This was possible because, until today, the world's most influential energy modeling agency had not produced a scenario actually aligned with the full ambition of the Paris Agreement goals. That's true no longer.
Now, after years of pressure from climate advocates, investors, businesses, and diplomats, the IEA has finally released its first ever fully-fledged energy scenario aligned with the urgent goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (°C). As with past IEA modeling efforts, this new scenario needs some fixes (more on that below), and we're still analyzing all of its implications. But one conclusion in particular stands out to us at Oil Change International (OCI).
In its Summary for Policymakers, in a bolded headline, the IEA finds that, "There is no need for investment in new fossil fuel supply in our net zero pathway."
They add, "Beyond projects already committed as of 2021, there are no new oil and gas fields approved for development in our pathway, and no new coal mines or mine extensions are required."
This is huge. An agency that has consistently boosted new oil and gas development in its flagship annual World Energy Outlook (WEO) is now backing up the global call to stop the expansion of fossil fuel extraction.
The Oil and Gas Industry Has Lost a Powerful Shield
Big Oil and Gas companies and the governments of fossil fuel-producing countries have lost one of their key covers for claiming that developing new oil and gas reserves is fully consistent with their commitments to "net zero" or the Paris Agreement. People around the world who have been demanding that governments, banks, and other financial institutions stop enabling the expansion of oil, gas, and coal extraction can point to the IEA's "authoritative" analysis reaching the same conclusion.
Of course, the IEA is behind the curve. OCI has been analyzing the disconnect between new fossil fuel development and the Paris goals since 2016. We found then that already operating or under construction oil and gas fields and coal mines contain enough fossil fuel reserves to push the world well beyond 1.5 degrees of warming. The implication was as clear then as it is now: The world must stop digging new holes, and focus instead on managing a rapid and equitable wind down of already developed extraction.
With the IEA's fully Paris-aligned scenario now saying the same, companies like Shell and Total can no longer comfortably point to the IEA to defend their plans to expand gas extraction. The UK government, which helped commission this new IEA report, will have a tougher time claiming that its decision to keep the door open to new licenses for offshore exploration and extraction fits with its Paris commitment. In fact, IEA director Dr. Fatih Birol has already today confronted the UK over its continued support for oil, gas, and coal expansion and investment. And major fossil banks like JPMorgan Chase and Citi have a new minimum baseline for "stress testing" their portfolios and the legitimacy of their net zero plans.
A Job Half Done: The IEA Must Put 1.5°C at the Heart of the WEO
The IEA finally embracing a 1.5°C-aligned pathway as "the energy future we all need" is a major milestone. But the IEA must do much more beyond today's report to prove its climate credibility and commitment, particularly given the agency is positioning itself to play an advisory role at COP26.
To guide policies and investments towards a future fully aligned with the Paris goals, the IEA must go beyond developing a 1.5°C-aligned scenario and position it at the heart of the WEO. It is the WEO that decision makers look to year after year to guide trillions in public and private capital, and which the IEA itself calls the "gold standard of energy analysis."
Dr. Birol made a welcome announcement last week, committing that this new 1.5°C-aligned scenario will be "integral" to WEO 2021 and future WEOs. But we don't know yet what that will mean in practice.
In WEO 2019, the IEA dismissed a 1.5°C-aligned energy transformation as "very difficult and very expensive" and spent only seven of 600 plus pages discussing it. WEO 2020 included a short 1.5°C-aligned energy "case" to 2030, the building block of today's report. However, that case was rarely mentioned outside of the chapter devoted to it. The summaries of other chapters still primarily focused on the Stated Energy Policies Scenario (STEPS), a pathway towards catastrophic levels of global warming.
The scenario that the IEA positions as the central scenario in the WEO commonly becomes what governments and investors use as their default for energy decision making, guiding trillions of dollars of investment. The IEA must seize this moment to transform its flagship WEO report, putting a 1.5°C scenario at the center, and focusing each headline, chapter, and graph on the implications of it.
