![]() ![]() ![]() The cost savings from not over-ambitiously getting down to zero carbon can be spent on accelerating up-front decarbonization, which lowers cumulative emissions.įor the poorest of the poor, the real need is electricity access, regardless of fuel. As my research group modeled for India in detail, an optimal design focuses on high RE first, without worrying about storage just yet. The good news is that simply having some fossil fuel capacity doesn’t mean it will get used much – the marginal cost of RE (and a battery) is virtually zero, once built. Batteries should soon be able to meet much or even most of the peaks cost-effectively, but if one designs for zero fossil fuel, then it’s very expensive. Today’s optimal electricity grid design may maximize RE by relying on minimal fossil fuels for occasional peak needs. How do you meet the evening peak electricity demand with solar power? Batteries are still very expensive. ![]() However, if we don’t allow any new fossil fuel investments, then RE is difficult to scale because it’s intermittent. Developing nations need energy, which may require a little fossil fuelĭeveloping countries are being asked to “leapfrog” to renewable energy (RE). ![]() Unfortunately, the push toward zero has been interpreted as a prohibition on public support for new unabated fossil fuel energy. The good news is this should still fit within global emissions targets if high emitters reduce emissions quickly up front. Twitter from a very low base inevitably means the poor must increase their emissions in the short term. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |