There has been a lot written about the push to reach net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by the year 2050. Despite the simple fact that emissions continue to rise year after year, many people continue to insist that humanity can abruptly turn a corner to achieve the net-zero target (Halfway between Kyoto and ‘Net Zero by 2050’, how are we doing?).
Why is that? Why do some people think that profound change is just around the corner even as that corner continually retreats into the future?
After all, we have been seriously scolded by climate champions since before the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, telling us to change our high-consuming ways before it is too late. Alternative low-emission energy sources, particularly intermittent wind and solar, have been researched, promoted, subsidized and built in ever-increasing amounts for more than 20 years. Advocates such as the Rocky Mountain Institute and Carbon Tracker insist that each new emissions-reduction advance will accelerate up the S-Curve of new adoption rates until it completely replaces the old, higher-emissions technology, whether we are talking about vehicles or power stations (Energy transition – a lesson in advocacy and models). Won’t all that make a difference?
Not so far.
Global consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas continues to rise every year as do their emissions, because the new low-emissions energy coming on stream annually does not even meet the global increase in energy demand (Fig. 1). One can argue that the rate of emissions growth has declined since 2012 – but when the economic catastrophe that was the COVID shutdown can only create a tiny one-year dip, what could possibly cause emissions to abruptly reverse two centuries of increase, and fast enough to take more than 50 billion tonnes off the table in 26 years?
Nothing. There is no such mechanism. Emissions will not abruptly fall, because a world with 8 billion+ people all craving abundant and affordable energy will do whatever is required to get that energy – and alternative energy sources have failed to meet demand increases every year. No amount of prodding, pushing, incenting or demonizing of fossil fuels has changed that.
Figure 1 – global GHG emissions over time, measured in carbon-dioxide-equivalents. From Our World in Data – Greenhouse gas emissions
Yet advocates continue to insist otherwise, citing views that the new, low-emission alternatives are better – and cheaper – than what we are doing now. Their line of thought: electric vehicles are better, solar and wind electricity is cheaper, and everyone should heat their home with a heat pump, not a gas furnace. The problem with these views, however, is that they are idealized scenarios that may not actually play out in the real world, where different people living in different places have different needs, different viewpoints, and different investment objectives.
Let’s look at a few examples.
Electric vehicles
EVs are the very embodiment of the 21st-century energy transition. Sales began to accelerate significantly in 2020, and growth was anticipated to be so rapid that a number of governments pronounced that “zero emission” vehicles (of course, there are plenty of emissions in the manufacturing process, and EVs charge up with electricity that produced emissions at source) that would be the only new-car sales allowed by 2030 or 2035. Huge incentives have been put in place to attract new EV assembly and battery plants (Canada’s committing tens of billions of dollars to the EV industry. Here’s a list of the planned projects so far). Tesla rose seemingly overnight from nothing to the most highly valued auto manufacturer in the world. EV challenges such as driving range, charging times, and charging networks have all been greatly improved.
But the bloom is off the EV rose. While sales continue to increase, the rate of increase is declining – and EV sales were even down in some jurisdictions in the early parts of 2024 (Fig. 2). The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that hybrid EV sales have increased in 2024 while full (battery) EV sales remained flat (U.S. share of electric and hybrid vehicle sales increased in the second quarter of 2024).
Figure 2 – quarterly U.S. light-duty vehicle sales by powertrain. From U.S. Energy Information Administration
An EV manufacturing industry built on massive growth expectations is experiencing a lot of problems – including battery manufacturer Northvolt AB on the verge of bankruptcy (Northvolt Lenders Meet as Battery Maker Hangs by Thread), Ford postponing EV assembly plant launches (Ford scraps plans for $1.8 billion Oakville EV assembly plant, will retool to make gasoline pickups ), and even Tesla laying off staff (Tesla laying off more than 10% of staff globally as sales fall).
Clearly the EV S-curve growth is going to top out at a number far below 100% adoption, and new sales mandates will continue to be delayed or ignored (Electric vehicle sales mandates doomed to fail). There are many sound reasons, including inadequate supply chains and the business failures cited above. But probably the most fundamental reason is that for the new-car buyer living outside of warm- or mild-weather urban centres, today’s battery electric vehicles (BEVs) do not meet their needs and concerns. Hybrids do a better job for many (including me), and many people are beginning to realize that maybe Toyota had it right all along, focusing on hybrids and going slow on BEV development. Others want nothing to do with EVs, and will happily vote for politicians that will not ban conventional vehicle sales.