Risky Modeling Choices Must Be Fixed
The IEA also needs to revisit and fix risky and bad choices within its modeling between now and WEO 2021. Below we provide an overview of ways in which the IEA must improve its scenario to drive the world towards the bold and just energy solutions we need, based on initial analysis from OCI and partner groups.
Underestimating wind and solar. While the IEA closing the door on new fossil fuel extraction is a welcome shift, the IEA's new "Net Zero Energy" roadmap continues to underestimate the growth potential and cost declines of solar and wind power, a chronic problem at the IEA. Kingsmill Bond, an energy transition expert at Carbon Tracker Initiative, has noted that the IEA's scenario forecasts rapid solar capacity growth until 2030 (22 percent per year). But that growth drops to 8 percent per year to 2040 and 3 percent per year to 2050. The latest scenario by the Energy Transitions Commission shows solar power providing twice as much energy in 2050 compared to the IEA's new scenario (27-35 terawatts vs 14.5 terawatts).
As a consequence of underselling wind and solar, the IEA makes room for dirty, riskier alternatives to meet energy demand.
Gambling on CCS. The IEA assumes that carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects will wipe out 1.6 billion tonnes (Gt) of CO2 pollution as soon as 2030. The IEA admits that CCS projects only have capacity to sequester 0.04 Gt of emissions at present. Most of that capacity is currently devoted to pumping more oil out of the ground. Relying on CCS to grow almost 4,000 percent over the next nine years is wildly optimistic given the technology's poor track record and failure to take off to date. It's also an irresponsible gamble. The IEA's own report acknowledges that, with greater investment in already proven renewable energy technologies, it wouldn't be necessary to expand fossil fuel-based CCS. This alternative "Low CCUS Case" mentioned in the report should be the base assumption.
Clinging to fossil gas. By gambling on a massive scale-up of CCS taking away some of its emissions, the IEA's 1.5°C scenario also makes room for dangerous levels of fossil gas reliance this decade. In the IEA's model, gas does not peak until 2025 and declines by only 6 percent below 2020 levels by 2030. By contrast, the 2020 Production Gap Report, released by the United Nations Environment Programme and a consortium of global research organisations, shows gas declining by a median of 3 percent per year between now and 2030 in 1.5°C-consistent pathways. Moreover, even if the carbon emissions from burning fossil gas to produce electricity or hydrogen are effectively captured, that will not remove the health and pollution impacts communities face where the gas is being extracted.
Projecting dangerous growth in bioenergy. Fossil fuel production and use should be replaced with truly clean energy solutions. Bioenergy does not fit that bill. Yet, the IEA's scenario relies on a 65 percent increase in bioenergy from 2020 to 2050, increasing the total land area devoted to bioenergy production by 25% to 410 million hectares in 2050, an area the size of India and Pakistan combined. Growth in bioenergy production is already linked to land grabs and human rights violations, food insecurity, and loss of biodiversity. As Hannah Mowat, campaigns coordinator with Fern, puts it, "Instead of burning trees for energy, we should focus on cutting fossil fuel use, maximising energy efficiency and increasing renewables such as solar, wind, heat pumps and geothermal."
Higher Ambition Matters
All in all, today's 1.5°C report release is a major step forward for the IEA. Its first effort to model a 1.5-aligned energy future makes a clear case that this transformation is critical and achievable, requires deep emissions cuts by 2030 and a "huge decline" in fossil fuels, and, if done in a just and inclusive way, would improve people's well-being and livelihoods all over the world.
At the same time, we can't grade the IEA only against its past performance. The ultimate measure is whether the agency drives forward solutions that are bold enough to stem the climate crisis and protect the communities on its frontlines, not the polluters responsible for causing it. In this regard, the IEA has more homework to complete.
But now that the head of the IEA is proclaiming that, "The world does not need any new investments in oil, coal or gas," it will be a whole lot harder for governments, oil and gas companies, banks, and insurers to justify their own support for continued expansion. And that is undoubtedly a huge win for the climate.
Reposted with permission from Oil Change International.
