This article is also published on LinkedIn.
2012 was a very good year. James Cameron went down to the deepest part of the ocean. Felix Baumgartner skydived from the highest altitude anyone has ever jumped from. Scientists found the Higgs Boson inside a tunnel in Geneva. The world saw for the very first time more installed capacity of renewable energy than fossil fuel energy.
Since 2012, renewables gained the upper hand against fossil fuels. That year, we installed more renewable power in the world than fossil fuel power. IRENA’s installed capacity statistics visually show how the lines cross for the first time.
People have polarised opinions about the facts. For example, optimists may say that this is a revolutionary accomplishment that would trigger an expansion of renewables. Realists would probably argue that this share does not consider other sectors, or that renewables alone are not completely significant. Pessimists might say that the power sector was an easy one to cross… wait until we get to heating, cooling, transport, industrial uses: the real beasts behind the transition. Egon would remind us “don’t cross the streams. It would be bad”.
I stand in-between these opinions, although I am completely in favour of crossing the streams. In 2012, crossing the streams meant that our energy systems needed to be retrofitted to account for variable electricity generation. It meant that storing energy was now taking a priority for many local, national institutions and businesses. It meant that we symbolically put our heads together and reacted to the dangers of climate change. It also meant that renewables mean business.
We have changed – this is good news. Last year (2018), 63% of the power installed in the world was based on renewables. That share is as big as what we were installing in 2010 for fossil fuels – quite the jump we have made in eight years. But I will also mention a couple of bad news. Change is not fast enough and fossil fuel removal efforts are absurd.
1. Change is not fast enough
Change may not be as fast as we wanted because it is hard and complex and even if renewables accounted for 100% of the annual installed capacity, this may not be enough effort. First, why would we even need a faster change? Things are going great: every year we install more renewables than fossil fuels. This is true, but the rate is worrying. In 2015, most of the world united to fight climate change by signing the Paris Agreement. Businesses have also been joining the 100% renewable club. It seems as if there are many good stories going around. But these stories are not consistent with the big picture. If they were, we would have seen an immediate full stop of the non-renewables capacity installations and an explosion of the renewables after 2015. But instead, the renewables keep going up slowly. Reasonably, countries agreed to reduce their greenhouse gases emissions, but not immediately; during decades. That means that we are improving at the same rate as in 2006, not really taking a faster approach in the energy sector.
Changing has been hard
The pessimists are right to some degree, the power sector is a big machine that works well. We understand it and we can measure, track and control its behaviour from a centralised set of offices. We can store barrels of oil, count and recount our reserves. We can install minigrids somewhere in the middle of a rural area and forget about them. But the power sector is also antique and struggles to move fast. It is a prisoner of slow decision-making, sunk cost fallacies and lobbyist groups dragging down the transition.
Just adding more renewables into the energy mix will not transform the energy sector. The old needs to go. Even after crossing the streams in 2012, renewables are now just a third of the total installed capacity. These past months, the news were saturated with the “One-third of all installed capacity is renewables!” storyline. But one third is not really a reason to celebrate because it distracts from the pain points we are not addressing. As we continue pushing change in the power sector, we often forget to talk about other energy end uses. Renewables in transportation, heating or cooling are a much bigger challenge. If we cannot speed up the power sector, what makes us think that we can be more successful for the rest of the sectors?
2. Fossil fuel removal efforts are absurd
Yes, it is true that the US is closing hundreds of coal plants. It is true that Germany decided to phase out coal and lead the transition with Energiewende. But it is also true that “Freedom Gas” is becoming another threat against the transition, and so is true that Japan transitioned back to fossil fuels to replace their nuclear power after 2011. It is also true that countries with the biggest predicted populations have not fully developed their energy sectors and it looks like they are not too keen to design their grids, factories, and cities with 100% commitment to renewables. We need a more direct approach to get rid of fossil fuels.
I prefer looking at fossil fuel removal: “net decommissioning”. Net decommissioning means that a country has removed, transformed or turned off more fossil fuel power than what they have installed in a given year. This removal of fossil fuels can also be measured for a longer period of time. For example, the net removal of fossil fuels compared to the levels in the year 2000. If a country had 20 GW of fossil fuel power in 2000 and 15 GW in 2017, then the net removal is 5 GW. This is a more sensible commitment to climate change than renewable additions. But the efforts on this are absurd.
As of 2017, only 49 net Gigawatts (GW) had been taken out of production in the world. By itself, it sounds like a big number. Multiple cities can be powered with 49 GW – impressive. In reality, this is a ridiculously small number. First, because this is the total removal of fossil fuels throughout the eighteen years. Secondly, because it represents almost nothing compared to the totals. In 2017, the world had installed almost 4,600 GW of fossil fuel power. That means that the net removal of 18 years has only been 1% of 4,600 GW. One percent. Not only that, the countries doing this 1% progress are only a handful of rich economies.
At the country level, these are almost exclusively European countries in the North-eastern regions. The UK alone is leading the pack by removing 12.3 net GW of fossil fuel power since 2000. But we are not doing enough and we are not doing it fast enough.
Our objective should be more than to make fossil fuels disappear only from the new power additions. It should not be to conform to 1% of net removals. It should be to go strong and remove all the installed fossil fuel power plants and not daze ourselves with renewable power addition.
Everything written here is a personal reflection and is by no means educational, financial or professional advice in any way.
Please feel free to cite and refer reliable sources in the comment section down below.