While this is a very worthy objective, it is unlikely to happen within the short time frame we have - as many specific problems have not yet been resolved. These are: 1) How to stabilize an electricity grid that has not only 10 or 20% of variable renewables, but 60 or 80%. Current technologies are not suitable for this task, or way too expensive. 2) How to shift the majority of our activities to be directly or indirectly powered by electricity. We have electric cars, but long-haul transport, chemicals, and many industrial processes are not electric. 3) And most importantly, these scenarios use ‘money -in energy- out’ accounting, instead of ‘energy and materials in, energy and materials out’ analysis. It is highly unlikely we can maintain our current level of consumption (and GDP) in such a future where we spend ~15-20% of our efforts harvesting and delivering the energy we use, compared to 8-10% of today (and 5% of the recent past). One reasonable scenario of how a higher percentage of renewables might look like is depicted in the scenario graph above.
Imagine you own a scooter that has a one-gallon gas tank and gets 100 miles per gallon. You use the scooter for all your chores, your job, your livelihood. You live 2.5 miles away from the gas station. Each trip to fill up requires 5 miles of your 100 leaving 95 more to deliver pizzas, haul boxes, go for joy rides, and pick up your girl/boyfriend for a date. But imagine that over time the structure of your world changed, and the gas station now was 7.5 miles away. Each tim e you refueled, you’d have to use 15% of a full tank just to go to the gas station and return home. This ‘new physical reality’ meant that you had to do all your work (and play) using only 85 miles instead of 95 miles. Fully 15% of your tank would be dedicated to ‘energy access’ up from the mere 5% it took when you constructed your daily routines.
Due to many limitations, it is likely that economies will stop growing and
325
Powered by FlippingBook