Released September 03, 2024 | SUGAR LAND
en
Written by Paul Wiseman for Industrial Info Resources (Sugar Land, Texas)--Former Vice President Al Gore's 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth reached huge audiences, Paul-Revere-ing the announcement of a looming climate emergency requiring drastic and immediate reductions in fossil fuel use. The ultimate goal involved cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to slow the rises in temperature.
Gore's message is credited with a huge leap in energizing the environmental and energy-transition movements, and almost 20 years later, renewable energy use is rising quickly--but so also are fossil fuel use and global carbon dioxide emissions. Plus, in some countries, most notably in France and elsewhere in Europe, voters have begun pushback on the cost and inconveniences posed by leaving the comfort of Fossil Fuel Man.
Conferences Continue--So Does the Rise in CO2 Emissions
The first World Climate Conference occurred in 1979 (see chart). That year, world carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were estimated at 19.6 gigatons (GT). COP1 was held in 1995, when world CO2 emissions were 23.5 GT. Last year's COP 28 was looking at 37.8 GT of CO2. That's a 93.7% increase since climate discussions began almost a half century ago.
In 2023, the EIA reports, 83% of U. S. energy use involved fossil fuels: petroleum 38%, natural gas 36% and coal 9%. Renewables and nuclear accounted for 9% each.
In light of these numbers, it is difficult to see a real transition happening. As the U. S., and the world, became used to cheap, plentiful, and portable energy, it fell prey to Jevons Paradox, which states that anything that get cheaper is used more. Economist William Henry Jevons' observation was made in 1865 in England regarding...coal. As it got cheaper, people didn't save money and instead spent it on using more coal.
So that plentiful fuel led to its being applied to every human endeavor under the sun--travel, industry, health/medicine, construction, climate control, communication, food, and more. Demand for energy has grown, essentially, every year since 1800. And many experts have attributed the world's great population explosion to comforts provided by those fuels. In 1800 the world's population was less than 1 billion. Today it stands at about 8 billion.
Wind, solar and other renewable forms are also growing in their ability to supply energy, but demand is growing so fast that all energy combined is struggling to keep up.
Popularity Contest
Political speeches on all sides tout affordable energy--some by continuing to drill, baby, drill, or by pumping billions of dollars of government (read: taxpayer) money on funding green research and keeping green production costs low. Personally paying extra for the energy transition is on few people's radar. And indeed, the International Energy Agency (IEA) and others have estimated transition costs in the trillions of dollars between now and the target year of 2050 for reaching net zero.
One Size Does Not Fit All
On the cost issue, IIR Energy's Geoffrey S. Lakings points out three main factors in considering costs.
First, an affordable energy future likely involves a variety of clean energy options. "Cost-effective solutions are essential," he says, "where energy planning must be connected to each sector individually for the purpose of cost-benefit analysis. In short, that means not every technology is suitable for every country or situation."
That might include putting wind turbines on the lee side of a mountain range or solar panels in the rain forest, etc. And technologies that are considered cutting edge one day may prove to be unusable the next, a sometimes necessary but nonetheless costly experiment that's not viable for smaller developing countries, Lakings says, "Sometimes it is good to second in the technology race."
Second, "The energy transition should not export costs. All technologies must pay their full integration costs and be recognized for their benefits, avoiding hidden costs, and making subsidies explicit." The old saying about there being no such thing as a free lunch energy transition applies here.
Third, Lakings calls for clear communication and information. "Too often, those paying the energy bills do not understand the costs of the energy transition--that it is more accurately described as a great transformation, which affects the consumer's interaction with the energy industry. And, in truth, the energy industry has not communicated well, either. Everyone needs to understand the cost--and sometimes pain--associated with a radical change in how we see and use energy."
Conservation as a Cost-Free Option
During the energy crisis of the 1970s, energy conservation was the panic subject of the day. And it's the one thing that costs no one anything in many cases. Turn off those LED lights, even though they're cheaper than incandescents. Readjust the thermostat. And, working from home, which started during COVID, has continued to reduce some travel between home and office.
Most structures now are much better insulated now than in the 1970s, and air conditioners and heat pumps, while still costly to run, are more than twice as efficient as they were 50 years ago. So here's an area where progress is available.
But the net-zero transition is truly a lifestyle change, and politicians and leaders claiming they can make it a painless option are simply buying votes--and that's happening regardless of the country or the party.
And that is a very inconvenient truth.
Industrial Info Resources (IIR) is the leading provider of industrial market intelligence. Since 1983, IIR has provided comprehensive research, news and analysis on the industrial process, manufacturing and energy related industries. IIR's Global Market Intelligence (GMI) platform helps companies identify and pursue trends across multiple markets with access to real, qualified and validated plant and project opportunities. Across the world, IIR is tracking more than 200,000 current and future projects worth $17.8 trillion (USD).
Gore's message is credited with a huge leap in energizing the environmental and energy-transition movements, and almost 20 years later, renewable energy use is rising quickly--but so also are fossil fuel use and global carbon dioxide emissions. Plus, in some countries, most notably in France and elsewhere in Europe, voters have begun pushback on the cost and inconveniences posed by leaving the comfort of Fossil Fuel Man.
Conferences Continue--So Does the Rise in CO2 EmissionsThe first World Climate Conference occurred in 1979 (see chart). That year, world carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were estimated at 19.6 gigatons (GT). COP1 was held in 1995, when world CO2 emissions were 23.5 GT. Last year's COP 28 was looking at 37.8 GT of CO2. That's a 93.7% increase since climate discussions began almost a half century ago.
In 2023, the EIA reports, 83% of U. S. energy use involved fossil fuels: petroleum 38%, natural gas 36% and coal 9%. Renewables and nuclear accounted for 9% each.
In light of these numbers, it is difficult to see a real transition happening. As the U. S., and the world, became used to cheap, plentiful, and portable energy, it fell prey to Jevons Paradox, which states that anything that get cheaper is used more. Economist William Henry Jevons' observation was made in 1865 in England regarding...coal. As it got cheaper, people didn't save money and instead spent it on using more coal.
So that plentiful fuel led to its being applied to every human endeavor under the sun--travel, industry, health/medicine, construction, climate control, communication, food, and more. Demand for energy has grown, essentially, every year since 1800. And many experts have attributed the world's great population explosion to comforts provided by those fuels. In 1800 the world's population was less than 1 billion. Today it stands at about 8 billion.
Wind, solar and other renewable forms are also growing in their ability to supply energy, but demand is growing so fast that all energy combined is struggling to keep up.
Popularity Contest
Political speeches on all sides tout affordable energy--some by continuing to drill, baby, drill, or by pumping billions of dollars of government (read: taxpayer) money on funding green research and keeping green production costs low. Personally paying extra for the energy transition is on few people's radar. And indeed, the International Energy Agency (IEA) and others have estimated transition costs in the trillions of dollars between now and the target year of 2050 for reaching net zero.
One Size Does Not Fit All
On the cost issue, IIR Energy's Geoffrey S. Lakings points out three main factors in considering costs.
First, an affordable energy future likely involves a variety of clean energy options. "Cost-effective solutions are essential," he says, "where energy planning must be connected to each sector individually for the purpose of cost-benefit analysis. In short, that means not every technology is suitable for every country or situation."
That might include putting wind turbines on the lee side of a mountain range or solar panels in the rain forest, etc. And technologies that are considered cutting edge one day may prove to be unusable the next, a sometimes necessary but nonetheless costly experiment that's not viable for smaller developing countries, Lakings says, "Sometimes it is good to second in the technology race."
Second, "The energy transition should not export costs. All technologies must pay their full integration costs and be recognized for their benefits, avoiding hidden costs, and making subsidies explicit." The old saying about there being no such thing as a free lunch energy transition applies here.
Third, Lakings calls for clear communication and information. "Too often, those paying the energy bills do not understand the costs of the energy transition--that it is more accurately described as a great transformation, which affects the consumer's interaction with the energy industry. And, in truth, the energy industry has not communicated well, either. Everyone needs to understand the cost--and sometimes pain--associated with a radical change in how we see and use energy."
Conservation as a Cost-Free Option
During the energy crisis of the 1970s, energy conservation was the panic subject of the day. And it's the one thing that costs no one anything in many cases. Turn off those LED lights, even though they're cheaper than incandescents. Readjust the thermostat. And, working from home, which started during COVID, has continued to reduce some travel between home and office.
Most structures now are much better insulated now than in the 1970s, and air conditioners and heat pumps, while still costly to run, are more than twice as efficient as they were 50 years ago. So here's an area where progress is available.
But the net-zero transition is truly a lifestyle change, and politicians and leaders claiming they can make it a painless option are simply buying votes--and that's happening regardless of the country or the party.
And that is a very inconvenient truth.
Industrial Info Resources (IIR) is the leading provider of industrial market intelligence. Since 1983, IIR has provided comprehensive research, news and analysis on the industrial process, manufacturing and energy related industries. IIR's Global Market Intelligence (GMI) platform helps companies identify and pursue trends across multiple markets with access to real, qualified and validated plant and project opportunities. Across the world, IIR is tracking more than 200,000 current and future projects worth $17.8 trillion (USD).
