It’s increasingly common to hear from experts and the general public that the global shift away from fossil fuels is glacially slow, or even nonexistent.
As the view goes, the meteoric rise of clean energy is only supplementing fossil fuels rather than pushing them out. Repeated with increasing frequency by many – including the fossil fuel lobby – this view is not only incorrect, but dangerous. If accepted as truth, it will encourage climate fatalism.
In reality, we’re living through the fastest energy transformation in human history. Every previous large-scale shift in energy – from muscle power to wood to coal to oil – has taken decades or even longer. But the “renewable revolution” is happening far faster.
It’s only in the past ten years that renewables have become cheap and reliable, and only in the past five that energy storage has become cheap and widely available. Solar farms, wind turbines and grid-scale storage can be built remarkably quickly. Net-zero cities are becoming possible. The iron laws of economics have kicked in. These cheap forms of electricity generation are already displacing more and more fossil fuels.
Slow growth off a small base
You might have seen graphs showing how much power comes from renewables, fossil fuels and other energy sources. When shown over a longer timeframe, the explosive but very recent growth of renewables is compressed into a tiny, apparently insignificant addition.
This is about as useful as pointing out that in 1984 the internet had no users. While a few researchers were active in 1984, the wider internet ecosystem, infrastructure and enabling technologies did not exist until 1991.
Using graphs of early internet user growth to gauge future potential would have been very misleading. The internet started slowly before accelerating very rapidly. Zero users in 1984, 2.6 million in 1990, 412 million in 2000, one billion in 2005, 5.5 billion by 2025.
Today’s clean energy rollout similarly started from a very low base before maturing. Now it’s accelerating at remarkable speed.
Twenty years ago, solar and wind were still expensive and large-scale batteries even more so. In the 2010s, renewables became cheaper and cheaper. By the late 2010s, battery technology was progressing rapidly and costs began falling. In the 2020s, the price of electric vehicles began falling.
It was only ten years ago that nations signed the Paris Agreement on climate change. Since then, many nations have set about tackling climate change in earnest.
Here are five ways to grasp the scale of the change.
1. Unprecedented growth and investment
In 2025, the International Energy Agency projects clean energy investment will reach a record A$3.3 trillion, double the investment in fossil fuels and more than four times what it was just a decade ago.
Globally, renewable energy capacity is being added at all-time highs. More than 585 gigawatts of new wind and solar was built in 2024–25.
Solar is having a particularly rapid growth spurt, outpacing any other energy source. Solar is becoming king. Batteries are likely to undergo similar growth as prices fall.
2. Clean tech dominates new capacity
Across China, the European Union, the United States, India and Australia, newly installed solar and wind are now outpacing new coal, oil and gas capacity by a factor of three or higher. Solar and wind made up three-quarters of new electricity capacity worldwide in 2024.
Developing nations, too, are adopting renewable energy at speed. Nearly 90% of funding for new energy sources in these nations is now for renewables.
In the past five years, Pakistan has imported the equivalent of its national grid capacity in solar capacity. Sub-Saharan African nations are massively increasing solar imports. Solar now accounts for more than 60% of Sierra Leone’s power capacity.
At the end of 2024, there were almost 58 million battery electric and plug-in hybrid cars on the world’s roads. We calculate this avoided the need to burn more than 250 million litres of oil per day.
While Australia is sluggish on electric cars, it’s roaring ahead on renewables. In 2020, renewables contributed about 21% of Australia’s electricity. Five years later, that figure has almost doubled.
3. Decoupling growth from emissions
Electricity demand is rising in most economies, even as emissions plateau or fall where uptake of renewables is highest.
In the world’s largest electricity market, China, clean energy is being added so rapidly that power-sector emissions are declining for the first time even as GDP grows. China also manufactures most of the world’s clean tech.
4. Renewables are on the S-curve – slow and then sudden
When a new technology emerges, the uptake can often be mapped on an S-curve graph. Change is slow until a tipping point is reached. Then change happens very quickly. Solar, EVs and battery storage are now at that point of very rapid growth or already past it in multiple markets.