- Coronavirus Economic Recovery to Drive Second-Highest CO2 ... ›
- The IEA Comes up Short on Climate (Again) - EcoWatch ›
If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.
Factors That Influence How Many Solar Panels You Need
To determine how many solar panels are needed to power a house, several factors must be considered. For example, if there are two identical homes powered by solar energy in California and New York, with exactly the same energy usage, the California home will need fewer solar panels because the state gets more sunshine.
The following are some of the most important factors to consider when figuring out many solar panels you need:
Size of Your Home and Available Roof Space
Larger homes tend to consume more electricity, and they generally need more solar panels. However, they also have the extra roof space necessary for larger solar panel installations. There may be exceptions to this rule — for example, a 2,000-square-foot home with new Energy Star appliances may consume less power than a 1,200-square-foot home with older, less-efficient devices.
When it comes to installation, solar panels can be placed on many types of surfaces. However, your roof conditions may limit the number of solar panels your home can handle.
For example, if you have a chimney, rooftop air conditioning unit or skylight, you'll have to place panels around these fixtures. Similarly, roof areas that are covered by shadows are not suitable for panels. Also, most top solar companies will not work on asbestos roofs due to the potential health risks for installers.
Amount of Direct Sunlight in Your Area
Where there is more sunlight available, there is more energy that can be converted into electricity. The yearly output of each solar panel is higher in states like Arizona or New Mexico, which get a larger amount of sunlight than less sunny regions like New England.
The World Bank has created solar radiation maps for over 200 countries and regions, including the U.S. The map below can give you an idea of the sunshine available in your location. Keep in mind that homes in sunnier regions will generally need fewer solar panels.
© 2020 The World Bank, Source: Global Solar Atlas 2.0, Solar resource data: Solargis.
Number of Residents and Amount of Energy You Use
Households with more members normally use a higher amount of electricity, and this also means they need more solar panels to increase energy production.
Electricity usage is a very important factor, as it determines how much power must be generated by your solar panel system. If your home uses 12,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year and you want to go 100% solar, your system must be capable of generating that amount of power.
Type of Solar Panel and Efficiency Rating
High-efficiency panels can deliver more watts per square foot, which means you need to purchase fewer of them to reach your electricity generation target. There are three main types of solar panels: monocrystalline, polycrystalline and thin-film. In general, monocrystalline panels are the most efficient solar panels, followed closely by polycrystalline panels. Thin-film panels are the least efficient.
How to Estimate the Number of Solar Panels You Need
So, based on these factors, how many solar panels power a home? To roughly determine how many solar panels you need without a professional assessment, you'll need to figure out two basic things: how much energy you use and how much energy your panels will produce.
According to the latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the average American home uses 10,649 kWh of energy per year. However, this varies depending on the state. For example:
- Louisiana homes have the highest average consumption, at 14,787 kWh per year.
- Hawaii homes have the lowest average consumption, at 6,298 kWh per year.
To more closely estimate how much energy you use annually, add up the kWh reported on your last 12 power bills. These numbers will fluctuate based on factors like the size of your home, the number of residents, your electricity consumption habits and the energy efficiency rating of your home devices.
Solar Panel Specific Yield
After you determine how many kWh of electricity your home uses annually, you'll want to figure out how many kWh are produced by each of your solar panels during a year. This will depend on the specific type of solar panel, roof conditions and local peak sunlight hours.
In the solar power industry, a common metric used to estimate system capacity is "specific yield" or "specific production." This can be defined as the annual kWh of energy produced for each kilowatt of solar capacity installed. Specific yield has much to do with the amount of sunlight available in your location.
You can get a better idea of the specific yield that can be achieved in your location by checking reliable sources like the World Bank solar maps or the solar radiation database from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
To estimate how many kW are needed to run a house, you can divide your annual kWh consumption by the specific yield per kilowatt of solar capacity. For example, if your home needs 15,000 kWh of energy per year, and solar panels have a specific yield of 1,500 kW/kW in your location, you will need a system size of around 10 kilowatts.
Paradise Energy Solutions has also come up with a general formula to roughly ballpark the solar panel system size you need. You can simply divide your annual kWh by 1,200 and you will get the kilowatts of solar capacity needed. So, if the energy consumption reported on your last 12 power bills adds up to 24,000 kWh, you'll need a 20 kW system (24,000 / 1,200 = 20).
So, How Many Solar Panels Do I Need?
Once you know the system size you need, you can check your panel wattage to figure how many panels to purchase for your solar array. Multiply your system size by 1,000 to obtain watts, then divide this by the individual wattage of each solar panel.
Most of the best solar panels on the market have an output of around 330W to 360W each. The output of less efficient panels can be as low as 250W.
So, if you need a 10-kW solar installation and you're buying solar panels that have an output of 340W, you'll need 30 panels. Your formula will look like this: 10,000W / 340W = 29.4 panels.
If you use lower-efficiency 250-watt solar panels, you'll need 40 of them (10,000W / 250W = 40) panels.
Keep in mind that, although the cost of solar panels is lower if you choose a lower-efficiency model over a pricier high-efficiency one, the total amount you pay for your solar energy system may come out to be the same or higher because you'll have to buy more panels.
How Much Roof Space Do You Need for a Home Solar System?
After you estimate how many solar panels power a house, the next step is calculating the roof area needed for their installation. The exact dimensions may change slightly depending on the manufacturer, but a typical solar panel for residential use measures 65 inches by 39 inches, or 17.6 square feet. You will need 528 square feet of roof space to install 30 panels, and 704 square feet to install 40.
In addition to having the required space for solar panels, you'll also need a roof structure that supports their weight. A home solar panel weighs around 20 kilograms (44 pounds), which means that 30 of them will add around 600 kilograms (1,323 pounds) to your roof.
You will notice that some solar panels are described as residential, while others are described as commercial. Residential panels have 60 individual solar cells, while commercial panels have 72 cells, but both types will work in any building. Here are a few key differences:
- Commercial solar panels produce around 20% more energy, thanks to their extra cells.
- Commercial panels are also more expensive, as well as 20% larger and heavier.
- Residential 60-cell solar panels are easier to handle in home installations, which saves on labor, and their smaller size helps when roof dimensions are limited.
Some of the latest solar panel designs have half-cells with a higher efficiency, which means they have 120 cells instead of 60 (or 144 instead of 72). However, this doesn't change the dimensions of the panels.
Conclusion: Are Solar Panels Worth it for Your Home?
Solar panels produce no carbon emissions while operating. However, the EIA estimates fossil fuels still produce around 60% of the electricity delivered by U.S. power grids.
Although the initial investment in solar panels is steep, renewable energy systems make sense financially for many homeowners. According to the Department of Energy, they have a typical payback period of about 10 years, while their rated service life is up to 30 years. After recovering your initial investment, you will have a source of clean and free electricity for about two decades.
Plus, even if you have a large home or find you need more solar panels than you initially thought you would, keep in mind that there are both federal and local tax credits, rebates and other incentives to help you save on your solar power system.
To get a free, no-obligation quote and see how much a solar panel system would cost for your home, fill out the 30-second form below.
In Oregon, a powerful coalition of tribes, landowners and activists has been resisting the proposed Jordan Cove LNG and Pacific Connector pipeline project for years, pressuring Oregon's Gov. Kate Brown to block the project. Earlier this month, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality denied a crucial water permit for the huge fracked gas project, dealing it a "potentially fatal blow," in the words of the coalition.
This was followed by a major win in New York last week, as Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration denied a water permit for the Northeast Supply Enhancement gas pipeline, better known as the "Williams Pipeline." The rejection of this permit follows a string of important victories for the anti-pipeline movement in New York, sends Williams back to the drawing board, and increases pressure on New Jersey's Gov. Phil Murphy to deny permits for that state's section of the fracked gas pipeline.
In Minnesota, Gov. Tim Walz and Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan have the chance to show the same kind of real leadership by strongly opposing the massive Line 3 tar sands pipeline that would threaten Minnesota's water, impose on treaty rights and wreck the climate. But they're not going to take action without hearing from thousands of people from all corners of Minnesota and from across the country.
In April, Donald Trump signed two executive orders aimed at gutting clean water protections, silencing people's voices and making it easier for fossil fuel companies to build dangerous pipelines like Line 3. These executive orders and the big win in Oregon are clear signs that our strategy is working. Nationwide, people-powered resistance is raising the bar for climate leadership and keeping fossil fuels in the ground.
Photo credit: Emma Fiala
The Line 3 pipeline would cross over 200 bodies of water in Minnesota, including two crossings of the iconic Mississippi River. Allowing Line 3 to move forward would put Indigenous rights, precious water and the climate at deadly risk. Pipeline owner Enbridge wants to force Line 3 from Alberta to Wisconsin through the sacred wild rice beds and treaty territory of the Anishinaabe people, crossing multiple Canadian provinces and three U.S. states.
Gov. Walz and Lt. Gov. Flanagan have shown willingness to question Line 3's permits before, but they've yet to take a definitive stand against the pipeline and commit to stopping it. Walz has said that Line 3 needs a "social permit" in order to be built — so now it's the job of the indigenous and climate justice movements to make it clear that the public is strongly opposed to this tar sands project.
Thousands of people have already signed petitions, made calls to the governor's office, and shown up in person to urge Gov. Walz and Lt. Gov. Flanagan to "#StopLine3" since they took office earlier this year, but more pressure is still needed. Oil Change is joining local partners in Minnesota and other national groups to make one thing very clear: Climate leadership in Minnesota means that Line 3 must be canceled for good.
In light of reports on what's needed to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, preventing tar sands oil from being extracted and burned is more crucial than ever. Our new report on U.S. extraction, released in January, makes it clear that continued oil and gas production could wreck the world's chances of achieving climate goals. It's time for a rapid and just phase-out of fossil fuel extraction if we're going to meet these goals, and that starts with rejecting dirty projects of the past like Line 3, and investing in real, community-led solution for a clean-energy future that respects Indigenous rights and Mother Earth.
Who Is Gov. Tim Walz and Why Is He So Important for the Climate? @Tim_Walz @GovTimWalz @lakotalaw @ienearth#climatechange #minnesota#tarsands#pipelines#water
— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) March 6, 2019
https://t.co/gSITiycTJD
Reposted with permission from our media associate Oil Change International.
- Dirty Pipelines Are Bad Investments and a Reputational Risk for Banks ›
- New York Rejects Williams Pipeline Over Water, Climate Concerns - EcoWatch ›
- Indigenous and Climate Leaders Outraged Over Minnesota Permits for Line 3 Pipeline - EcoWatch ›
- Indigenous-Led Water Protectors Take Direct Action Against Minnesota Tar Sands Pipeline - EcoWatch ›
- Climate and Indigenous Protesters Across 4 Continents Pressure Banks to #DefundLine3 ›
A new study released Wednesday by Oil Change International and 17 partner organizations makes it clear that managing a rapid and equitable decline of U.S. fossil fuel production must be a core component of any comprehensive climate policy.
Here's a breakdown of what we find in the report:
Existing Fossil Fuel Projects Are Too Much Already
Previous analysis of the global disconnect between fossil fuel industry plans and climate goals underlies our U.S. report. Existing oil and gas fields and coal mines around the world already contain enough carbon to push the world beyond the goals of the Paris agreement—and well beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius (°C) of temperature rise (Figure 1). There is already no room for new fossil fuel development anywhere in the world. Meeting the Paris agreement goals requires stopping new exploration and extraction projects and managing the decline of the fossil fuel industry over the next few decades.
The U.S., as one of the world's largest extractors and emitters of fossil fuels—and as a wealthy country with the resources to manage a rapid and just transition to renewable energy—should be moving first and fastest to phase out fossil fuel production. Yet …
… U.S. Oil and Gas Extraction Is Rapidly Expanding
Our analysis shows that the U.S. is set to drive nearly 60 percent of global growth in oil and gas supply between now and 2030—expanding production by four times the amount of any other country (Figure 4). By contrast, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s recent Special Report on 1.5°C of Global Warming warns that the world needs to cut carbon emissions nearly in half by 2030 to keep warming within that limit.
Between 2018 and 2050—the time span over which fossil fuel emissions should be zeroing out—new U.S. drilling projects could unleash 120 billion tons of new carbon pollution (Figure 5). If left unchecked, this would amount to the world's largest burst of new carbon emissions from oil and gas development through 2050. It would be equivalent to the lifetime carbon pollution of nearly 1,000 average U.S. coal-fired power plants.
To summarize: At precisely the time when the world must rapidly decarbonize to avoid climate disaster, the U.S. is moving further and faster than any other country to expand oil and gas extraction.
If not stopped, this continued drilling spree would be a disaster not only for the climate but for communities on its front lines. Our analysis indicates that communities living atop and around the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico and the Appalachian Basin underlying Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia face the biggest onslaught of new drilling (Figure 9).
Upwards of 90 percent of the projected drilling expansion analyzed in our report would depend on fracking. This would bring with it more air and water pollution, health risks, heavy trucks taking over roadways and growing competition for water. It would mean more dangerous pipelines threatening the sovereign land and water sources of Indigenous peoples. It would mean more communities being entangled in a volatile industry that has no viable future on a livable planet.
What Does Real Climate Leadership Require?
Over the past decade plus, community-led movements have come together across North America to fight new pipelines, fracking rigs, export terminals and, increasingly, petrochemical plants. They've won crucial victories: Case in point, while still being pushed by its Canadian backers and the Trump administration, the Keystone XL pipeline still isn't built.
But too few U.S. politicians have used their own power to stop this spread of fossil fuel infrastructure and extraction. This is a major reason the oil and gas industry is in a position to drill us towards climate disaster. The industry is riding high off of decades of compounding policy decisions to lease federal and state lands and waters for extraction, to approve permits for new wells, pipelines and other infrastructure, to leave fracking woefully unregulated, to maintain billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded subsidies, and, at the end of 2015, to lift the four-decade-long ban on crude oil exports.
The U.S. is now the world's largest oil and gas producer and, increasingly, dumping our excess oil and gas into global markets, which drives down prices and undermines policies aimed at reducing demand for fossil fuels.
This report should be a wake-up call for elected officials and policymakers at all levels of U.S. government who consider themselves to be climate leaders. Real climate leadership requires decisively saying "no" to further expansion of the fossil fuel industry while enthusiastically saying "yes" to a renewable energy transition on the pace and scale of a Green New Deal.
Our report distills this into a five-point checklist for U.S. officials:
- Ban new leases or permits for new fossil fuel exploration, production and infrastructure (and reject existing proposals in the meantime);
- Plan for the phase-out of existing fossil fuel projects in a way that prioritizes environmental justice;
- End subsidies and other public finance for the fossil fuel industry;
- Champion a Green New Deal that ensures a just transition to 100 percent renewable energy; and
- Reject the influence of fossil fuel money over U.S. energy policy.
Every decision around a new fossil fuel lease, permit, subsidy or setback is an opportunity for U.S. politicians to stop fossil fuel expansion and champion a just transition to an economy powered by clean energy. The U.S. fossil fuel industry is gearing up to swing a giant wrecking ball through global climate goals. U.S. politicians cannot afford to stand by and let them … or worse yet, help swing it.
Trump’s NAFTA Replacement Ignores Climate Change, Favors Fossil Fuel Interests https://t.co/E67mHORPoV https://t.co/u6EnWCdYym— Renewable Search (@Renewable Search)1538482509.0
Reposted with permission from our media associate Oil Change International.
- Fossil Fuel Industry Outspent Environmentalists and Renewables by ... ›
- U.S. Gas Industry Lobbies Against Buildings Going Electric - EcoWatch ›