Renewable energy already beats fossil fuels on cost globally — and according to analysts, the gap is only going to grow.
By 2030, technology improvements could slash today’s prices by a quarter for wind and by half for solar, according to the authors of a recent report from clean energy think tank RMI. (Canary Media is an independent affiliate of RMI.)
These remarkable and ongoing cost declines have made clean energy so attractive that it now outcompetes fossil fuels for new investment: 62percent of global energy investment is expected to flow to clean energy technologies this year.
That cash is helping push renewables to new heights. According to estimates from the International Energy Agency, global clean energy capacity is expected to jump a jaw-dropping 107 gigawatts to more than 440 gigawatts this year — its largest increase ever.
What we’re living in “is an energy technology revolution,” said report co-author Kingsmill Bond, an energy strategist at RMI. It’s obvious from the data, yet the point is often lost in “a consistent drumbeat of counternarratives” about how difficult it is, and will be, to leave fossil fuels behind, he added.
“U.S. fossil-fuel demand peaked 15 years ago,” Bond said. “This is happening; people have just missed it.”
Renewable energy costs have fallen, and are projected to keep falling, because these technologies are riding “learning curves”: For every cumulative doubling of the deployed tech, its cost declines by a quantifiable percentage that varies by technology. Learning curves are a robust phenomenon that’s been observed for over 50 kinds of tech. Over the past 40 years, the average learning rate has been 20% for solar and 13% for wind.
Solutions are bigger than barriers. There is a conundrum at the heart of renewable
growth: Barriers are everywhere, but growth keeps happening. The reason is that barriers
are specific and local, but solutions are generic and global, hence likely to overwhelm re-
sistance to change.Change is fast or faster. Linear change is no longer credible. Change to the electricity sys-
tem will take place either fast (on a typical technology S-curve) or faster (continued exponen-
tial growth).Solar and wind power will grow by 3–4 times by 2030. Fast growth will lead to a tripling in
solar and wind generation by 2030 while faster growth will mean a quadrupling in genera-
tion, to produce more than 14,000 terawatt hours (TWh) and overtake fossil fuel supply.
The fossil fuel era is over. Fossil fuel demand in electricity has reached a peak at around
18,000 TWh, will plateau for a few years, and will fall by between 16% and 30% by the end of
this decade.We have agency. In the same way as Moore’s Law required constant innovation and action
to stay on track, so we have to work hard to stay on the exponential path. We need to build
out grids, change permitting laws, scale up flexibility solutions, improve regulatory and mar-
ket systems, and speed up deployment in the Global South.There is always room to go faster. We are on the path to net zero by 2050 but we are not
on the path to limit warming to 1.5°C. Each death induced from fossil fuel air pollution mat-
ters, each dollar spent on importing expensive fossil fuels has an opportunity cost, and each
fraction of a degree is a threat multiplier. In this context, there is no such thing as “fast
enough. Speed is justice.We can do it right this time. Renewable energy is distributed, clean, and universal. Falling
costs unlock renewables globally and are a superior tool for more equitable economic devel-
opment. We need to ensure good mining practices, circularity, and integrative design to fully
capture the benefits of the renewables revolution. Most importantly, we can use energy
more efficiently and timely, mix optimally with renewables, and displace even more fossil
fuel sooner.
I’d like to take a moment to thank Vladimir Putin, a man who single-handedly got Europe to accelerate away from fossil fuels. Way to go, Vlad!
Not sure if Vlad’s war was net negative ( for carbon- not many positives any other way.). To some extent, switching to coal, or to gas frozen and shipped across an ocean, raised average carbon intensity of power in many European countries, and they’re just getting back to status quo ante bellum. Fuel switching to coal in Asia, as Europe gazumped all the LNG, had the same effect there.
John O’Neill
Aye, normally I’d dismiss the startup cost (in this case the carbon budget) with any transition that would make up for it in the long run, so the question is would Europe be emitting less carbon in time to make a difference from the status quo before tipping point X is reached?
In Europe’s case, a lot depends on the rate of adoption of heat pumps and whether they luck out with warm winters for the next few years.