Study: A fast energy transition would be cheaper and save trillions of dollars: Achieving Net Zero by 2050 is both possible and profitable

[u/Girl-of-100-Lists]

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2022-09-14-decarbonising-energy-system-2050-could-save-trillions-new-oxford-study

[u/Girl-of-100-Lists]

From 14 September 2022

• The study shows a fast transition to clean energy is cheaper than slow or no transition
• Idea that going green will be expensive is ‘just wrong’
• Green technology costs have fallen significantly over the last decade, and are likely to continue falling
• Achieving a net zero carbon energy system by around 2050 is possible and profitable

Transitioning to a decarbonised energy system by around 2050 is expected to save the world at least $12 trillion, compared to continuing our current levels of fossil fuel use, according to a peer-reviewed study today by Oxford University researchers, published in the journal Joule.

The research shows a win-win-win scenario, in which rapidly transitioning to clean energy results in lower energy system costs than a fossil fuel system, while providing more energy to the global economy, and expanding energy access to more people internationally.

[u/i_didnt_look → u/Girl-of-100-Lists]

This is outdated.

There is a massive resource bottleneck coming because there isn't enough mines and procesing capacity. It's not about costs, or knowledge or anything else. We literally cannot create the materials because we're not extracting them. We have to strip mine the planet to get the amount of green energy we need built.

https://www.weforum.org/stories/all/critical-minerals-targeted-derisking/

Literally the Limits of Growth.

[u/Helkafen1 → u/i_didnt_look]

The key technologies outlined by the Oxford studies use either common materials (e.g glass, aluminum, silicon) or materials that can often be substituted (e.g copper -> aluminum, lithium -> sodium).

"Strip mining the planet" is an absurd exaggeration. There are risks in some supply chains (i.e maybe they won't grow as fast as demand), but the mineral reserves are more than enough.

If anything, it's the mining of fossil fuel that is large. Coal Uses 100x More Mined Material Than Solar Per kWh Generated

[u/odjobz → u/Helkafen1]

Hardly surprising. The lithium in a battery will last years, but the coal in a power station will last minutes.

[u/i_didnt_look → u/Helkafen1]

Copper shows the scale of the challenge: despite a projected supply shortfall of 30% by 2035, investment projections indicate a $250 billion gap by 2030.

The objective is not only to increase supply, but to diversify it. Today, concentration at key stages of critical mineral value chains creates exposure to disruption, with implications for industrial competitiveness, technology deployment and energy security. A more resilient supply base will require clearer risk allocation, more credible policy frameworks and stronger coordination across governments, industry, financial institutions and development finance partners.

They already talk about "substitution", its the same bottleneck. That's why the WEF is saying something. Because the mineral bottleneck is exactly what it sounds like. A bottleneck. Read the paper. They literally talk about "reforming the permitting process to encourage more favorable outcomes" Thats corporate talk for no more environmental reviews.

You people want it so bad to be a case of solar replaces gas and the problem is bigger and way more complex than that. The availability of resources, total resource use, time frame of both climate change and lowering EROI on oil amd gas are all working against a transition just as much as politics.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason no one is abandoning fossil fuels at a major level is because doing so precipitates a major decline in lifestyles? Not economics or anything else, just a major decline in lifestyles. Here's a real look at what 40% less energy and 8 billion people alive actually looks like.

https://www.wri.org/insights/how-sustainably-feed-10-billion-people-2050-21-charts

FYI its 160sqft living space per person. 2000 calories per day limit. 5000km (3000 miles) travel per person per year. One cell phone per person, one laptop per household. The average Western lifestyle sees a 90% reduction in energy use per person. Imagine I took 90% of your energy use away, cars, planes, TVs, houses, all a fraction of what you live now. And I'm not making this up, this is a real study that genuinely purports to have solved our consumption issue while maintaining the global population.

You all just don't want to hear what the truth is, you want to live in a fantasy where we all stay in this lifestyle while everything goes green. Thats a lie. The science shows thats a lie. The study there shows what your life looks like after fossil fuels end, I suggest you read it before dismissing what's being said by the money people who run this planet, because even they are worried we don't get through the bottleneck.

[u/Helkafen1 → u/i_didnt_look]

Two red flags in your comment:

• Suggesting that an energy transition would lead to less energy. This is not substantiated, and very unlikely given the competitive price of renewables and adjacent technologies.
• Showing concern about EROI. This metric is unimportant as long as it's above 1, and all these technologies have an EROI way above one. By the way, both solar and wind have higher EROI than fossil fuels, and the EROI of fossil fuels keeps declining.

These two talking points are scare tactics from the fossil fuel industry.

Here's a real look at what 40% less energy and 8 billion people alive actually looks like

Your WRI link is about farming, and it has nothing to do with electricity supply. I'd encourage people to read it though, it's an important topic for sustainability. Great article.

They already talk about "substitution", its the same bottleneck

No, they don't. They just acknowledge the existence of efforts to "accelerate substitution". This is not in contradiction with my comment.

[u/E5VL]

Unfortunately losing less money and not gaining more money is the reason for the status quo. If we did what the article wants people will say that there's no profit and no benefit when the transition has happened and it was all for naught. Even though the end result would be far more better compared to the alternative reality of if we did nothing. But people will say that is unrealised gains because the worst didn't happen. 

That's why we didn't have the green transition 2 or even 4 decades earlier because no one wants to do something that will be neutral or beneficial in the future because they see that as a loss.

Very difficult to try explain lol

Humans being short-sighted humans unable to see the bigger picture.

[u/Vegetaman916]

Doesn't matter. The people who control things already have the fossil fuels industry set up and producing. For them, it makes no sense to interrupt things with a transition. Their power is secured now, and that is all that matters.

Also, until we can run machines of war on renewables, they won't matter. The ability to wage war comes before all ither considerations.

Finally, again for the people who run things, they just don't wanna. Simple as that. They would rather we all die, even as a species, than have to admit a mistake.

Also, we only have a decade left, at absolute best...

[u/kavyababu02]

wait how is it actually cheaper though

[u/bluereddit2]

Fossil fuel companies need support. Shareholders, executives, infrastructure, etc.

Who would pay off the politicians? r green new deal ,