[ralfy]

My first comment is that the Club of Rome report shows that if we continue with BAU, then we are facing catastrophe. We need to change course, and that was what was proposed in the other thread I referred to. In fact, we are starting on the alternative path toward clean energy growth gradually right now. We have have been following the course outlined by the original study as pointed out by an Australian group recently.

Our research does not indicate that collapse of the world economy, environment and population is a certainty. Nor do we claim the future will unfold exactly as the MIT researchers predicted back in 1972. Wars could break out; so could genuine global environmental leadership. Either could dramatically affect the trajectory.

I agree. Catastrophe is not guaranteed. I tried to find some alternative views on Google and found these random choices. The first is this one:

The dematerialization of production by the service economy is complemented by an equally or more important dematerialization of needs. The growing centrality of services results from the fact that once basic material requirements are met, the aspiration is released for the satisfaction of higher order, non-material needs – communication, information, education, healthcare, entertainment, recreation, and culture – which are not only far less demanding of material inputs but also far less limited in their growth potential. Food consumption is subject to limits; knowledge, human relationship and enjoyment are not. Thus, the growth in relative importance of the service economy represents a progressive shift from the pursuit of physical security to the quest for human security, welfare, well-being and unending development of our individual and collective human potential. Of even greater significance are two other implications of the modern service economy that have gone largely unrecognized.


All human achievement is founded on a bedrock of values. Values have no limit. Ultimately it is the values we choose to embrace that determine the real limits to growth. Narrow self-interest, mindless exploitation of earth, blindness to the needs of others, unbridled greed and extravagance can only take humanity so far. Our problems are of our own making and so are our opportunities. The very powers and institutions we forge to further our aims too easily become fetters that confine and enslave us. We are imprisoned by structures of our own device, simply because we refuse to open the door and walk out. Will humanity insist on clinging to broken systems out of fear to experiment, or will it have the courage to invent and innovate freer, fairer, more equitable, and more civilized arrangements for wealth creation and governance? Humanity’s ultimate challenge is not to cope with the forces of external nature or the problems of production, but rather to wrestle with and master human character and its inclinations.

Here is the second one:

But there is no reason to continue to run our societies and our economies as we have. Nor is
there any reason to deprive ourselves and our progeny of the material comforts that the industrial
revolution has provided us in the name of “saving the planet.” Instead we can envision and
then construct a planetary civilization totally committed to enabling the self-actualization of
every single human being on the planet; a civilization that will have banished want and hunger
for all time; a civilization dedicated to realizing the god-like potential of the human spirit.

And finally this one by Professor Jorgen Randers:

And then, fourth and finally, if we want to help the world’s poor, we (the rich) should build and pay for a complete clean energy infrastructure in the poor world. This would ensure that they don’t have to build a cheaper, carbon-intensive energy system for the energy they sorely need: electricity, fuel and heat. If we did nothing else, that would solve a substantial part of the future climate and poverty problem.

But the point of BAU is economic growth, which is the second half of the topic thread topic.

[Graeme]

Monte, The point is that there are other possible futures besides the dystopian one you are promoting. Here are more recent examples:

India uses coal tax to help fund 21GW of new solar development

The Indian government has today announced the approval of 21GW in new solar development with over US$800 million in government funding made available.

The new solar projects will predominantly use Viability Gap Funding (VGF).

VGF is available due to India’s ‘polluter pays’ system. Coal companies pay INR50 (US$0.80) per tonne of domestically produced, and imported coal.

These polluter fees are channelled onto the National Clean Energy Fund, operated by the Ministry of Finance, and awarded to the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE).

The national government is providing INR5050 crore (US$809 million) in total, for two solar development schemes, one for at least 20GW of ‘ultra mega’ solar power parks, and another for 1GW of on-grid solar.


The two schemes are in line with reports of India raising its solar ambitions to 100GW by 2022, and reports of solar parks being mapped out last month to meet solar advocate Prime Minister, Narendra Modi’s election ambitions.

pv-tech.org

Renewable Energy: The Untold Story of an African Revolution

Africa is experiencing a revolution towards cleaner energy through renewable energy but the story has hardly been told to the world, says Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Steiner, who had been advocating for renewable energy at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Lima, said Africa is on the right path toward a low carbon footprint by tapping into its plentiful renewable resources – hydro, geothermal, solar and wind.

"There is a revolution going on in the continent of Africa and the world is not noticing it. You can go to Egypt, Ethiopia Kenya, Namibia, and Mozambique. I think we will see renewable energy being the answer to Africa's energy problems in the next fifteen years," Steiner said in an interview with IPS.

globalissues

Wind and solar are much less financially risky than other power projects

Sovacool et al. began by assembling a database of “401 electricity projects built between 1936 and 2014 in 57 countries.” There were six categories: big hydro dams, nuclear plants, thermal (coal/natgas/oil/biomass) plants, wind farms, solar farms (PV or CSP), and high-voltage transmission lines. “In sum,” they write, “these projects required roughly $820 billion in investment, and amounted to 325,515 MW of installed capacity and 8495 km of transmission lines.”

They took this database and ran all kinds of regression analyses on it. As to the basic question of which kinds of projects suffer cost overruns and how big those overruns are, this is what they found:

grist

[ralfy]

Monte, The point is that there are other possible futures besides the dystopian one you are promoting. Here are more recent examples:

India uses coal tax to help fund 21GW of new solar development

The Indian government has today announced the approval of 21GW in new solar development with over US$800 million in government funding made available.

The new solar projects will predominantly use Viability Gap Funding (VGF).

VGF is available due to India’s ‘polluter pays’ system. Coal companies pay INR50 (US$0.80) per tonne of domestically produced, and imported coal.

These polluter fees are channelled onto the National Clean Energy Fund, operated by the Ministry of Finance, and awarded to the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE).

The national government is providing INR5050 crore (US$809 million) in total, for two solar development schemes, one for at least 20GW of ‘ultra mega’ solar power parks, and another for 1GW of on-grid solar.


The two schemes are in line with reports of India raising its solar ambitions to 100GW by 2022, and reports of solar parks being mapped out last month to meet solar advocate Prime Minister, Narendra Modi’s election ambitions.

pv-tech.org

Renewable Energy: The Untold Story of an African Revolution

Africa is experiencing a revolution towards cleaner energy through renewable energy but the story has hardly been told to the world, says Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Steiner, who had been advocating for renewable energy at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Lima, said Africa is on the right path toward a low carbon footprint by tapping into its plentiful renewable resources – hydro, geothermal, solar and wind.

"There is a revolution going on in the continent of Africa and the world is not noticing it. You can go to Egypt, Ethiopia Kenya, Namibia, and Mozambique. I think we will see renewable energy being the answer to Africa's energy problems in the next fifteen years," Steiner said in an interview with IPS.

globalissues

Wind and solar are much less financially risky than other power projects

Sovacool et al. began by assembling a database of “401 electricity projects built between 1936 and 2014 in 57 countries.” There were six categories: big hydro dams, nuclear plants, thermal (coal/natgas/oil/biomass) plants, wind farms, solar farms (PV or CSP), and high-voltage transmission lines. “In sum,” they write, “these projects required roughly $820 billion in investment, and amounted to 325,515 MW of installed capacity and 8495 km of transmission lines.”

They took this database and ran all kinds of regression analyses on it. As to the basic question of which kinds of projects suffer cost overruns and how big those overruns are, this is what they found:

grist

But all of these developments lead to BAU by other means.

[Graeme]

No it doesn't.

[MonteQuest]

Monte, The point is that there are other possible futures besides the dystopian one you are promoting.

Don't shoot the messenger. I am just one of Nature's lowly emissaries sent out to warn of the correction.

[Graeme]

My impression is that you are a messenger of despair and anarchy. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'd like to re-post an article that I posted in this thread.

The Club of Rome’s Next Act

I was privileged to address the attendees at the Annual Meeting on “Financing the Energy Transition.” In my speech, I addressed three interconnected monumental challenges:
Mobilizing the estimated $44 trillion (that’s Trillion with a “T”) of investment required between now and 2050 for renewable energy technologies and critical energy efficiency, (see the International Energy Agency’s recent report);

The $20 trillion stranded asset challenge referred to above; and

The overarching context of limits to growth, which implies a corollary limits to investment a challenge no economic system has ever had to contemplate.

Jane Jacobs once said, “it’s not how big you grow, it’s how you grow big.”

As we reflect on the prescience of the Club of Rome’s seminal work on limits to growth, nothing could be more important at this pivotal moment in time. Future growth and development, beginning with the energy system that fuels it, and the business models that define its qualities, will need to evolve as living systems have done over billions of years, to more intricate, regenerative systems.

Watch for the Club of Rome’s next act, shifting from prescient diagnosis, to a search for genuine solutions, rooted in a systemic level understanding of the forces at play. We can say for sure that there are limits to mindless growth. Regenerative economies nurture mindful growth and development. This is the future we had better embrace.

capitalinstitute

[ralfy]

No it doesn't.

With profits and returns on investment, credit levels grow, and they have to be backed up with increasing energy and material resource use. That's economic growth, which is what BAU is about.

[Zanstel]

With profits and returns on investment, credit levels grow, and they have to be backed up with increasing energy and material resource use. That's economic growth, which is what BAU is about.

No. Profit doesn't imply growth.
Profit only implies that who make some activity gains more than on the investment. That sounds like growth but it is not.
Normal goods are in constant depreciation and consumption, so people must replace them. Those who perform the creation activity gets more than without it. But total creation minus depreciation and consumption could be zero.

The things become more complex with financing and capital investment, because those who has the capital could earn the profit. But it is normal cross investment. You could perform some activity with capital from a bank, and have your savings on a bank which invest on a lot of different activities.

You eat food and drink water every day. You use healthcare when you need. You buy clothes on occasion.
That is consumption.
Your house and car and roads get older every day. That is depreciation.
To pay all of this, you work on a business that make profits.
This profits pay your salary, and pay the interest of your savings (which represent displaced consumption in time).

You call BAU something that is compatible with zero growth

[Graeme]

Zanstel, Thanks. Help seems to come from the most unexpected quarters. I associate BAU with exploitation of FF, which is what we should be trying to avoid. We can still have economic growth when we use efficient, low-carbon RE. Here are a couple of examples of urban areas heavily promoting and using RE:

How A Small German Town Became A Renewable Energy Miracle

Renewable energy is attractive to many not just for its environmental benefits, but because it means independence from electrical utilities.

Now, one small town in Germany has achieved that dream--and then some.

ALSO SEE: World's First Entirely Renewable-Energy Place: Wind-Swept Scottish Island

The town of Wildpoldsried--in southern Bavaria--produces 500 percent more energy than it needs, according to a recent Navigant Research blog post.

With a population of around 2,600 people, Wildpoldsried undertook an ambitious effort to transform its energy use through new solar, wind, biogas, and hydro-electric infrastructure.

The various projects were funded largely with government subsidies.

The goal was for Wildpoldsried to produce all of its own electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Obviously, it's well ahead of schedule.

However, what was good for the town also presented a problem for local utility Allgäuer Überlandwerke GmbH (AÜW), which had to determine how to integrate excess power into the grid.

The solution was an experimental management system co-developed with Siemens and called Integration of Regenerative Energy and Electrical Mobility (IRENE).

greencarreports

One Texas City Plans To Get Over Half Of Its Power From Renewables By 2025

Plenty of Texas’ politicians may be ignoring climate change, but individual cities and municipalities in the state are still making moves toward renewable energy. The latest gambit is coming out of Austin, where last week the city passed a new plan to get 55 percent of its power from clean energy by 2025.

The proposal lays out the future plans for the municipal utility, Austin Energy, and it passed the city council last Thursday with a six-to-one vote, according to GreenTech Media. Under the topline goal for 2025, the plan includes 600 megawatts of utility-scale solar, plus another possible 150 megawatts once further cost-benefit analysis is concluded next year. A further 200 megawatts of locally-sourced solar are called for, at least half of which must be customer-owned.

Energy efficiency and demand response improvements — provided by smart grids, smart meters, and the like — are to provide at least another 800 megawatts over the next ten years, and possibly up to 1,200 megawatts. Finally, the plan calls for 10 megawatts of storage technology from batteries to thermal storage, with studies to be done on the possibility of bringing yet another 200 megawatts online via that route.

thinkprogress

[ralfy]

No. Profit doesn't imply growth.

Profit doesn't imply growth. Rather, growth is based on profit and ROI. This can be seen in your points below.

Profit only implies that who make some activity gains more than on the investment.

It's not an implication but a definition.

That sounds like growth but it is not.

It is, unless the profit earned is not spent, deposited in a bank, or re-invested. That is highly unlikely.

Normal goods are in constant depreciation and consumption, so people must replace them.

Not only that, but more goods are produced to meet the needs of an expanding global market.

Those who perform the creation activity gets more than without it. But total creation minus depreciation and consumption could be zero.

Of course. In fact, it can even be a loss. But the trend line for global GDP is still upward. That's because capitalism requires growth. That's why money supply, energy consumption, and material resource consumption have all been on an upward trend for decades. That's why the global middle class has been growing.

The things become more complex with financing and capital investment, because those who has the capital could earn the profit. But it is normal cross investment. You could perform some activity with capital from a bank, and have your savings on a bank which invest on a lot of different activities.

This proves my argument even more. In fact, the basis of this is not just borrowing but profit earned and re-invested. And that's all part of capitalist systems.

You eat food and drink water every day. You use healthcare when you need. You buy clothes on occasion.

That is consumption.

Most people worldwide lack access to one or more basic needs, including food, drinking water, health care, and even clothes and shelter. That's why consumption has been growing globally for decades. Again, that's part of capitalist systems.

Your house and car and roads get older every day. That is depreciation.

Not only that, but most people barely have access to secure shelter and public transport, never mind their own cars. That's why consumption of energy and materials needed for these have been growing for decades. Again, that's part of capitalist systems.

To pay all of this, you work on a business that make profits.

Exactly. That's why capitalism requires growth. The basis of growth are profits which are re-invested to make businesses expand production. That's why businesses worldwide have been growing for decades.

This profits pay your salary, and pay the interest of your savings (which represent displaced consumption in time).

My understanding of "profit" in business is that it is the difference between revenues and expenses:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit

and expenses include salaries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expense#B ... r_expenses

But the point you raise is still correct: businesses have to generate revenues to pay for salaries and interest expenses. Given competition (and especially in a global economy where mega-corporations engage in such, with large amounts spent on marketing and exploration), not to mention more people worldwide entering the workforce, businesses have to grow. That means profits need to be generated and re-invested, with more money created as businesses borrow from banks, which is what banks need as they can only earn more if more people and businesses borrow.

And these are all features of capitalist systems, especially free market capitalism.

You call BAU something that is compatible with zero growth

In BAU, zero growth or even a loss can take place, which explains why in the past we've seen economic depressions and recessions. And yet there was recovery, and money supply, together with energy and resource consumption, increased further. That's because capitalist systems, including the current global economy, require growth, especially given a growing global population, a growing workforce, and a growing global middle class, not to mention depreciation and the increasing complexity of various consumer goods made today.

Thus, BAU requires continuous economic growth, even if the growth is halted temporarily.

With zero growth that is permanent, businesses start to shut down, unemployment increases, and social unrest becomes more acute. From there, the economy starts to shrink and infrastructure for manufacturing, food production, etc., break down.

That is inevitable given peak oil. RE will very likely not ensure BAU.

[ralfy]

Zanstel, Thanks. Help seems to come from the most unexpected quarters. I associate BAU with exploitation of FF, which is what we should be trying to avoid. We can still have economic growth when we use efficient, low-carbon RE. Here are a couple of examples of urban areas heavily promoting and using RE:

How A Small German Town Became A Renewable Energy Miracle

Renewable energy is attractive to many not just for its environmental benefits, but because it means independence from electrical utilities.

Now, one small town in Germany has achieved that dream--and then some.

ALSO SEE: World's First Entirely Renewable-Energy Place: Wind-Swept Scottish Island

The town of Wildpoldsried--in southern Bavaria--produces 500 percent more energy than it needs, according to a recent Navigant Research blog post.

With a population of around 2,600 people, Wildpoldsried undertook an ambitious effort to transform its energy use through new solar, wind, biogas, and hydro-electric infrastructure.

The various projects were funded largely with government subsidies.

The goal was for Wildpoldsried to produce all of its own electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Obviously, it's well ahead of schedule.

However, what was good for the town also presented a problem for local utility Allgäuer Überlandwerke GmbH (AÜW), which had to determine how to integrate excess power into the grid.

The solution was an experimental management system co-developed with Siemens and called Integration of Regenerative Energy and Electrical Mobility (IRENE).

greencarreports

One Texas City Plans To Get Over Half Of Its Power From Renewables By 2025

Plenty of Texas’ politicians may be ignoring climate change, but individual cities and municipalities in the state are still making moves toward renewable energy. The latest gambit is coming out of Austin, where last week the city passed a new plan to get 55 percent of its power from clean energy by 2025.

The proposal lays out the future plans for the municipal utility, Austin Energy, and it passed the city council last Thursday with a six-to-one vote, according to GreenTech Media. Under the topline goal for 2025, the plan includes 600 megawatts of utility-scale solar, plus another possible 150 megawatts once further cost-benefit analysis is concluded next year. A further 200 megawatts of locally-sourced solar are called for, at least half of which must be customer-owned.

Energy efficiency and demand response improvements — provided by smart grids, smart meters, and the like — are to provide at least another 800 megawatts over the next ten years, and possibly up to 1,200 megawatts. Finally, the plan calls for 10 megawatts of storage technology from batteries to thermal storage, with studies to be done on the possibility of bringing yet another 200 megawatts online via that route.

thinkprogress

RE uses FF, especially for mining, manufacturing, transport, and construction of infrastructure. It's also needed for the manufacture of consumer goods that will use energy generated from RE.

More FF will be needed as those who invest in RE want better ROI, and even more FF will be needed as the ROI is re-invested. Of course, profits will be needed to pay for the ROI and to expand businesses to make more RE components and consumer goods. And since RE uses FF, then even more FF will be needed.

As more people join the global middle class and want not just RE components but even various goods that will use energy from RE, such as EVs, then even more FF will be needed to meet the needs of this growing group of consumers, investors, and business people.

Meanwhile, FF may peak earlier than expected, if not experience acute supply issues due to economic instability.

Finally, in such a system, which is capitalist and requires economic growth, efficiency doesn't lead to conservation but to more consumption, as what is conserved is not only sold, but also for profit. Profit adds to money supply which is re-invested and spent, which means more goods and services have to be produced, sold, and used. That means more FF and material resources needed.

[Zanstel]

Ralfy. A trend is not a law nor a dependence.

You are in a circular endless loop of arguments.
Capitalism requires profit which requires growth because requires profit.

You are mixing things too. Global trends doesn't imply any necessity for business. Business doesn't need growth to work. You can see a lot of old business that, if you discount monetary inflation, had been frozen or shrunk on some period without bankruptcy.

To see old trends without understand the variables and conditions that rule them goes to a bad predictions
Global trends shows past growth simply because we had grow, not because growth is needed.

If a small business could face a crisis, there is no reason because whole economy couldn't make the same.
Of course, there will be some business less ready for change that will disappear, and others new will be created, but this is not something new.

You vision about basic sectors failing are an exaggeration because people spend before in basic sectors before other things, so a lot of business related to unnecessary or less important services will be shrinking or disappear before.
That means a lot of energy that allow the face the crisis by a time until the growth of renewable allow go to a steady state of things.

[MonteQuest]

My impression is that you are a messenger of despair and anarchy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong. I advocate neither. You just don't like intolerable anomalous information.

[MonteQuest]

Global trends shows past growth simply because we had grow, not because growth is needed.

Can you explain how a debt-based monetary system where all money is loaned into existence could function without growth? A dollar bill is an IOU. A Federal Reserve Note. A claim on future growth. That "promise of growth" is what allowed the money to be lent/created.

We can look to the Great Depression for an idea of what would happen. Deflation. Fewer and fewer dollars chasing the available goods. Defaults destroying money. No new loans.

[ralfy]

Ralfy. A trend is not a law nor a dependence.

It's a tendency, and there is hardly anything in world affairs that shows a significant move from the trend.

You are in a circular endless loop of arguments.

I believe my arguments have been stated clearly and points are connected to each other.

Capitalism requires profit which requires growth because requires profit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Notice that in this system businesses largely operate in terms of profit. Unless that profit is hidden under one's bed, then it is invested. When investment takes place, then businesses expand. That's growth.

You are mixing things too. Global trends doesn't imply any necessity for business. Business doesn't need growth to work. You can see a lot of old business that, if you discount monetary inflation, had been frozen or shrunk on some period without bankruptcy.

I would appreciate global evidence concerning that.

To see old trends without understand the variables and conditions that rule them goes to a bad predictions

They are not old trends but current ones.

Notice that in your previous points, you imply that the trends have not taken place. Now, you're implying that they have but you seek to understand them.

Global trends shows past growth simply because we had grow, not because growth is needed.

The need to grow (that is, we have to grow) is the same as growth being needed.

If a small business could face a crisis, there is no reason because whole economy couldn't make the same.

Exactly. In order to "face a crisis," businesses have to recover, and that means becoming profitable once more.

Of course, there will be some business less ready for change that will disappear, and others new will be created, but this is not something new.

This strengthens my argument even more.

You vision about basic sectors failing are an exaggeration because people spend before in basic sectors before other things, so a lot of business related to unnecessary or less important services will be shrinking or disappear before.

What I said is that the global economy rests on a growing global middle class, where non-necessities are involved, and which in turn requires increasing amounts of energy and material resources. Profits are earned from sales of these goods, and re-invested to produce and sell even more goods. That's economic growth.

Given peak oil, there is no way for that to continue. That's why RE will not ensure economic growth. At best, it may sustain various basic needs.

That means a lot of energy that allow the face the crisis by a time until the growth of renewable allow go to a steady state of things.

Exactly.

Economic growth <> steady state.

[Graeme]

In California and Iowa, Advanced Energy Means Lots of Jobs

This week and last, the AEE Institute published first-ever surveys of advanced energy employment in California and Iowa. Both states are known as advanced energy standouts, each in its own way. California is an across-the-board leader in climate and energy policy, with a strong greenhouse gas law and a 33 percent renewable energy standard. Iowa gets more than a quarter of its electricity generated by wind and its farms contribute greatly to the nation’s renewable fuels capacity. But now we can state with certainty that those noteworthy characteristics translate into thousands of businesses and tens of thousands of advanced energy jobs – in California, hundreds of thousands.

Here are the top-line findings from the two reports:

The advanced energy industry in California is, not surprisingly, California-sized – over 431,000 workers in more than 40,000 businesses. That’s almost double the employment in the state’s marquee motion picture, television, and radio industries, and two-and-a-half times the number of workers in aerospace. Rural Iowa has 22,600 advanced energy employees in 1,400 businesses, more workers than in crop production, trucking, or animal production. In California, 2.4 percent of the total state workforce is engaged in advanced energy commerce; in Iowa, 1.3 percent.

In both states, employers say they are planning to add more workers next year: In Iowa, after a slight decline last year (due to the on-again, off-again federal production tax credit), 6 percent employment growth in advanced energy is expected in the coming year; in California, next year’s job total is expected to jump a whopping 17 percent, to more than 500,000.

theenergycollective

Transforming the Grid with Clean Energy — Reliably — Every Day

Despite years of successful experience, dozens of studies, and increasing utility support for clean energy, urban myth holds that electricity from renewable energy is unreliable. Yet over 75,000 megawatts (MW) of wind and solar power have been integrated, reliably, into the nation’s electric grid to date. That’s enough electricity to supply 17.9 million homes.

And, as a new NRDC fact sheet published today illustrates, the electric grid can handle much higher levels of zero-carbon wind and solar power, far more than what’s necessary to achieve the relatively modest carbon emission reductions in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to limit pollution from existing power plants. But first, a little background on how our nation’s electric system works.

Grid Basics

The nation’s high-power transmission system is made up of three largely separate grids: one on either side of the Continental Divide (roughly) and the third in Texas. The two largest grids are further subdivided into regions managed by different regional and local utility grid operators.

renewableenergyworld

[Graeme]

Here Are 5 Countries Where Solar Power Is Making a Revolution

Developing countries of the global south don’t have enough electricity. Sometimes rural populations are only just now getting electricity. Ironically, many of them can leapfrog conventional power and go straight to solar and wind. Indeed, in the next generation, renewables will be a central element in national development.

SunEdison has been awarded a contract to build 350 megawatts of utility scale solar plants in Chile. But what is important here is that SunEdison will be able to generate the electricity more inexpensively than if it had used coal or natural gas or nuclear, and does not need any subsidy to produce this result. If this comparative cost advantage is true now, the advantage will grow rapidly over the next decade.

Coal demand will likely continue to rise slightly globally for a few years, inasmuch as the coal plants are already built, whereas most renewable energy requires up front investment. But India has an interesting idea. Its government will use taxes on coal to help fund 21 gigawatts of new utility scale solar energy! That is the rough equivalent of 20 small nuclear reactors!

truthdig

750 MW Solar Power Plant In India, Likely To Be Largest Solar Power Plant In World, Gets World Bank Financing Commitment

Global funds for India’s aggressive plan to install “ultra mega solar power plants” have begun to flow with the World Bank ready to support a 750 MW power plant, which is likely to become the largest solar power plant in the world. The project would require a total investment of about ₹8,000 crore ($1.3 billion).

One of the first ultra mega solar power projects India plans to establish has received a pledge of financing support from the World Bank, the Indian media reported this week. The solar power plant will have an installed capacity of 750 MW, 200 MW more than the current largest solar power plant in the world, and will be located in the state of Madhya Pradesh. It is expected to be among the first to receive financial support from the current government, which allocated a ₹1,000 crore ($167 million) package for UMPPs in the FY2014-15 budget.

India’s largest power-generating company, NTPC Limited, recently signed an agreement with the Madhya Pradesh government to set up the power plant. The company stated it would invite bids for procurement of solar photovoltaic modules from domestic as well as international manufacturers but will request foreign companies to manufacture modules in India.

All projects commissioned in India in the form of ultra mega solar power plants (UMPPs) under the aegis of the Ministry of New & Renewable Energy (MNRE) and through government-owned companies are expected to source domestically manufactured solar PV modules. This would be done to support Indian module manufacturers in lieu of the government’s decision not to impose anti-dumping duties on imported modules. A total of 25 UMPPs each with a minimum generation capacity of 500 MW will be commissioned in India over the next five years.

NTPC Limited has been chosen to set up a number of such UMPPs. The company has a pipeline of 3.5 GW of solar power capacity. It will set up UMPPs in Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Odisha, in addition to the project in Madhya Pradesh. Other government-ow

cleantechnica

[Graeme]

Renewable Energy Review: Brazil

Developers, manufacturers, investors and other renewable energy industry stakeholders need to know where the next big market is going to be so that they can adjust their business decisions accordingly.

Since 2003, global consultancy Ernst & Young has released its Country Attractiveness Indices, which ranks global renewable energy markets by analyzing investment strategies and resource availability. The indices are updated on a quarterly basis and the most recent report can be found here.

Here is the firm’s assessment of Brazil.

Solar Scores Big

After hosting the first-ever FIFA World Cup game to be powered by solar energy, thanks to the 6,000 solar panels installed on the Mineirão Stadium, Brazil's solar ambitions are about to get even bigger. Around 400 projects representing 10.8 GW of capacity have already been shortlisted for the October reserve auction, the first national power auction to split out solar capacity from other technologies. Through such allocations, the Government expects to contract around 3.5 GW of solar power between 2014 and 2018, compared to just 11 MW of installed capacity currently. Successful projects securing these 20-year PPAs will need to be operational by October 2017.

Seeking Fair Prices

Solar actually made its debut in Brazil's national power auctions last October, with around 6 GW of projects cleared to bid. However, with average solar PV prices of R$250/MWh (US$112), projects have been unable to compete with wind bids averaging just R$130/MWh (US$58) in recent auctions, resulting in no solar contracts being awarded. The decision to ring-fence solar projects within October's reserve auction therefore represents a very deliberate move by the Government toward a technology that it previously deemed to be too expensive.

renewableenergyworld

Emerging Economies See Wind Growth As Technologies Evolve & Innovate

Emerging economies in the Middle East and Africa will have installed almost 3 GW of wind power by the end of 2014, with more than 58% of that being installed in the last two years.

This is according to new analysis from MAKE, which follows on from recent and numerous additions to its wind power analyses, including an analysis of Europe’s short-term offshore wind expectations.

MAKE concludes in a press release emailed to reporters that the MEA region (Middle East and Africa) will have installed more than 2.9 GW by the end of 2014, with expectations of growth of 145% in capacity over 2013, thanks to strong development in Morocco and South Africa.

South Africa has seen a lot of attention lately, thanks in part to its solar development. In early November, numbers from Wiki-Solar placed South Africa into the top 15 countries for large-scale solar capacity, at 10th globally. A month earlier, the Ernst & Young Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index ranked South Africa rising up the index, placed at 16, and above a number of more industrialised European and Asia Pacific countries.

Looking forward ten years, MAKE forecasts a total of 24 GW of new wind power capacity to be commissioned in the MEA region — led by North Africa with 9 GW, the Middle East with 7 GW, and East Africa with 4 GW.

cleantechnica

GOING 100% RENEWABLE IS A SMART BUSINESS DECISION: IKEA, SWISS RE, MARS, BT AND OTHER LEADING COMPANIES PLEDGE TO TRANSITION

Leading businesses including, IKEA, Swiss Re, BT, Formula E, H&M, KPN, Mars, Nestlé, Philips, Reed Elsevier, J. Safra Sarasin and Yoox, join a powerful group of NGOs and clean energy experts today to announce the launch of a multi-year initiative to encourage major companies to commit to using 100% renewable power.

With the goal that “by 2020, 100 of the world’s largest businesses will have committed to 100% renewable power”, the RE100 campaign will highlight the business and reputational benefits enjoyed by companies who make the commitment to use power exclusively from renewable energy sources. It will also help companies who wish to switch to renewables by providing guidance on selecting and implementing the best approach to utilizing renewable power, and information on the financial implications, risks and rewards of different options.

Businesses need a secure, reliable and affordable energy supply. While fossil fuels have historically provided this, drawbacks of using depleting and polluting resources make seeking alternatives critical. Renewable energy sources are a smarter option – providing an affordable, clean, reliable and guaranteed future power supply.

Leading businesses, NGOs and renewable energy experts have now come together in a coordinated effort to accelerate businesses across the world to commit to using ‘100% renewable power’.

Led by The Climate Group in partnership with CDP and in collaboration with the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and others – the RE100 campaign will provide a powerful network to support and celebrate businesses that are increasing their use of renewable power.

IKEA, Swiss Re, BT, Commerzbank, Formula E, H&M, KPN, Mars, Nestlé, Philips, Reed Elsevier, J. Safra Sarasin and Yoox, have all made firm commitments to using renewable power – recognizing the environmental and business benefits.

RE100 will showcase how businesses are making the journey towards 100% renewable power. The campaign will engage business leaders, policymakers and financial institutions to encourage their role in accelerating a clean energy future.

theclimategroup

[Graeme]

The switch to renewable power is a battle we cannot afford to lose

Since the final gavel fell at the Lima climate talks earlier this month, discussions have centred on one question: what did the talks actually accomplish?

After two weeks of intense negotiation, governments settled on a draft text that will hopefully lead to a successful global climate deal in Paris next December. While opinions vary regarding the success or failure of the outcome, there is another story emerging outside the negotiation room.

This year’s conference represented a highly-significant shift in the positive momentum to act on climate change. While negotiators engaged in contentious debates, businesses, non-governmental organisations and local authorities stepped forward to present their own climate initiatives and committed to more action on the ground.

In this shift, renewable energy took centre stage.

According to the Nazca Climate Action portal (named after Peru’s famous geoglyphs), 319 cities and 261 companies are taking action on climate change. Of the 913 total actions recorded so far, 402 relate to energy efficiency and 242 relate to renewable energy.

Private sector initiatives – such as RE100 and the Global Investor Statement on Climate Change – have also emerged to encourage businesses and investors to phase out fossil fuels in favour of renewable energy.

National governments are following suit. Peru plans to generate 60% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2024; Chile doubled its total renewable power capacity in 2014; Germany and Sweden will be carbon-free by 2050. The list goes on, including 144 countries with renewable energy targets, 50 countries supporting a total phase-out of carbon emissions by 2050 and 100 countries supporting zero emissions by 2100.

This action, and the hope it generates for an attainable solution to climate change, is being partly fuelled by the increasingly strong business case for renewable energy. Renewable energy is now the most cost-competitive source of power in many parts of the world.

theguardian

The economic case for renewable energy

Like a progressive, I've always believed that a clean environment is an intrinsic good - not a means to some other end, but the end in itself. But the more I see of the Abbott government's approach to environmental policy, the more it becomes apparent that they do not share this view. Instead, they adopt the instrumentalist approach of seeing things as having value only if they boost GDP. The intrinsic value of fresh air, clean rivers and flourishing forests simply doesn't fit with the far right worldview.

Yet as it happens, there's also a strong instrumental case to be made for taking action that will protect our environment. Transitioning to renewable energy isn't just good for our quality of life, it's also good for economic growth.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the case of the Renewable Energy Target (RET). The target commits Australia to sourcing 41,000 gigawatt hours of electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Although both Labor and the Liberals went to the last election with this as their policy, the Abbott government has now backflipped, and wants to run down the RET (I wish I could tell you this was their only broken promise).

Ruining the RET would be foolish for this government, because the policy directly contributes to lower electricity prices, jobs and investment.

Let's start with electricity prices. This year, the Warburton review commissioned modelling by ACIL Allen showing that the RET delivers lower electricity prices for consumers. If the Abbott government cut the RET, the modelling showed, Australian consumers would pay more for their electricity. Puzzlingly, after presenting this evidence, the Warburton review recommended cutting the RET anyway.

How about employment? The RET creates jobs because it opens up new fields of activity: installing solar panels, building and maintaining wind farms, researching and developing new ways to capture wave and geothermal energy. More than 24,000 Australians were employed in the renewable energy sector in 2012. The Clean Energy Council estimates that a further 18,400 new jobs will be created by 2020 if the RET is retained in its current form.

Recent surveys put the jobless rate at about 6 percent, the highest rate since Tony Abbott was employment minister. Right now, more than 700,000 Australians are looking for work. In such a tight employment market, 18,000 more jobs should drive down the unemployment rate. If the government scales back the RET to what it calls a 'true' 20 per cent target (in reality, a 40 per cent cut), the Clean Energy Council's modelling suggests 6200 less jobs will created over the next six years. Scrapping the RET altogether will see us lose the opportunity to create 11,800 new jobs.

Then there's investment. Since the RET was introduced, more than $10 billion has already been invested in large-scale renewable energy projects like First Solar's huge plants in the NSW towns of Nyngan and Broken Hill. First Solar says it has already invested about $142 million in its plants, creating more than 600 jobs in the process.

canberratimes