The even bigger questions imo are steel and concrete, both of which we need in massive quantities to support a clean energy buildout.

One 2.4 MW wind turbine requires in the neighborhood of 240 tons of steel, 4.8 tons of aluminum, and 2.4 tons of copper. https://twitter.com/atrembath/status/1252304044980232192
That's an amount of steel you'd need for 240 cars, per turbine.

We still have no solutions for mass prod. of green steel. This is a critical need that could cut the emissions associated with a clean energy buildout (which would still be worth it, green steel or not)
...not to mention all of the other things we use steel and concrete for.

Not knocking on renewables, I want to stress. Nuclear, transmission, batteries, DAC - whatever your pet climate solution, it probably requires a lot of steel and concrete.
Even the newly updated @ProjectDrawdown roadmap offers few fixes:

"A number of industrial processes, such as fabricating steel, require very high temperatures that, for now, rely
on burning fossil fuels. This sector is likely to see
critical new solutions in the years ahead."
The position that we don't have low-carbon solutions for every sector of society is just objectively true. There are just four mentions of "steel" in @ProjectDrawdown's roadmap, which instead offsets the remaining hard-to-decarbonize sectors via natural climate solutions.
But surely we can agree a breakthrough in more economical, flexible electrolysis to produce hydrogen during renewable electricity peaks would make bending down the emissions curve easier, while also reducing the heavy lifting one would otherwise require from the natural world?
Truly low-carbon steel/concrete would also cut associated air pollution emissions, providing further environmental and public health co-benefits over continued fossil fuel-reliant production.
Decarbonizing industrial heat would also make recycling cleaner and less carbon-intensive. We're now aiming for a battery lifetime of 10-15 yrs for EVs. Utility-scale solar panels have a lifetime of 25-40 yrs, wind turbines ~20 yrs according to the NREL:

https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech-footprint.html
Everyone agrees that decarbonization will be a project requiring ambitious efforts this decade, sustained for at least the next 30 yrs. Having more environmentally-friendly solutions for recycling what we've built or will build is also a win-win.
Having solutions for deep decarb may also speed transitions. @TimMLatimer had a great thread on how once we get EVs right, the oil industry might still produce gasoline at low cost since they still need to refine diesel for those harder-to-green vehicles. https://twitter.com/TimMLatimer/status/1246152862805172230?s=20
So while trucks, non-roadgoing support vehicles, agricultural eqmt, ferries, etc... might be small fry in terms of total world emissions, innovating clean solutions for these applications could cut diesel demand and facilitate the transition towards passenger EVs
To conclude, I am in no way advocating that we wait for silver bullets before we do anything else. Please deploy now and at scale, seriously.

That said, continued research and spending on innovation for decarbonization areas where we are weak can still pay off big. That's all.
You can follow @wang_seaver.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: