Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Today’s Clean Tech Could Power the World by 2050

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 01:34 PM
Original message
Today’s Clean Tech Could Power the World by 2050
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/clean-energy-2050/

Using existing technologies, the world could convert almost entirely to green power by mid-century — and it wouldn’t cost much more than people now spend on energy, says a new analysis of global energy use.

The conclusions contradict the notion that green energy is still too small-scale, inefficient and expensive to support civilization.

“It’s really an optimization problem,” said study co-author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University civil engineer. “There’s no magic, you don’t need new technologies for most of it. It’s just a different way of thinking of the system.”

In two papers in press in Energy Policy (.pdf), Jacobson and coauthor Mark Delucchi of the University of California, Davis outline a plan to power the planet using renewables.

They ranked the alternatives by comparing efficiency with health and environmental benefits. Wind, solar, geothermal and water power came out on top, and biofuels on bottom. Nuclear power fell in-between, as did coal burned using carbon-capturing smokestacks. These were then evaluated in terms of costs, materials and reliability.

<more>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. what's wrong with algae based biofuels?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. It's coming along. Solar wasn't competetive five years ago, either. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. Moving the goalposts? Last time is was 2030.
Edited on Wed Feb-02-11 02:49 PM by joshcryer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Different studies, different dates - same conclusion
Gooooooooaaaallllllll!!!

yup

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Same conclusion?
that's odd... it sure looks like he now expects it to take twice as long as he did just a couple years ago.

Will he say that it might be possible by 2100 if we ask him again in two or three years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Um, yeah. They're very familiar with numbers in the soothsaying squad. 2050 is the same as 2030
is the same as 2100, is the same as http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15043-world-can-halt-fossil-fuel-use-by-2090.html">2090.

The latter number comes from the scientifically illiterate flakes at Greenpeace.

The common denominator for all these putative dates is that all the soothsayers in question will be dead when the date comes up, and the people who will be suffering from the ignorance of the faith based soothsayers in question haven't been born yet.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-11 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. While they are different studies they do use the same material.
Only this study, at least the part 1 that I saw, says "2030 isn't a big deal, we'll move it out to 2050 and just make all new energy renewable."

In part the United States is doing that.

But it results in us still emitting 75% our coal in 2035.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
4. This looks like the $100 Trillion plan
Over 40 years instead of 20, it won't be as difficult a pill to swallow. But, I still have to read the papers.

No matter, I think J&D are whistling in the graveyard. We're going to get deep-shale Natural Gas, at the highest price possible, whether we like it or not.

--d!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
5. This validates yet again the claim that "nuclear is a must have" is false
Edited on Wed Feb-02-11 05:40 PM by kristopher
“From what I saw, it’s carefully done,” “If you take it as a back-of-the-envelope, high level, envisioning the future of what we want to create, this is a good example of that kind of work. I think it’s credibly done.”
-Jonathan Koomey
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory


“I think it’s generally true that one finds there are no absolutely insurmountable technical barriers...(t)he question isn’t fundamentally a technical one.”
Ryan Wiser
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory


I concur.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Repeating a falsehood isn't the same thing as "validating" it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. No, this demonstrates that anti-nukes can't make a statement without soothsaying.
The um, dangerous fossil fuel funded liar wrote thusly in 1976:


And, at the further end of the spectrum, projections for 2000 being considered by the "Demand Panel" of a major U.S. National Research Council study, as of mid-1976, ranged as low as about 54 quads of fuels (plus 16 of solar energy).


Amory "Anti-nuke" Lovins, "The Road Not Taken" Foreign Affairs, Fall, 1976, page 76.

Um, solar energy's actual output is here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table1.html

Um, only in fantasy land, is 0.097 = 16.

The fact is that soothsaying anti-nukes have been delusional for so many decades now that it is easy to check up on the status of their previous stupid claims.

I note that in 1980, the deluded dangerous fossil fuel funded anti-nuke Amory Lovins predicted the immanent demise of nuclear energy, or, failing that nuclear war.

Nuclear energy has increased by a factor of 400% since that time, remaining for the entire time, the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy.

China has announced plans to equal the nuclear energy production of the rest of the planet in the next 40 years.

Apparently they don't attend seances. They do something called "science," with which predictably, anti-nukes are completely unfamiliar.

Have a nice day tomorrow.

