashev scale as a an observation and extrapolation of that process to the very distant future. Increasing global energy use has been good thing, because it enabled us to have better, longer life: better agriculture, better technology, better medicine, better recreation. Directly, or by extension, it is also hurting inhabitants of our planet. We are at a difficult point as we need to go nuclear fusion/fission on a massive scale in order to break the next barrier and have 10x more energy without cooking the planet. Then another 10x with the next revolution, and so on.

The conversation that implies that we, (some of us) instead of going nuclear and branching out to other sources of alternative energy need to stop developing right NOW, while others, blessed by the wheel of destiny and the norm of profitability can continue producing energy at high rates, because they were born in more prosperous places - is a one sided conversation. A patronising monologue, with ears closed. A number of less developed countries will not stop polluting, because they don't want to exclude themselves from the race. They will not reduce their aspirations in life. So, one correct solution would be to help us and them get better, cleaner energy sources, get us a lot more energy, not prohibit them from developing altogether by capping their energy production capability.

I understand there are infinite practical problems with that line of thinking too. Still, I find your number 1 exceedingly hopeful and not in line with our history.

Indeed, infinite economic growth and infinite increase in energy consumption do have some romantic appeal.

Spoiler :

What makes you so sure that the trajectory of the past (Kardashev scale you say) should continue indefinitely?

Counter-Argument #1 (philosophical): Pandora Box / Prometheus myth:
- Open the box
- Discover Fire
- Have fun for a while
- Get burnt and lose the game.

Sorry I don't agree with your comment "it has been a good thing...".
For whom exactly? Aboriginals? Papuans?

Counter-Argument #2 (physical): Exponential growth is deadly.
There is a simple math/physics fact: the earth surface (and atmosphere) has a limited capacity for absorbing energy => we will get destroyed if we keep (exponentially) increasing our power usage.

There are certainly ways to reverse our energy consumption but it requires a change of paradigm, a renunciation of capatolismus, which i can't see happening soon enough

 

[Moriarte]

What makes you so sure that the trajectory of the past (Kardashev scale you say) should continue indefinitely?

I don't know much about indefinitely, but in centuries to come we will likely start building off planet orbital bases, planetary scientific settlements (moon, mars), we will engage more in asteroid extraction. Space tourism, maybe? Terraforming, perhaps? Direct solar energy extraction? (Dyson Sphere/Swarm) There are infinite resources outside our planet, infinite possibilities. To get there, before the Chicxulub arrives again, we would have to increase our energy production at a robust rate.

Sorry I don't agree with your comment "it has been a good thing...".
For whom exactly? Aboriginals? Papuans?

For the average human being on the planet, who improved average lifespan by 30 years during last few centuries. Courtesy of medical achievements enabled by techonological breakthroughs, fed by an increasing flow of energy. Aboriginals have gotten the other side of that stick, yes. Do we think how to include certain people in these processes more fully in days to come, or do we stop, because Aboriginals?

Counter-Argument #2 (physical): Exponential growth is deadly.
There is a simple math/physics fact: the earth surface (and atmosphere) has a limited capacity for absorbing energy => we will get destroyed if we keep (exponentially) increasing our power usage.

I think we can counter the fears of limited capacity with our intention of employing more surfaces floating in space in proximity to our planet.

 

[amadeus]

I couldn't find the SC2K one.......

the fUsion building or the microwave?

 

[Moriarte]

I feel like the problem may have something to do with the fact that economic growth causes increased resource/energy usage (as soundjata says, bad), and governments stay in power with economic growth. If you want economic growth, the path to achieving it is easier with fossil fuel-derived everything, still, which is a shame.

Maybe the problem is that availability of abundant energy and other resources enable economic growth? And we are the billiard ball, that runs along the vector of growth, because we constantly innovate within the industrial field of energy. Cheap resources -> production at scale. We can't help ourselves but innovate/optimise, in all aspects of our lives. Suddenly stopping and going the other way.. well, it is not well aligned with human tendencies so far. Reminds me of AI conversation, in a way. "We should stop now and do a deep think, for a couple of years, to figure out where we're going with AI." But that's not how it works. While you stop practical realisation of this vision (while thinking about it), your political adversaries will not only think, but also act. So where will you be in 2 years?

Point is, whether we want it or not, we Will be getting more economic growth. Because, among other things, energy will become more abundant. What to do with this? Limit fossil fuel usage, obviously, keep making it a lower percent of the total with every decade. "Phasing our before 2050" is a useful political position to hold, but it is perhaps extreme in the practical time frame.

 

[banzay13]

Isn't cheaper to save forest?

 

[GenMarshall]

I voted no. There’s still products that depend on petroleum; plastics, medicine, and lubercation and coal to make coke for use in steel making. I feel we’re not that point to completely go cold turkey when it comes to fossil fuel usage.

I also don't see solar and wind power efficient and reliable enough to be used as mainline power on the grid to replace coal fired power plants. I lean more towards to use of constructing new next generation of nuclear power plants that are much safer than the ones that were put online in the 60s and 70s.

 

[Samson]

I also don't see solar and wind power efficient

 

[Nick723]

Indeed the challenge is mainly on the demand side - how do we electrify much of transportation and heating energy?

