Thread by @harrybenham_1

1/11 - This is a very important paper from Carbontracker about the inevitability of the energy transition. This thread, eleven long, attempts to capture the core.
@CarbonBubble carbontracker.org/reports/the-tr…

2/11 – Two major reasons for inevitability A) economic / socio-political: when fossil fuels are exploited the beneficiaries are the owners of the assets and the governments who own the land. The cost of externalities eg air pollution and climate issues are shouldered by society

3/11 B) technological: wind/solar/batteries are manufactured energy at global scale: they are now universally accessible and can be copied, improved and deployed efficiently on a daily basis.

4/11 – Thus because fossil fuels are owned by the few, the rents flowing to owners are HUGE. But, wind / solar are far more competitive. So, profits are smaller. Energy is cheaper, so society benefits. And externalities (bad air, climate) reduce too, so cheaper, cleaner energy.

5/11 Major shift. That is the context, and it will quickly create an Inevitable Policy Response: 5 yrs ago fossil fuels were the cheapest baseload: collapse in solar/wind prices means that for 66% of the world solar/wind electricity now the cheapest baseload, 100% by early 2020s

6/11 – Intermittency !! (Sun does not always shine, yadayada) This problem is solved. Intermittency ceiling is rising dawn by dawn. Leaders eg Denmark, Germany have over 25% wind/solar, and growing fast – others following. 97% of the world below this, so can only grow.

7/11 What's this worth? Shift to wind/solar 2020 creates $1-6 trillion dollar windfall to society (cheaper/cleaner energy), good ancestors for future generations. Compare oil and gas, ca $1 trn pa to keep fuels burning, create millennia-long risks to society (CO2 / nuclear waste)

8/11: Why this may take longer than hoped? big rich countries with big fossil fuel industries will resist eg Australia and the US. Who may accelerate the change? developing countries who have limited fossil fuels eg China and India.

9/11 – Policy responses? Enabling regulatory regimes, force pace of change, refocus engineering skills of thermal fuel employees toward manufactured, long-term energy sources and services.

10/11 – Counterarguments: strongest are lack of space and lack or minerals – neither compelling; at most 1% global land mass required for global energy (likely far less) and detailed raw material reviews suggest few issues; overlook manufacturing learning rates.

11/11 – Thus – energy transition via policy, economics and technology inevitable: and needs to be: thermal energy system to date has powered at most 7 billion humans for 100 years: next system has to power 10billion for at least thousands. Needs to be different in kind. Ends.

Last point: electability: the labour intensity of wind/solar/battery far higher (manufacture/services) than the low-labour content of fossil fuel industry (capital intensive/safety conscious) - hence voter attractive.