In a new article, energy guru Vaclav Smil offers some sobering views on the global energy and climate Future: ‘even though the supply of new renewables (wind, solar, new biofuels) rose impressively - about fiftyfold during the first 20 years of the 21st century- the world’s dependence on fossil carbon declined only marginally, from 87% to 85% of the total supply.’ So he says ‘to conclude that we will be able to achieve decarbonization anytime soon, effectively, and on the required scale runs against all past evidence’.
The latest edition of BPs annual review of global energy statistics makes for similarly gloomy reading, although the figures are slightly better. It says that ‘fossil fuels accounted for 82% of primary energy use last year, down from 83% in 2019 & 85% five years ago’ . But with global primary energy use expanding by a giant 5.8% in 2021, it’s still a grim tale, renewable expansion (an annual growth rate of 15%) being the only good story- though, even so, global carbon emissions still grew by 5.7%. Most of that was due to expansion in fossil energy use in Asia (mostly China and India), with coal remaining the dominant fuel for power generation globally in 2021, its share increasing to 36%, up from 35% in 2020. Renewables share in power generation did reach almost 13% in 2021, higher than nuclear energy’s share (9.8%), but clearly there is a long way to go.
So what next? In the forward, BP’s Spencer Dale says ‘The low-carbon energy sources and technologies needed to achieve a fast and deep decarbonization exist today – wind and solar power, biofuels, blue and green hydrogen, CCUS (carbon capture, use and storage), and carbon dioxide removals’. No mention there of nuclear. Or of what BP will actually do. But change is clearly needed.
That’s certainly what’s behind the new updated 145 country 100% renewables scenario from Mark Jacobson and his team at Stanford University. They are convinced that, with battery backup, renewables can be accelerated to meet all energy needs globally by 2050, if not earlier. Optimistic stuff.
Pushing renewables hard does makes sense, but so far we have in effect been running fast to stay (mostly) still. And some say that may continue to be the case. Led by power sector spending on renewables, grids, and storage, clean energy investment is expected to exceed $1.4 trillion in 2022, almost three-quarters of the growth in overall energy investment, the IEA said in its World Energy Investment 2022 report. So, the annual average growth rate in clean energy investment has risen to 12%, up from 2% in the wake of the 2015 Paris Agreement. But almost half of the extra spending may be absorbed up by higher costs, rather than bringing additional energy supply capacity to the market. So that’s not enough.
However, energy saving may help- something missing from Spencer Dale’s list above. A study by the UK CREDS University consortium recently claimed that energy demand could be reduced by over 50% in Northern countries like the UK, and there could so be substantial savings elsewhere. It says that ‘Energy demand in the UK could be reduced by 52% by 2050 - compared with 2020 levels - without compromising on quality of life’. And it claims that ‘without energy demand reduction, short-term climate targets are unlikely to be reached and long-term net-zero ambitions will need to rely on expensive and unproven CDR technologies, increasing the risk of failing to achieve the global goals of the Paris Agreement’.
The International Energy Agency has certainly been pushing energy efficiency hard in recent years, and is challenging what it sees a poor policies in this area, for example in the UK. It does seem tragic that the clear gains that can be obtained are mostly being ignored. Although not by everyone: for example Rita Singh from insulation company Kingspan says ‘improving the thermal performance of UK homes could deliver climate and energy security at a fraction of the cost of nuclear.'
Africa to the rescue?
Meantime though, looking more broadly, while the UK and EU struggle with their own problems, and the fuel price and access shocks resulting from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, could Africa offer some help? The International Energy Agency’s new Africa Energy Outlook says that Africa is home to 60% of the best solar resources globally, yet only 1% of installed solar PV capacity. But the IEA says that solar PV, already the cheapest source of power in many parts of Africa, will outcompete all sources continent-wide by 2030, as shown in its new Sustainable Africa Scenario. And renewables, including solar, wind, hydro and geothermal would account for over 80% of new power generation capacity to 2030- more than 200GW. So, although until recently something of a laggard in green energy, Africa could soon become a major player.
Interestingly then, the IEA also goes on to say that ‘global declines in the cost of hydrogen production could allow Africa to deliver renewables-produced hydrogen to Northern Europe at internationally competitive price points by 2030. With further cost declines, Africa has the potential to produce 5 000 mega tonnes of hydrogen per year at less than USD 2 per kilogramme—equivalent to global total energy supply today’.
There are some green hydrogen projects planned, including in Namibia. But should Africa export green energy like this? Surely it would be better to use it itself and avoid the near 50GW of new fossil plant that the IEA envisages being needed in Africa by 2030? Or will the lure of increasingly lucrative EU markets be too strong? There are already signs of EU interest, as well as some enthusiasm in Africa for expanding gas exports. That raises some big ethical issues- with the North yet again potentially exploiting resources in the south. And, if it’s just fossil gas or deriatives, like blue hydrogen, then there are also big environmental issue. Of course it doesn’t have to done in an exploitative way: maybe that can be avoided in the new deals that are being sought And moving on to exporting green gas, made via electrolysis using renewable power, could be much better environmentally. But shouldn’t the EU be doing that itself? As well as cutting energy demand. Africa has plenty enough of its own social, economic and energy problems to resolve.
The IEA sees it a little differently. While it is keen to see green gas expand, it takes as read that ‘Africa’s industrialisation relies in part on expanding natural gas use’, while, putting it in a global context, in all scenarios, it says that by 2050, ‘Africa still accounts for no more than 4% of cumulative global energy-related CO2 emissions’. So there is not a major moral incentive to clean up. But it will get hit nevertheless: the IEA says global climate change is likely to reduce African GDP by around 8% in 2050 relative to a baseline without any climate impacts, with losses in some regions such as East Africa maybe reaching around 15%. So you could say it would be wise to link in to the global efforts to limit climate impacts, including, arguably, by exporting green power. The debate continues.
Comments
Post a Comment