R&D critical to reach net-zero emissions, says IEA

Posted: July 5, 2020 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Emissions, innovation
Tags: ,


Well, there’s your problem. The climate alarmists need tech toys that don’t exist, and insist that ‘clean’ energy can change the weather.
– – –
Without a major acceleration in clean energy innovation, countries and companies worldwide will be unable to fulfil their pledges to bring their carbon emissions down to net-zero in the coming decades, said the IEA in a new report.

The report assesses the ways in which clean energy innovation can be significantly accelerated to achieve net-zero emissions while enhancing energy security in a timeframe compatible with international climate and sustainable energy goals, says Trade Arabia.

The Special Report on Clean Energy Innovation is the first publication in the IEA’s revamped Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP) series and includes a comprehensive new tool analysing the market readiness of more than 400 clean energy technologies.

“There is a stark disconnect today between the climate goals that governments and companies have set for themselves and the current state of affordable and reliable energy technologies that can realise these goals,” said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA Executive Director.

“This report examines how quickly energy innovation would have to move forward to bring all parts of the economy – including challenging sectors like long-distance transport and heavy industry – to net-zero emissions by 2050 without drastic changes to how we go about our lives. This analysis shows that getting there would hinge on technologies that have not yet even reached the market today. The message is very clear: in the absence of much faster clean energy innovation, achieving net-zero goals in 2050 will be all but impossible.”

A significant part of the challenge comes from major sectors where there are currently few technologies available for reducing emissions to zero, such as shipping, trucking, aviation and heavy industries like steel, cement and chemicals.

Decarbonising these sectors will largely require the development of new technologies that are not currently in commercial use. However, the innovation process that takes a product from the research lab to the mass market can be long, and success is not guaranteed.

It took decades for solar panels and batteries to reach the stage they are at now. Time is in even shorter supply now.

Full report here.

Comments
  1. Gamecock says:

    ‘Without a major acceleration in clean energy innovation’

    We’re into regenerative braking, now. After decades of trying, we are into the DIMINISHING RETURNS phase.

    ‘“There is a stark disconnect today between the climate goals that governments and companies have set for themselves and the current state of affordable and reliable energy technologies that can realise these goals,” said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA Executive Director.’

    Today ??? The disconnect has been there for DECADES. The governing physics have been around forever.

  2. Graeme No.3 says:

    I can help.
    See https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/07/03/the-truth-behind-dutch-green-energy-claims/
    WARNING In Dutch (subtitles) and rather rude.
    Instead of 67% renewable electricity claimed by the public it turns out that the real figure is 2%. The difference is made up largely by Certificates bought from countries such as Norway.

    My Company – Golgafrincham National Green Energy Ltd. will issue Certificates in as many numbers as you require (subject to bank transfers) to meet your fantasies.

  3. tom0mason says:

    “The message is very clear: in the absence of much faster clean energy innovation, achieving net-zero goals in 2050 will be all but impossible.”

    Maybe researchers will find a way to make ‘faster clean energy innovation’ just by computer modelling it. Then all they have to do is link it to the climate fantasy models to give a net zero for all countries that have signed up to the climate hysteria, known as the Judgement of Paris, aka The Iliad Accord.
    … Onward to the virtual war of the Trojan Horses!

    [Sorry but I can not take this type of rubbish seriously any more.]

  4. cognog2 says:

    Unfortunately for the alarmists the thermodynamic laws will dictate what happens. Their faith in technology is misplaced as technology is forced to obey these laws. Any report that doesn’t take this into account and merely pontificates upon manipulated markets are of little value.

  5. ivan says:

    So far non of them has come up with a logical, scientific, real world reason why we the tax payers should fund this ‘net zero’ stupidity. The whole ‘net zero’ is so fuzzy I don’t think they know what it is themselves but it does sound good to the believers of the UN Church of Climatology as well as giving all the academics a good income and retirement package.

  6. hunterson7 says:

    The disconnect is between the demands of climate extremists and reality.

  7. JB says:

    “Time is in even shorter supply now.”
    Always is for the barnyard bards and heralds.
    Someone should ask the writer, er, hack of TradeArabia News Service what exactly “Time” is.

  8. dennisambler says:

    They buy “green energy” from Denmark also:
    https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/dutch-do-danish-deal-to-hit-clean-power-target/

    “The Netherlands agreed on Friday (19 June) to pay Denmark €100 million as part of an arrangement that will allow the Dutch government to declare at least 8 TWh of Danish surplus renewable power on its books, in an effort to meet its EU target.”

    It is apparently cheaper than the EU fines.

  9. dennisambler says:

    There is no such thing as Net Zero Carbon, (or net zero CO2). Everything requires hydrocarbons at some point in its manufacture.

  10. Coeur de Lion says:

    There’s a worrying tack by the windmill faction away from ‘global warming’ to ‘clean energy’. Equally fraudulent.

  11. gbaikie says:

    “Without a major acceleration in clean energy innovation..”

    We get a major acceleration by space exploration.
    The focus of space exploration should be to determine if lunar water can be commercially
    mined, and that should be easy and quick to do. If lunar water can be mined, all that connected
    with this will involve decades of activity. But in terms exploration, after exploring the Moon, we explore Mars. Why explore Mars is to determine if people can live on Mars- can human settlements
    on Mars. Unlike Lunar exploration which exploring the small regions of lunar poles, Mars exploration has planet to explore. But if it’s determined that people can live on Mars, and get towns on Mars then a lot exploration can done by the people living on Mars.
    One thing to explore to determine if towns can be on Mars is finding areas where there is a lot accessible water, which would be a place for towns on Mars.
    Or finding mineable water on both the Moon and Mars, will lead major acceleration in clean energy innovation. Not just in terms of immediate, but major acceleration for coming centuries.
    Things you probably don’t even imagine, like hydrodams in space environment- using gravitation and orbital energy. But also such things like fusion energy and using Space Power Satellites or nuclear fission nuclear without the problem of nuclear waste or any danger to it. A lots other stuff.

  12. pochas94 says:

    To get any of this to work on the other side of the pond we’ve got to get our southern brothers to quit drag racin’ in the mud. I don’t see it.

  13. oldbrew says:

    Gas and nuclear – or bust.

    As Bill Gates said: ‘Let’s not jerk around.’
    https://www.jlcny.org/site/index.php/frontpage/2908-bill-gates-slams-unreliable-wind-solar-let-s-quit-jerking-around-with-renewables-batteries
    – – –
    new types of batteries and electrolysers

    Good luck with that. Everyone has been down that road, for years already. Smacks of desperation – the ‘net’ in net zero is closing in.

  14. Stephen Richards says:

    Gimme money, that’s what I, just gimme money. Beatles I think.

  15. Gamecock says:

    ‘Or finding mineable water on both the Moon and Mars, will lead major acceleration in clean energy innovation.’

    You lost me. What’s the connection?

  16. hunterson7 says:

    Unicorns and elves have a better chance of existing than net zero

  17. stpaulchuck says:

    now that the wheels of ‘climate catastrophe’ have fallen off the wagon, they are shifting to pimping for our money to create ‘clean energy’, which is never defined and set in stone. Always a moving target to be (re)defined daily.

  18. Paul Vaughan says:

    3-Stage Solution for UK’s Net Zero

    Stage 1

    Split US deep state into 2 parts:
    1. military.
    2. everything else: all rioters and protesters (from worldwide if you like) are awarded $1,000,000 per year to begin work IMMEDIATELY with this branch of the deep state.

    Stage 2

    Move all non-military deep-state jobs to a SINGLE state and LOCK it down for prompt annexation by Russia and/or China.

    Stage 3

    Declare Net Zero totally irrelevant by firing Boris Johnson (months ago) for being such a D-evilish traitor.

    Wait til you see the alternative plan I’m working on.

  19. gbaikie says:

    –Gamecock says:
    July 5, 2020 at 9:22 pm
    ‘Or finding mineable water on both the Moon and Mars, will lead major acceleration in clean energy innovation.’

    You lost me. What’s the connection?–
    We don’t know if there is mineable water on Moon or Mars.
    So, assuming we find mineable water.
    Exploration by itself {without finding what looking for} can lead to major acceleration in clean energy innovation.
    But assuming we find mineable lunar water, then lunar water would be mined and that will lead to major acceleration in clean energy innovation. In what ways specifically?
    Mineable water means, one mine water and make a profit from selling the water mined. One can assume this because lunar rocket fuel will made, and one sell lunar rocket fuel.
    If you can buy lunar rocket fuel, it’s cheaper to go to the Moon because leave the Moon without needing to bring rocket fuel from Earth to the Moon, so you leave the moon.
    In addition to returning people. You also export anything on the Moon, cheaper.
    One thing you export from the Moon is rocket fuel. And/or one have re-usable spacecraft which leaves lunar surface and goes to lunar orbit and return to the Moon. So addition to leaving the Moon, one make cheaper to get to lunar surface- and don’t need bring spacecraft from Earth in order to land on the moon. So just need spacecraft which can be used to land on Earth.
    So don’t need a Saturn V type rocket to get to Moon and return to Earth. You use much smaller rocket like Falcon 9. Or use Falcon heavy {still much smaller than Saturn V} and bring bus loads of people and/or cargo.
    If you sell lunar water and sell lunar rocket fuel, you need lots of electrical power on the Moon. Which should mean one does need to bring stuff which makes electrical power on the Moon, rather you just buy the electrical power available on the moon, that you need. And if need water for some reason, you get lunar also. And also buy H2 and O2 which has various uses other than rocket fuel.
    If rocket fuel on the Moon, one will probably get someplace to stay on the Moon. A commercial hotel and/or a governmental lunar base.
    Electrical power on the Moon will start off very expensive, but much cheaper than bring stuff would somehow generate the electrical you need on Moon. Or electrical power generation will designed to deliver power for years. Someone might only want electrical power for couple weeks- one can easily see that bringing someway to generate electrical power couple weeks, will be cheaper per week from something generating power for years. This also applies to vehicles one might need on the Moon, if rent one week, better than bringing such vehicle from Earth, and abandoning it after a week of use.
    Such things are enabled if have electrical power {and chemical power which can use fuel cells}.
    Electrical power allows other types of mining other than lunar water.
    But point making was that electrical power will be expensive and there will “large demand” to find ways to lower costs and thereby lowering price. One simple way to lower costs, is to bring less mass from Earth to make more infrastructure to provide more electrical power to more customers, Or in beginning all you “want” to import from earth are light weight solar cells. Or all hardware needed to mount and wiring and etc could made from material on the Moon. But eventually you would want pure lunar silicon made and make the solar cells on the Moon. And/or if using nuclear energy, lunar made nuclear fuel. And part of making stuff on the Moon probably using 3 D printing. And really simple stuff like paving. Etc.
    Mineable Mars water. There could different type water- freshwater, saltwater, and or polluted water someway. I think large amount liquid water regardless type of water is key factor.
    If one had area which had large amount of easily accessible water. That area could good place for a town.
    Having both mineable lunar water and Mars water, is better than just Moon or Mars having mineable
    water. Now Mars water isn’t mineable in terms of making rocket fuel. Lunar water can worth $500 per kg and you don’t a lot water in a “mining area”. It could as little as 10,000 tons within region of 1 square km. A town is going be much bigger than 1 square km. but amount water within say 10 km radius would good if was more than 1 billion tons. And cost to extract say 1 million tons of water, has to be about $1000 per ton of water {or $1 per kg}. Or cost less than $1 billion dollars to deliver to users 1 million tons. Or people living their want water available at fairly low cost {though far more than water on Earth] over time periods of years to decades. And could expect future water to cost less. Same applies to Moon, $500 kg is good price within first few years, but in 10 years the price could 1/2. And mining lunar water, you probably aren’t sell sell much more than 10,000 tons within 10 year. And focus is making a business in which you sell 1000 tons per year, and might take 5 year to reach this level of production. If do that your business will have a future value, which more than all water you sold within 5 years, because expectation is company may be mining say 5000 tons of water per year within additional 10 years, water could worth 1/2 much per kg when reaching 5000 tons per year levels of production. But also company could mining in different sites by that time in future and could be mining other stuff other than water. Or from beginning one probably sort of thing iron ore, and when their is market for iron ore, could sell the iron ore. Or the company itself, process iron ore into iron or steel. Or Amazon starting by only selling books online- same sort of thing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s