@ati1 @benlockwood Look at the proportion of electricity coming from fossil fuels in various countries.

Over the last year, only 28% of UK electricity came from fossil fuels, and another 7.5% from biomass.

Some other European nations use even less fossil fuels already.

Studies suggest that getting to 95%+ is feasible with only renewables and short term storage.

Sure, there's a problem with the last 5%. There are a number of solutions, all of them have problems.

But biomass isn't a viable answer. You get *hundreds* of times more usable energy from a field of solar panels than from a field of energy crops.

And solar panels don't have to compete with food; they can be put onto buildings, they can be combined with animal shelters, some crops, etc, and they can be put on low grade land. But even if they did, using biofuels will use **WAY** more land.

And, sadly, it already does, thanks to the use of biofuels in transport and (occasionally) electricity.

"Holistic solutions", sure. For electricity that means a mixture of renewable sources, grid interconnectors, dynamic demand, storage etc.

And it means being sensible about demand - gigawatts of datacenters to support a bubble that is bound to burst soon and is already losing money make no sense.

But energy crops are a non-starter. Genuine agricultural waste can only provide a tiny fraction of total energy demand.

That of course means we need to stop flying. It means heat pumps instead of gas boilers for home heating. And so on. Decarbonising electricity is arguably the easy bit.

@ati1 @benlockwood I did talk about energy vs electricity.

Electricity is less than 1/5th of UK carbon emissions already.

However most of the practical solutions for transport, heating, industry, mining, agriculture etc rely on more green electricity.

There are exceptions. It's not clear whether we can electrify shipping over 3000km for instance. That sector might need some sort of e-fuels, though they'll be expensive.

And as for aviation we're just going to have to stop flying. 15% of people take 70% of flights, and they're mostly for leisure. Classic example of where degrowth demand measures can make a real difference.

But two of the biggest sectors here are ground transport and domestic heating. Both have efficient electric solutions: electric buses/bicycles/cars/ambulances/taxis/lorries/trains and heat pumps.

Other European countries have far more heat pumps installed per capita, though e.g. Germany is backtracking recently on its previous entirely sensible policy of banning gas and oil fired heating in new homes.

@ati1 @benlockwood I do not understand your point.

First, in many countries electricity is well on the way to being fossil free, though it's not there yet most places.

There currently needs to be backup for "winter wind droughts" (your "dunkerflaute"). Sure. But that's a few weeks a year at most.

One day that might be long term storage. But it's only 5% of so of the total. And we have plausible technologies - admittedly mostly not yet mature ones - for long term storage.

For the rest of the year, given short term storage (approx 4 hours - lithium or pumped storage). But the last few percent of electricity is a minor problem compared to transport, heat etc.

Transport, heat, industry, agriculture etc, which make up 80% or so of carbon emissions, will need more electricity. Some of that can be scheduled at times when there is plenty of renewable electricity ("dynamic demand").

For instance, long term heat storage (e.g. a *really big* hot water cylinder) combines dynamic demand with long term storage - but it's only viable if you have district heating anyway.

So there is more work to do, and in areas such as heating and transport major government intervention will be needed. Installing heat pumps in domestic properties, for instance, is still much more expensive than installing fossil gas boilers, though it will usually cut energy costs. And of course it vastly reduces carbon emissions, assuming you're already avoiding long haul flights and don't drive.

The market alone will not deliver what we need (e.g. replacing every gas boiler with a heat pump) in any reasonable time; government funding, regulation, and demand reduction measures in sectors such as aviation and beef, will be necessary.

None of that reduces the value of renewables or electrification.

And none of it changes the fact that biofuels are a grotesquely inefficient and damaging solution that prevents rewilding and drive up food prices.

Sure, we'll need a small amount for air ambulances and other essential aviation. And maybe for long haul (>3000km) shipping. But that's about all.

It's also insignificant in energy generation. And the only reason it's significant at all in wider energy use is fuel mandates (X% of petrol must be biofuels). Which are destructive; in carbon terms the energy crop biofuels are barely an improvement over petrol, while alternative solutions (feet, bikes, buses, and electric vehicles) are far preferable.