Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN Rpt

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN Rpt

Unread postby Graeme » Tue 11 Oct 2011, 15:50:15

100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN Report

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.

An increasing number of technologies are already economically competitive, the report noted, and that trend will continue as further cost reductions and technology improvements are made, the report said.


renewableenergyworld
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postby MD » Tue 11 Oct 2011, 16:47:36

80% sounds about right.

except that it will be 80% of the total at the time which will be 80% of what we are using today.

and that is a good thing!
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4908
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 02:00:00
Location: On the ball

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postby kiwichick » Tue 11 Oct 2011, 20:07:54

100% no sweat

New Zealand already @ 80% electricity from renewables

and aiming for 100%
User avatar
kiwichick
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2231
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postby prajeshbhat » Tue 11 Oct 2011, 21:55:19

New Zealand has a small population and a huge hydroelectric capacity. Not sure if all countries can pull it off. Especially China and India. They have already maxed out hydroelectric. So, they have both committed to coal as the fuel for their 10% growth.
prajeshbhat
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 17 May 2011, 01:44:33

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postby kiwichick » Wed 12 Oct 2011, 18:56:14

i'm not sure if every country can either

however china and india could both develop wave and geothermal power

china and india are also working to stabilize their population
User avatar
kiwichick
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2231
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postby Pops » Thu 13 Oct 2011, 07:31:09

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

The big problem I can't see around is intermitency. That little puff piece didn't really have any details, just the same old "They'll figure it out, resume cruise control."

TOD talked about the Nation Sized Battery recently, and even recent-er was Got Storage, How Hard Can It Be? talking about how hard home power storage can be. Of course there are all sorts of schemes but I'm not sure where they are headed.

I think renewables will be the future, simple because non-renewables for some reason aren't renewing, but that future isn't going to spring forth fully formed and ironically the progress towards a non-fossil fueled economy depends in large part on the current FFed one. The recession pretty well collapsed wind installations in 2010.

And of course we all know how large is the ideological resistance against the very idea of renewable energy. I'm not sure exactly the root cause of the distaste for conservation, stewardship, "green energy", etc - it is counter intuitive but it is pretty obvious.

And finally, the reason for investing in a business is to earn a return. I'm going to guess that if there is a prolonged fall in energy consumption like the 7.6 drop 2008-2009 as a result of the recession, investors are going to shy away from building new capacity of any kind.

Still, as Gail Tverberg says, renewables are great fossil fuel "extenders" - sorta Hamburger Helper for Petro-Based Society.
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postby highlander » Thu 13 Oct 2011, 11:10:28

Living in a region where our electricity comes mainly from hydropower, I don't see the upside.
Yes, we can generate a lot of electricity from solar, wind and hydropower. But It will take an economic miracle to convert the current transportation fleet away from oil and on to electricity.
Got coal?
This is where everybody puts profound words written by another...or not so profound words written by themselves
Highlander 2007
User avatar
highlander
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 752
Joined: Sun 03 Oct 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Washington State

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postby Alan Cain » Thu 13 Oct 2011, 11:43:34

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

The big problem I can't see around is intermitency. That little puff piece didn't really have any details, just the same old "They'll figure it out, resume cruise control."



Perhaps the UN is assuming that the global population will be around 1 gigapeople (Gp) around 2050...
Remember that in a population group, the number of individuals that are below average is equal to (the total number, divided by two), minus one. And that one is not swift.
User avatar
Alan Cain
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat 30 Jul 2011, 23:26:16

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postby dolanbaker » Thu 13 Oct 2011, 16:54:32

The simple solution to energy storage is wind powered water pumps and reservoirs attached to hydroelectric generators.

The wind pumps continually (when windy) pump water from a lower lake into a higher lake and the hydro plant generates electricity on demand. Simples!

If there are no suitable valleys around, then river estuaries or artificial "sea lakes" could be built.
Ronald Coase, Nobel Economic Sciences, said in 1991 “If we torture the data long enough, it will confess.”
User avatar
dolanbaker
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3518
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 09:38:47
Location: Éire

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postby Pops » Thu 13 Oct 2011, 17:35:45

The water pumping idea was exactly what made me think of the term "scheme". It sounds good but is expensive to build and really expensive if it is a dedicated use and of course uses more power to pump than it generates. Not that we won't do more of it.
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postby dolanbaker » Thu 13 Oct 2011, 17:43:02

Pops wrote:The water pumping idea was exactly what made me think of the term "scheme". It sounds good but is expensive to build and really expensive if it is a dedicated use and of course uses more power to pump than it generates. Not that we won't do more of it.


Of course it does, but so do batteries and all other electricity storage techniques!
The thing is this uses readily available resources (unless you live in a desert) and technology and can be built now! May not be possible when there is a real shortage of energy to deal with.
Ronald Coase, Nobel Economic Sciences, said in 1991 “If we torture the data long enough, it will confess.”
User avatar
dolanbaker
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3518
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 09:38:47
Location: Éire

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postby kiwichick » Thu 13 Oct 2011, 19:23:40

geothermal and wave power are base load sources

it's hot inside our planet

in the us there is a huge geothermal resource in the yellowstone park area
User avatar
kiwichick
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2231
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postby no_wuckin_ferries_mate » Fri 14 Oct 2011, 21:49:37

As has been said further up the thread wave power might be suitable for India and China. I don't know much about those countries, but for Japan wave power is certainlay very suitable. It could replace all of Japan's nuclear power stations.
no_wuckin_ferries_mate
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat 06 Oct 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Changing daily

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postby Graeme » Tue 18 Oct 2011, 16:34:33

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

The big problem I can't see around is intermitency. That little puff piece didn't really have any details, just the same old "They'll figure it out, resume cruise control."

TOD talked about the Nation Sized Battery recently, and even recent-er was Got Storage, How Hard Can It Be? talking about how hard home power storage can be. Of course there are all sorts of schemes but I'm not sure where they are headed.

I think renewables will be the future, simple because non-renewables for some reason aren't renewing, but that future isn't going to spring forth fully formed and ironically the progress towards a non-fossil fueled economy depends in large part on the current FFed one. The recession pretty well collapsed wind installations in 2010.

And of course we all know how large is the ideological resistance against the very idea of renewable energy. I'm not sure exactly the root cause of the distaste for conservation, stewardship, "green energy", etc - it is counter intuitive but it is pretty obvious.

And finally, the reason for investing in a business is to earn a return. I'm going to guess that if there is a prolonged fall in energy consumption like the 7.6 drop 2008-2009 as a result of the recession, investors are going to shy away from building new capacity of any kind.

Still, as Gail Tverberg says, renewables are great fossil fuel "extenders" - sorta Hamburger Helper for Petro-Based Society.


I don't think there will be a problem with intermittency because wind farms will be linked by a smart grid - not an original idea I might add. This has been mentioned before on this board. Wind is doing pretty well in the developing world. In the US, renewable energy development will be spearheaded by the military.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

$1 tn needed to achieve 1TW solar power capacity by 2030

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 11 Mar 2018, 14:23:33



At the International Solar Alliance, Emmanuel Macron said the government, private sector and civil society need to work together to overcome hurdles French President Emmanuel Macron on Sunday said USD 1 trillion will be needed to achieve one terawatt (TW) of solar power capacity by 2030. Speaking alongside Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the founding conference of the International Solar Alliance (ISA), he said there are financing and regulation hurdles for achieving the target which need to be cleared by government, private sector and civil society coming together. Without any names, he referred to countries quitting the historic Paris Climate agreement and said ISA nations came together to “deliver complete results”. The oblique reference was to US President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, which was signed by nearly 200 countries in December 2015 in an effort to curb


$1 tn needed to achieve 1TW solar power capacity by 2030
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4291
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: $1 tn needed to achieve 1TW solar power capacity by 2030

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 11 Mar 2018, 17:10:09

AdamB wrote:


At the International Solar Alliance, Emmanuel Macron said the government, private sector and civil society need to work together to overcome hurdles French President Emmanuel Macron on Sunday said USD 1 trillion will be needed to achieve one terawatt (TW) of solar power capacity by 2030. Speaking alongside Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the founding conference of the International Solar Alliance (ISA), he said there are financing and regulation hurdles for achieving the target which need to be cleared by government, private sector and civil society coming together. Without any names, he referred to countries quitting the historic Paris Climate agreement and said ISA nations came together to “deliver complete results”. The oblique reference was to US President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, which was signed by nearly 200 countries in December 2015 in an effort to curb


$1 tn needed to achieve 1TW solar power capacity by 2030


With a Trillion dollars I could build 50: 1,500MWe nuclear power stations at a grossly inflated price tag of 20 Billion each. These 50 power stations would then be capable of generating 75 GWe 24/7/365 for 60+ years each. Meanwhile those solar PV systems with an expected what is it, 30 year lifetime, would be generating for about 6 hours a day on average if they are in a good location (25% capacity factor) so your nameplate 1 TWe is 250 GWe if everything goes swimmingly. Sounds like a winner right? but wait, you have to replace them half way through the life of the Nuclear systems so that 250 is actually 125 GWe, Still sounds like a winner?

Well sure, if it really costs you 20 Billion a pop for a fission power station you still get almost double the energy from solar (ignoring the costs of batteries and what not) the solar advocates are claiming $1/Watt in nameplate capacity so how much does nuclear actually cost? Well in South Korea they build a lot of nuclear and the 'overnight costs' are about $2.02/Watt while in China the newest plants cost $1.81/Watt. But we already know that Solar PV system is at best 25% efficient over 24 hours because of you know, sunset and stuff so the real cost of that solar PV system might not be $1/Watt claimed for nameplate, it is more likely $4/Watt, and you have to replace the system in 30 years instead of in 60.

So say we let South Korea set up the factory to mass produce nuclear reactors of a standard design (much as France did in the 1970-80 period when they build almost all of their current plants to three standardized designs). Lets go further and say that instead of duplication reducing costs they actually cost a little more, say $3.00/Watt for a nice 50% fudge factor. Okay how much fission capacity will 1 trillion buy us at $3? Easy math there fellas that would be 334 GWe in cookie cutter stations with a 1.5 GWe capacity each. AKA 334 GWe 24/7/365 for $1trillion for 60 years vs 250 GWe (net) for 30 years. Yeah Solar PV is a wonderful dream, mostly because you have to be asleep to think it is the better option.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14661
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: $1 tn needed to achieve 1TW solar power capacity by 2030

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 11 Mar 2018, 18:43:08

Tanada wrote:
AdamB wrote:


At the International Solar Alliance, Emmanuel Macron said the government, private sector and civil society need to work together to overcome hurdles French President Emmanuel Macron on Sunday said USD 1 trillion will be needed to achieve one terawatt (TW) of solar power capacity by 2030. Speaking alongside Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the founding conference of the International Solar Alliance (ISA), he said there are financing and regulation hurdles for achieving the target which need to be cleared by government, private sector and civil society coming together. Without any names, he referred to countries quitting the historic Paris Climate agreement and said ISA nations came together to “deliver complete results”. The oblique reference was to US President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, which was signed by nearly 200 countries in December 2015 in an effort to curb


$1 tn needed to achieve 1TW solar power capacity by 2030


With a Trillion dollars I could build 50: 1,500MWe nuclear power stations at a grossly inflated price tag of 20 Billion each. These 50 power stations would then be capable of generating 75 GWe 24/7/365 for 60+ years each. Meanwhile those solar PV systems with an expected what is it, 30 year lifetime, would be generating for about 6 hours a day on average if they are in a good location (25% capacity factor) so your nameplate 1 TWe is 250 GWe if everything goes swimmingly. Sounds like a winner right? but wait, you have to replace them half way through the life of the Nuclear systems so that 250 is actually 125 GWe, Still sounds like a winner?

Well sure, if it really costs you 20 Billion a pop for a fission power station you still get almost double the energy from solar (ignoring the costs of batteries and what not) the solar advocates are claiming $1/Watt in nameplate capacity so how much does nuclear actually cost? Well in South Korea they build a lot of nuclear and the 'overnight costs' are about $2.02/Watt while in China the newest plants cost $1.81/Watt. But we already know that Solar PV system is at best 25% efficient over 24 hours because of you know, sunset and stuff so the real cost of that solar PV system might not be $1/Watt claimed for nameplate, it is more likely $4/Watt, and you have to replace the system in 30 years instead of in 60.

So say we let South Korea set up the factory to mass produce nuclear reactors of a standard design (much as France did in the 1970-80 period when they build almost all of their current plants to three standardized designs). Lets go further and say that instead of duplication reducing costs they actually cost a little more, say $3.00/Watt for a nice 50% fudge factor. Okay how much fission capacity will 1 trillion buy us at $3? Easy math there fellas that would be 334 GWe in cookie cutter stations with a 1.5 GWe capacity each. AKA 334 GWe 24/7/365 for $1trillion for 60 years vs 250 GWe (net) for 30 years. Yeah Solar PV is a wonderful dream, mostly because you have to be asleep to think it is the better option.

Being mister quibble here let me start with I know of no nuclear power plant that lasted sixty years without major plumbing or repair issues. Then I have to add in that I cannot recall or imagine an evacuation from a solar panel disaster. You can't say the same about nuclear power.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8844
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postby kiwichick » Mon 12 Mar 2018, 03:19:54

User avatar
kiwichick
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2231
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 12 Mar 2018, 07:48:33

I'm not going to quibble about whether nuclear energy or renewables are more appropriate replacements for FF energy. The facts are that all other forms of energy production even taken collectively will still be producing less overall energy at higher costs than do FF's today.

People are already dying from lack of food and clean water because energy costs too much to save them. Things are not improving.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4904
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley


Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests