This is a key insight. Keeping gas plants around for emergencies but ONLY running them for emergencies allows us to run high renewables systems reliably NOW. No new tech breakthroughs needed, but we will need to change incentives and business models.
This is not a new insight, but some still fail to understand it. Keep some gas around, and incentivize it to ONLY run during emergencies. We'd need to pay enough for good maintenance and proof of availability, but we can do this with better institutional/incentive design.
Running a high renewables system with some gas plants around for emergencies means we can easily get to 90+% renewables generation in an average year in most places with little to no technical innovation. More innovation will of course make this even easier!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What these people fail to understand is that there IS a popular way to raise taxes: Tax very wealthy people a lot more and enforce the laws so wealthy people don't get away with avoiding taxes they should be paying.
Also get rid of the carried interest deduction and jack up inheritance taxes for estates starting in the hundreds of millions. All this would be VERY popular. It would affect a relatively small number of very wealthy people and would raise hundreds of billions of $ every year.
Armstrong McKay, et al. 2022. "Exceeding 1.5 C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points." Science. vol. 377, no. 6611. September 9. pp. eabn7950. [science.org/doi/abs/10.112…]
You weren't listening carefully enough to Kieren Mayer's presentation. Slide 14 shows total life cycle emissions including manufacturing of equipment and discs for three modes of gaming.
The key is that USE PHASE dominates in most cases, so your statement about "massive hardware emissions" doesn't track with reality, although in some use cases embedded emissions can be consequential.
My experience having collaborated with the Playstation folks for years in understanding environmental impacts is that they care very much about getting the numbers right. They show that by funding work that gets published in the peer reviewed literature, among other ways.
Also, many people don't know that lead is still allowed in aviation gasoline, because the FAA thinks "no safe alternative is currently available". faa.gov/news/fact_shee…
With the advent of electrified light planes, though, we now have a safe and superior alternative. cnn.com/travel/article…
Our rebuttal: Masanet, Eric, Arman Shehabi, Nuoa Lei, Harald Vranken, Jonathan Koomey, and Jens Malmodin. 2019. "Implausible projections overestimate near-term Bitcoin CO2 emissions." Nature Climate Change. vol. 9, no. 9. 2019/09/01. pp. 653-654. [doi.org/10.1038/s41558…]
We reproduced the authors' model almost exactly, so we know what they did. We showed that their conclusions made no sense in several ways, but the authors just denied the validity of our valid points in their riposte to our rebuttal.
Setting a coal phase-out date (2030 or sooner for developed countries) is the most important single step most nations can take on climate. Of course it's not the only necessary step, but it's a big one.
This is another example of a critically important constraint on the supply side (it's not just about reducing demand).
Green, Fergus, and Richard Denniss. 2018. "Cutting with both arms of the scissors: the economic and political case for restrictive supply-side climate policies." Climatic Change. 2018/03/12. [doi.org/10.1007/s10584…]