Non reducing anomeric carbon12/30/2023 ![]() Sadly, the pledged funds haven’t yet fully materialized, and the date has since been pushed back to 2023. At COP15 in 2009, there was a pledge to provide $100 billion of annual climate support for the poor by 2020, but the form such support would take was never specified. Such support should be part of promised aid or concessional finance and certainly not more traditional debt. The premium is important, not just to cover the cost of developing batteries, but also for green hydrogen to avoid industrial emissions. That cost should disproportionally be borne by the rich, first as they go full zero and pay the early adopter premium, and second, through financial support for developing nations. It’s the last fraction of energy that is hard to keep fossil-free. The poor need more energy, and much of it will be clean energy which is already viable. It is also inconsistent to focus on emissions created by new builds in developing regions, instead of emissions from already built infrastructure that is overwhelmingly in high-emissions regions. Thus, it is inconsistent to focus disproportionally on lower coal use instead of lower total emissions. Globally, total oil and gas emissions were 25% more than from coal, even after factoring in coal-based emissions from cement. In contrast, India used only about 22% of the world average of oil and gas per capita. ![]() This is because of its lower energy content per ton, which means lower emissions. In reality, India’s 2019 per capita coal consumption was only half the world average when we adjust India’s tons consumed. But rising RE doesn’t mean switching off coal prematurely before viable alternatives emerge, more so because India’s cumulative emissions from all sources would still be modest. This would quadruple India’s current RE capacity (excluding hydropower), and more than double its current total installed capacity. This isn’t climate justice.ĭeveloping regions want to minimize their use of fossil fuels, such as India’s ambition to achieve 500 GW of non-fossil electricity capacity by 2030. Recently, there was global pushback against a natural gas fertilizer plant planned in Bangladesh that would be three times more efficient than older designs. This pressure hurts not just energy security but also food security. And most new builds don’t rely on coal – solar is already far cheaper, at least for the daytime.Ī push towards RE-only has created pressure to not finance natural gas in poorer countries, despite them being told for decades that natural gas was a bridge fuel to a cleaner future, and one that would avoid the use of coal. Giving 250 million homes electricity connectivity, with 35 kWh/month usage (enough for a TV, refrigerator, and fan), even entirely from coal, would only be 0.25% of global emissions. ![]() Sub-Saharan Africa is where most people lacking modern energy services live. The cost savings from not over-ambitiously getting down to zero carbon can be spent on accelerating up-front decarbonization, which lowers cumulative emissions.įor the poorest of the poor, the real need is electricity access, regardless of fuel. As my research group modeled for India in detail, an optimal design focuses on high RE first, without worrying about storage just yet. The good news is that simply having some fossil fuel capacity doesn’t mean it will get used much – the marginal cost of RE (and a battery) is virtually zero, once built. Batteries should soon be able to meet much or even most of the peaks cost-effectively, but if one designs for zero fossil fuel, then it’s very expensive. Today’s optimal electricity grid design may maximize RE by relying on minimal fossil fuels for occasional peak needs. ![]() How do you meet the evening peak electricity demand with solar power? Batteries are still very expensive. However, if we don’t allow any new fossil fuel investments, then RE is difficult to scale because it’s intermittent. Developing nations need energy, which may require a little fossil fuelĭeveloping countries are being asked to “leapfrog” to renewable energy (RE). Unfortunately, the push toward zero has been interpreted as a prohibition on public support for new unabated fossil fuel energy. The good news is this should still fit within global emissions targets if high emitters reduce emissions quickly up front. Development from a very low base inevitably means the poor must increase their emissions in the short term. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |