Half of the world's energy needs in 2050 could be met by renewables and improved efficiency, a study has said.

It said alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar, could provide nearly 70% of the world's electricity and 65% of global heat demand.
***
The study, by the German Aerospace Center, was commissioned by Greenpeace and Europe's Renewable Energy Council.
***
"We have shown that the world can have safe, robust renewable energy, that we can achieve the efficiencies needed and we can do all of this while enjoying global economic growth," he said.

He added that the strategy outlined in the report showed that it was economically feasible to cut global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by almost 50% over the next 43 years.
***
more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6298467.stm

report at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/25_01_07_energy_revolution_report.pdf

OK, I won't even pretend to have read the whole thing, but my first impression is ... it's a nice report. Lots of well-composed pictures, colorful graphics/charts, loads of tables. Much time and energy was devoted to the selection of fonts and a catchy (well, sort of) name. All distributed in authentic pdf format. But ... what's going to make it all work? Can increased appliance efficiencies really save up to 80% in electrical costs? Will after-hours energy consumption really be cut by 90%? Is planning on an increase in efficiency enough to make one appear? And nuclear isn't treated as even a stopgap, it's projected to be phased out ASAP (apparently we're out of uranium as of next Saturday, to judge by this report). All in all, it strikes me as being more palatable than realistic, especially with that secondary theme of "enjoying global economic growth", i.e. "let's not change things TOO much". Perhaps the weakest point is that they're trying to show that increasing efficiency can hold energy demand in check even as population increases, and their time window ends about the point that population growth will overwhelm any savings. Maybe this report will get some dawdling politicians on board (if it's for the wrong reasons, I can live with that), but I'm not optimistic that it will provide much of a "roadmap", which is its supposed aim.

(To give credit where credit is due, the idea of "non-CO2 producing" coal-burning plants is also rejected, as unproven, nonsustainable, or both.)

Maybe their smoking something in their little stoned out middle class coffee clatches when they announce that it is OK to address climate change by addressing half the problem two full generations from now.

What a bunch of assholes.

So what if the world will be full of dead oceans and water wars and the starvation of billions, while sad old Grandpa_parrot holds up pictures of long-vanished tundra and rainforests and coral reefs and weeps softly into his beer. Silly old fucker.

At least we won't be be using any nuclear power. 'Cos that stuff's dangerous, you know. The waste might have killed somebody, apparently. And we won't have any more nasty big hydro schemes, because they used to flood a whole fucking valley to build those dams, whereas this way all we loose is Florida. And Bangladesh. And the east end of London, but no-one gives a crap about that anyway. Oh, and Holland, where they used to grow some flowers or something. And the bit where NOLA used to be. And a few African towns nobody can even pronounce. And some islands in the Pacific they used to market as "paradise", ha ha, greedy fuckers deserved it.

No great loss, really.

:eyes:

Fuck. If this is the best we can come up with, please shoot me in the head. Now.

...

BANG!

:hi:

It's a bit warm down here, though.

:evilgrin:

:single dramatic tear rolls down cheek:

Replacing a 60 W incandescent bulb with an 11 W CF bulb = 80% reduction in electrical consumption without any reduction in lighting.

Replacing a 60 W incandescent bulb with a 5 W LED bulb = 90% reduction.

Replacing a US refrigerator that consumes 800 kWh per year with a Japanese fridge that uses 160 kWh per year = 80% savings or more depending on the model replaced.

(note: those fridges are currently on the market in Japan but are not available in the US).

The same applies to washers, dryers, dish washers...I went to the Home Despot a couple weeks back and looked at the stickers on washing machines: the worst performer used 680 kWh per year, the best 113 kWh per year = 80% reduction if one chose the best performer.

Replacing a fucking SUV that gets 12 mpg with a hybrid that gets 50 mpg will save 76% of the gas consumed if both were driven the same number of miles each year.

So yeah - it's doable today.

GREENPEACE FUCKING RULES

:evilgrin:

Nobody is arguing against efficiency, or even against building as much renewable capacity as possible. But the morons want to spend the next 50 years dumping another trillion tons of CO₂ in the fucking atmosphere. That as much as we've emitted since the industrial revolution.

Christ Jpak, Which bit of "Greenhouse gases are causing catastrophic, irreversible climate change" are you finding so fucking difficult to comprehend?

over a 50 year period.

It's not like we're going to burn fossil fuels like crazy until 2050 and then BOOM renewables et al. kick in.

Those reductions in GHG emissions are from the get go and take place each year under the Asshole Greenpeace scenarios - no trillion ton emissions required.

Furthermore, nuclear power will NOT be a player in GHG reduction policy between now and 2020.

There will be NO new nuclear reactors in the US or UK before then...

There will be a serious net loss of EU nuclear capacity due to closure of older EU nuclear plants...

Net gains in nuclear capacity in Asia will swamped by new Asian coal-fired capacity.

Renewables and efficiency are all we have.

Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'

They've got fossil levels pegged at today's levels - ~24 billion tons of CO₂ per year - until 2050, at least: Instead, they manage to eliminate nuclear and build fuck all hydro, the only large-scale renewable we have.

If you can't work out 24,000,000,000 x 50 in your head, use a fucking calculator.

page 44, column 2:
"Whilst worldwide emissions of CO2 will almost double under the
reference scenario, under the energy evolution scenario they will
decrease from 23,000 million tons in 2003 to 11,500 million tonnes in
2050."

That does sound very impressive, doesn't it? But try finding any evidence for that claim in their figures.

It's like their bizarre one-liner about everybody driving hybrids (we'd have to, there's no generating capacity for hydrogen or electric vehicles) which is only one step down from declaring free flying cars, or the equally twilight-zone claim that somebody is going to a fuel free CAES system any day now, so there's no problem with storage (VRB and flywheels don't even get a mention).

Mind you, they couldn't even get the 2003 emissions right (25.664 billion, to save you looking it up) so I guess it's just a soundbite for people scared of big numbers. If you're happy trusting 50-year predictions from people who think 2003 is shrouded in mystery, I've got got quality investment opportunities for you ;). If, on the other hand, you put some emission figures to their proposed new fossil stations (which I admit includes a wild-ass guess as to what they mean by "CHP(fossil)") you'll find they save ~10% over 2003 levels. Maybe more if everybody gets a free Prius and air travel is outlawed.

Rather underhand of them to just make shit up, but not really surprising.

:evilgrin: