Read on Twitter
A big oil-funded energy-economic model from Princeton has been making the rounds lately, hoping to influence the Biden admin.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, it finds we can decarbonize more cheaply using fossil fuels than not. We should be skeptical. (thread)
https://environmenthalfcentury.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf331/files/2020-12/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf
Perhaps unsurprisingly, it finds we can decarbonize more cheaply using fossil fuels than not. We should be skeptical. (thread)
https://environmenthalfcentury.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf331/files/2020-12/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf
A lot of models like this look very complicated - and therefore "science-y." And of course, part of the reason they're effective at influencing policy is because they look so complicated - no one wants to actually take the trouble to look under the hood.
But they're often not as rigorous as they portray themselves to be. To be completely fair, I haven't yet thumbed through all 345 slides of the report. But an important one is Slide 34, showing the energy mix for the different scenarios the study purports to have found costs for.
Turns out, the authors of the report found that using fossil fuels plus carbon capture & sequestration would be cheaper than replacing fossil fuels entirely with renewables. That should raise some eyebrows. (& don't forget, many of the authors are supported by fossil companies.)
Also, the funders for the report were BP & Exxon (apparently the only ones). Does this mean we should take a closer look at the report's conclusions & not accept them at face value? Does it mean the authors bear a higher burden of proof? Yes, absolutely. https://environmenthalfcentury.princeton.edu/research/2020/big-affordable-effort-needed-america-reach-net-zero-emissions-2050-princeton-study
Anyway, back to the report's conclusion that fossil fuel plus CCS is cheaper than replacing fossil completely with renewables. Obviously the cost assumptions for the different technologies is key to that conclusion. So let's look at those on slide 27. https://environmenthalfcentury.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf331/files/2020-12/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf
Many of the key cost assumptions look highly speculative. Take direct air capture. The assumption is that it won't be available until 2035, but after that, it'll be $2200/ton CO2/year capital cost (nothing on op-ex apparently).
Making hydrogen using natural gas with carbon capture for the produced CO2 will be $800/kW. CO2 transport and storage will be around $35/ton CO2. And so on.
Here's the problem though. Behind all those scientific-looking numbers, the main conclusion of this report - that it's cheapest to decarbonize if at least some fossil fuel plus CCS is used - appears to be largely dependent on CCS being sufficiently cheap.
Though CCS has existed for decades in a technical or demonstration sense, it doesn't in a commercial sense b/c it's too expensive.
So for the authors to guess the cost of commercial systems that don't exist - & say *they* will be the cheapest option - seems highly speculative.
So for the authors to guess the cost of commercial systems that don't exist - & say *they* will be the cheapest option - seems highly speculative.
Meanwhile, the authors assume the cost of solar will drop by less than 50% between now & 2050. That could be, although solar achieved the same cost drop in just the last 5 years or so. Again, assumptions look potentially biased in favor of fossil funders. https://www.seia.org/solar-industry-research-data
One thing is certain: Much more scrutiny needs to be placed on these energy-economic models being funded by the fossil industry & promoted to the public & policymakers as objective science. Despite their opacity, they influence policy and may serve to prolong fossil fuel use.
