The world needs to switch away from using fossil fuels to using renewable sources of energy as soon as possible – so says a new book: No Miracles Needed – how today’s technology can save our climate and clean our air, from a Californian academic Mark Z Jacobson. Surely we can all agree with that.

More controversial is Jacobson’s list of technologies currently being pursued, but which he says are not needed – natural gas, carbon capture, blue hydrogen, bioenergy and a new wave of (admittedly low-carbon) nuclear energy. Developing these ‘miracle technologies’, as Jacobson calls them, is a dead-end, as they involve either combustion or CO₂ emissions, or may only be useful in a decade or so – too late to make a difference when near-term targets to cut carbon emissions are so severe (by 50% by 2030, and then to ‘net zero’ by 2050).

Instead, we already have and understand a range of technologies to harness, store and transmit energy from wind, solar and water sources. These could, if massively and rapidly expanded and used alongside a variety of energy storage techniques, ensure reliable electricity and heat supplies for the whole world. Failure to take this path will lead to accelerated and catastrophic climate damage and all that would follow.

Jacobson takes an uncompromising, renewables only, line. But he is clear that anything else is a diversion – and that efforts to continue to burn fossil fuels, even with lower carbon emissions – are misguided. Burning fossil fuels (and biofuels) also pollutes the air, he says, and relying on what are often imported fuels can cause security of supply problems too. And some of the other ‘miracles’ are too far from widespread use to be a solution to what is already an urgent problem.

Radical, yes, but Jacobson is not alone. Last November I wrote about a report, also from the US, that suggests that a successful energy transition to renewables is already inevitable and will be rapid. Peak fossil fuel demand from the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), says that the global use of fossil fuels has already peaked (in 2019) and now faces a future of decline.

Renewables already supplied 85% of the global growth in primary energy demand in 2019; and a higher proportion since then, says the RMI. And, as efficiency improvements curtail energy demand growth, fossil fuel demand will be squeezed between the growth of renewables and efficiency gains.

I am also reminded of energy guru, active in the Energy Institute until recently, Walt Patterson’s 2015 book, Electricity versus fire: the fight for our future, which surely influenced Jacobson’s thinking. Patterson differentiates between combustion-led forms of energy (from coal, oil and gas) and what he calls ‘fire-free’ electricity from the sun and wind.

Finally, a UK angle. Last week New Energy World published news of another academic report which concludes that the UK should also be pursuing an energy future that relies 100% on renewables – which it says would be a cheaper and lower-emissions route to net zero by 2050 than current government plans. This report says that offshore wind and long duration energy storage are the key technologies and, again, report authors are not keen on technologies that allow fossil fuels to stay in the mix.

This is all radical stuff – but there is no doubt about the need for urgent and comprehensive action to reduce carbon emissions quickly. How about this summary: ‘The carbon budget is running out. Despite the marked increase in government ambitions, carbon dioxide emissions have increased in every year since the Paris COP in 2015 (bar 2020). The longer the delay in taking decisive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a sustained basis, the greater are the likely resulting economic and social costs.’

The quote is not from Jacobson’s book, but one of the ‘key themes’ from the BP Energy Outlook 2023, released last week.

Of course, BP diverges from the academics quoted earlier. First, the oil major says that events of the last year (Russia’s invasion of Ukraine) remind us that the energy transition needs to take account of the security and affordability of energy, as well the third element of the energy trilemma: decarbonisation. And second, that as well as renewables and electrification, ‘the transition to a low-carbon world requires a range of other sources and technologies, including low-carbon hydrogen, modern bioenergy, and carbon capture and storage'.

Are the academics simply naïve? Are the (fossil) energy companies just being practical about the transition phase? This is surely the central question for us all. But, given the unquestioned urgency of the climate crisis, could we agree, at least, that planning to open new oil fields and coal mines looks wrong.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are strictly those of the author only and are not necessarily given or endorsed by or on behalf of the Energy Institute.