Of course, additional demand is a big challenge as well, and not just tied to economic growth. For example air conditioning is becoming more and more ubiquitous, and as the earth gets hotter this is a feedback loop. Even in the UK I now own a portable air conditioning unit.

https://www.iea.org/news/air-conditioning-use-emerges-as-one-of-the-key-drivers-of-global-electricity-demand-growth

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Isn't cheaper to save forest?

You might be on to something. But countries will have to solve their own particular climate problems in their own way, like deforestation, which doesn't appeal to these fairly grand global "promises" which don't really do anything by themselves.

 

[GenMarshall]

That graph doesn't tell me how it factors changes of the seasons (longer nights and shorter days in the winter & angle of the sun) and weather with our current technologies. When I'm referring to efficiency, I'm not referring to the cost per megawatt. For example, a solar power plant in New England would be less efficient than a solar power plant in Arizona because there's less cloudy days in Arizona and due to the Earth's tilt during the winter, would receive more sunlight than New England.

 

[Gorbles]

That graph doesn't tell me how it factors changes of the seasons (longer nights and shorter days in the winter & angle of the sun) and weather with our current technologies. When I'm referring to efficiency, I'm not referring to the cost per megawatt. For example, a solar power plant in New England would be less efficient than a solar power plant in Arizona because there's less cloudy days in Arizona and due to the Earth's tilt during the winter, would receive more sunlight than New England.

This is why renewables aren't limited to solar power.

 

[Samson]

I also don't see solar and wind power efficient and reliable enough to be used as mainline power on the grid to replace coal fired power plants.

That graph doesn't tell me how it factors changes of the seasons (longer nights and shorter days in the winter & angle of the sun) and weather with our current technologies. When I'm referring to efficiency, I'm not referring to the cost per megawatt. For example, a solar power plant in New England would be less efficient than a solar power plant in Arizona because there's less cloudy days in Arizona and due to the Earth's tilt during the winter, would receive more sunlight than New England.

There is loads of complexity in how to build the global energy supply system, but on the important metrics of cost and CO2 footprint there really is no competition for solar and wind for the bulk of generation. If we were going full on these and still wanted more low carbon electricity then perhaps there would be an argument for alternatives like nuclear, but to divert funding AWAY from solar and wind today because they are not "efficient and reliable enough" or that New England is too far north is just getting the science and/or economics wrong.

Even in the UK I now own a portable air conditioning unit.

You know the one pipe ones are incredibly inefficient? If you care about your pocket, let alone the environment, you should get at least a two pipe one but there is a reason most of the world goes for in window ones. I do not understand why they are so rare in the UK. Of course we should probably be moving to heat pump heating, and then you get efficient AC "free".

 

[Arwon]

That graph doesn't tell me how it factors changes of the seasons (longer nights and shorter days in the winter & angle of the sun) and weather with our current technologies. When I'm referring to efficiency, I'm not referring to the cost per megawatt. For example, a solar power plant in New England would be less efficient than a solar power plant in Arizona because there's less cloudy days in Arizona and due to the Earth's tilt during the winter, would receive more sunlight than New England.

This is capacity factor, not efficiency, and it's honestly almost entirely meaningless to the energy supply conversation.

 

[Moriarte]

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Hopes for a historic climate deal appeared dead.

The U.S., EU and a host of other countries were pushing for the COP28 summit, held in the glitzy petro-metropolis of Dubai, to yield a worldwide commitment to end the use of fossil fuels. But a fierce counterattack from Saudi Arabia and its oil-producing partners in OPEC had beaten that effort back — leading, by Monday night, to a draft agreement that one Pacific island minister labeled a “death warrant” for communities threatened by the warming planet’s rising seas.

“I was very depressed,” Danish Climate Minister Dan Jørgensen said afterward.


It looked as though the Saudis had prevailed, just as they had succeeded three months earlier in defanging a fossil fuel proposal at G20 talks in Goa, India.
But by Wednesday morning, it all turned around. Nearly 200 nations, the Saudis included, consented to a compromise deal that fell short of promising an end to fossil fuels — but which acknowledged, for the first time ever in any U.N. climate agreement, that the world must begin “transitioning away” from them, starting this year.
That compromise came after a clutch of loose international coalitions scrambled to salvage the deal, with low-lying island nations, the European Union, the United States and even some wealthy fossil fuel producers joining in. The opposing blocs that faced off during a sleepless denouement revealed two global realities: The West, pushing a green economy on the world stage even as it pursues its own fossil fuel projects, was going up against resource-rich developing countries for whom oil, gas and coal are an essential economic lifeline.

The rescue effort included multiple attempts by U.S. special climate envoy John Kerry and other American officials to reach out directly to the Saudis, eventually settling on text in which continued fossil fuel use would be acceptable as a middle step toward a cleaner future. Among other officials, Kerry met with Abdulaziz bin Salman, the powerful Saudi energy minister.

Within hours, the compromise was sealed early Wednesday morning — and ratified, later that day, to a roomful of applause.

“There were times in the last 48 hours where some of us thought this could fail,” Kerry said.

