The issue currently is that we have gone from around 88% fossil fuels to 83% fossil fuels in the last ~2 decades.
Electricity and power make up around 20% of global use, with manufacturing taking a portion of the pie closer to 30%. Migrating those systems is a very large hurdle, but I'll admit that whilst doing some investing around this recently, it seems to be a clear target by many organisations. Migrating traditional manufacturing processes for chemicals and base materials is going to have a massive impact on the overall situation.
In saying all this, the idea that we will be anything close to decarbonised by 2030 is a joke of epic proportions, the scale of the problem is mind boggling. Not that that means we shouldn't try, as it's a very necessary goal. But I actually think being more realistic about the scale of the issue is more likely to generate more interest in crafting fixes, as opposed to these bullshit goals that in many ways, make the problem sound solveable within the timeline. Which it isn't.
Decarbonizing doesn't mean not using oil, it means not releasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, correct?
This seems to be more about moving manufacturing to use renewable electricity sources, which should be pretty easy (just get a different contract and pay slightly more).
Decarbonising means moving away from sources of energy with extreme levels of CO2 output.
I like your thought on this, but it really is not that simple, however great it would be if it was. You get into issues of energy density very quickly, and hard industries requires lots of heat, which the conversion rate for electricity is very inefficient, necessitating other forms of energy source. It's nowhere near as simple as just "switching provider", you can't smelt steel with solar power.
For the big 5 products, steel, plastic, cement, ammonia and icantrememberthelastone, you have a bunch of processes that require energy densities that are fundamentally different to residential tier appliances etc that can be provided by solar, wind etc. And for some of these products, which are integral to worldwide economies, there really aren't feasible replacements.
I understand the environmental reasons for a company to do this, it’s very important and would you happen to know the business incentives for them doing this?
IMO (and I'm talking from a perspective here that I believe aligns with their incentives) it's basically at this stage rational self interest, and I'm not talking about survival lol. Straight up makes sense investment wise because companies are starting to be shamed (rightfully so) for not being green, so there's a business case for increased investment returns on your capital, also with some of the carbon credit type deals (an area I have little knowledge of other than it being "important"), being able to trumpet cleaner production processes means that your product will be chosen over another. I figure there's a fundamental shift in the market coming, and I (and others who want to see their investments grow and not shrink) want to be on the wave.
Most stick listed companies have similar actions underway or will do so shortly. The market will demand it. A good thing in general however there will be green washing...
Electricity and power make up around 20% of global use, with manufacturing taking a portion of the pie closer to 30%. Migrating those systems is a very large hurdle, but I'll admit that whilst doing some investing around this recently, it seems to be a clear target by many organisations. Migrating traditional manufacturing processes for chemicals and base materials is going to have a massive impact on the overall situation.
In saying all this, the idea that we will be anything close to decarbonised by 2030 is a joke of epic proportions, the scale of the problem is mind boggling. Not that that means we shouldn't try, as it's a very necessary goal. But I actually think being more realistic about the scale of the issue is more likely to generate more interest in crafting fixes, as opposed to these bullshit goals that in many ways, make the problem sound solveable within the timeline. Which it isn't.