100% renewable energy ‘is possible by 2035’

‘A world based on 100% renewable energy is possible, and we are able to transform the energy system fast enough to avoid the climate catastrophe!’  So says the Joint declaration of the global 100% renewable energy strategy group.  Set up initially by a core of 7 leading climate and energy scientists, including Prof. Mark Jacobson from Stanford in the USA, and Prof Christopher Breyer from LUT in Finland, and then backed by 40 other scientists, it claims that ‘a 100% renewable electricity supply is possible by 2030, and with substantial political will around the world, 100% renewable energy is also technically and economically feasible across all other sectors by 2035. A 100% RE system will be more cost effective than will a future system based primarily on fossil and nuclear power. The transformation to 100% renewables will boost the global economy, create millions more jobs than lost, and substantially reduce health problems and mortality due to pollution’.               

The group are aware that pushing it all for 2035 is a very radical stance. ‘To date, 11 countries have reached or exceeded 100% renewable electricity; 12 countries have passed laws to reach 100% renewable electricity by 2030; 49 countries have passed laws to reach 100% renewable electricity by 2050’, but ‘only Denmark has passed laws to reach 100% renewable energy across all sectors, and it is by 2050’. And they admit that ‘in the public debate, policies to reach 100% renewables across all energy sectors are few in number, and by 2035 are non-existent. Some have considered such policies impractical. Based on old data, even major bodies, such as IRENA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have only demanded to achieve 70% RE by 2050. The EU as a whole has only a 32% RE target in total energy by 2030, Germany has only a 65% target in the electric power sector.’ 

However, as Cleantechnica’s review put it, the group ‘do not see the point of such unambitious targets when it is completely viable and technically practical to transition much more quickly, especially considering how important a quick transition is to a stable climate and livable society’. 

So how credible is that?  The various scenarios that Stanford, LUT and others have produced certainly suggests that it can be done technically, and, with renewable costs falling, the economics is also looking good, so that, at least according to their modelling, they say ‘electricity in a 100% RE system will cost less than in our current energy system; the total energy cost of a 100% RE system will be lower than the cost of conventional energy, even if we exclude social costs. The total social cost (energy, environmental, climate, and health cost) of a 100% RE system will be drastically lower than of business as usual.’ They conclude ‘the sooner we achieve a 100% RE system, the faster these savings will be realized!’ 

Can it be done? 

Will that actually happen? Even given the urgency with which actions to reduce climate change are now perceived, the political will and leadership to make radical changes like this may still not be sufficiently developed. Instead we seem to be continually sidetracked into costly dead-ends like nuclear power and continued use of fossil fuels enabled by carbon capture, potentially slowing the expansion of renewables. 

Hopefully though, the continuing fall in renewable costs will ensure that they will see off nuclear and fossil CCS. That does seem likely in terms of direct power supply, and beyond, with the 100% renewables group looking to electricity overall taking a ‘massively increasing share (about 80-95%) of the global energy supply’ i.e. for other uses as well as power consumption. So in addition to its direct use, we also have renewable power being used to make green hydrogen for heating and for some vehicles, and also for running heat pumps, and for powering electric vehicles, with renewables also thus seeing off competition from nuclear or gas derived hydrogen.

In all this, the 100% renewables group stresses electrification very strongly: ‘electrification will result in a superabundance of cheap clean, renewable energy, increasing prosperity for all humanity’. However, as I argued in an earlier post, while renewables should be able to supply all end uses, it’s not clear if renewable electricity is always the best option for meeting heating, industry and transport demand. In many cases it may be, but direct solar thermal and biomass sources might also be used for heating and some biofuel/waste derived liquids and gases can be used for some types of for transport and for industrial process heating. 

It is true that there are land use and eco-issues about how much we can rely on biofuels for vehicles. However, some biomass wastes may be usable for transport.  Other non-electrical renewables, including sustainably managed biomass and geothermal-fired cogeneration/CHP linked to district heating systems, as well as direct solar linked to community heat networks, could also be playing a key role. Depending on the role of biofuels/biomass, the overall non-electrical contribution may be more like the 20% than the 5% in the energy supply range envisioned by the 100% renewables group. Alternatively, it may be that we can do more with electricity-only options, so that we need nearer to 5% than 20% from other renewables. But one way or another, renewables should be able to squeeze out any remaining fossil fuel use. 

Clearly the aim is for coal, gas and oil use to reduce as far and as fast as possible - as  for example has also been called for by a group pushing for a Global Fossil Fuel Non Proliferation Treaty. But the 100% renewables group see renewables taking over totally by 2035. Is that possible?  There are all sorts of implementation and system optimisation issues, for example in relation to materials constraints and grid balancing needs. Even though it should be possible to overcome these issues in time, while we may see some countries get to near 100% by around 2035, something the UK Renewable Energy Association says is just about credible for the UK, most may take longer. 

Nevertheless, having an ambitious short-term targets may stimulate more action by more countries. Of course there is also the risk that failure will lead to disillusionment. Setting vaguer targets far off, for say 2050, may seem like a safer option-  easier to sign up to. It is what has been done so far. But it lets you off the hook and in practice may mean that little is done. Perhaps we can’t afford that any more.  2035 for 100% of all energy everywhere is a bit daunting and brave, but the UK government has now set a 78% emission reduction target for then….And even the relatively conservative International Energy Agency has shifted ground a bit, with, in their new Net Zero scenario, fossil fuel cut back drastically and renewables now seen as supplying around 90% of power and two thirds of all energy by 2050. Still a way to go to 100% by 2035 though...