Carbon Negative in Under a Decade or Bust: How & Why

Carbon neutral targets are not enough. At the current rate, we have approximately 9 years to eliminate fossil fuels entirely and achieve carbon negative targets, or we will have the transition forced on us.

We face a crisis unlike anything in recorded history, a crisis that affects all of us, a crisis that could either unite us to the benefit of all, or could quite possibly, as recently argued by David Wallace-Wells in New York Magazine, destroy human civilization as we know it. Does this sound like hyperbole to you? Well, read on, as it is, unfortunately, not. Thankfully there is a solution, but it requires all of us to work together.

In January, global mean atmospheric CO2 content breached 405 parts per million (“ppm”), up from 400 ppm 14 months earlier and closing even more rapidly toward the 450 ppm danger point than experts have predicted. 450 ppm is the point where scientists predict that catastrophic events due to climate change are not only highly likely, but are also likely to become irreversible. At this pace we will hit 450 ppm in ~9 years, far sooner than the initial predictions of 2100 or subsequent predictions of 2036 referenced earlier. But there is hope. Despite Donald Trump announcing he intends for the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris Accord, hundreds of leaders have committed to not only adhering to Paris Accord commitments, but many are also increasing their commitments, demonstrating the kind of leadership humanity needs.

Unfortunately, while carbon neutral targets and existing Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (“INDCs”) under the “Paris Accord” (aka “COP21”) are a good start and the people involved deserve praise for achieving a remarkable agreement, as correctly pointed out by Nicaragua, such commitments do not go far enough. Our best bet is to both eliminate fossil fuels from our energy mix entirely and restore, or replace, carbon sinks as quickly as possible. Stated simply, the world needs to adopt carbon negative (“C-“) targets. The good news is, as demonstrated and defended by Stanford professor Mark Jacobson and his colleagues, and others, going 100% renewable is not only entirely possible, but also makes sense. The transition to renewables creates potentially US$124.7trn in investment opportunities with returns typically in the range of 12-18%, creates jobs, and saves both lives and money. Restoring or replacing carbon sinks is also possible, as is electrification and use of hydrogen for transportation.

This article will explain:

1. the crisis humanity faces and how we got here,
2. what will happen if we do not achieve carbon negative targets or achieve them too late,
3. why “baseload” fossil fuel and nuclear plants are not needed and how 100% renewable energy is both technically and economically viable, and
4. why carbon negative targets are in everyone’s best interests, and what we can each do to achieve them.

Make no mistake, the situation is indeed dire but we already have the technology we need to solve the problem. We can still change the course we’re on, and this transition must and will happen. The question is, how bad will we let things get before we take the steps necessary to make things better?

The crisis & how we got here

For the 650,000 years prior to industrialization, and for almost the entirety of the ~350,000 years marking the oldest known fossil records of humans, our habitat was in a state of equilibrium with CO2 levels fluctuating between 170ppm and 298ppm in cycles that took thousands of years. The most recent 67 years have been different. While carbon and other greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions naturally occur from volcanos, vegetation decay and other sources, natural carbon sinks such as forests, vegetation growth and ocean processes were sufficient to maintain a generally livable habitat for humanity. However, with industrialization and rapid population growth humanity has 1) eliminated approximately 46% of trees globally and 2) increased use of fossil fuels to supply energy for electricity, heat, industry, and transportation. Our habitat is, quite visibly, no longer in equilibrium.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), Electricity and Heat cause approximately 25% of CO2 emissions, Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (“AFOLU” AKA deforestation) accounts for approximately 24%, ahead of both Industry at 21%, and Transport at 14%. As a result of our ongoing activities global average atmospheric CO2 breached 400ppm in 2015. In January, just over a year later, CO2 rose to 405ppm with the measurements at Mauna Loa showing 410 ppm. These are CO2 levels not seen in approximately 3 million years, older than the oldest fossil records of our entire genus. Contrary to the unwillingness of former fossil-fuel industry executives, and those with ties to them, to acknowledge the facts, this 45.8% increase in CO2 (over 100ppm of which occurred since 1950) is clearly caused by human activity and endangers both our lives and our way of life.

If frequent photographs of people covered in masks, to avoid breathing smog, in places like Beijing and Delhi are insufficient to prove the point, the fact that we are destroying our habit to such an extent that many places are already unsuitable for human habitation on many days is clearly visible in the 5.5 to 7 million people that die every year due to air pollution, equivalent to having WWII every 8.5 to 15.5 years. Achieving C- targets will save millions of human lives every year and result in net gains to society. The IMF estimated global energy subsidies at $5.3 trillion in 2015, of which fossil fuels receive over 97%, and that society could have annual net gains of $1.8 trillion or more just through reform.

The damage to our habitat is not just in the air we breathe. This is a map capturing all the oil spills and other incidents for which the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) Office of Response and Restoration provided support. This is not even all oil spills globally, but even with reduced numbers, it is clear oil spills and pipeline ruptures happen far more frequently than many think. Nearly 9 million gallons of crude oil have spilled across 1,300 incidents in the United States since 2010, averaging approximately 1 spill every other day. And it is not just oil distribution that faces issues. As evidenced by the 2015-2016 Aliso Canyon gas leak, which released 109,000 metric tons of methane over the course of four months, natural gas is risky too. Coal can be even more devastating as evidenced by incidents such as the coal fire that has been burning beneath New Castle, Colorado for 120 years, or the one in Centralia, Pennsylvania that’s been burning since 1962 and the more recent fires at Hazelwood Mine in Australia. The damage to our habitat goes beyond just poor air quality and centuries-old, catastrophic, fires. Just ask Oklahoma which has not only become the most high-risk state for earthquakes in 2017, but also faces ground water contamination issues due to fracking. And it is not just fracking that contaminates ground-water streams and rivers, extraction of fossil fuels in general, including coal, have significant negative environmental impact despite the existence of regulations in some markets. So, when officials balk at off-shore wind being an “eyesore,” rather than embracing change as some do, perhaps someone should ask which they prefer.

This.

Or this.