5. Fossil fuels are being displaced
As renewables and storage get cheaper, they are beginning to push out fossil fuels. In 2024, the United Kingdom closed its last coal plant. Its emissions have now fallen more than 50% below 1990 figures. This year, coal supplied less than half of Poland’s electricity for the first time.
Our modelling suggests the tipping point has arrived. In the next few years, we can expect to see cheap, plentiful renewables outcompete more and more fossil fuels.
Progress is slow? Look again
Energy underpins civilisation – we need more and more of it. Renewables can make the most versatile type of energy, electricity, very cheaply and, when firmed with storage, very reliably.
The claim that clean energy is rolling out too slowly echoes dismissals of new technologies.
Investment in new fossil fuels is falling and becoming riskier, while renewables attract record capital as clean technology costs keep dropping. For years, solar growth forecasts by the International Energy Agency have wildly underestimated the actual rate of growth.
None of this is to downplay the remaining work. Vested interests would much prefer the world stays hooked on oil, gas and coal until it’s all been burned.
But the narrative is clear. Real progress has already been made. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the size and momentum of the fastest energy transition in history.![]()
*Peter Newman, Professor of Sustainability, Curtin University and Ray Wills, Adjunct Professor, The University of Western Australia.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
65 Comments
Great article. Just ordered my PHEV two days ago. Almost went full EV, but it's our long-distance. Once we replace (give to child) our town run-around vehicle that will go to an EV also. Someone challenged me on the carbon footprint of the battery - apparently it takes 3 years for an EV to be overall lower carbon footprint than ICE. I think that's fabulous because I plan to drive our new vehicle for 10 years.
It's closer to 1 year with our clean power grid.
What car did you get ? I'm seriously considering a Omoda 9 (PHEV)
Great. But what does this mean for the biodiversity crisis and pollution issues?
Different initiatives.
?
Rewilding is a trend - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250909-the-rewilding-milestone-ear…
https://www.youtube.com/@MossyEarth
That doesn't mean all good. It is still a dire situation. But as populations decline in many areas governments are starting to back restoring habitats.
Disappointing to see the lack of nuclear in the pipeline to come online by 2030 given the benefits
...and ignoring process heat plus record amounts of coal, oil, gas produced in 2025. Intermittents aren't keeping up with energy demand growth.
Nuclear France is an apt example of how woeful intermittents have been.
"A study by the OECD found that the cost of household electricity in Germany increased by 50 percent from 2006–2017. And the report came to a surprising conclusion:
- Electricity prices will continue to increase as long as Germany keeps building solar and wind.
Meanwhile, France’s electricity costs are 40 percent lower than Germany’s.
The results of the trillion-dollar, half-century energy experiment are in: Nuclear won."
https://carboncredits.com/nuclear-education-how-germany-lost-another-wo…
https://energynews.pro/en/france-reaches-a-record-e5-billion-in-electri…
As long as it's not the French EDF. (more or less Transpowerr, gentailers and Distribution companies all rolled into one) They'll make NZ's cost over runs look like a kindergarten and writing a contract that crown or any other lawyers wouldn't understand to the detriment of NZ.
I think we will see a fair bit of nuclear in the pipeline soon, especially in some of the faster growing, middle-income countries...
Small scale modular nuclear coming to data centres, to power them directly on site. They are a good match as DCs, once filled up, have fairly steady loads 24x365 which suits nuclear generation
A $20k investment in solar for my home now looks to be a better option than a $20k term deposit.
Certainly on my radar for a closer look.
Anyone done the numbers?
I spent about 10k on panels in Christchurch, pretty good roof geometry. Saves me about 1.5k per year and that should grow roughly with inflation for a couple of decades, then performance will slowly start to drop.
I don't think you'll find any investment that matches up to that risk-adjusted return, especially when you consider you don't pay tax on savings.
Returns will vary depending on where you are and what your roof is like, plus what deal you get on feed-in (I get 17c, locked in for another 4 years).
Do you have a battery? I assume you are not selling to grid but using to reduce draw?
