Can clean energy replace fossil fuels?

  • #1
If you search the net with the question: "Can clean energy replace fossil fuels?" then no clear answer is given. On the website https://blog.arcadia.com/top-7-questions-youve-asked-google-renewable-energy/ it is said:

Yes! However, despite falling costs, wind and solar only produce a little over 5.5% of the world’s electricity. A few countries, as well as several states in the U.S., have ambitious goals for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Germany, for instance, aims to run on 80% renewable energy by 2050. The shift to 100% clean energy will depend on small-scale progress and cooperation, but it is doable.

So if fossil fuels can be completely replaced by clean energy at all, it looks like it will take many decades to achieve this and the question is whether we have that much time.

My main question, however, is "Can fossil fuels be replaced by clean energy at all?"
 
  • Like
Likes Lnewqban

Answers and Replies

  • #4
russ_watters
Mentor
20,118
6,618
So if fossil fuels can be completely replaced by clean energy at all, it looks like it will take many decades to achieve this and the question is whether we have that much time.

My main question, however, is "Can fossil fuels be replaced by clean energy at all?"
Electricity or all energy?

If the question is about electricity, the answer is simple: Of course it can*. There really are no significant technical challenges or fundamental limits preventing it. It's simply a choice to do it or not. We choose not to.

For other uses, like transportation, it isn't so simple and there are significant challenges.

[Edit]*Important caveat: people need to keep their eye on the ball when they define "clean". That can change the answer from a clear "yes" to a "probably no".
 
  • Like
Likes wukunlin, mcastillo356 and Lnewqban
  • #5
f95toli
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,084
577
This isn't really a technical question as such

The purely technical answer to the question "is it feasible to replace fossil fuels with alternatives that do not emit nearly as much CO2" is obviously yes. When people answer "no" to that (or similar) question they are really saying that they believe it would be too expensive and/or would negatively affect society in some other way (e.g. cause unemployment).

Hence, this is ultimately a political question and has to do with priorities.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Klystron and russ_watters
  • #6
anorlunda
Staff Emeritus
Insights Author
9,012
5,924
I agree with @f95toli. It is a political question, not technical.

In the two Insights articles mentioned: The whole premise of the 2nd article is that we could make 100% solar PV electric work.

In the first article, the concluding paragraph said.
Even experimentation and change with fundamental markets are risky. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars per year. The incentive to steal, cheat, or manipulate is huge. If you remember, we already saw what happened in 2000 with disastrous rolling brownouts in California. There, the crooks proved to be more clever than the market designers, and much more clever than the regulators. Innovation and prudence do not mix well for vital services.
So, that article also focused on non-electrical-engineering-issues. The article deals with questions of financial stability, and the potential for criminal fraud.
 
  • #7
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
26,102
9,469
wind and solar only produce a little over 5.5% of the world’s electricity.
There's your answer. Cut consumption by a factor of 20 and we're done.

If you say "but we can't just do that!", it means there are hidden constraints on what you think of as a solution. So long as they remain hidden, discussion is difficult.
 
  • Like
Likes phinds, Astronuc, Lnewqban and 2 others
  • #8
anorlunda
Staff Emeritus
Insights Author
9,012
5,924
If you say "but we can't just do that!", it means there are hidden constraints on what you think of as a solution. So long as they remain hidden, discussion is difficult.
Well said.
 
  • #9
russ_watters
Mentor
20,118
6,618
There's your answer. Cut consumption by a factor of 20 and we're done.

If you say "but we can't just do that!", it means there are hidden constraints on what you think of as a solution. So long as they remain hidden, discussion is difficult.
The first couple of constraints are typically easy, but after that, they can get a bit squirrely. It's always assumed that the electricity supply is reliable and sufficient for consumer demand, which really is one constraint.
 
  • #10
anorlunda
Staff Emeritus
Insights Author
9,012
5,924
Consumer demand is highly variable. In part it depends on the economy (demand has plunged since COVID). It depends on demand-side management that seeks to change people's habits. It depends on changing technology such as EVs. Look at the figure below and imagine that a big share of the energy in the transportation sector is shifted from fossil fuels over to the electric sector. Finally, it depends on population and affluence. As we raise people out of poverty, their demand increases and the transient demand change is even larger.

1569016422287-png.png
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Astronuc, berkeman, Vanadium 50 and 2 others
  • #11
When I ask the question can clean energy generation replace all energy generation by using fossil fuels, I mean all energy, including the energy needed to transport people and products by sea, road and air, as well as the energy that is necessary for the working of machines. as used in industry, road construction, etc.

Some say this is a political question. That is not true. It's a purely technical question and I haven't received an answer to that question yet.

If we stopped using fossil fuels around the world from tomorrow on, there would be a massive global famine within months and within a year the world population would drop from 7 billion to 1 billion, the number of people who lived on the planet before the discovery of the steam engine. It shows how the current size of the world's population largely depends on the use of fossil fuels.

Am I in favor of the use of fossil energy?. No, I am not, but if we cannot replace all energy generated by fossil fuels with clean energy within, say, one generation, then we really have a problem.
 
  • #12
1,734
1,058
If we stopped using fossil fuels around the world from tomorrow on...
...that would be a new constraint added to the original question.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #13
...that would be a new constraint added to the original question.
No, it is not a new restriction added to the original question. I am only saying what the consequences would be if you would completely stop using fossil energy from tomorrow.
 
  • #14
russ_watters
Mentor
20,118
6,618
When I ask the question can clean energy generation replace all energy generation by using fossil fuels, I mean all energy, including the energy needed to transport people and products by sea, road and air, as well as the energy that is necessary for the working of machines. as used in industry, road construction, etc.
Then the answer is a simple "no". There are transportation uses that don't currently have technically viable non fossil fuel solutions, including large planes and ships.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, Bystander and Lnewqban
  • #15
...that would be a new constraint added to the original question.
Do you mean the restriction: clean energy in one generation?
 
  • #16
f95toli
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,084
577
When I ask the question can clean energy generation replace all energy generation by using fossil fuels, I mean all energy, including the energy needed to transport people and products by sea, road and air, as well as the energy that is necessary for the working of machines. as used in industry, road construction, etc.

Some say this is a political question. That is not true. It's a purely technical question and I haven't received an answer to that question yet.
Technically the answer is yes. If you really want to it is possible to make -in theory- carbon neutral (assuming you have a carbon neutral source of electrical energy) fuel for all types of transport including planes (which has been demonstrated). It is not financially viable because the world economy relies of cheap transportation and these fuels are still very expensive; but -again- this is still a political question.

If we stopped using fossil fuels around the world from tomorrow on, there would be a massive global famine within months and within a year the world population would drop from 7 billion to 1 billion, the number of people who lived on the planet before the discovery of the steam engine. It shows how the current size of the world's population largely depends on the use of fossil fuels.
And a hard-core environmentalist could hypothetically argue that this would be worth it if it saves the planet long-term. Again, this is not about technology but about what we prioritise which is ultimately a political question. Moreover, doing this "tomorrow" is clearly a very hard constraint which you did not include in your
original question.
 
  • #17
Then the answer is a simple "no". There are transportation uses that don't currently have technically viable non fossil fuel solutions, including large planes and ships.
Do you mean that there are currently no transportation uses with non-fossil fuel solutions, including large aircraft and ships? In that case, I welcome your clear answer. At least then we know where we stand. Many politicians argue that the introduction of alternative, clean energy is the solution to the climate problem. So that's not true. There is also a company that claims this solution even in one generation, namely the Swedish company Vattenfall.
 
  • Like
Likes Lnewqban
  • #18
russ_watters
Mentor
20,118
6,618
Do you mean that there are currently no transportation uses with non-fossil fuel solutions, including large aircraft and ships?
Some transportation uses have non fossil fuel solutions (cars, for example), some don't.
In that case, I welcome your clear answer. At least then we know where we stand. Many politicians argue that the introduction of alternative, clean energy is the solution to the climate problem. So that's not true.
Well, you've set an arbitrary bar at 100%. I don't think it is widely believed that "the solution to the climate problem" requires 100%. Moreover, it isn't even a binary issue; any amount of conversion to non fossil fuel will have a positive impact.

