Clean power by 2035

[Celerity]

A clean, expanded power system can be achieved in Europe by 2035—at no extra cost above stated plans.

https://socialeurope.eu/clean-power-by-2035



A consensus is clearly emerging that power systems in advanced economies can and should be decarbonised in the next decade, with notable evidence from the International Energy Agency’s seminal Net Zero by 2050 report and the sixth assessment round of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Not only does electricity have the greatest potential for early decarbonisation; it is also the crucial enabler of the wider energy transition through clean electrification of transport, heating and industry.

The energy crisis, catalysed by the invasion of Ukraine, has brought into sharp focus the European Union’s dependence on imported fossil fuels and its exposure to price volatility and geopolitical pressures. Urgently reducing fossil consumption is no longer ‘just’ a climate imperative but an economic and security priority. A new study by Ember explores the least-cost pathways to carbon-free power in Europe. These have been modelled with the most advanced quantitative tools, on an hour-by-hour, country-by-country basis. The results are clear: a larger and cleaner—about 95 per cent decarbonised—power system by 2035 is the most cost-effective route to net zero by mid-century in Europe. Not only is this achievable but it could save Europe up to €1 trillion by 2035, with multiple benefits for the climate, health and energy security.

Scaled rapidly

In the least-cost pathways, about 95 per cent carbon-free power is achieved by 2035. Wind and solar scale rapidly over the next decade or so and become the backbone of an expanded power system, providing 70-80 per cent of supply by 2035. Simultaneously, the electricity system is expanded as key services (such as heating and transport) become increasingly electrified, and demand for green-hydrogen production (converting clean power into hydrogen through electrolysis) rises rapidly. In the clean power pathways, Europe produces enough hydrogen to meet its entire demand domestically.



Reaching such high shares of wind and solar in an expanded power system requires Europe’s wind fleet to quadruple to 800 gigawatts by 2035, and solar to expand by 5-9 times reaching 800-1,400GW, depending on the clean pathway. Targets set out in the EU’s Fit-for-55 plan fall short but recently enhanced proposals in the REPowerEU plan go a long way towards closing the gap. Major challenges however remain in translating this into European and national policy and deploying the infrastructure on the ground.



snip

[KPN]

1. Can I emigrate to Europe?

Seriously!

[Chainfire]

5. You have to ask yourself, "Why would Europeans want to have Americans immigrating?"

It is like the song from West Side Story, "Krupke, we have troubles of our own."

[Lovie777]

2. I think blue states will try . ..

[EYESORE 9001]

3. Meanwhile, in MAGAtworld...

Oligarchs are mulling over the possibility of building coal-fired vehicles. Just kidding…just barely.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

7. Only if they're electric, and that's where the power comes from.

Not kidding.

[CrispyQ]

4. This great idea is just down the road from me.

This Colorado 'solar garden' is literally a farm under solar panels
November 14, 20215:00 AM ET

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/14/1054942590/solar-energy-colorado-garden-farm-land

snip...

When Byron Kominek returned home after the Peace Corps and later working as a diplomat in Africa, his family's 24-acre farm near Boulder, Colo., was struggling to turn a profit.

more...

That big change is certainly an eye opener: 3,200 solar panels mounted on posts eight feet high above what used to be an alfalfa field on this patch of rolling farmland at the doorstep of the Rocky Mountains.

Getting to this point, a community solar garden that sells 1.2 megawatts of power back into the local grid, wasn't easy, even in a progressive county like his that wanted to expand renewable energy. When Kominek approached Boulder County regulators about putting up solar panels, they initially told him no, his land was designated as historic farmland.

They eventually did, with help from researchers at nearby Colorado State University and the National Renewable Energy Lab, which had been studying how to turn all that otherwise unused land beneath solar panels into a place to grow food.

~more at link

[mitch96]

6. "converting clean power into hydrogen through electrolysis" this makes too much sense

Clean Hydrogen through solar and wind in the existing internal combustion engines and power plants would be a game changer. It would also be a great way of storing solar/wind when their production is low. I'm all for it.. where do I sign up...
My fear is the powers that be in BIG OIL will do everything to stop it.
Got to make that big obscene profit don't cha know..
m

[hunter]

8. This is just magical thinking and the fossil fuel suppliers know it.

Nobody has solved the problem of what to do when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining. And, no, hydrogen and batteries are not the answer. Invariably solar and wind require backup power, usually natural gas. Gas generally becomes the foremost energy source in these hybrid power systems, as it is in California.

Solar and wind energy cannot displace fossil fuels entirely. At a certain point adding more solar panels and wind turbines hits a steep wall of diminishing returns. The power from these excess solar panels and wind turbines is not available when it's needed most, or they are producing a useless surplus of energy and destabilizing the electric grid.

Aggressive renewable energy schemes in California, Denmark, and Germany have failed and will only prolong our dependence on fossil fuels, especially natural gas. In Germany this failure has been catastrophic since German renewable energy schemes were dependent on Russian natural gas.

Even if developed nations cut their natural gas use in half by using solar and wind power, this world still burns, especially if these hybrid systems are adopted everywhere as the demand for electricity increases in developing nations. "Better than coal" is nowhere good enough.

Unfortunately, with a world population near 8 billion, we've worked ourselves into a tight corner. Our civilization is dependent on high density energy sources for our food, for our water, and for our shelter. This energy is currently derived from fossil fuels.

If we quit fossil fuels with no viable replacement about half of us are going to starve, suffer, and die prematurely. If we don't quit fossil fuels global warming will have similar impacts.

The only established high density energy technology that can displace fossil fuels entirely is nuclear power. It's an established 70 year old technology that is much less dangerous than any fossil fuel use, and less dangerous than many renewable energy schemes as well.

France closed its last coal mine twenty years ago. Germany is still tearing up its countryside, devouring farms and and entire villages, for dirty coal.

I used to be an anti-nuclear activist. I was when I first signed on to DU. I'm not any more.

The renewable energy experiment has been done, the numbers are in, the data is available to anyone, and it's clear now that solar and wind power won't save the world.

[Celerity]

9. I am very much pro-nuke, it will be key, as it has such a higher EROEI than renewables atm

[Calculating]

11. Exactly

Solar and wind just aren't ready yet, we need nuclear or fossil fuels for base load.

[Kaleva]

10. This UN report says we need to turn things around by 2025

"'It's now or never': World's top climate scientists issue ultimatum on critical temperature limit"
"The highly anticipated report, delayed slightly due to last-minute disputes over the exact wording of the document, says curbing global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels would require greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest.

At the same time, methane, a potent greenhouse gas, would also need to be reduced by roughly one-third.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said it is “almost inevitable” that humanity will briefly surpass the critical temperature threshold of 1.5 degrees in this scenario, but it could return below this level by the end of the century.

“It’s now or never, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5°C,” IPCC Working Group III co-chair Jim Skea said in a statement accompanying the report. “Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible.”"

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/ipcc-report-climate-scientists-issue-ultimatum-on-1point5-degrees-goal.html"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216566721

The battle is lost. It's now up to each of us as individual's to decide how to adapt to the coming new world or even if it's worth the effort.

[hunter]

12. It's not a battle that can be won or lost.

Our choices will determine how hard this civilization crashes.

I think we have all the tools we need, technological and political, to get through this, to manage a soft crash. The "endless growth" economy will end, that's inevitable. It doesn't mean billions of us have to suffer and die because of it. We might actually make the world a better place.

Mostly we have to push past the various cults that are standing in the way of progress -- not just the anti-intellectual religious cults, but the economic and consumer cults as well.

Improving the lives of people who are now living in misery will be a large part of this process.

This planet, with a population near 8 billion, can't support an automobile for every adult, or a big chunk of meat for every meal, but we can have clean water, healthy food, comfortable secure shelter, easy access to birth control, and literacy for all.

Reversing global warming isn't a realistic short term goal, but adapting to it is.

Despite all the damage we have done to the natural environment our earth is still a place of great abundance. Quitting fossil fuels and halting human population growth isn't a technical problem, it's a political and cultural problem.

One of the reasons I'm a Democrat is that our party has a very deep bench of leaders who are experts at dealing with these problems. Unlike the Republicans our leaders are not beholden to any anti-intellectual religion or ideology, and they don't march in lockstep with one another. When roadblocks stand in the way of progress we patiently work our way around them. We're always looking for multiple paths forward.

The Republicans are a party of entrenchment and retreat. In the long term they will not survive rapidly changing natural and political environments.

[Kaleva]

13. What I mean is that the effort to halt climate change is unrealistic and thus lost

"Reversing global warming isn't a realistic short term goal, but adapting to it is."

I agree and I agree with most everything else you wrote.

"I think we have all the tools we need, technological and political, to get through this, to manage a soft crash. The "endless growth" economy will end, that's inevitable. It doesn't mean billions of us have to suffer and die because of it. We might actually make the world a better place."

We have the tools but can the world unite to use them? I think it's going to be more of a case of where Individuals use tools and knowledge to soften their own landing and adapt.