Thread by @davidfickling

This point from @BloombergNEF is INCREDIBLY important and chimes with something I've been arguing recently:

Given the pace of power sector transformation we are *much closer* to a below-2-degrees pathway than people generally appreciate.

about.bnef.com/blog/solar-win…

For instance, the pace of investment in fossil fuels is already running at levels consistent with, or below, the @IEA below-two-degrees Sustainable Development Scenario:

https://twitter.com/davidfickling/status/1128505395998146562?s=19

More coal plants were decommissioned last year than reached final investment decision:
bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…

If the emerging world tracks the pace of decline in coal generation seen in Europe and the U.S., if could collapse much faster than people appreciate: bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…

That chimes with @CarbonBubble research showing that 42% of coal plants globally are already running at a loss in net asset value terms: carbontracker.org/42-of-global-c…

A separate @BloombergNEF study last year found about half of U.S. coal generators were losing money even on a more generous operating-cost basis: bloomberg.com/news/articles/…

They're basically only running by passing excess costs to customers and hoping rival generators will give them some breathing space by switching off first and tightening the market.

& meanwhile Shell, the biggest supermajor by revenues, is acting like demand for oil is nearing its peak:

https://twitter.com/davidfickling/status/1136404818656878592?s=19

The second point by @BloombergNEF though is crucial: The real challenge now is what happens to non-electricity sectors of the economy, and how you get past the dramatic short-term declines now crystallizing to the much trickier path-to-zero shift needed in the 2030s and 2040s.

With passenger cars I think we're heading in the right direction with EVs.

Steel is harder, though I suspect China's coming scrap mountain will make a shift away from more-polluting primary steel a bigger deal than we realize: bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…

Long-distance trucking is hard but I suspect the old technology of overhead lines holds promise:

https://twitter.com/davidfickling/status/1125990040788557824?s=19

But shipping, aviation, cement, agriculture? These are big emitting sectors and we've barely begun to think seriously about how to decarbonize them in a significant way.

Plus, there is that issue of the path beyond 2030. It's not all that hard to get renewables penetration up to 50% or so, which is more or less where Germany and the U.K. will be in a year or so. Getting to 70% will be far harder. To 100% ... we barely know where to start.

I often spar with "nuclear good, renewables bad" types on Twitter but they're completely right that in most countries we need to include atomic energy as part of an eventual zero-emissions mix:

bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…

It's a really good way of getting a zero-carbon slice of the pie in the long term. It has significant weaknesses in terms of poor economics and construction mayhem even before you get to public opposition, but the benefits outweigh those negatives IMO.

And then there's some role for biomass and biofuel, solar thermal, geothermal, etc. But it's unclear how it all fits together.

I think we should acknowledge that we're making better progress on these near-term issues than we realize.

But that's no reason for complacency. The far bigger challenge is the one beyond that, and we've barely begun to grapple with it. (ends)