So it doesn't look to me like you asked the right question for what you really want to know.
 
  • #19
1,734
1,058
Do you mean the restriction: clean energy in one generation?
We are trying to answer your question. Could you please decide what is it?

Since we are able to synthesize a good replacement for almost every fuel and plastic out from 'thin air' (a bit of an exaggeration here) with only energy, in theory it is 'possible' to switch to clean energy.

A bit of a problem, that both the price and the environmental footprint would be terrible: several times (maybe several dozen times or more) higher than with fossil fuel. Then what would be the point?

At this point we did replace some fossil fuel/resources with 'clean' energy with reduced environmental footprint and acceptable price.

At this point we did 'replace' some fossil fuel/resources with 'clean' energy with actually increased environmental footprint and stupid price.

At this point we could replace some more (but decided not to) if 'clean' includes nuclear as 'CO2-free'.

So, what is your question?
 
  • Like
Likes hutchphd and Vanadium 50
  • #20
russ_watters
Mentor
20,118
6,618
Technically the answer is yes. If you really want to it is possible to make -in theory- carbon neutral (assuming you have a carbon neutral source of electrical energy) fuel for all types of transport including planes (which has been demonstrated).
I disagree. Demonstrating a short hop in a small electric plane does not suffice as proof you can replace jet airliners with battery powered ones.

"In theory" is just a way to avoid saying the actual technical solution does not currently exist.
 
  • Like
Likes ChemAir, phinds and Lnewqban
  • #21
f95toli
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,084
577
I disagree. Demonstrating a short hop in a small electric plane does not suffice as proof you can replace jet airliners with battery powered ones.
I wasn't thinking of electrical planes. I was referring to syntethic jet fuel (say kerosene made from biomass). This is not carbon neutral today, but as far as I understand that is more about costs that technical barrier.
 
  • #22
Technically the answer is yes. If you really want to, it is possible to make -in theory- carbon neutral (assuming you have a carbon neutral source of electrical energy) fuel for all types of transport including planes (which has been demonstrated). It is not financially viable because the world economy relies of cheap transportation and these fuels are still very expensive; but -again- this is still a political question.
I suppose by 'carbon neutral' you mean 'carbon dioxide neutral'. I don't think it is possible to make CO2 neutral fuel, because the energy you get from the transition from C + O2 to CO2 is equal to the energy you need to convert CO2 to C + O2 . You could store the released CO2, but that also costs energy and this energy can also be equal to the energy released during the transition from C + O2 to CO2 . So I wonder where you got the information that it is possible to neutralize CO2 emissions.
 
  • #23
14,119
11,375
I find the entire thread nonsensical. If we will have used all fossil fuels, and they are limited, then we will work on other resources. Uranium isn't "clean" energy, so that is a separate discussion. But it will once be used up, too. Latest then we will run on solar energy input only - or fusion if we will manage to make it work. Whether this can be called "clean" is again a separate discussion. We will still have a lot of radioactive waste (the engines and tubes).

It is a simple calculation: Current energy consumption versus potentially usable solar energy. The answer is very likely a NO under the assumption of a non decreasing need and available energy density (container ships).

All the rest is politics, including the definition of "clean".

Case closed.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes Dale
  • #24
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
26,102
9,469
There are transportation uses that don't currently have technically viable non fossil fuel solutions, including large planes and ships.
Bring back blimps and clipper ships!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes jedishrfu, hmmm27, Astronuc and 2 others
  • #25
Bring back blimps and clipper ships!
With the enormous amount of containers that we now transport?
 

Related Threads on Can clean energy replace fossil fuels?

  • Last Post
20
Replies
475
Views
73K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
60
Views
13K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
21K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
9K
Top