⏩Energy transition "turbo charged" by Russia's war
⛰️Fossil fuels to peak by 2027
❤️🔥Peak gas: "Golden age of gas" is over
🌄Solar outlook +20% vs last yr; wind +15%
🌡️Warming 2.5C (1.7C if pledges met)
IEA also gives a cold dose of reality to idea of a "coal comeback" thanks to energy crisis
⏱️"upside for coal is temporary"
📉coal in "structural decline" from mid-20s
🌄3/4 of extra $ in 2022 for clean energy
🏛️policy "fast-tracking…clean energy"
Russia is the big loser in all this, set to miss out on $1tn of energy export earnings to 2030
While Russia hopes to pivot to Asia, IEA says there are "considerable doubts" over China's need for further Russian gas beyond Power of Siberia pipeline
Pathway to 1.5C "remains narrow but achievable", but #WEO22 had to revise NZE to offset higher CO2 since last yr & new fossil inf that could emit 25GtCO2
If we fail to scale up clean energy invst, we will face an unpalatable choice between an "energy-starved" world, or higher fossil fuel spending to meet demand, putting 1.5C in "jeopardy"
(This is the 2022 twist on "no new fossil fuels for 1.5C")
The alignment of security, economic & climate imperatives behind clean energy is why, in his #WEO22 foreword, @fbirol pushes back on the "mistaken" idea the energy crisis will be a setback for climate
PPS I'm sure @IEA knows this and it's simply tough to get such a mega report finished any more quickly, but…it would make journalists like me, who actually want to read the thing, very happy to have a longer embargo with the #WEO 🙏
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In Q1 of 2025, the clean-energy driven drop in power sector CO2 outweighed small increases in other sectors of China's economy, driving a 1.6% fall year-on-year overall
FACTCHECK: Almost all the headlines on Tony Blair / net-zero are *wildly* inaccurate
REALITY:
1️⃣Net-zero is *only way* to stop warming
2️⃣Blair calls for tech to "turbocharge our path to net-zero"
3️⃣He categorically *does not* say "net-zero is doomed to fail"
🧵 1/6
Blair says a "strategy based on either 'phasing out' fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail"
This is logically & categorically not the same as saying "net-zero is doomed to fail"
(If you can't see why, I can't help you) 2/6
Nor does Blair say "current net-zero policies are doomed"
Because literally no govt in the world has a current net-zero policy to "phase out fossil fuels in the short term or limit consumption"
Instead, world's govts agreed at COP28 to "transition away from fossil fuels" 3/6
NEW: Official advisers CCC say UK shld cut emissions 87% by 2040
⚖️Net cost of net-zero 73% less than thought
💷Total cost to 2050 = £108bn (~£4bn/yr, 0.2% GDP)
🏡🚗H’hold energy/fuel bills to fall £1,400
🔌Electrification is key
THREAD: New UK govt contract with Drax biomass power plant
* 4-yr contract 2027-2031
* £113/MWh (2012 prices – £155 in today's money)
* Output cap of 6TWh (<2% of UK supplies, cf recent yrs 12-15TWh)
* CfD cost ~£500m/yr
* 100% of fuel must be "sustainable", up from 70% 1/5
UK govt says the contract helps security of electricity supplies, but gives Drax a "much more limited role than today" ie it's limited to run at roughly 25% of its max output
This means it's mainly going to be running when it isn't windy
Drax has had issues with existing 70% sustainable sourcing rule, but as it'll need less than half the fuel it has been buying to date, the new 100% rule looks more achievable
Notably, new contract terms allow govt to reclaim subsidy if rule not met
UK electricity generation from fossil fuels has more than halved in a decade, falling to 91TWh in 2024 – the lowest level since 1955 and making up the lowest ever share of the total, just 29%
Meanwhile, renewable output has more than doubled, up 122% since 2014 to 143TWh 2/9
The UK has cut gas-fired electricity generation by 13% in a decade – even as it was phasing out coal power – thanks to rising renewable output (mainly wind), along with lower demand + higher imports