IPCC: Renewables can supply more far energy than needed at highly competitive cost

100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN Report
By Carl Levesque, American Wind Energy Association
May 16, 2011


Renewable energy sources are expected to contribute up to 80 percent of global energy supply by 2050, according to a new report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Among the report’s points of emphasis: wind power alone is capable of supplying more than 100 percent of future demand.

“The report clearly demonstrates that renewable technologies could supply the world with more energy than it would ever need, and at a highly competitive cost,” said Steve Sawyer, secretary general of the Global Wind Energy Council. “The IPCC report will be a key reference for policy makers and industry alike, as it represents the most comprehensive high level review of renewable energy to date.”

The 1,000-page report, which was adopted by 194 governments after marathon negotiations on May 9, considers the potential contribution from wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydro, and ocean energy, as well as their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, their integration into the energy networks, their contribution to sustainable development, and the policies which are needed to put them in place. Following a review of 164 scenarios, the IPCC found that renewables will play a key role in any successful plan to combat climate change....

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/05/100-percent-renewables-the-resources-are-there-says-un-report?cmpid=WindNL-Thursday-May19-2011

Is this more far energy good for? :)

Like *cough* Obama *cough*.

I keep hoping there is more to the picture than what I'm seeing; and I keep fearing that there isn't.

I'm all for it, and if they've convinced themselves that renewable technologies could supply the world with more energy that it would ever need, I say let 'em rock and roll!

Of course, it would be churlish to mention that much hinges on that very subjective word "need," so they've given themselves an out right off the bat. Even the apparent quantitative 80% has enough wiggle room to slip a truck through, since "80% of what," well, that remains an open question -- global energy supply could (there's that word again) amount to not very much at all, compared to what we're used to, somewhere in the neighborhood of 450 exajoules per year.

If they are implying that we'll have enough windmills, solar panels, etc. to produce 360 EJ per year within 40 years, I suggest it's an extraordinary claim that calls for extraordinary proof. Presumably, somewhere down in that 1000 pages it's ready for inspection -- what Maryland-sized pieces of territory to pave with solar panels, what coastlines to take over with wind farms, what volcanoes and geysers to spigot, what factories to repurpose for the effort, what banks are willing to float bonds the size of Europe's GDP, and what armies of workers are likely to be marshaled for a construction enterprise that would dwarf not just the Manhattan Project, but all of World War II -- by a couple of orders of magnitude.

This just doesn't scale up that cheerfully.

Now wet blankets aside, I'm all for every effort in the direction of deploying as much renewable infrastructure as we can. I just think it would avoid a disservice to the cause to be realistic about our expectations and "requirements."

I can say that with absolute confidence because if you DID know anything about it, you'd know that although there are criticisms that can be made, you have completely succeeded in not finding any of them. Instead, you've rolled out a bunch of rightwing talking points that, like most rightwing talking points, sound plausible to the ignorant but are less than meaningless when examined closely.

Perhaps you should reconsider the things you believe you know.

A little flustered to be handing out advice there, aren't you?

Relax -- nobody's criticizing you. It's not even criticism. It's not even about you.

You know how it works -- you post the techno happy talk, I post the cornucopia alert. It's a package deal.

We both know the fossil fuel age is headed for the can, and nukes aren't going to be substituting for them. Save your absolute confidence for something that's worth it, pal -- keep your eyes on the prize!

You wrote:

Meaningless criticisms:
- Claiming that the demand figures are subjective. All future forecasts are tot some extent "subjective". The question isn't whether they are subjective, the legitimate questions for public policy discussion is whether they are the most accurate projection that we can produce with available data and techniques, and what the goal of the entity doing the analysis is.
Given this is a very comprehensive report by the IPCC, it's absurd to claim the demand projection undermines the report.

- The report is both a technical analysis and a policy recommendation document. It doesn't say we "WILL" - that is you using a red herring. What it says is that 'we can if we implement the appropriate policies'. It also says that those policies are NOT a burdensome drain on society.

- The implicit core of your statement related to the amount of energy needed is that the job is too big to accomplish with renewables in the time frame given. That is completely false and the items on your list of points you think of as substantiating your claim is straight out of the right wing think-tank industry. They are demonstrably nothing more than irrelevant sound-bites.

I don't give a fig what your world view is or whether you are optimistic or pessimistic about our ability to deal with the problems of modern culture, but I do care about maintaining an accurate representation of the technical abilities and processes involved with responding to one specific problem - climate change.

If you are going to trot out mythological bullshit about those topics you can expect me to respond vigorously when I see it.

If you want to try to defend the specifics of any of the list you gave and show how the IPCC got it wrong or was being overly optimistic I invite you to present the evidence for discussion. Half-baked, unsupported right wing talking points not allowed.

One of the comments to the OPs linked article has summed it up quite nicely, IMO.