Then give them the option of living next to the one they choose, rather than letting them derail projects and prevent saving energy costs and lives for nothing more than an opinion on what is aesthetically appealing. Many people find wind turbines relaxing, aesthetically appealing, and a symbol of hope for the future. But even if they did not, sacrificing a bit of aesthetics is certainly a price worth paying to prevent the other costs society faces due to our reliance on fossil fuels.

The damage to our habitat is also not just harming humans. According to Mark Williams of the University of Leicester and his colleagues we are witnessing the planet’s 6th mass extinction, events where 75% of all multicellular life dies. The difference this time is that it is caused by the Antropocene, or the Age of Man. Some short-sighted people may think this will have no impact on humanity, until they realize that this “biological annihilation” is damaging systems “vital to sustaining civilization.” Our very food supply is in danger. We are destroying our oceans and the fish and coral that inhabit them. In fact the problem with the oceans is two-fold, plastics which do not biodegrade (a petroleum product) and ocean acidification (due to higher levels of CO2, again caused by fossil fuel emissions), are both attributable to the same root cause. Fossil fuels. It is imperative to our survival as a species that we become better stewards of our planet and eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels.

And, for those worried about wind turbines killing birds, contrary to the assertions of fossil fuel supporters, birds face far greater threat due to cats, buildings, cars, and coal than anything wind or solar represent.

If any of this comes as a surprise to you, or if you are skeptical of any of this, you may want to consider that you likely have been, as reported in Scientific American, InsideClimate News and others, actively and knowingly misinformed. The fossil-fuel industry has been aware of the problems caused by fossil fuels for more than 40 years, and, rather than raising the alarm bells and changing business models, has instead mounted a massive mis-information campaign, funding organizations like the Heartland Institute, Americans for Prosperity, the American Legislative Exchange Council, American Enterprise Institute, Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, Cato Institute, etc. etc. to muddy the waters and cast doubt on climate science. They have also provided funds to individual researchers to publish misinformation, with several prominent names on the bankroll, and this activity continues to this day. In fact, the misinformation has been so egregious, it even prompted a response from the Weather Channel. That’s right, even the weather people felt the need to speak up to correct Breitbart’s misrepresentations.

If anything, the industry is simply becoming sneakier. For example, ExxonMobil, despite acknowledging climate change on their website, is still a part of the American Petroleum Institute which actively seeks to stop climate laws from happening. As reported in Reuters, former ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson, now Secretary of State, maintained a separate email alias to use to discuss climate-related issues, the emails of which have now been mysteriously “lost.” This behavior is eerily similar to the misinformation campaign of the Tobacco industry, with both relying on many of the same propagandists researchers, and has led humanity down a path that is not only causing the deaths of millions, annually, but may also jeopardize the future of humanity itself.

But it is not just the fossil fuel industry that is to blame. All of us are culpable, anyone who has ever ridden in a car or on an airplane, anyone who has ever turned on a light or used a computer. As consumers, we have supported the activities of the fossil fuel industry and we all share in the blame. It is easy to point fingers, but it is also wastes time and energy. What is more important is to acknowledge the problem, take responsibility, and start solving it. All of us. We cannot eliminate fossil fuels in a single day; this is a multi-year effort to replace our energy infrastructure and restore our carbon sinks. But we are all in this together and by working together we can avert the worst that would happen otherwise. There is no enemy here, just a bunch of people together in a sinking ship habitat and it’s time to start bailing water carbon.

What will happen if we do not achieve C- targets?

Sea levels are already rising, the icecaps are already melting, people are already dying, we are already experiencing food shortages, and we have had 3 years of record temperatures in a row. This is a prelude of what is to come, but we can still stop it. And we must. If you thought the current refugee crisis, which consists of 65.3 million displaced people according to the UN Refugee Agency, is bad, just wait until the displaced population is 3.5 billion people, or more.

According to a recent study by The Cyprus Institute, rising temperatures may make places, like the Middle East and North Africa, home to over 500 million people, uninhabitable sometime between 2050 and 2100. However, as with many estimates we’ve seen so far, in order to ensure defensible observations in the face of probable extreme resistance from the fossil fuel lobby, this is likely a conservative estimate. Meaning it possibly underestimates, as many other studies have, how quickly climate change will happen. It would be prudent to plan for it happening more quickly.

Contrary to people who argue that there is nothing to fear when icebergs the size of Delaware break off from Antarctica, we should definitely be concerned. As reported in National Geographic, we could be looking at a sea level rise of 216 feet. National Geographic also simulated what the world would look like in such a scenario. Try to find your city in the National Geographic images below.

North America

The entire eastern coastline and all its major cities, including Washington D.C., will be under water. Louisiana will be mostly gone. So those people resisting the placement of wind turbines “too near the coastline” in places like Ocean City, Maryland, have nothing to worry about. The turbines placed now will be dozens of miles further away from the coastline before long. Only not because the turbines moved…. The oceanfront property will instead be in Pine Bluff, Arkansas and Columbus… Georgia.

South America

Georgetown will be gone, along with Buenos Aires, and Asuncion will overlook a beautiful new bay the size of Michigan. Many of Rio de Janeiro’s favelas will finally be cleaned up, along with all of its oceanfront property.

Africa

Dakar and large portions of Senegal, along with places like Alexandria, Cairo, Mombasa, and Dar es Salaam will be lost, and Hussair’s Grill at Mouille Point in Cape Town will no longer be serving the best Hollandse Biefstuk you’ve ever had.

Europe

Farewell London, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Tallinn, Helsinki, Brussels, and everything in between, along with Venice, Lisbon, and Barcelona.

Asia

Mumbai, Colombo, Kolkata, Dhaka, Yangon, Bangkok, Phnom Penh, Ho Chi Minh, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Jakarta, Manila, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Seoul, Tokyo. All gone.

Australia & New Zealand

Perth, Melbourne, Adelaide, Sidney, Brisbane, Auckland, and Wellington will all need to be relocated to higher elevations. No worries mate. Enjoy the new inland sea.

Antarctica

No more ice…. Hey look! Land! At least somewhere has it. Too bad it is located in what may be one of the most volcanic regions on the planet, which could cause the ice to melt, and sea levels to rise, much more quickly than previously predicted.

And it gets worse. According to NASA, sea level rises to date and their impacts may have also been underestimated. Either way, most of our coastal cities will become uninhabitable, displacing many of the 40% of the world’s population (all 7.5 billion of us and rising) currently living within 100km of the coastlines. This is the scenario former NASA climate research head James Hansen recently indicated in Futurism could leave the world “in ungovernable chaos.”

No problem, plenty of land left elsewhere, right? Wrong. Consider for a moment that, of the current 65.3 million displaced people around the world, estimates are that as many as 200,000, or 0.31%, of them have joined ISIS. This is lower than the 13% of Syrian refugees that some polls have indicated may hold a somewhat favorable view of ISIS. Even assuming the more conservative 0.31% number, if 0.31% of the 3.5 billion, or more, people that will be displaced due to climate change join radical militant organizations, we are looking at ISIS-like organizations with 10,719,775, or more, members. Making them the largest active military force on the planet, by a factor of 4. If the smaller estimates of the size of ISIS are accurate, then perhaps these organizations would “only” be as large as the U.S. military, for example.

More bad news. The food shortages we are already experiencing will worsen and lead to violence. This makes the conclusion in the study by University of Maryland researchers Safa Motesharrei and Euguenia Kalnay, and University of Minnesota’s Jorge Rivas, or the predictions by University of New Hampshire professor Dennis Meadows, all of which found that our society may already be on the road to collapse, even more likely. How much more likely is it for people to take up arms or join organizations like ISIS, when they will not be fighting for religious reasons, but more fundamentally to avoid starving? Even if they do not turn to arms, how can the world handle 3.5 billion+ refugees when we cannot even handle 65.3 million now?

If we fail to act, now, the world we are looking at will:

• have most major cities destroyed,
• displace 3.5 billion, or more, people,
• continue to have 5.5 to 7 million people, or more, die annually due to diseases related to fossil fuels, and
• potentially (probably) have society itself collapse.

Will this happen all at once? No. But it is already starting to happen with sea levels rising faster than previously estimated, and those newly-discovered volcanoes under Antarctica could be a ticking time-bomb to very sudden sea level rise with the ice sheets already destabilized. Either way, no one will be safe if we do not stop it. Not even the billionaires that are already preparing for an apocalypse by buying bunkers in remote areas. With billions of displaced people seeking refuge, it is unlikely anywhere would be safe. While some, like the architects of the Georgia Guidestones, which call for a 93% reduction in the world’s population, would argue that there are too many people on the planet already, there are better ways of addressing population imbalance than letting the climate spiral out of control and civilization collapse.

Thankfully, we can avoid this future, and humanity is already making great strides toward the solution.

Achieving C- targets: fossil fuels out, go electric and possibly hydrogen, and start planting

Carbon neutral targets, carbon credits, and offsetting emissions rather than stopping them entirely can do more harm than good. Continuing to emit carbon while going carbon neutral tomorrow, at best, would still leave us over 100ppm higher than the environment our species evolved in. Even if humanity stops emitting carbon entirely tomorrow, carbon can stay in the atmosphere for decades if not thousands of years, and carbon emissions from natural processes will continue even if humanity stops emitting fossil fuels entirely. Even the IPCC is uncertain how long it will take for carbon to return to the 280 ppm pre-industrial CO2 levels our species evolved in if we curb emissions. However, researchers at Princeton examined what would happen if carbon emissions suddenly stopped entirely, and found that even with zero carbon emissions, while the initial 40% of atmospheric CO2 declined within 20 years, it would take 1,000 years for the planet to process 80% of the carbon. Even by adopting the roadmap proposed by Professor Jacobson and his colleagues, we remain at nearly 350ppm in 2100.

We not only need to stop emitting carbon and other greenhouse gases, but we also need to find ways to get the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere. So how can we get where we need to be? The problem is bigger than simply transitioning the electrical grid to renewables. As shown by the IPCC numbers referenced above, we also need to address transportation, industrial methods, and deforestation and land use.

Electricity: 100% renewable, “baseload” coal, nuclear, and gas, not needed, and batteries help

Electricity and heat generation represents 25% of CO2 emissions. Historically, as described by Dr. Jenny Riesz and her colleagues at the Center for Energy and Environmental Markets at the University of New South Wales in their paper “100% Renewables in Australia: A Research Summary” the grid operates through a combination of what is known as “baseload” and “peaker” plants. Electricity demand experiences peaks and troughs, but there is always some electricity required 24/7. This stable demand is traditionally met by baseload plants. Electricity demand above this is met by “peaker” plants. Baseload plants have a lower levelized cost of electricity (“LCOE,” or the present value of all lifecycle costs to build and operate a facility divided by the amount of energy produced over the operating life of the plant) than “peaker” plants. This is because baseload plants are running nearly constantly (other than during maintenance) giving them a higher “capacity factor” (or the ratio of actual electricity produced versus how much it could potentially have produced if operated continuously at full power) than “peaker” plants. “Peaker” plants have a low capacity factor and correspondingly higher cost per kilowatt due to their lower capacity utilization.

However, the need for baseload power generation is a myth. It is technically possible to provide grid stability even with 100% renewable energy. This has not only been demonstrated through research, repeatedly and independently, but has also been implemented in practice. For example, the island of Ta’u has a micro-grid installed by SolarCity (Tesla) which is powered entirely by 100% renewable electricity and has backup from Tesla Powerpacks, and Iceland, Albania, Paraguay, and Uruguay are all nearing 100% renewable electricity generation, with Costa Rica running for more than 250 days entirely on renewables in 2016.

How? Is it just that some countries are blessed with abundant hydro or geothermal resources while others are not? Ta’u’s example debunks this argument, it is a very small island using only one renewable resource. But that’s just a small island, so it won’t work for larger countries, right? Wrong. Not only are solar and battery storage entirely scalable solutions, it is easier to maintain grid stability with a larger geographic area even without large amounts of battery storage. But solar won’t work in cold places, right? Incorrect again. As demonstrated by researchers at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology in Alberta Canada, not only can you generate solar energy in cold places, but solar panels are more efficient in colder temperatures.The facts, as documented by NOAA, Professor Jacobson and his colleagues, Professor Elliston and his colleagues, the Rocky Mountain Institute (“RMI”), and others, are as follows:

• While a single source of renewable energy is variable, multiple sources complement each other and can be planned to meet electricity demand throughout the day; for example, the wind is typically stronger during a storm while the sun is weaker, and existing hydro and geothermal, or alternatively energy storage, can be dispatched if needed in situations where both die down.
• Additionally, the broader the geographic area covered, the more likely the wind is blowing or sun is shining in one place, even if it is cloudy or calm in another, and researchers at NOAA and the University of Colorado demonstrated that it is easier to maintain grid stability with high renewable penetration levels with a larger grid.
• Despite challenges, solar or wind resources are each more than sufficient multiple times over to meet global electricity demand and can be ramped up to meet demand as we transition away from oil to batteries or hydrogen for transportation; the biggest hurdles are having sufficient manufacturing capacity, installation capability, and land availability, all of which can be addressed.
• Just surface area of the average U.S. home is more than sufficient to meet the electricity demands of the average household, despite the U.S. having fairly high per-capita energy consumption.
• Better yet, across the 139 countries studied by Jacobson and his colleagues, their proposed roadmap requires less than 2% of available land to go 100% renewable, including land for spacing. This is accomplished partly by co-locating generating capacity, for example placing solar panels on the land used for wind turbine spacing. 2% of land seems a fair trade-off to avoid displacing 40% of the world’s population and losing most coastal cities.
• Also, the research by Professor Jacobson and his colleagues showed that it is possible to meet the world’s energy needs while using very little in the way of energy storage; part of this is made possible by what is known as demand response, or customers changing their energy usage in response to changes in electricity price.

So, when people ask if it is possible to go 100% renewable, the short answer is “yes.” Even with minimal amounts of energy storage and land use.

Battery Storage

If we can achieve a stable 100% renewable energy grid, even with minimal energy storage, then large amounts (sourced from places like the 10-20 gigafactories Tesla is planning to build globally) of battery storage will make it even easier and the system more robust. Battery storage has long been described as the missing piece of the puzzle for renewables to reach 100% penetration. That is no longer the case. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Global Energy Storage Database shows energy storage projects happening all over the world, with major, grid-scale, battery projects, like the large battery Tesla is building in South Australia, happening with increasing size and frequency.

Estimates that the battery storage market could be worth over $35bn by 2030 underestimate both the size of the problem and the opportunity it presents. Few reports have examined the optimal amount of energy storage needed for a transition to a 100% renewable grid.

According to Paul Graham, CISRO Energy Chief Economist, CISRO’s models indicated that storage equal to a maximum of half a day’s average demand would be sufficient for their market based on their proposed energy mix. Paul Denholm and Maureen Hand of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimated storage equivalent to approximately one day of average electricity demand would be sufficient to keep curtailment below 10% at renewable energy penetration rates up to 80% for Texas. While addressing another question, Hossein Safaei and David Keith of Harvard found that, depending on energy mix and decarbonization targets, approximately 1-2 days of energy storage would still be sufficient to provide grid stability.

The ideal amount of battery storage needed will depend upon multiple factors such as the specific generation mix of the grid at any given point in time, the performance characteristics of the storage technologies, costs, weather patterns affecting that grid, and others. That said, even assuming only 12 hours of storage would be needed, total generation of 22.657 billion MWh per year as produced in 2014 will be the average between now and 2040, and a capital cost of US$1.5 million/MWh (Lazard has capex at US$417-949/kWh for lithium-ion used for peaker replacement, and a 5-10 year life, so approximately 3 replacements to coincide with the corresponding 20-25 year life of a typical solar or wind PPA), at the low end of current costs but making storage very competitive with most generation on an unsubsidized basis, would lead to a total investment required of US$4.65 trillion in battery storage. How quickly we intend to achieve that will dictate the size of the market in any given year, but even Tesla’s plan to build 10-20 gigafactories may not be ambitious enough.

Many studies also do not account for the full value that battery storage represents. The RMI report on “The Economics of Battery Energy Storage” details 13 services which battery storage can provide. While many battery systems are being built to provide one or a few services, stacking these services with a single battery system is also possible and improves the economics, leading the value generated to exceed the cost. Two of these services specifically, frequency regulation and resource adequacy, are extremely beneficial.

To maintain grid stability, grid operators must maintain a careful balance between generation resources and load or risk blackouts and other catastrophes. This balancing act is known as “frequency regulation,” and must be performed over very small timeframes. Battery storage provides a clean, reliable, way to meet this requirement given the ability of batteries to dispatch or store electricity instantly, on demand. As demonstrated by the researchers at the University of Washington, this service can be easily combined with peak shaving or other services to not only maintain grid stability, but improve the return of the battery system.

Transitioning to a 100% renewable grid that utilizes battery storage for resource adequacy also leads to multiple benefits. Under traditional grid design generating capacity needs to be built to meet peak demand. However, with battery storage it would be possible to operate the grid with generating capacity below peak demand. As long as generating capacity was sufficient to meet average demand, peaks that otherwise could not be met by storage, and extreme weather events, large energy storage capacity would enable grid stability. Battery storage can thereby eliminate and more fully utilize significant amounts of the excess “peaker” capacity traditionally required to operate the grid, eventually enabling the closing down of “peaker” plants entirely. This is significant as, except for nuclear, most power facilities are not operated anywhere near full capacity. Battery storage used for resource adequacy enables:

• dispatchable facilities to operate at higher capacity factors, lowering LCOE,
• delay in the need to build additional generating capacity to meet rising demand,
• a faster response to meet rising demand,
• more rapid retirement of aging facilities, and
• the opportunity to use battery storage to benefit from other services.

