It all rather depends what you count as successful decarbonisation !  Personally I think your instinct is correct and a true removal of all use of methane and oil is likely impossible, probably by any date actually, and I am not optimistic about the potential for large scale carbon capture, except perhaps by planting trees and then burying them so they neither burn nor rot - I have yet to see a description of any closed cycle method that does not involve impractically vast volumes of lime or similar to scale to be useful at a global level.

However a substantial de-carbonisation from where we are now, to maybe 25- 30% perhaps (based on pidooma figures mind you ) should  be possible, and the use of biofuels and so on to tide us over the calm spots in the wind will help, as will long transmission lines from solar or wind facilities abroad.  Nuclear is probably part of any truly long term solution, but the grown up conversations about "do you want some nuclear  or to sit in the dark  for some weeks each year ?" are yet to be had in earnest.

none of this pessimism means it is not a target worth shooting for, just I expect us to miss somewhat.

Mike.

But we have the lowest levels of CO2 in the history of the planet. We should not decarbonise. 

What?  It's the highest it's been for 40000 years, at least.  Probably more, but it gets increasingly hard to tell beyond a certain point.

I have looked through the document and as usual the devil is in the details.

https://www.neso.energy/publications/clean-power-2030

There are many things that have to happen without enough details of how. This is from the opening summary:

We have to increase the rate of offshore wind installation between 3 and 6 times.

We have to make carbon capture and hydrogen work.

We have to increase the rate of transmission network build by a factor of four.

Even then we will still need gas:

Section 2.3 Page 30

Unabated gas generation

While levels of electricity from gas generation will reduce, as the main source of dispatchable generation at the scale needed today it will still be required for security of supply, filling shortfalls during periods of low renewable output. The portfolio of gas-fired power stations provides less than 5% of Great Britain’s generation in our clean power pathways for 2030, supplying 14-15 TWh of generation (in a typical weather year). Typically, gas would run in winter in periods with low wind and sunshine when renewable output is low. Generation could be concentrated in a few short periods through the year, with most of the fleet running over a few days delivering 1-2 TWh. Electricity from gas generation generally should not be produced for export in a clean power system. Around 35 GW of unabated gas (broadly consistent with the size of the existing fleet) will need to remain on standby for security of supply. This requirement for gas capacity will remain throughout the early 2030s until larger levels of low carbon dispatchable power and other flexible sources are able to replace it. Our analysis meets current security of supply standards. Some stakeholders raised the importance of understanding the challenge of operating and maintaining an aging gas fleet that is running less frequently. This also includes workforce considerations. Reform of current market mechanisms, such as the Capacity Market, could help enable the continued operation of unabated gas for security of supply. Some stakeholders also noted the notice periods needed to turn on the gas generation fleet and the importance of ensuring these assets remain fit to run with a very different operational profile. Some stakeholders also spoke of the need to understand the potential suitability for conversion to low carbon dispatchable plants, which influences the way plants are operated and maintained in the near term. We have considered the impact on gas networks in Section 2.5.

This section also notes the need for continuing nuclear power,

“In combination, we assume these see a reduction in Great Britain’s nuclear capacity from 6.1 GW in 2023 to 3.5-4.1 GW in 2030, with scope for more new build beyond 2030. Our baseline assumption includes Sizewell B, one unit at Hinkley Point C and a lifetime extension of one AGR unit.”

The blackout risks are also noted in section 2.9:

• Restoration:

NESO has an obligation, by 31 Dec 2026, to be able to restore 60% of British transmission demand within 24 hours and 100% within 5 days after a shutdown. Clean Power 2030 pathways will not compromise this ability. The restoration strategy will include nontraditional generation for restoration services and an annual assurance framework to ensure compliance with the Electricity System Restoration Standard (ESRS).

Figure 17 shows just how much gas has to take the load in winter and spring.

The report seems to have made Ed Milliband happy but I don’t think he has read it or is capable of understanding it.

Is it realistic, NO.

Ed Millibrain has no idea what he's doing. Without gas how many black puts would we have had this year. Adding more renewable will make things worse.

err, no we don't, firstly not according to recent history, (In the late 1700s, the air contained about 280 parts per million (ppm) of CO2. We crossed 300ppm just after world war 2, and  are now at 420 and something ppm and rising quite fast)

The last 100ppm of that rise has all been in my lifetime, which is very sobering,

climate.nasa.gov/.../

And also, perhaps more worryingly a high level according to the fossil record also. We are in territory uncharted since not long after the time of the dinosaurs, with one minor blip up to levels similar to today  since then, and that happened about 15 million years ago, took about 5 million years to recover and coincided with many extinctions.

Court high CO2 levels at your peril....

Mike.

That co2 graph shows no evidence of man made cause. Where's the down tick  when  covid stopped human activity.

https://www.climate.gov/media/14596

Yes, there was a wiggle around 2020.  But it was trivial compared with the massive increase in CO2 throughout the 20th century.

Jon Steward said:

That co2 graph shows no evidence of man made cause.

Unless I missed something, there haven't been massive numbers of volcanic eruptions that only started around 1870, or anything else that would explain it.  Can you think of any plausible natural explanation of why CO2 levels suddenly started rising so rapidly at a time that coincides with the industrial revolution?

Yes, we need to set targets that are practically achievable not the hopeful thinking of theoretical scientists.

We need to green the grid which needs the base load of 25GW to be always 24 hours a day available so nuclear must surely be the answer.  Practically, it must be affordable so revision of the over the top  H&S requirements is essential immediately not waiting to 2030.

World Population expansion is linked directly to CO2 emissions.  If we double our population every 20 years as at present then we will need twice as much energy by 2044.  

There is a theory that covers that although I am not sure how it could be proven:

The world has been steadily warming since the little ice age as this plot of the Central England Temperature shows.

Increasing temperature increases the rate of respiration of plants. Who remembers the Nuffield science experiment using test tubes containing a standard sugar yeast mixture which were closed with a ballon? They were then put in water baths at different temperatures and the CO2 generation was judged by the inflation of the ballons.

Increasing temperatures will cause an increase in CO2 levels due to the increased respiration and growth of plant life. This will lag the temperature increase by a period of probably some years to allow for plant growth.

There is an opposite question, why did temperatures start rising in  the 1700s before the industrial revolution started?