Submitted by ObtainSustainability t3_10djkvo in Futurology
Comments
dern_the_hermit t1_j4mq7s0 wrote
Twice as many cows as people.
farticustheelder t1_j4mzs6j wrote
and the cows are arguably twice as smart as the people...
[deleted] t1_j4ohrez wrote
So are the sheep.
farticustheelder t1_j4rerjx wrote
At least! I just read that what passes as the Wyoming 'brain thrust' just introduced a bill to ban EV sales by 2035!
[deleted] t1_j4mv5c9 wrote
[removed]
Wipperwill1 t1_j4omcdy wrote
Just coming to say that.
And also "Get off my lawn you commie hippies and your clean power"
GPT-5entient t1_j4r9lmf wrote
Get out of here with your commie pinko nonsense like clean air and stable climate!
Wipperwill1 t1_j4t7pn5 wrote
Thats right brother! God gave us this earth so we could do what we want with it.
YsoL8 t1_j4pd6h7 wrote
Any big economic change involves diehard holdouts. They never achieve anything.
PFavier t1_j4p4c8e wrote
There will always be people kicking and screaming when there is change.. nothing is going to stop that though.
Surur t1_j4m0xft wrote
The important line for the doomsters:
> “Electricity is the largest demand sector for fossil fuels,” said Bond. “The peak here marks a key turning point in the energy transition and gives us hope that we can hit the goals of the Paris Agreement.”
You should take your hope^2 since its exponential growth and renewables have always grown faster than predicted.
vhutever t1_j4p2lie wrote
Kingsmill Bond was literally a financial analyst for Russian banks before transitioning to a green energy strategist for global markets. He is not a climate scientist but a hopeful optimist for the financial world and the 1 percent. But thank you as always for reminding us we can reach the Paris agreement, last I heard we might pass 1.5c this coming year. But you’re right Surur.
Twilight1234567 t1_j4qdznq wrote
Thankyou thank you thankyou. I’m taking this comment and letting it give me hope today.
farticustheelder t1_j4n1xsd wrote
I have argued the same for a couple of years.
The mass media being owned and operated by the folks who also own and operate fossil fuels has been busy lying about the pace of the transition for years.
The BS dies in 2023. Germany's EV penetration rate went from 0.3% in 2013 to 3% in 2019, to 30% in 2022. So extrapolating we get 300% in the middle of 2024! That's silly of course but not nearly as silly as politicians* telling us that ICE vehicles will still be 50% of car sales in 2035! That is brain damage level dumb.
The transition just kicked into high gear and there are going be some very chaotic episodes. I call this phase the Jack, be nimble! time.
*guess who owns and operates politicians...
Outrageous-Echo-765 t1_j4no2c0 wrote
I just saw a post in r/capitalism or something about how "renewables are dying". I struggle to understand how one can see the exponential growth, and how over 80% of global newly installed capacity comes from renewables and still confidently say stuff like that.
Rofel_Wodring t1_j4qgjsc wrote
You don't understand it because you're either not zealous enough or not cynical enough. And let's be real here: there's a reason why the cynics think they'll get their way, no matter what Mother Nature nor the rest of human civilization thinks.
fluteofski- t1_j4qir3i wrote
Oh yeah. I saw that too. That was such a weird read. I even struggle with understanding how people oppose the idea of renewables as well… I have a former buddy who is super opposed to solar, and insists that paying his electricity provider whatever the rates are is the morally correct thing to do.
[deleted] t1_j4n4q4n wrote
[removed]
GPT-5entient t1_j4ra5r3 wrote
30% EV penetration rate? Does that mean 30% of new cars are EVs in Germany? I believe that, but it's still shocking. In a good way of course.
farticustheelder t1_j4rdqvu wrote
That's the annual rate for 2022. In December Germany hit 55.4% plugin sales.
GPT-5entient t1_j4reoec wrote
Wow, that's amazing! I hope they will turn their nuclear plants on again since if they are charging these EVs with electricity from lignite power plants that is not great...
PhDinDildos_Fedoras t1_j4reuy2 wrote
Anyone who asks me, I always recommend investing in greentech stocks. Some of those are really undervalued right now. They're also kind of a pain to find information on, which contributes to them being undervalued.
ObtainSustainability OP t1_j4lruhy wrote
The latest analysis from Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) energy expert Kingsmill Bond showed that fossil fuel demand in the electricity sector has already reached its peak in demand. Driven by lowered costs, clean energy goals, and a gravitational shift in global capital toward renewables, solar and wind energy are expected to carry the torch left behind by coal, oil, and gas.
Bond said that this has already happened for fossil fuels in the electricity sector. In fact, his analysis shows that fossil fuels in the electricity sector reached peak demand and is now bouncing along a plateau before its inevitable decline in the back half of the decade.
According to RMI research, fossil fuel demand for electricity has peaked in 95 % of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries and 31% of the non-OECD countries excluding China. China is on track to reach its 2030 solar and wind deployment targets by 2025, meaning the nation has also likely approached its peak in fossil fuel demand.
RMI said OECD demand for fossil fuels peaked in 2007, coal demand in 2013, industrial demand for fossil fuels as energy peaked in 2014, and internal combusion engine car demand in 2017. By 2019, 58% of the world experienced peak fossil fuel demand. In 2019, renewables met 85% of the growth in energy demand.
The report demonstrates how change increases over time, often leading to exponential growth. In 2011, the world struggled to sell 29 GW of expensive solar panels, in 2021 it deployed 182 GW, and by 2031 the industry is gearing up to sell 1,000 GW, said RMI.
“The stone age did not end for want of stones, nor the horse age for lack of horses,” said Bond. “The fossil fuel age of hunting for finite fossil stocks is giving way to the renewable age of farming infinite renewable flows. Superior renewable technology is winning the battle for the future of energy, and it is time to recognize this key turning point. Countries, companies, and investors that accept and embrace the energy transition will prosper, while those that deny and resist will struggle and eventually fall.”
II-TANFi3LD-II t1_j4n9a56 wrote
We burnt the most coal ever for any year in recorded history in 2022, so I'm not quite sure how this is true.
Surur t1_j4nbjzp wrote
It's likely the Ukraine crisis will have caused much more renewables to be installed than a marginal 1.2% spike in coal usage.
[deleted] t1_j4ob28q wrote
[removed]
Northstar1989 t1_j4p3wd7 wrote
>so I'm not quite sure how this is true.
We're using more and more energy every year.
Fossil fuel usage in the developed world has stopped scaling up, but it isn't decrasing. in fact, it's still increasing a bit: just not nearly as fast as total energy consumption.
At some point, we'll need to just ban fossil fuel extraction. Gotta hit it at the point of supply.
YsoL8 t1_j4pda41 wrote
By the time thats politically or economically viable there will also be no point.
Northstar1989 t1_j4pfh6m wrote
Because billions are dying from Climate Change?
[deleted] t1_j4nbr7b wrote
[deleted]
dontpet t1_j4mq6ui wrote
Hopefully the projected growth in the plastics industry doesn't undermine our aspirations. This says it might triple and that will be an awful lot of emissions. https://www.oecd.org/environment/global-plastic-waste-set-to-almost-triple-by-2060.htm
ten-million t1_j4pkfzm wrote
I had a thought the other day that might be completely wrong. In terms of CO2 production maybe plastics aren't that bad. Better to make something durable out of oil than to burn it. But then there is all the plastic waste and micro plastics everywhere.
Test19s t1_j4maapl wrote
Awesome if this trend holds and doesn’t get offset by rising total energy demand or growth in carbon-intensive manufacturing and agricultural processes.
Surur t1_j4me49n wrote
The world's population is growing at less than 1% per year and I think its an open question if Africa will get rich very fast, so I think the displacement will continue.
SCOTUSOPO t1_j4o7ym8 wrote
The gop will ignore the fact it peaked because they are puppets to big oil.
That's the gop way, fight societal advances tooth and nail and beat on a dead horse until its well past decomposed
Abraham_Lingam t1_j4ob90x wrote
It is President Joe Biden that is complaining that oil companies are not drilling enough.
SCOTUSOPO t1_j4oblcq wrote
Because republicans keep crying about high gas prices and keep telling Joe to do something about it while voting against measures that'd cap price gouging and ignoring facts like Republicans selling off our largest oil refinery to Saudi Arabia...
Cause and effect...
Tech_Philosophy t1_j4qj0f0 wrote
I don't take your meaning here. That doesn't cancel out that 80% of conservatives are what is driving any interest remaining in fossil fuels. There is a big problem, and a small problem. Point to the small problem as you see fit, but get real about the big problem.
FindTheRemnant t1_j4mdts6 wrote
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-fossil-fuel-consumption?time=2005..latest
2018, 2019 and 2021 were all around 136,000 TWh. We'll see what 2022 comes in at.
Northstar1989 t1_j4p3mzx wrote
Here's the thing: so long as fossil fuel extraction is still profitable the global economy will just find other uses for fossil fuels.
Like, for instance, plastic production: which is projected to triple in the next 20 years, I think it was in timeframe.
Even as a greater and greater share of energy comes from renewables, actual fossil fuel use might continue at near-peak levels. So long as it's profitable, Capitalism will do it.
The only solution is to just ban fossil fuel extraction at some point, or to place such heavy fines on fossil fuel companies that extraction is not profitable anymore.
I know it's drastic, but otherwise none of this will matter. We can end up getting an ever-larger share of energy from renewables and it still won't stop fossil fuels destroying the Biosphere.
YsoL8 t1_j4pe2q1 wrote
Thats confusing fuel for raw material.
Oil as fuel is far more dangerous than as raw material. We've actually recently been discovering bacteria capable of breaking down plastic and genetic engineering will surely improve on that. Which means we will be able to make a closed loop for plastics.
At some point the economics will favour breaking down plastic over ever more expensive extraction. Especially as the recycling option gets cheaper.
Northstar1989 t1_j4pfr46 wrote
>discovering bacteria capable of breaking down plastic
What do you think the bacteria turn the plastic into?
It doesn't disappear. It becomes CO2.
Oil as a material is just as bad, perhaps worse (d/t Microplastics in the environment) than oil as fuel.
[deleted] t1_j4lwq4x wrote
[removed]
FuturologyBot t1_j4lxc6w wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/ObtainSustainability:
The latest analysis from Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) energy expert Kingsmill Bond showed that fossil fuel demand in the electricity sector has already reached its peak in demand. Driven by lowered costs, clean energy goals, and a gravitational shift in global capital toward renewables, solar and wind energy are expected to carry the torch left behind by coal, oil, and gas.
Bond said that this has already happened for fossil fuels in the electricity sector. In fact, his analysis shows that fossil fuels in the electricity sector reached peak demand and is now bouncing along a plateau before its inevitable decline in the back half of the decade.
According to RMI research, fossil fuel demand for electricity has peaked in 95 % of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries and 31% of the non-OECD countries excluding China. China is on track to reach its 2030 solar and wind deployment targets by 2025, meaning the nation has also likely approached its peak in fossil fuel demand.
RMI said OECD demand for fossil fuels peaked in 2007, coal demand in 2013, industrial demand for fossil fuels as energy peaked in 2014, and internal combusion engine car demand in 2017. By 2019, 58% of the world experienced peak fossil fuel demand. In 2019, renewables met 85% of the growth in energy demand.
The report demonstrates how change increases over time, often leading to exponential growth. In 2011, the world struggled to sell 29 GW of expensive solar panels, in 2021 it deployed 182 GW, and by 2031 the industry is gearing up to sell 1,000 GW, said RMI.
“The stone age did not end for want of stones, nor the horse age for lack of horses,” said Bond. “The fossil fuel age of hunting for finite fossil stocks is giving way to the renewable age of farming infinite renewable flows. Superior renewable technology is winning the battle for the future of energy, and it is time to recognize this key turning point. Countries, companies, and investors that accept and embrace the energy transition will prosper, while those that deny and resist will struggle and eventually fall.”
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/10djkvo/fossil_fuels_already_peaked_growth_in_renewables/j4lruhy/
[deleted] t1_j4nd2nj wrote
[removed]
NateinOregon t1_j4nqu3w wrote
As all the oil wells that have replenished themselves look on in sadness.
goldork t1_j4p2pr8 wrote
Isnt it an established fact and not a myth that our fossil fuel reserve will be depleted in 48 years or so? We are leaving the 'fossil fuel ages' so its inevitable to transition into renewables.
I doubt i'll live long enough to witness this tipping point in human civilization but i imagine the air will be cleaner at least.
YsoL8 t1_j4pdr37 wrote
Thats proven currently economic supply.
Theres still vast amounts of lower quality / harder sources like tar sands and sea floor methane that humanity has barely touched.
At the current pace we will transition away long before they become economic.
user4517proton t1_j4pioxv wrote
I don't believe either statement. Unless you are forcing countries to reduce energy consumption use of fossil fuels will increase and renewables are still marginal.
its8up t1_j4p223s wrote
Had the energy sector been forced to use 10% ethanol fuel in their equipment the demand for fossil fuels would have been on the decline long ago. Eff that crap. It's destroyed soooooo many carburetors and whatnot.
Worried-Pizza-3460 t1_j4mwtlj wrote
The only issue with renewables is they need grid storage (possible) and back up from other power sources (nuclear) and it does not solve the issue of heat, generating heat with electricity is expensive, industry in particular but people too tend to like cheap heat.
snoogins355 t1_j4n1h2g wrote
Where Vehicle to Grid (V2G) technology will be interesting to see in the next 5-10 years with EV adoption. Plug in your car at 5PM and help supplement the grid and get the power back overnight, might makes some $ too
Surur t1_j4n2kp9 wrote
Even better would be to charge at work from cheap solar and then return it during the duck curve.
I just had an interesting business idea - make a parking garage for cars with V2G capability (probably best at a Park and Ride facility) covered with a solar roof, charge the cars in the day and deliver the energy in the evening using a virtual battery. People get cheap parking, you get a cheap battery and the grid gets cheap energy. Win,win,win.
snoogins355 t1_j4n8442 wrote
Beam has that on a small scale https://beamforall.com/
Surur t1_j4n9h8c wrote
Wow, that is amazing. Not quite the same idea, but a quick answer for people who ask where is all the electricity for the EV revolution will come from.
I like that the solar panel is pretty large - the idea is serious and not just for show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0WujevWAhM
Outrageous-Echo-765 t1_j4np6p1 wrote
I'm saving over 100€ per month during the winter since switching from gas to a heat pump. The 21st century rocks.
We are also seeing growth in industrial heat pumps and electric furnaces where applicable.
So while some applications will keep relying on fossil heat, electric heating can actually be a lot cheaper in many applications.
Worried-Pizza-3460 t1_j4nrd08 wrote
I've worked construction, I've worked around a massive redvelopment involving ASHP and the problems that estate is having is legion. They really don't work as well as they hoped though I am pleased for you that you are having a good experience.
But 1000+ cases does not replicate your positive experience and the costs of installation (naturally inflated by being council of course) were very high because you need bigger radiators and a lot more insulation due to them running 10 degrees cooler.
Outrageous-Echo-765 t1_j4nv1u7 wrote
I mean you can also pair them with an HVAC system instead of relying on central heating, but that also comes with it's own installation problems. Roughly how long ago was this construction project, if you don't mind me asking? Heat pump technology has developed very quickly in the last decade.
Lastly I just want to share a short article about the heat pump market. Over 30% sales increase in Europe is absolutely massive, and that's with supply chain issues in the mix.
Worried-Pizza-3460 t1_j4o4gb0 wrote
2022 mate where are you from because ASHP work very different efficiencies depending on ambient temperatures. I'm in the UK and for various reasons our temperature variation is truly bad for its efficiency.
