Tweet

Glen Peters

18 May, 10 tweets, 4 min read

@IEA

The new @IEA Net Zero by 2050 report is crystal clear on what is needed.

"All the technologies needed to achieve the necessary deep cuts in global emissions by 2030 already exist, & the policies that can drive their deployment are already proven."

iea.org/reports/net-ze…

1/

"Clean energy innovation must accelerate rapidly, with governments putting R&D, demonstration and deployment at the core of energy and climate policy."

In 2030 only existing technologies needed, by 2050 new technologies also come to market.

2/

Net Zero 2050 is a jobs bonanza.

JOBS. JOBS. JOBS.

"The transition to net zero brings substantial new opportunities for employment, with 14 million jobs created by 2030 in our pathway thanks to new activities and investment in clean energy"

More jobs than losses...

3/

"Governments need to provide credible step-by-step plans to reach their net zero goals, building confidence among investors, industry, citizens and other countries"

And here are some clear action points...

4/

@IEA

To me, this section is a game changer, coming from the @IEA...

"Beyond projects already committed as of 2021, there are no new oil and gas fields approved for development in our pathway, and no new coal mines or mine extensions are required"

5/

https://twitter.com/ProfTimStephens/status/1394551878634012672

This should send ripples through governments & boardrooms.

No new fossil fuel supply needed. Full stop.

The risk of litigation just went up...

https://twitter.com/ProfTimStephens/status/1394551878634012672

"This is not simply a matter of all governments seeking to bring their national emissions to net zero – it means tackling global challenges through co-ordinated actions."

Rich countries will get to zero first, & help developing countries get there soon after.

7/

"The number of countries that have pledged to achieve net-zero emissions has grown rapidly over the last year & now covers around 70% of global emissions.

This is a huge step forward.

However, most pledges are not yet underpinned by
near-term policies & measures"

8/

"The report provides a global view, but countries do not start in the same place or finish at the same time: advanced economies have to reach net zero before emerging markets and developing economies, and assist others in getting there"

9/

@IEA

While many will argue that the IPCC has said much of this before, I see the @IEA NZE2050 as providing much clearer messages, specific action points for governments, & the courage to say no new fossil fuel supply.

Read: iea.org/reports/net-ze…

10/10

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @Peters_Glen

Glen Peters

@Peters_Glen

19 May

The IEA Net Zero 2050 scenario uses quite a lot less Bioenergy with Carbon Capture & Storage (BECCS) than scenarios assessed by the IPCC.

Consequently, all else equal, the IEA NZE2050 uses less fossil fuel in 2050 than most IPCC SR15 scenarios.

1/

iea.org/reports/net-ze…

The IEA, in contrast, has a decent (not huge) amount of Direct Air Capture (DACCS) of 0.6GtCO₂/yr.

Not many scenarios assessed by the IPCC SR15 use DACCS (4 out of 53 have non-zero data, the other 2 marked have zero DACCS)

The scenario with high DACCS is from MERGE-ETL.

2/

Since IEA NZE2050 reaches net-zero CO₂ emissions in 2050, the removals (tweets 1 & 2) must balance with (residual) emissions in 2050.

The NZE2050 clearly has far less fossil fuel use in 2050 than most IPCC SR15 assessed 1.5°C scenarios.

3/

Read 7 tweets

Glen Peters

@Peters_Glen

10 May

What explains the generally poor performance of solar in energy-system models (versus reality)?

Primary:
* Type of organisation
* Type of model

Secondary
* Cost
* Technology & policy assumptions

rdcu.be/ckjbh

1/

"IPCC scenarios consistently project lower PV adoption pathways & higher capital costs than non-IPCC scenarios"

Academics & researchers are behind the curve... (or are they just exploring the uncertainties?)

2/

If you think the track record on PV costs are bad, then you have missed the elephant in the room

Model, model setup, model assumptions, etc, are more important. This is such a misunderstood issue.

3/

Read 8 tweets

Glen Peters

@Peters_Glen

10 May

Norwegian electricity production is dominated by hydropower, & overall Norway is a net exporter of electricity (though, this varies throughout the year).

Hydropower production varies due to weather (green), but consumption is relatively constant (black line).

1/

Total energy consumption is dominated by hydropower (figure shows generation, not consumption).

Nearly all the oil is used in transport, and nearly all the gas is used in oil & gas extraction.

Norway is already quite electrified...

2/

The energy flow is dominated by electricity (hydropower, split between dispatchable & non-dispatchable).

As time passes, this figure will become even more dominated by electricity. Current policy is to electrify transport & oil & gas production...

energifaktanorge.no/en/energy-fact…

3/

Read 4 tweets

Glen Peters

@Peters_Glen

7 May

There is a lot of confusion about net-zero GHG & CO₂ emissions, they are different.

The EU & US have a target of net-zero GHG emissions in 2050, which is ~20 years ahead of the global average (coincidentally, global net-zero CO₂ emissions is ~2050).

1/

@Oliver_Geden

For developing countries to have a later net-zero GHG year, say 2090 (~20 years after the global average), it requires that developed countries are net negative to compensate developing countries & maintain net-zero GHG globally. (a point often made by @Oliver_Geden).

2/

I think we all agree & accept developing countries will find their own path to net-zero, & one that is later than developed countries.

But, I also think many confuse the net-zero years for CO₂ & GHG emissions.

Many obsess on 2050, when there is actually a broad range!

3/

Read 4 tweets

Glen Peters

@Peters_Glen

7 May

A 🧵 on carbon budget uncertainties (for walkers)...

It is 2km to the lake, which means it could be 1.5km or 2.5km given rounding.

If I have walked 1km, then it is 0.5km to 1.5km to go. That is a huge uncertainty!

1/

Carbon budgets are often presented for 66% chance (of avoiding the target), which in this analogy, would say after 1km that if I walk 0.5km further there is a 66% chance I have not reached the lake.

Or after 1.5km, there is a 33% change I have still not reached the lake!

2/

There are a few issues here. There will be a non-zero probability I have reached the lake after only 1km, which means the measurements were wrong.

Carbon budget uncertainties for 1.5°C also include negative carbon budgets, meaning it may already be too late to avoid 1.5°C!

3/

Read 5 tweets

Glen Peters

@Peters_Glen

6 May

Keeping below 1.5°C requires rapid emission reductions at the global level.

What do scenarios imply for key regions?

In this thread, I show the fossil CO₂ emissions in key regions. These scenarios do not include equity considerations, these are cost-efficient pathways.

1/

2. In the OECD, fossil CO₂ emissions are are already in a decline.

On average, from 2020, a 44% reduction by 2030 & 95% by 2050. This requires accelerating climate action beyond current levels.

3. Asia is a big challenge. Emissions are growing strongly now, but has to drop by 47% from 2020 to 2030 & by 88% to 2050.

This requires a dramatic reversal of current trends. In many respects, this makes the challenge harder in Asia (developing) compared to OECD (developed).

Read 9 tweets

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Share this page!

Glen Peters

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @Peters_Glen

Glen Peters

Glen Peters

Glen Peters

Glen Peters

Glen Peters

Glen Peters

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Like this author's thread?