I would suggest as an intellectual exercise that tomorrow, our anti-nukes try to construct a sentance without the word "could," but that would be useless, since there are zero anti-nukes who are intellectuals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-11 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. In 1980 we had a plan but your man raygun got in the way of that
he and his hench men like cheney for instance put a stop to all the planning and effort a very capable President Carter had set us on. Destroyed it as fast as they could. We are where we are today because of that not because Amory Lovins made a mistake in stating what he did back then.
But of course you are like a duck that wakes up in a new world every morning so you don't know that so you continue with this anti lovins bullshit like it was something that was good for your cause but being the narrow minded one that you are you can't see that. Stupid is a stupid does

Did you walk to work today or did you take the hiway and drive a big suv? My bet would be on the latter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-11 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. It is never a technical one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-11 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
13. "It’s just a different way of thinking of the system.”
This is absolutely correct.

The "different way" is the difference between producing power when you want to use it... and changing your mindset to using power only when it's available. IOW... learning to live without.

It's the move from being on county water/sewer and everyone clustering to share wells. If there isn't a whole lot of water this week... you take sponge baths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-11 05:32 AM
Response to Original message
14. Ah ... the power of "could" ...
> Using existing technologies, the world convert almost entirely to green
> power by mid-century

It enables all kinds of wild fantasy to wriggle through the grill of reality,
partly through deliberate hand-waving to muddy the water of facts and partly
by ignoring the other aspects that have to happen to enable the "could"
to become true.


Good old Jacobson, preaching the Good News, full of hope & fluffy bunnies ...
> “It’s really an optimization problem,” said study co-author Mark Jacobson,
> a Stanford University civil engineer. “There’s no magic, you don’t need new
> technologies for most of it. It’s just a different way of thinking of
> the system.”

... keyword "most", possibly to excuse this bit in a few paragraphs later ...
> as did coal burned using carbon-capturing smokestacks.

Oops ... ah well, at least they don't claim that this particular unicorn exists ...

... until you get to this blatant lie ...
> The duo considered only energy producers that have already been demonstrated
> to work, and can be scaled up to be part of a global energy system without major
> technological innovations.


They need a quick reprise of the prayer of "could" ...
> But because wind energy tends to peak at night and solar energy is greatest
> during the day, linking both energy sources together could help solve that
> problem. Hydroelectric power could fill in the gaps. Far-flung geographic areas
> could be connected via a “supergrid” to make sure the lights stay on.

Yep, it's back to the good old MZJ recipe of full-blown fantasy!


No wonder they need a magical incantation to round up ...
> They estimate that the total energy cost in such a system should be similar
> to today’s.


The most truthful statement in the whole piece is this one:
> “The obstacles to realizing this transformation of the energy sector are
> primarily social and political.”

I have no disagreement with that line at all.

It's just a shame that it was the last line and I had to read through all of
that other bollocks to get to something that is not only factually correct
but also unbracketed by "could"s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-11 03:59 AM
Response to Original message
16. But.... but... here he said by 2030...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-11 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
17. "We suggest ... all new energy with WWS by 2030 and replacing the pre-existing energy by 2050."
Garbage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-11 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
18. In other words, "we suggest 20 years of NO CO2 ABATEMENT."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-05-11 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Am I the only one bothered by this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-11 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. No, it's not just you ...
Anyone who questions the bullshit in the OP article magically becomes invisible ...

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-11 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
21. Greenpeace agrees...
Edited on Mon Feb-07-11 08:47 AM by kristopher
Battle of the Grids
18 January 2011

As the EU considers how to overhaul its aging and inefficient power system, Battle of the Grids demonstrates how a lasting shift to a grid powered with nearly 100% clean energy can be achieved. Its centrepiece is a map that for the first time charts a supergrid for 2050. The report confirms what the recent economic crisis and accompanying fall in electricity demand has laid bare: a growing clash between flexible renewables and inflexible ‘baseload’ generators like coal and nuclear, a clash which gives the report its title. This clash will only grow and become more expensive unless coal and nuclear are phased out.

The energy and transport systems that power the industrialised world are fuelling dangerous climate change. Extreme weather, decline in agricultural production and sea-level rise will be felt by everyone, rich and poor. We can avert the worst impacts, but only if we rethink our energy system.

Today, Europe’s electricity grid is characterised by big, polluting power stations pumping out constant energy, regardless of consumer need, along a wasteful, aging A/C (alternating current) network. The patchwork of national grids stitched together over the years is an uncomfortable, uneconomical fit. Climate policy and consumer demand are hurtling us towards a smarter, more efficient Europe-wide grid that is already opening up vast new technological, business and consumer opportunities. Such a grid could guarantee supply despite extreme weather conditions, delivering green energy around Europe via efficient, largely below ground DC (direct current) cables. However, the report’s title, Battle of the Grids, hints at the fact that we are at a political crossroads.


Download at:
http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/policy-papers-briefings/battle-of-the-grids
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC