In the newspaper article I also explain why I personally think this is so important: it's a hopeful message to young people who are depressed about climate change and would like a world running on 100% renewable energy but are afraid it's impossible or expensive.
Here's the tweet from the lead author. I've also included the paper's abstract as a picture.
Here's a high def timeline showing some of the groundbreaking research. As you can see it's a young field. I still remember discovering Czisch and getting enthusiastic. In 2011 @mzjacobson's paper inspired me (I replaced the hydro increase with batteries in my Excel).
But SO MUCH has happened since then!
Some people mistakenly think it's still just a few researchers but as you can see there are multiple research groups and most of the new research is by new entrants. Dozens of these papers are also in the new IPCC WG3 report by the way.
And for those who say: what do you do when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine...
The fastest growing fields of study are grid capacity, energy storage, sector coupling, and P2X (electricity to molecules like H2) and back. So everybody in 100%RE is very aware of this.
That these papers design energy systems without fossil fuels and nuclear energy does not prove fossil and nuclear don't work! It's a research focus: feel free to include them in *your* models!
But it shows we can do without and that the resulting energy system is still low cost.
I personally find that good news because I think nuclear energy is often expensive, slow and impopular with lots of discussions about proliferation, accidents, and waste.
So I'm not so much against it as sceptical that it will be deployed at the speed we need.
And fossil fuel with carbon capture and storage is not a bad idea per se either. I'm just a bit bummed out by all the cheating, heel dragging, and not delivering good results.
This clip is humorous but not that far of the mark imho.
I'm more hopeful about solar and wind that keep defying expectations in terms of production growth and price decreases. Lead author @ChristianOnRE is especially bullish on solar. I'm glad the IPCC is also picking this up now.
Anyway: I'm happy this paper documents that energy systems without fossil fuel and nuclear are now scientific mainstream. And I'm very proud to be a co-author.
/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The heathen Gods have gathered on mount Olympus for a feast. Sun god Apollo is recognizable by his halo, Bacchus (Dionysus) by the grapes, Neptune (Poseidon) by his trident, Diana (Artemis) by the moon, Venus (Aphrodite) by Cupid.
If you add batteries to solar PV, not all energy has to flow through batteries. But let's keep it at $0.01 and add that to the price of solar. That makes PV (and wind) SUPER cheap!
Batteries must be discounted more quickly you say?
Cheap stationary batteries will pave the way for wind and solar in cheap and resilient energy grids. Unfortunately the @IEA is mispredicting it (again).
Many of my followers know this picture: it visualizes how the IEA underestimates solar. Now I see basically the same problem in their new battery report.
The IEAs new battery report gives a lot of great info on batteries but also two predictions taken from their authoritative world energy outlook: 1) STEPS which is basically business as usual 2) NZE (Net Zero Emissions) which is aspirational iea.org/reports/batter…
I used the Sunday afternoot to describe how I think that dirt cheap batteries will completely transform our electricity grid, paving the way for solar and wind and replacing grid reinforcements with grid buffers aukehoekstra.substack.com/p/batteries-ho…
This is something I'm working on for different government and grid operator projects, but I never realized just how cheap sodium batteries could become and how much of a game changer that will be.
So I used my Sunday evening to write this and would love your feedback!
First I look at the learning curve and then we see it is extremely predictable: every doubling of production has reduced prices by around 25%.
It's even steeper and more predictable than solar panels, the poster child of this type of learning curve.
(More details on substack.)
Aaaand we have another winner of the "EVs and renewables can never happen because of material scarcety" sweepstake. I thought @pwrhungry was more serious. Let me explain why this is misleading bollox.
First of all, notice how his argument is mainly that Vaclav Smil says this and HE is an authority.
Why bother to write a substack that basically parrots someone else?
Because you don't really understand it yourself and needed to write another substack maybe?
I'm a bit tired of this because Bryce abuses Smil the same way most people who are against renewables abuse him. They emphasize this is a serious and revered figure that knows numbers. They make it about the messenger, not the argument.