Solar and wind electricity
Electricity generated by solar and wind has increased dramatically over the past decade, but still meets only a fraction of total global energy demand (Fig. 3).
Figure 3 – global primary energy consumption by source. Solar and wind have grown at a tremendous rate, but are still a small fraction of supply. From Our World in Data (Energy Mix).
Advocates point to continued growth in capacity additions year over year, but in fact China dominates global wind and solar growth, while capacity growth in North America and Europe is encountering significant headwinds (pun sort of intended), and little growth is happening in Africa and other lower-income regions.
A solar or wind kilowatt-hour of electricity can indeed be very cheap to deliver, but only when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing – so they cannot support a power grid on their own. Substantial energy storage and/or backup generation must be available on demand at all times, and maintaining those sources is not cheap, particularly when they are called upon only part of the time. The cost of electricity to the consumer is the cost of the entire grid, and that cost escalates as more intermittent wind and solar are added to the grid (Will renewable energy costs continue to drop – and will this make electricity cheaper? https://big-media.ca/will-renewable-energy-costs-continue-to-drop-and-will-this-make-electricity-cheaper/).
As for EVs, real-world issues are derailing advocates’ hoped-for wind and solar S-curve growth:
- Growth of energy storage is not keeping pace with solar and wind installations. Despite lots of talk around new pumped hydro and other storage technologies, most jurisdictions are focused on grid-scale batteries, which suffer the same supply-chain and expense issues as EV batteries
- New solar and wind permitting and grid connection times are far longer than needed to support continued rapid growth (Could too much permitting reform hurt EU renewables?)
- Many jurisdictions are seeing significant pushback on proposed new wind and solar facilities (Tally of US Wind & Solar Rejections Hits 735)
- Costs for offshore wind turbine construction fell from 2010 to 2021, but have actually increased since then (Offshore Wind Market Report: 2023 Edition)
Solar- and wind-generated electricity have only recently become significant players on the world stage, but their real-world limitations are becoming apparent.
Heat pumps
Air- and ground-source heat pumps offer tremendous efficiencies for home heating and cooling by exchanging heat with outside sources instead of generating heat through combustion or electrical resistance. Advocates conclude that heat pumps are therefore the logical choice for new construction, and for anyone needing to replace their conventional home-heating system.
But not so fast. There are some technical limitations. Even the best heat pumps need some heat generation backup under the extremely cold winter conditions common in continental North America and Asia.
But the biggest real-world issue is cost. I can cite my own experience here – I recently needed to replace my 34-year-old natural gas furnaces in my home in Calgary, where we commonly experience long stretches of winter weather below -25C. I was able to have high-efficiency gas furnaces installed in just a few days at a far lower price than air-source heat pumps would have cost. Advocates tell me that the long-term operating costs would make heat pumps more economical in the long term. But I’m not going to be in this house for the long term, and it is highly unlikely I would see a resale premium; in fact, my house might even be harder to sell with heat pumps than with modern high-efficiency gas furnaces.
So why are net-zero advocates disappointed, year after year?
To put it bluntly – because they want net zero so badly, they are willing to believe promotion and hype over the workings of the real world.
Yes, EVs can be great for some people in some places – but they do not measure up to the demands and expectations of many other people, particularly those living in cold climates and outside urban centres.
Yes, solar and wind can provide low-cost electricity. But they cannot be built everywhere overnight and are only one component of a far more expensive functioning grid that must deliver electricity on demand at all times.
And heat pumps can be great – but they are expensive, and many of us do not have 15 or 20 years for reduced operating costs to offset the initial investment.
EVs, renewable electricity, heat pumps, and other energy alternatives are improving, every year. They are suited for more applications and more people, every year. But people in high-income nations have cars that last 10-15 years, furnaces that last 20 years or more, and perfectly satisfactory electricity. How could they abruptly switch to something new that might be better and cheaper in the long run? Even if they could, where would all that new stuff come from fast enough?
The real questions should be – why is anybody speaking of net-zero emissions by 2050 when it is so obviously impossible? Why don’t we create realistic energy and environmental goals, and strive to achieve them?