Battery storage can be installed and operational in just a few months, equivalent to small scale solar PV. Lazard also estimates grid-scale construction times for renewables, at 9 to 12 months for everything but solar thermal, significantly lower than other generation types, with coal, for example, assumed to take 60-66 months, and nuclear to take 69 months. An entirely renewable, robust, system, can be deployed much faster than conventional energy.

If the levelized cost of storage (“LCOS”) is below the LCOE for “peaker” plants, and overall system capacity is sufficient to meet projected demand, then the incentive is to build battery storage rather than a “peaker” facility, which is already happening. Once the LCOS is equivalent to the LCOE for new build baseload, there will be no need to build dispatchable baseload thereafter, and existing fossil fuel facilities run a significant risk of costing investors US$2 trillion by becoming stranded assets.

Comparative Costs

But won’t it be more expensive to go 100% renewable? The short answer is no. In fact, as reported by Lazard, and Bloomberg New Energy Finance (“BNEF”), on an unsubsidized levelized cost of electricity (“LCOE”) basis, renewables are already cheaper than conventional energy in many places. In December, a World Economic Forum report showed that solar and wind are the same price or cheaper in 30 countries, excluding subsidies, and should reach parity with fossil fuels in two-thirds of countries within a couple years.

For comparison purposes, Lazard also produced LCOS data in December, which show that several storage technologies are already within striking distance of fossil fuel facilities depending on use.

Seeing this, fossil fuel proponents and some utilities and regulators have argued that LCOE does not capture all costs associated with various sources of electricity, and argued for an alternative measure, known as the levelized avoided cost of electricity (“LACE”). Researchers at University of Texas at Austin have also argued for a “full cost of electricity” (“FCe-“) approach.

Both LACE and the initial incarnation of FCe- are problematic however due to the potential to misallocate and mis-attribute costs, such as declining capacity factors of existing facilities, to renewables that appropriately belong to the fossil fuel facilities in question and their contractual frameworks. It is not the fault of renewable energy facilities that the owners of any given “peaker” plant failed to negotiate a minimum take or take-or-pay arrangement in their off-take agreements. “Lost revenue” for such facilities is not a “cost” attributable to renewables. That is the equivalent of Dell telling a competitor they owe Dell money for bringing a cheaper laptop to market. Also, the argument around LACE & FCe- falls apart somewhat given that, while it is possible for dispatchable generation to operate around the clock, the fact is, many such plants are not operated that way as demonstrated by the capacity factors given previously and the discussion of “peaker” plants. Decommissioning and spent fuel disposal costs, which can be significant for fossil fuel and nuclear facilities, may also not be included in LACE and it is unclear if these amounts were included in the FCe- methodology.

More significantly, LACE, despite professing to attempt to more closely capture the total costs of a given technology, completely ignores the $5.1 trillion, annually, in fossil fuel subsidies captured in the IMF whitepaper “How Large Are Global Energy Subsidies?” FCe- by itself also left out these costs, despite the IMF whitepaper being published more than a year before University of Texas whitepaper. However, the researchers at University of Texas improved upon FCe- by adding in the option to include some environmental and socioeconomic costs in their model. As the University of Texas researchers stated in their follow-up, “the local cost differences (due to these fossil fuel subsidies) can be rather high.” If people are going to argue that all costs should be included, then these costs should be included too.

Taking coal for example, and adding the 2013 IMF fossil fuel subsidies to the Lazard LCOEs would increase the LCOE for coal by US$290/MWh, resulting in a coal LCOE between US$350/MWh and US$433/MWh, versus US$46/MWh to US$92/MWh for utility-scale solar, US$32/MWh to US$62/MWh for wind, and US$285/MWh to US$581/MWh for lithium-ion battery storage used for “peaker” replacement. In short, solar and wind trounce coal and gas, and lithium-ion is already cheaper in some places, once fossil fuel subsidies are fully accounted for.

As such, what would a transition to 100% renewables cost? The best estimate available of the total cost to reach 100% renewables is from Professor Jacobson and his colleagues. Their estimated cost to transition to a 100% renewable grid for the 139 countries covered is US$124.7trn, resulting in US$22.8trn/year in savings from avoided in air-pollution costs and US$28.5 trillion/year in savings from avoided climate costs by the time the transition was complete. As such, the transition to 100% renewables repays the cost to society in 2.43 years. Even better, their cost assumptions are extremely conservative, relying on capital costs more appropriate to 2013, which completely ignores the rapid price declines wind and solar are experiencing and will continue to experience. For example, Jacobson and colleagues assume a US$1.45 million/MW and US$1.67 million/MW capital cost for onshore wind and solar PV respectively, and keep these costs constant, whereas Lazard indicates that US$1.25 million/MW and US$1.45 million/MW for wind and solar would already be more appropriate today.

That also does not account for the fact that the transition will happen over time and wind, solar, and battery storage prices are all declining rapidly. This is the key flaw in many of the projections being published, particularly those of the IEA. Very few projections, other than those provided by BNEF, take into account even the existing price trends. BNEF expects solar PV LCOEs to drop a further 66%, onshore wind 47%, and off-shore wind 71% by 2040. Battery prices are also set to decline by another 70% by 2030 according to a report prepared for the World Energy Council.

Further, these reports tend to be based on historical trends and, with the bulk of the price declines to date driven not by technological improvements but simply by economies of scale and improved manufacturing processes, may not consider just how quickly new technologies are set to drive down price. Examples of technologies that could be a catalyst for even more rapid price declines are as follows:

• Professor Paul Dastoor and his team at University of Newcastle Australia can print solar panels with a goal of achieving less than US$7.42/sqm, this compares to US$232/sqm for the Tesla solar roof. A 98.6% reduction in price.
• Researchers at the Cockrell School of Engineering, led by John Goodenough, a co-inventor of the lithium-ion battery, have demonstrated a solid-state battery with higher energy density and faster charging times than lithium-ion.

Given that these price declines will continue and may even accelerate, the total capital cost to transition to 100% renewables will likely be significantly lower than Professor Jacobson and his team predicted, and the payback period to society even shorter.

As such, and contrary to arguments otherwise, coal, nuclear, and gas are not needed. In the face of all this it makes no sense to continue building fossil-fuel based facilities, locking ourselves into generating sources that not only cost more, but require 20-40 years of useful life to make an economic return when we must stop all emissions in 9 years at the rate we are going.

Coal

The term “clean coal” is an advertising and PR slogan. The actual technologies referred to, collectively known as carbon capture and storage (“CCS”), despite being pushed by organizations like IEA are experimental technologies that Bloomberg and the Global Warming Policy Foundation both rightly pointed out will likely never be economically viable. The problems with carbon capture and storage are numerous:

• MIT researchers demonstrated that technologies may not even work as it is possible for sequestered carbon to escape back into the atmosphere, defeating the entire purpose,
• as indicated previously, coal facilities already have higher LCOEs than renewables in many places even ignoring coal subsidies, and CCS adds to these costs significantly, with even the IEA admitting that it would increase the price of coal energy by 40%-63%; given that wind, solar, and battery prices are headed in the opposite direction for the foreseeable future, it is unlikely that CCS will ever be able to compete, and facilities are already getting shut down,
• according to the IEA, CCS also lowers the efficiency of plants by approximately 25% on average, causing the plant to consume more coal, not less, which is great for coal companies, but very bad for the environment as the increase in coal mining can result in higher emissions, permanent loss of water sources, and “degraded water quality (that) reaches levels that are acutely lethal to organisms in standard aquatic toxicity effects,” among other undesirable outcomes,
• as with fracking, CCS can cause earthquakes, which contributed to the In Salah project getting shut down.

It is time for organizations like IEA to distance themselves from CCS if they want to maintain any semblance of credibility. Coal facilities and mining should only be maintained as long as it takes to replace with solar, wind, and energy storage, and should be the first conventional energy facilities to be decommissioned, as is happening in the UK.

Gas

Gas-fired facilities are significantly less problematic than coal, but it makes no sense to build new gas-fired plants at this stage given the following issues:

• Natural gas emits 117 pounds of CO2 per million Btu, or 51.2% of the 228.6 pounds released when burning anthracite coal, and 50-60% less CO2 when combusted in newer natural gas power plants, and while an improvement, this is still an unacceptable level of emissions given the crisis we are in; we need to stop carbon emissions entirely, not emit less carbon,
• as shown above by Lazard, natural gas-based generation technologies, other than gas combined cycle, are more expensive that solar and wind, and, given price trends, solar and wind will be cheaper than natural gas everywhere before long,
• extraction of gas and oil lead to increased methane emissions, and is increasingly done via fracking, which, contrary to assertions otherwise, can indeed cause earthquakes,
• the extraction process also contaminates water supplies.

Given that we can meet our energy needs more cheaply and quickly through renewable energy, without these drawbacks, as with coal, we should stop building new facilities and only maintain currently operational facilities while transitioning as quickly as possible to renewables.

Nuclear

Nuclear is significantly better than both coal and gas in terms of CO2 emissions. However, given that we can operate a stable grid based on renewables, nuclear is not needed in the long-run, and has many of its own issues:

• Nuclear, despite being baseload, is one of the more expensive generating technologies available to us even if constructed according to plan, and is frequently plagued with massive cost over-runs, even with newer technologies,
• the Lazard LCOE estimates also exclude the costs associated with decommissioning and disposal of spent fuel, which can be significant,
• “serious” accidents occur less than 1 per year on average historically, while significantly less likely than fossil fuel incidents, when they do happen they can be catastrophic; Japan estimates the cost of the Fukushima disaster at $188 billion after increasing it several times,
• lastly, the construction time of nuclear facilities, at 69 months if all goes well, can sometimes stretch into decades; meaning it is unlikely we can construct sufficient new nuclear capacity in time to decarbonize.

That said, given the large capital costs to build nuclear facilities, and the minimal carbon emissions compared to coal and gas, existing nuclear facilities, while potentially dangerous, should be the last of the non-renewable conventional facilities to be decommissioned. Assuming their safety is evaluated and ensured. Eventually they can be shut down, but they are operational now and can be helpful in transitioning to a 100% renewable grid.

Electricity companies and their host governments would be best advised to stop all efforts on new fossil-fuel and nuclear plants that have yet to reach financial close, and instead focus their efforts on rolling out renewables and energy storage as quickly as possible. But even a 100% renewable grid only addresses part of the problem.

Restoration or Replacement of Carbon Sinks

AFOLU is responsible for 24% of carbon emissions, with the primary drivers being deforestation and agricultural emissions from livestock, soil, and nutrient management, with the fastest growing driver being the rapidly increasing use of synthetic fertilizers. Thankfully, in the same way switching to 100% renewable electricity regeneration solves the problem of carbon emissions for energy, there are solutions here too. Reforestation, afforestation, use of innovative technologies, and changing our diets.

Reforestation and afforestation efforts are starting to happen globally, with many countries now participating in the United Nations’ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (“REDD”) program, or more ambitious efforts such as Felix Finkbeiner’s Plant for the Planet, which calls for planting 1 trillion trees, or 150 trees for every person on the planet.

That is a very good start.

According to the study published in Nature by researchers from Yale, University of Helsinki and others, we currently have approximately 3 trillion trees remaining after eliminating 46% of them. We would need to restore or replace 2.58 trillion trees to return to the number of trees we started with. A more ambitious target than Plant for the Planet and REDD, and still insufficient to restore the habitat our species enjoyed for the last 650,000 years unless we also stop emitting carbon entirely. It is also unlikely that we will tear down our cities to plant forests.

Thankfully there are possible solutions for cities as well. Apart from encouraging transparent solar panels like those offered by Ubiquitous Energy or solar glass like that offered by Brite be used for some windows on buildings, cities can also do their part by requiring technologies like Green City Solution’s CityTree in their building codes. People living in cities can also contribute to the effort by changing their diets.

In addition to the numerous health benefits of a diet high in fruits and vegetables, such a diet also results in lower enteric fermentation, the second largest AFOLU source of GHG emissions. According to research led by Dr. Marco Springmann of the Oxford Martin School, moving toward a more plant-based diet would cut food-related emissions by 63%, and free up land that could be used for reforestation or location of solar panels and wind turbines. It would also prevent up to 8.1 million deaths per year, save as much as US$1trn on healthcare, unpaid informal care, and lost working days, and save another $570 billion in reduced greenhouse gas emissions. In short, people eat meat, the meat comes from gassy livestock, the livestock requires land to graze, which has been a primary driver in mass deforestation. If individuals can have such a large impact just by changing their diets, industry should also have opportunities to help solve the problem.

Industry

Industry, in addition to being responsible for 11% of electricity and heat CO2 emissions, is responsible for an additional 21% of CO2 emissions from industrial activity, bringing the total to 32%. Electricity and heat emissions can be eliminated through a transition to 100% renewable energy as discussed previously, however the remaining emissions will require a combination of reduction in energy intensity, materials efficiency and waste management, and development and deployment of new technologies.

The IPCC estimates that energy intensity can be reduced by 25% through deployment of the best available technologies, and a further 20% before approaching the technological limits achievable for these technologies through innovation. For example, steel manufacturers could replace coal and blast-furnaces and basic oxygen furnaces with electrolysis or electric arc furnaces and reduce both costs and emissions in the process. Electrolysis and electric arc furnaces can also both use recycled materials, further reducing emissions and costs for the process.

Waste management, recycling, and material efficiency in both production and product design can also lead to efficiencies and lower costs. For example, while solar panels are becoming more efficient, a significant part of the ongoing price decline has been due to more efficient use of materials and reduction of waste in solar panel manufacturing processes. Solar is just one example, further gains from changes in materials and development of new technologies and manufacturing processes will drive down emissions and costs further.

The IBM report, “the new software-defined supply chain,” details how advancements in 3D printing, intelligent robotics, and open source electronics are set to drive down unit costs of manufacturing by 23% and entry barriers to manufacturing by 90%. 3-D printing continues to improve and can be used for everything from metals to bioplastics. Yes that is correct, technology enables us to cheaply produce biodegradable plastics from plant matter rather than petroleum. 3D printing also enables manufacturing with almost zero materials waste. This will not only improve industrial materials use but also reduce carbon emissions and earthquakes from extraction associated with natural gas. 3D printing can also be used in the production of automobiles.

Transportation

According to the IPCC, transportation is responsible for 14.1% of CO2 emissions. Road transport generates 72.06% of direct GHG transport emissions followed by waterborne shipping at 11.17%, aviation at 10.62%, then others such as rail comprising smaller margins. To eliminate carbon emissions from this segment of the energy mix will require a widespread transition to electricity and / or hydrogen. Biofuels, while generally considered an improvement over petroleum-based fuels and potentially carbon neutral or carbon negative over the entirety of their lifecycle, may cause higher carbon emissions than petroleum-based fuels. Either way, biofuels do result in GHG emissions during combustion, may never be available in sufficient quantity to replace petroleum, and, barring breakthroughs, are unlikely to be cost-competitive with electric or hydrogen over the long-run given the pace of declining battery and renewable electricity generation costs.

Cars

There are over 1 billion cars on the road globally with predictions that we will reach 2 billion as early as 2035. While internal combustion engines are becoming more efficient, this will cause significant additional CO2 emissions unless we can fully decarbonize motor vehicles. Thankfully, the solution has already been identified and proven by the efforts of Elon Musk and Tesla, which defied conventional wisdom in the auto industry and has now caused enough concern that all major auto manufacturers have announced upcoming electric vehicle (“EV”) models, with Volvo announcing that every car it launches will have an electric motor by 2019.

While Exxon continues to predict that this represents almost no threat to the demand for oil, with both BP and Exxon predicting no more than 100 million electric vehicles globally by 2040, auto manufacturers, BNEF and Morgan Stanley all predict significantly higher numbers of EVs anticipated, with Morgan Stanley predicting 1 billion EVs by 2050. However, even these predictions seem not to fully account for several factors:

1. BNEF predicts that the upfront cost for an EV will reach parity with internal combustion engine vehicles (“ICE”) by 2025, with Renault predicting the lifecycle cost of ownership and operation of EVs will be cheaper than ICE in the early 2020s; however, it is likely that neither BNEF nor Renault have fully accounted for currently experimental battery and renewable electricity generation technologies that will accelerate the price decline for both, meaning parity for upfront cost as well as lifecycle cost could happen much sooner than even these predictions.
2. Consumer’s Reports indicates that the average life expectancy of a car is 8 years, while some cars can last 15 years with proper maintenance; assuming EVs reach parity with upfront cost by 2025, and potential buyers have no economic incentive to purchase a gasoline car, it should only take 15 years from that point for all cars to be electric; therefore, assuming sufficient production capacity and excluding car collectors, all cars on the road should be EVs by 2040, at the latest. It is likely that car buyers will realize that EVs have a longer useful life and lower operating costs than comparable ICE vehicles much sooner than this.
3. Political will to abandon fossil fuels is also growing rapidly, with bans on fossil fuel vehicles already appearing in India, the UK, and Norway planning to eliminate ICE vehicles entirely by 2025. It is necessary and likely that more countries will join this movement, further accelerating the pressure on individuals to buy electric, and the transition.

Despite research, again independently, demonstrating that EVs already have lower lifecycle CO2 emissions in most places and use profiles, some have attempted to argue that EV emissions may not be as environmentally friendly as even gasoline cars. Such arguments hinge on a few faulty assumptions, 1) they assume charging predominantly or only happens at night 2) they use outdated data and assume that the electrical grid will remain powered by fossil fuels at the same percentage as before widescale deployment of renewables started to happen, and 3) they assume manufacturing of batteries also must rely on electricity provided using that same, outdated, electricity mix.

The people who make such arguments will be pleased to know then that, with fast charging stations and charging stations starting to be deployed all over the world, charging will happen at all hours. Additionally, renewable energy for generation is rapidly making up a larger share of the energy mix globally, with renewable capacity additions comprising more than half of generating capacity added for the last several years and increasing their share of global electricity from 10.3% to 11.3% in 2016. As argued previously, this transition must accelerate, but even if not, Tesla will power its charging stations and battery manufacturing with solar, further debunking the arguments against EVs. Tesla is also working on a battery-powered truck.

Trucks & Buses

Larger vehicles can also be replaced with electric vehicle or hydrogen fuel cell technology. In addition to Tesla, Daimler has already demonstrated the Mercedes-Benz Electric Truck, with Chanje and other companies also entering the market. Nikola will also offer a hydrogen fuel-cell truck with a range of 1,200 miles and Toyota is working on its own version. There is an even greater selection of electric buses available, with EV buses starting to show up in cities around the world. So even larger vehicles have non-fossil fuel options available, with rail even further along.

Rail

Rail transport represents approximately 1.6% of direct GHG emissions for transport. This is because much of rail, such as high-speed rail and passenger trains in Tokyo, is already electric. The remaining emissions are limited to the source of electricity, and the remaining diesel passenger and freight trains, which can obviously be phased out. That said, the useful life of rail is typically 30 years, but can last as many as 45 years with proper maintenance in some cases. As such, companies looking to purchase new rolling stock can opt for electric or hydrogen. Communities looking to develop new long-distance rail systems may also opt for a Hyperloop instead of rail.

Ships

Waterborne shipping accounts for 11.17% of GHG emissions for transport, and carried up to 80% of internationally traded goods in 2011. Ships can be converted to run on biofuels, but the long-term solution will be a combination of hydrogen and electric. The world’s first hydrogen ship, The Energy Observer, began its voyage in July and Kongsberg and Yara International ASA plan to have an all-electric cargo ship operational in 2018 and automated by 2020. While these advancements are promising, given the importance of the shipping sector and the fact that vessels have useful lives typically in the range of 25-30 years, with LNG ships perhaps reaching 35 years, fully decarbonizing will require an acceleration of such initiatives and represent a significant opportunity for ship-building companies.

Planes

Aviation is responsible for 10.62% of transport GHG emissions. While the first round-the-world trip of a solar plane, the Solar Impulse 2, garnered significant attention, the crown for decarbonization air travel and transport likely goes to the little-known Tupolev TU-155, which was a passenger airline-sized plane that successfully flew using liquid hydrogen in 1988 and 1989. The challenge with commercial aviation is the need to be able to travel long distances at high speeds with strict limitations on weight. As such, batteries will require further improvements before being viable, leaving airlines such as Virgin experimenting with biofuels. While biofuels can help in the next few years to transition away from fossil fuels, as with shipping, the long-term will likely see reliance on hydrogen, and eventually, perhaps, electric.

Boeing and Airbus are both experimenting with fuel cells, and EasyJet is incorporating fuel cells for limited use into its fleet. Fuel cells may offer sufficient efficiency, power, energy, and weight to make commercial flights viable and researchers in Germany have successfully flown a four-seat plane using fuel cells.

The other problems with hydrogen are its production costs and transport. However, with declining electricity costs and the opportunity for distributed generation represented by solar and wind, it is possible that electrolysis of water, conveniently available near many of the world’s airports, to produce hydrogen may become economically viable very soon. Aviation will be the most difficult area to decarbonize, and given the useful life of an airplane is 20-25 years, efforts in this area must be accelerated if we are to remain below 450ppm.

There are solutions available to decarbonize all forms of transportation. The question is how quickly we can implement them.

C- targets: good for everyone and our individual choices matter

It should be obvious by now that averting the crisis, remaining below 450ppm, and ultimately returning our atmosphere to the levels our species is used to will require all of us working together. Thankfully, we all have incentives to do so. This transition represents the largest investment opportunity in human history, and will create jobs, lower energy prices, and save lives. What would such a transition look like? Professor Jacobson and his colleagues also answered that question.

The transition will obviously take longer than 9 years, but the more we accomplish each year toward this goal will reduce carbon emissions, restore carbon sinks, and give us more time to work with.

Each of us has choices to make:

• As a consumer, will the next car you purchase require fossil fuels to run, pushing us further along the path toward the destruction of our civilization? Or will you buy electric and take us one step closer to C- and save money in the process? Will you continue to eat copious amounts of meat, or reduce meat somewhat and eat more fruits and vegetables and not only improve your health, but help solve the problem?
• As a coal-miner, will you cling to your current skillset, and ultimately be unemployable when your industry dies, as it inevitably will? Or seek retraining to, for example, install wind turbines as the coal miners in Wyoming are doing? Solar alone now employs more people in the United States than oil, gas, and coal combined, and solar and wind are creating jobs 12 times faster than the rest of the economy.
• As an investor, will you place bets on fossil fuel projects that are more likely to lose money over the long run than give you a return? Or will you invest in renewable projects and companies that provide solid returns per the advice of the World Economic Forum?
• As a project financier, will you continue to support fossil fuel projects with 20+ year life-spans and at best invest in what will become stranded assets, and most definitely worsen the emissions problem? Or will you take a stand as Deutsche Bank has and stop financing coal projects? Will you go further and stop financing all fossil fuel projects, including gas, entirely?
• As an energy company executive, will you continue to waste resources on climate denial propaganda and ultimately go the way of Borders? Refusing to understand your customers and locking yourself into leases and assets to sell products that are being surpassed by new technologies? Or will you do as companies like Shell and Total have begun doing, and not only acknowledge the problem, but recognize you run an energy company, not just a fossil fuel company, and start transitioning your product offering to respond to customer demand?
• As an electricity company or grid operator, will you continue to resist the transition to renewables and open yourselves up to wide-scale grid defection? Or will you embrace the change, and recognize the future role of the grid as a marketplace and backup for distributed generation, thereby reducing your capital expenditures and creating a more robust and stable grid?
• As a politician or government official, will you recognize what the greater good is, and the fact that a significant and growing portion of the population, even among U.S. Republicans, are concerned about climate change? Will you work to do something about it? Or will you risk your political career obfuscating the truth and fighting against everyone’s best interests?

Either way, decarbonization is inevitable. It will either be forced upon us through the collapse of society and massive depopulation, or will be achieved to the benefit of all of us. Which do you prefer?