There are so many ways that we can decarbonise the world, do we need to pick just one of them?
This week I saw that the International Energy Agency predicted ‘peak oil’ before 2030, I was reminded of the great work that National Grid does on the UK Future Energy Scenarios, and I read Michael Liebreich’s pessimistic article on energy transition.
The IEA say that the growth in oil demand that we have seen for decades, will come to an end in 2028. This is driven by efficiencies, changes in use, and the investments in renewables. I’m not sure about this as it does not reflect the simple fact that oil is cheap, the Saudi’s can extract oil for as little at $10 per barrel.
In National Grid’s FES work they have four scenarios, three of which deliver Net Zero and one that they call Falling Short. Amongst the three successful scenarios they do not pick a winner and they, perhaps deliberately and to help comparison, do not call out the common central case to all of the successful scenarios.
Liebreich’s paper, which is only part one, the optimistic paper is coming next, points out the economics, the grid investment needed, minerals needs, politics, and corruption as blockers to progress. Our Central Case in the Net Zero plan needs to account for all of these and still deliver.
In writing this post I was remined of Warren Buffet’s quote - “Forecasts may tell you a great deal about the forecaster; they tell you nothing about the future.”
Last year we ran a series of events looking at what the future energy markets need to look like to deliver Net Zero. It was striking amongst the varied participants how much commonality there was in their views of the route to decarbonisation.
In previous versions of this post, I have stressed the importance of having a plan, and by implication the need for a Central Case. We need to collectively agree this middle ground and accelerate work in the centre.