Outrageous-Echo-765 t1_j4piga5 wrote
I'm from Portugal and have very mild winters, which is a blessing. But heat pump sales are also rocketing in places like Norway and Iceland. A lot of sales in these countries are from ground source, but ASHP are also on the rise there.
Northstar1989 t1_j4p4bnu wrote
Sadly, heat pumps often don't work as well as expected.
My mother is obsessed with getting one, but she lives in New England. I keep trying to explain they're not rated for New England level winter heating...
Outrageous-Echo-765 t1_j4pi8si wrote
they work just fine in norway and iceland, you just need to get an appropriate model.
Northstar1989 t1_j4sueay wrote
Not the ones largely sold in the United States, at least.
Also, Iceland has much, much greater geothermal potential than New England: so that one, at least, really is a poor comparison.
Tech_Philosophy t1_j4qjj83 wrote
> generating heat with electricity is expensive
God damn it, it is not ok to be this uninformed this far into the climate crisis. Heat-pumps are about 400% efficient now and work down to -20 for the latest models.
Remember, heat-pumps generate NO heat whatsoever, they simply move heat from one location (often the atmosphere) to another (like your home or hot water tank). It is energetically much cheaper to move heat than to create it. Thinking of it like that, the sun is what is doing about 80% of the work when you use a heat-pump.
Burning gas or anything else on site will be 4-6 times less efficient, even if you are getting all your electricity from coal (you most likely are not).
[deleted] t1_j4ra6jl wrote
[deleted]
Northstar1989 t1_j4p45t4 wrote
Home heating, you mean?
Yeah, still a major problem, don't know why the morons are downvoting you.
We'll probably have to subsidize electric home-heating from renewable sources: kinda like how we already provide Home Heating Assistance for the elderly...
Tech_Philosophy t1_j4qjqj0 wrote
> Yeah, still a major problem, don't know why the morons are downvoting you.
I'm going to repost my comment to OP here for you as well. I genuinely do not see the issue here and do not understand how we are all not on the same page.
Heat-pumps are about 400% efficient now and work down to -20 for the latest models.
Remember, heat-pumps generate NO heat whatsoever, they simply move heat from one location (often the atmosphere) to another (like your home or hot water tank). It is energetically much cheaper to move heat than to create it. Thinking of it like that, the sun is what is doing about 80% of the work when you use a heat-pump.
Burning gas or anything else on site will be 4-6 times less efficient, even if you are getting all your electricity from fossil fuels (you most likely are not, because it is 2023, not 2003).
Northstar1989 t1_j4svkl5 wrote
>work down to -20 for the latest models.
Models that are are incredibly expensive.
It's going to take some subsidies to get off home heating oil. That was my entire thesis, and anyone who thinks it will naturally happen quickly enough through Capitalism and technological progress to save the (already very much screwed) planet without them is delusional...
YsoL8 t1_j4pdhtw wrote
If you are using the car during the day and using it as a battery at night when are you charging it to make all this activity possible?
Northstar1989 t1_j4pfioy wrote
I wasn't even talking about EV's bro.
You're clearly a bot.
mericanvulture t1_j4mok65 wrote
What are your thoughts on companies such as air company (https://www.aircompany.com/ ), and carbon engineering (https://carbonengineering.com/ ), and the application of carbon capture technology, to create carbon-negative fuel that operates in pre-existing combustion engines. Arguably far more sustainable than cobalt, and lithium mining.
Surur t1_j4mymcd wrote
> Arguably far more sustainable than cobalt, and lithium mining.
This bit is unnecessary and wrong. Cars will be replaced automatically over the next 20 years in any case - there is no need to extend the life of ICE engines.
eFuels will continue to be necessary for airlines and cargo ships, so there is a good enough reason for them to exist.
WaitingForNormal t1_j4mj9hy wrote
Someone should tell the “great state” of wyoming this. They seem to be believing the opposite is true.