No battery, and not particularly efficient at using the power (couple of basic timers and behavioral changes but nothing dramatic). Feed in is 17c and night rates about 19c, and the night rates work even when it's cloudy so the incentive to optimise isn't that high (other than avoiding the morning and evening peaks where possible)
Be aware that while your panels may last 20 plus years your inverter likely will last half that...and also be aware that to be connected to grid your inverter must be on the approved list which is constantly being added to and subtracted from.
Yes, that's true. My inverter has a 10-year warranty while the panels have 25 year (30 year performance warranty, minimum 87% performance after 30 years of use).
Here's my numbers 3.5 years after install. Auckland with good sun.
$13279 install (4.4kw capacity, high end panels and inverter, hot water timer)
41% self consumption
$4035 Saved/returned
Annual ROI
No depreciation 8.68%
10 Year straight line depreciation -1.32% (yes, negative)
20 year straight line depreciation - 3.68%
My estimated 20 year ROI (assuming panels are still going, and I need to spend $4k on inverter at 10 years) - 1.67%
Noting those returns are after tax, that last figure becomes 2.73% net return (as I didnt have to pay 39% tax on it)
What this doesn't capture, is that my purchase price is set in stone, and energy will cost more in the future.
From a greenie perspective, it seems after 6 years the offsets will have all been done, and I'll be positively contributing (this would be a lot shorter in other countries, but our high % of renewables from the grid makes it longer)
All in all - an average, or below average investment, that as a greenie, I'm ok with.
PS - try doing numbers on batteries, noting the value proposition is only the difference between your buy and sell price. If you can make it anything but negative when you include depreciation, your numbers are wrong....
Thanks for sharing. I'm curious, how much do you get for your feed-in power?
Agree that batteries don't make sense economically for anyone still on the grid.
I have a mate that is on a contract to get free power from 9pm til midnight, has a tesla wall, sells power but then fills up free....
not sure its still in force i check now.
Contact energy has weekdays free from 9pm to midnight
yes amazing if you have a power wall or big batteries you sell all day and then recharge for free,,,,
Electricity company is basically renting your battery. Possibly makes sense for them to do this.
I don't believe that those plans are available for those feeding into the grid but I'd love to be wrong here.
.
.
Meridian, 17c Sell price, 22.07c buy price, reasonably high daily rate as a high'ish user, but that sell price is essentially a loss leader for them.
Most deals that have high sell prices have high buy prices that more than offset the high sell price (eg Octopus) , and otherwise the buy back is usually 8c-12c. Companies like 'Our Energy' and 'Flick' offer innovative buy and sell options.
whenever i run numbers i am always better off investing in something else that produces a way better return...... more cows, gold BTC etc... it never seems to really add up, and I am BE Elect so willing to have my own off grid island system, ie i can do the install with aliexpress components, i can alway scharge on grid via 32 amp socket to island , but still hard to make $$$ appealing
This is largely hype and bollocks.
And I make that comment as a person with 25 year's total off-grid experience (20 of those years with present set-up). So no knocker as to the technologies...
'When shown over a longer timeframe, the explosive but very recent growth of renewables is compressed into a tiny, apparently insignificant addition.' Nonsense - in relative terms it is still insignificant, as is its increase versus the increase of all else.
'Clean energy'? Spare me. It still requires mining, waste=streams, and fossil-energy underwrite.
'Energy underpins civilisation – we need more and more of it' The first part is correct. The second - by some orders of magnitude - is not.
Your experience of the last 20 years may be leading you astray in relation to the present and the future.
KeithW
No.
Efficiency per sq/m hasn't changed much. And the planetary paddock has gotten smaller, not bigger. But the stocking-rate has gone from 6.5 to 8.2 billion; an increase twice the total number present at the dawning of fossil energy.
And note, Keith, that their argument is flawed; with that empirical stack-graph, the increase in 'everything else' is more than the increase in 'renewables'. Come on, eh?
And 'renewables' are really 'rebuildables' - the amount of material needed to displace fossil infrastructure, is mindblowing.
