Can energy descent be justified by critiquing 100% renewable energy scenarios? A reply to Floyd et al.

A recent article by Floyd et al. argues a case for energy descent by critiquing renewable energy scenario modelling and arguing there is uncertainty as to whether a transition from fossil fuels entirely to renewable energy is possible. This paper addresses the part of their case that's within the framework of normal science. In it, Floyd et al. uncritically cites well-known, previously refuted criticisms of renewable energy to argue that uncertainties exist. In reply, this paper argues that energy modelling has produced valuable real-world results, the uncertainties within the framework of normal science are solvable given the political will, the critical articles cited by Floyd et al. are flawed or irrelevant, and most of the issues have been solved in practice in jurisdictions where the majority of electricity is supplied by variable renewables. There are better arguments by others for energy descent and degrowth than critiquing renewable energy. In the absence of political will to support socio-technical transitions, we enter the domain of post normal science, also discussed by Floyd et al., where the barriers to energy descent and degrowth may be much greater than barriers to 100% renewable energy.

Automated summary

This paper responds to Floyd et al.'s critique by emphasizing the importance of energy modeling and the feasibility of renewable energy. The article argues that while there are uncertainties, these issues can be resolved within the framework of normal science, and most barriers have been addressed in practice. Additionally, the paper highlights the need to support energy descent and degrowth through other arguments.