The decarbonisation paradox:
Achieve Net Zero thanks to fossil fuels

Nowadays, 88% of the World energy consumption depends on fossil fuels [1]. This ratio is diminishing, albeit at a slow pace of 0.3-0.4 % per year over the past 5 years, with great differences between regions. For example, the West currently improves its large footprint, in part by consuming resources that come from outside of its territory.

In parallel, social and economic growth is still on-going that also requires more energy.

In addition, a net zero goal can only be met with a massive electrification of transportation, domestic heating and cooling, industrial processes, as well as carbon capture and storage for those processes unable to be decarbonized. The transition does not only concern the supply of energy but also the many ways it is consumed.

The sun, geothermal energy and nuclear fission are practically eternal. As primary energy is not a finite resource, the transition to net zero can be considered physically feasible. However, the harvest of these primary energies is limited by other factors:

  • the total primary energy used to construct, operate and hen dismantle a new energy delivery system should not overpass the energy that it is expected to deliver over its lifetime (ERoEI>1).
    Otherwise, it needs to be “subsidized” by another energy source and remains a net consumer. Necessarily, all energy transformations are such suckers (e.g., hydrogen).
  • More wealth must be created to afford investments in these new forms of energy production and consumption. This additional wealth generation also requires energy.
  • Other resources must be available and exploited – of mineral or biological nature, land use, water, air, and landscapes.
  • Wastes will be produced that must be safely disposed of, or recycled, which also requires additional energy and resources.
  • Human resources are also limited (muscle- and brains-hours), but not the unpredictable human creativity.

This explains why the required transition cannot proceed as fast as climate alarmism claims it should (this is another controversy); and this even with the best of intentions. Also, a human life has no such exclusive purpose (a philosophical disputation).

Without emitting any judgment on the value of this objective (one more important controversy), it is a huge, Herculean one. “Quantity has a quality in itself”, Stalin is being said to have said; and about massive horrors he knew a bit.

One thing that advocates and protesters never consider seriously is that all energy required to achieve decarbonization cannot be limited to non-fossil sources. Today’s solar panels, wind turbines, etc. involve the use of large amounts of fossil resources. Otherwise, the transition would last an eternity.

In addition, all promotions of electric vehicles and heat pumps call for additional electricity that is neither available nor planned to be available before quite a long time. These promotions and subsidies are premature and irresponsible because they are truly off the mark. They are also unfair as only the wealthy can afford them, leaving the rest with the carbonized leftovers.

Whether you like them or not is not the point, fossil fuel are an indispensable mean by which the world can eventually get defossilized. This is why more exploration and production is required. To divest in this sector is also premature, irresponsible, misleading, and unfair.

To prevent any sh**storm, I solemnly declare that I have no conflict of interest with any energy-related sector (other than my modest personal and home consumption).


[1]    BP-stats-review-2022 (with data up to 2021), corrected for their assumption that non-fossil sources are consuming a “input-equivalent” primary energy which overestimates their consumption.


Merci de compartir cet article
FacebooktwitterlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterlinkedinmail

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.