But of course, if you start from the premise that your way of life is sacrosanct - First World consumption-rates included - and then try to explain how it can be done by not transgressing ONE boundary (CO2) but avoid explaining how it will avoid transgressing others... you end up down a rabbit-hole. You end up having to avoid the impacts on horizontal others, and vertical others (people somewhere else now, and people in the future).
Academia is full of folk who have 'earned' proxy-rights to processed parts of the planet, which would have been the envy of many a medieval king. Of course they'll self-justify. Righteous virtue-signalling, I call it.
Talking truth to power - by Andy Kenworthy - Sustainabile
I remember you ridiculing my post about the emergence of renewable energies. It seems nothing will change your made up mind that we are running out of energy and doomed.
I was Co-Chair of Solar Action, 20 years ago. Wrote urging uptake, had house-tours, the whole nine yards.
But I kept studying energy. As did a cohort, globally.
And you end up with the Limits to Growth folk having been correct. And that we're overshot. And that the 2nd Law is immutable.
And no, we're not 'doomed' as a species - but our reconciliation to sustainable throughput levels may not be pretty. And yes, this level of throughput is temporary; in that sense society as constricted is unsustainable. So it won't remain.
Solar will be particularly powerful in countries with high solar energy from the sun. That includes much of Africa and much of the tropics. Much less so for Europe including Russia. New Zealand comes somewhere in the middle but does rather well on a per capita basis.
This article is at the very least an important contribution that should stimulate much thought.
KeithW
The solar acre is what we'll be down to, once we've burned our way through surpluses. The fossil stocks were millions of year's surpluses (admittedly a fractional part of same) and firewood merely represents a few decades from a usually-circular capture-space.
Burn through them - and we're still chopping down two trees for every one planted: the two being fully-grown and the planted one a seedling - and we're down to real-time solar. Nothing - PV or photosynthesis - has gotten much past 30% capture-efficiency, and storage has inevitable in/out losses atop that.
All that will compete with food-production acreage, CO2 sequestration acreage (we'll abandon that; discounting long over short) and other biodiversity acreage (without which we're dead). Carrying-capacity of such a planet? Soddy and H.G.Wells discussed this, and wrote a book each well worth reading.
Wells wrote Men Like Gods by H.G. Wells | Goodreads
Both still worth the read. Wells has a planet where they 'live like gods' - stocked by 200,000,000 beings. Soddy demolishes economics. We've been able to know, if we wished, for a century.
This fellow relinquished his academic career - and the posts are thought-provoking. Start from his textbook and come this way time-wise. Worth a lot of time, Keith.
PV will never build PV, wind will never build wind and dams will succumb to entropy faster than we can build them. So this round of 'renewables' is the last; a storing of the remaining FF longer than they'd stay viable in storage.
HG Wells of course being a hardcore eugenicist and malthusian, whose ilk kicked off with the deaths of millions of Irish and on to other larger scale atrocities. Another peak oil tragic banging on about resources and energy that was dead wrong 100 years ago and still wrong today.
"The efforts of these British eugenicists led to the passing of the Mental Incapacity Act in 1913, which allowed the incarceration without trial of 40,000 men and women deemed mentally unfit. ...But the real damage from eugenics, as we’ll see, came when British intellectuals exported it abroad, and it was taken up and given a virulently racist twist in the United States and Nazi Germany.
...On the one hand, the progressive eugenicists look on the ‘superfluous masses’, and saw nothing but misery and waste. Wells’ mistress, the birth control campaigner Margaret Sanger, wrote:
After my eight months tour of the world, I am glad to agree with HG Wells when he says that the whole world at present is swarming with cramped, dreary, meaningless lives, lives which amount to nothing and which use up the resources and surplus energies of the world."
https://julesevans.medium.com/10-hg-wells-and-the-new-world-order-9ab7d…
How many people can the planet sustain ex fossil calories, Profile?
How many humans the Earth can support | Corey Bradshaw | TEDxSydney
Solar is an add on....the system cannot function without oil. How long will solar systems last in the absence of oil?
Nonsense. They’re already disconnected. Solar is used for generating electricity, oil virtually not at all.
No - you cannot manufacture solar ex fossil energy.
Never been done - the EROEI isn't good enough.
Think about it...the 'system' (that supports ALL infrastructure) cannot function without oil
Currently.
Is there any system realistically possible that can support 8 billion humans that can be offered as an alternative?...emphasis on the word realistically.
Russians already have fast breeder reactors running. The US switched theirs off to make nuclear weapons. There is enough conventional nuclear waste in Ontario to meet their electricity demand for a 5000 years utilising fast breeders.
"If fast reactors are 60 times more efficient, the same extraction of ocean
uranium could deliver 420 kWh per day per person. At last, a sustainable
figure that beats current consumption! – but only with the joint help of two
technologies that are respectively scarcely-developed and unfashionable:
ocean extraction of uranium, and fast breeder reactors.
...Japanese researchers have found a technique for extracting uranium
from seawater at a cost of $100–300 per kilogram of uranium, in compar-
ison with a current cost of about $20/kg for uranium from ore. Because
uranium contains so much more energy per ton than traditional fuels, this
5-fold or 15-fold increase in the cost of uranium would have little effect on
the cost of nuclear power: nuclear power’s price is dominated by the cost
of power-station construction and decommissioning, not by the cost of the
fuel. Even a price of $300/kg would increase the cost of nuclear energy
by only about 0.3 p per kWh.
...A large investment, yes,
but not absurdly off scale. And that was the calculation for once-through
reactors. For fast breeder reactors, 60 times less uranium is required, so
the mass per person of the uranium collector would be 0.5 kg."
https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_165.shtml
https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-18-fall-2022/the-future-of-nucle…
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/how-ontario-can-transform-…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion
We have had nuclear powered ships for 70 years...why is no commercial shipping nuclear powered?
Reasons
Bunker fuel is too cheap for nuclear to compete. Politics, but I guess you knew that. Would have to over build the commercial ships to better cope with collision. We already have nuclear ice breakers. As above, it simpler to just use nuclear derived hydrocarbons to replace the bunker fuel. Plug nuclear derived hydrocarbon in to the existing hydrocarbon infrastructure.
What is your reason for wanting nuclear powered commercial shipping?
You continue to miss the point.
You are constantly advocating for 'simple ' alternatives that have not been developed....there are very good reasons why they havnt been ...and it isnt simply a case of fossil fuels are 'cheap and abundant' because for most economies they are neither.
Bunker fuel is a byproduct so it is hard to compete with. Why were you asking about commercial shipping again?
ah yes. More unreliables. UK has a contract process called AR7 for off shore wind subsidies and probably solar as well. Don't know the ins and outs. It's some form of Contract for Difference where subsidies are put up for auction. Put out by The Department for Energy security and Net Zero. Now there's a contradiction in terms.
Nothing is guaranteed more unreliable, than run-out fossil-energy stocks.
We're half-way through the planetary stocks, and that graph suggests we're still growing our energy-use exponentially - so pick your doubling-time and that's the last half gone. Call it 3% growth? Gives us 24 years to all-gone.
And we have to use the FF to build whatever we have afterwards...
Our grandchildren will probably imprison us for our flying and our foolishness...
The current unreliable march is purported to be solely due to man made climate change. Very little to do with running out of FF.
What has (predominantiy) caused 'climate change'...perhaps the use of fossil fuels?
It's both. We only have so much fossil fuel energy available, and it will take a certain amount to build a sustainable energy system without them (if such a thing is possible). Like using fuel to get ourselves into orbit.
The longer we leave it, the less fuel, the higher the chance we crash back down to Earth and fail to achieve that sustainable orbit.
The (real) sustainable orbit is what we can do ourselves....everything else requires the use/transformation of a finite resource.
It is relatively straight forward to make hydrocarbons direct from nuclear power and seawater. The US Navy has already done it, and a couple of nuclear start ups are working on this right now. Bypassing nuclear electricity altogether and targeting nuclear hydrocarbons to be be plugged straight in to the existing hydrocarbon network. Far cheaper than an astronomical expansion of the electricity grid and transport. The only thing holding it back is cheap hydrocarbons. We will never run out of hydrocarbons, with global population flipping to asymptotic decline we simply don't have enough babies.
"Advancing the game further, new nuclear technology can provide high temperature heat via 550°C steam or 750°C helium. Wind or solar energy sources can not. US petrochemical companies and engineers have the expertise to use the high-temperature heat and reliable electric power to build synfuel refineries. Advanced nuclear source energy costs can be 3.5 cents/kWh for electricity or 2 cents/kWh for high-temperature heat. This raw, source energy input cost to manufacture nuclear diesel is less than $1 per gallon. Even after adding new refinery capital costs and operations costs I expect new refineries could produce nuclear diesel at current wholesale prices near $3 per gallon."
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2023/06/13/nuclear_diesel_a_ga…
The Electric Power Research Institute study presented conceptual designs of large ships with 1.2 GWe of nuclear capacity, used for making both ammonia and jet fuel, as well as a design of a smaller 600 MWe multi-production platform that could produce electricity, ammonia, and desalinated water. The CAPEX (capital investment) costs for the Nth-of-a-kind vessels (so assuming licensing work was done for the first-of-a-kind) were around $1.5 billion, depending on the configuration.
The cost of the end-products from these vessels was competitive with the long-term average costs for their fossil fuel-based counterparts—even without carbon-taxes or fees that would increase their competitiveness even further. Ammonia could be produced below $250/ton ($290 for the multi-product platform), and jet fuel at below $85/barrel.
The larger, dedicated ships would each produce 1.2 million tonnes of ammonia per year and 4 million barrels of jet fuel per year, respectively. At the moment, the world uses 170 million metric tons of ammonia and more than 2 billion barrels of jet fuel per year.
https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-18-fall-2022/the-future-of-nucle…
Have you ever asked yourself why if it is so easy to produce an oil alternative the likes of the US have poured billions (at a loss) into fracking ahead of all the 'simple' alternatives?
The fact is there is no effective alternative to oil in the forseeable future.....if ever
Why would you produce an oil alternative when traditional hydrocarbons are so cheap? What is the payback?
What is an oil alternative?
Nuclear derived hydrocarbon. Why do we need an oil alternative? The system has been working pretty well for over 100 years. Try reading some of the links and expand you knowledge a little?
Have read enough about synth fuels and nuclear to know that any possibility of production at scale is decades away at best and that the EROEI will be lower than the current (declining) EROEI of fossil oil/gas.
One wonders if you have bothered to read PDK's withouthehotair link on nuclear or the idle shipyard capacity links posts on this thread? If EROEI is your thing, nuclear has a deal for you. Nuclear plants are being retrofitted to extend life beyond 60 years, and their fuel input is the most energy dense know to man. Latest developments in high temperature reactors giver industrial grade heat as bonus further enhancing their EROI/usefulness for hydrocarbon production not just electricity or forgoing electricity altogether.
"The results show that nuclear, hydro, coal, and natural gas power systems (in this order) are one order of magnitude more effective than photovoltaics and wind power.
EROI of run-of-river hydro power plant, New Zealand, based on numbers from Ref.
[7]. The energy payback times are in the range from 2 years (unbuffered) to 3 years
(buffered).
Installed capacity 90 MW
Lifetime 100 a
Location Waitaki River, New Zealand
Full-load hours 3000 (predictable)
Energy demand construction 1800 TJ
Energy demand maintenance 75 TJ (100 TJ for an assumed turbine
replacement not included here)
Decommissioning 60 TJ
EROI 50
EROI, buffered 35
EROIs and key figures [45] of the reference nuclear power plant (100% centrifuge
enrichment in brackets). The energy payback time is about 2 months.
Installed capacity (net) 1340 MW
Full-load hours 8000
Lifetime 60 a
Output 2,315,000 TJ
Construction energy demand 4050 TJ, thereof 35% electrical
Decommissioning
energy demand
1150 TJ, thereof 40% electrical
Maintenance energy demand 6900 TJ, thereof 68% electrical
Fuel related energy demand 18,800 TJ (9650 TJ), thereof 68% (40%) electrical
Sum energy demand 30,900 TJ (21,750 TJ), thereof 60% (50%)
electrical
EROI 75 (105)
Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492
dp
Oil will be viable until it isn't. It won't go away sure, but an alternative will make it a minor player soon enough.
As with coal, whale oil, candles etc etc
There sure is a lot of money going into fusion, SMR's, hydrogen of late. And solar/wind sure has become cheap. Even Saudi is hedging their coin on anything but
Nope.
Sigh.
Money is a proxy - only underwritten by energy. 'money going in' is not a measure. Thought and research, maybe. But the EROEI of oil is above that of coal, is above that of gas, and above that of any 'renewable'.
Look at it another way - you cannot create energy, so we're tapping into stocks or flows of it. Physical stocks are always limited (finite if NNR's, renewal-rate if 'renewables'). The big stocks were fossil ones; we're half-way through them. Tress are lesser stocks (decades rather than millions of years) and we're half-way through them too We will eventually run on real-time solar, as I've mentioned up-thread. 1kw/sqm @30% efficiency, ex cloud and ex night.
Add up the global acreage, add up the material requirements for the infrastructure - and we've peaked globally. Simple as that. Rabbits out of hats are just rabbits out of hats...
Nope.
Sigh.
Money is a proxy - only underwritten by energy. 'money going in' is not a measure. Thought and research, maybe. But the EROEI of oil is above that of coal, is above that of gas, and above that of any 'renewable'.
Look at it another way - you cannot create energy, so we're tapping into stocks or flows of it. Physical stocks are always limited (finite if NNR's, renewal-rate if 'renewables'). The big stocks were fossil ones; we're half-way through them. Tress are lesser stocks (decades rather than millions of years) and we're half-way through them too We will eventually run on real-time solar, as I've mentioned up-thread. 1kw/sqm @30% efficiency, ex cloud and ex night.
Add up the global acreage, add up the material requirements for the infrastructure - and we've peaked globally. Simple as that. Rabbits out of hats are just rabbits out of hats...
"There is enough energy in the nuclear waste in the United States to power the entire country for 100 years, and doing so could help solve the thorny and politically fraught problem of managing spent nuclear waste.
That’s according to Jess C. Gehin, an associate laboratory director at Idaho National Laboratory, one of the government’s premier energy research labs.
...“Fundamentally, in light-water reactors, out of the uranium we dig out of the ground, we use a half a percent of the energy that’s in the uranium that’s dug out of the ground,” Gehin told CNBC in a phone interview. “You can get a large fraction of that energy if you were to recycle the fuel through fast reactors.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/nuclear-waste-us-could-power-the-us-for…
As with coal, whale oil, candles etc etc
As you mention those above, the historical link between energy availability and standard of living is clear. Saudi's will rely on the rest of the world for any form of survival when they run out of oil which will happen eventually. They don't care now, as they can keep pumping oil, but when they can't power their desalination plants, air conditioners, or replace their roads and fuel their vehicles..... that will be another story.
….but everything to do with consuming FFs….FFS
Have you factored a decrease in global population into your theories?
Earth is going to hit “peak population” before the end of this century. Within 25 years, most of the world’s developed nations will be facing sharp population declines, with shrinking pools of young people working to support an ever-aging population.
https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/peak-population-but-we-can-all-move-to-texas/
Yes.
But it will happen sooner than that - we are grossly overshot now.
The thing is, one cannot factor in the unknown advancements or behavioural changes to come.
Yes, you can.
Time is a crucial factor in both, though.
By 'advancements' I assume you mean in technology? In energy terms, technology can only deliver efficiencies - and Jevon's Paradox usually deals to those. Regardless, Carnot and the 2nd Law tell us there are absolute limits to energy efficiencies.
By behavioural changes do you mean consuming less per head? There's a whole 3rd World beg to disagree. And there are more of them than there are of us... And the overshoot and over-depletion are already happening - now.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.