The deal approved Wednesday is nonbinding, so there’s no guarantee that the Saudis — or, for that matter, the U.S. and U.K. — will shelve any of their planned oil and gas expansions to meet Wednesday’s pledge. Its real importance may not be clear until at least next year, when all countries are due to submit revised plans showing how they intend to cut greenhouse gas pollution in the coming decade.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/13/cop28-climate-deal-00131615

“transitioning away” (instead of phaseout) -- This is the language that satisfied the Arabs, EU, China and the US as a result of climate deal. The agreement reached at COP28 is non-binding. A year later 200 countries will meet again to present a revised plan to cut down on emissions.

 

[GenMarshall]

There is loads of complexity in how to build the global energy supply system, but on the important metrics of cost and CO2 footprint there really is no competition for solar and wind for the bulk of generation. If we were going full on these and still wanted more low carbon electricity then perhaps there would be an argument for alternatives like nuclear, but to divert funding AWAY from solar and wind today because they are not "efficient and reliable enough" or that New England is too far north is just getting the science and/or economics wrong.

No where in my statement did I advocated for diverting funding away from solar and wind, the only other competition for solar and wind for bulk generation is hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear (The former two relies on geography). Given what I have on the table right now, I don't see solar and wind to be efficient and reliable enough to be used as a base load power plant when the power output of a solar power plant and wind farms have fluctuating outputs that's dependent on the weather, time of day, and season thus cannot be relied upon to use for electric generation 24/7. Compared to a nuclear power plant, a solar plant has less uptime due to the factors I've already outlined (Season, weather, and time of day). Given the choice, I'd much prefer going for nuclear energy for my base load power needs and use solar facilities as peaker plants. Saying that "I'm getting the economics/science wrong" is just going into ad hominem territory (no where in my post did I placed in an economic argument when my argument is centered around capacity factor and uptime). I know what I am talking about because I live in the region and we don't get as much sunlight during the winter compared places like Arizona. We do have some photovoltaic arrays, but they don't replace base load power plants. There’s a reason why we don’t have thermal solar plants in the northeastern United Stated (and places outside southwestern US) and good luck having any solar power during the winter months up in Alaska.

If there’s advancements in which fluids within a thermal solar plant (especially concentrated solar power plants) can hold heat for 24 hours with minimal loss of heat during the heat exchange when the sun is down. Then I would be for it, especially since it’s using the same concept of a thermal power plant (e.g. using a boiler to generate steam to turn a turbine connecting to a generator) and don’t need any additional facilities and/or devices to convert DC to AC (Photovoltaics, I would need not only space for battery storage to store and distribute power during months with long nights, but also take into account needing a DC to AC inverter).

 

[Quintillus]

Yes, IMO, is a more fair answer to whether it's fair than No.

The reality of the situation is we've already burned through most of the atmospheric carbon budget. And one could argue that it's not fair that not all countries got to participate equally in that. But we can't simply add to the budget and let all the countries who didn't get their "fair share" burn that "fair share", even if we had a formula for determining what that "fair share" might be. We'd be so far past 1.5ºC Celsius that Mauritius would be underwater well before everything was made "fair".

Saying it's not fair that Germany and the UK burned all this coal and now we can't is a bit like showing up late to a party where there's only one bottle of wine left and it gets split evenly and everyone gets half a glass of what's left, and then complaining that the people who were there before you already had two glasses. Unless Jesus shows up to turn some water into wine, there's only so much wine available, and there's no way that all the latecomers can get two glasses apiece. The math doesn't work.

So given that we can't just reload our Civ game to 1800 and say, "Each country gets two factories and two coal plants, that's the limit, to keep it fair"... yes, a total phase-out [for electric generation and transportation*] is fair. We all have to contribute. The EU is well ahead of the curve and while the U.S. still leads in emissions per capita, it's also decreasing in both absolute and per-capita terms. China, India, Indonesia, and parts of Africa aren't at peak yet, but it's frequently cheaper to deploy renewable energy than fossil fuels now, and other than China, they also have a much smaller installed base to replace. And it's ultimately in the interest of those saying it's not fair to succeed as well.

I'll also note that it's the island nations who stand to be inundated who really have some right to say this whole situation isn't fair. They also tend to be ones saying that a total phase-out is fair, which is also in their interest, but which I tend to agree with.

* I am assuming that this question means for these sectors and, as much as feasible, others that emit carbon into the atmosphere, and isn't saying, "no plastics". There will be some more challenging sectors that aren't insignificant. Cement being a notable one. Steel another - the Swedes are doing what they can to make green steel with electric and hydrogen, but it's not industrial scale yet. Seafaring transportation being one where we have some promise for reducing it, but not yet eliminating it unless we go back to the Age of Sail. And airline travel. Does total phase-out mean no airline travel? Or do we replace as much as we realistically can with rail, and use carbon-capture to offset the remainder? This is where I'm assuming "total phase-out" actually means "net zero after accounting for carbon capture" rather than "absolute zero no matter what"; as much as carbon capture still needs to prove itself, should we make it even somewhat economical, it can play a role in countering those toughest-to-phase-out areas.