Thread by @AdamBlazowski

Hi #energytwitter , this here is a THREAD about yet another worrying case of fossil fuel interests trying to influence our debate about clean energy.

1/n

It's a story about an industry lobby group that mingles with supposedly well wishing scientists and spreading IPCC denial to the youth.

So🐻 with me, your peer review is valuable.

We start off with the facts: our climate situation is so dire that @IPCC_CH calls for "all hands on deck" mobilization of all low carbon technologies, including nuclear and CCS.

"Societal preference" is certainly an obstacle, but we are running out of options. From AR5:

@IEABirol from @IEA puts it bluntly:"Some of us favor one and some another but we do not have the luxury to select our favorite technologies"
"It is time not for egos but to reduce CO2 emissions by bringing nuclear power together with other clean tech's"

https://twitter.com/IEABirol/status/1091008662301274113?s=20

Off to the main topic then...

Solar Power Europe is a lobby group for solar businesses aiming "to ensure that more energy is generated by solar than any other energy source by 2030"

That's ok, we need that! Down with coal, more clean power.Great!😍🥰

twitter.com/SolarPowerEU

But wait, if you look at their sponsors ... one thing is not like the others.

Can you spot it?

Yes, lots of legit solar businesses, but that six legged dog w/ fiery breath is Eni.com. It is a new name for a multinational natural gas&oil giant Agip.

What??

What is a fossil company doing sponsoring a solar lobby group?

See,gas companies see a great opportunity in our energy transition: since they know that intermittent renewable will need loads of "low carbon" natural gas if our energy systems are not to collapse.

Few examples:

And one more, and this one is my favorite from Brussels's airport.

Yes, it IS a photo of wind turbine on fire, powered by natural gas.

Great marketing huh? Talk about #greenwashing

If one looks closer at Eni's core business, one finds that they are committed to "long term natural gas supply".

There are two things that can spoil this dream business: batteries which don't exist yet, and low carbon nuclear power which exists and thus needs to go away.

For those who don't know, there is a real turf war between natural gas industry and nuclear industry, and the gas lobby is winning. 100%RE proponents are not helping.

Here is a very good summary and example from USA.

forbes.com/sites/jamescon…

Ok, back to Solar Power Europe which gas industry sponsors: SPE has worked together with LUT University to produce a "report" on 100% Renewable electricity in Europe by 2050.

researchgate.net/publication/32…

The report makes wildly optimistic assumptions about 2050 prices of technologies that do not even exist today at scale and no one can predict their cost.They also assume pessimistic 40 year life time for nuclear although even 80 years is possible.

energy.gov/ne/articles/wh…

Every model needs certain assumptions. If there is no credible source for them, one just needs to invent a value for the model to work. We have no way of knowing the costs of these technologies in 30 years. It's just a guess.

From the report:

This on itself is an outlier to the IPCC median scenarios where nuclear power actually needs to INCREASE if we want to hope for limited 1.5C warming. Page 13 from SPM AR5. No model has produced 100% RE by 2050. Nuclear increases in most of them, so do RE.

So: ....and we know that batteries will likely never store enough power.BNEF forecasts just 4 TWh in 2040, most in cars.
Batteries have low energy density, and all we've seen so far is incremental progress.We need them, but they are but a piece o/ puzzle.

about.bnef.com/blog/energy-st…

Still with me?

Because this is where it becomes cringe and really unpleasant.

On the 13th of May prof Christian Breyer from LUT (coauthor of the report) was invited by German @FridayForFuture to do an online lecture.

Notice the familiar logo?

He then starts off by denigrating IPCC consensus, calling it "poor scientific quality", "exaggerating nuclear" and "misbelief in CCS".

This is rather awkward start when talking to honest students who advocate to "listen to the science"...

And then it get's worse....the prof. Breyer denounces all other scenarios, pushes his battery vision and urges FfF to "pressure and massively punish low performing parties".

Remember, this is really good news for natural gas if he is wrong on the storage ...

And then onto some numbers...3000 TWhs of battery storage in 2050, in Europe alone ... remember that BNEF forecast has put that value at 4+ TWh GLOBALY.

Someone is really off by a few zero's here.

FINAL LESSON from this I think is as follows: when talking about models don't assume that something is "simply possible" because its "proven" by a model.

First look to the underlying assumptions. 100%RE is possible if we build ourselves 3 PWh of storage.

Thank you.