[dohboi]

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footpri ... gy_report/

(Contains link to full PDF.)

The Energy Report: 100% Renewable Energy by 2050

WWF has a vision of a world that is powered by 100 per cent renewable energy sources by the middle of this century. Unless we make this transition, the world is most unlikely to avoid predicted escalating impacts of climate change.
But is it possible to achieve 100 per cent renewable energy supplies for everyone on the planet by 2050? WWF called upon the expertise of respected energy consultancy Ecofys to provide an answer to this question. In response, Ecofys has produced a bold and ambitious scenario - which demonstrates that it is technically possible to achieve almost 100 per cent renewable energy sources within the next four decades. The ambitious outcomes
of this scenario, along with all of the assumptions, opportunities, detailed data and sources, are presented as Part 2 of this report.
The Ecofys scenario raises a number of significant issues and challenges. The Energy Report investigates the most critically important political, economic, environmental and social choices and challenges – and encourages their further debate.
How are we going to provide for all of the world’s future needs, on energy, food, fibre, water and others, without running into such huge issues as: conflicting demands on land/water availability and use; rising, and in some cases, unsustainable consumption of commodities; nuclear waste; and regionally appropriate and adequate energy mixes?

Unfortunately, we can't wait till 2050. We needed to have done this twenty years ago.

As Kevin Anderson points out, we have to start with radical reductions on the much-more-elastic demand side if we are going to get anywhere close to have any glimmering hope of avoiding beyond-catastrophic consequences. (Catastrophic consequences are already baked into the cake, at this point.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInrvSjW90U

[Plantagenet]

The idea of running the USA and/or the world on 100% renewables by 2050 is exciting, but we are unlikely to see much movement in that direction in the current political climate. Given President Obama's support for offshore drilling in the Arctic and frakking, and his repeated claims that the USA has a 100 year supply of natural gas thanks to frakking, this administration is unlikely to back a move to 100% renewables any time soon.

[dohboi]

Yep, the politics of energy have become pretty disgusting in the US.

I couldn't bring myself to watch the presidential debates. My bro who did almost busted a vain as he watch O and Rom try to out-do each other on how quickly each would un-sequester carbon (not their exact words, of course.)

Even a rapid build out at this point will not be enough to prevent beyond-calamitous climate chaos, of course. That we can't even begin to talk about this minimal, relatively painless step in the current 'political climate' shows just how utterly f'd we are.

[Plantagenet]

... thrill to be a virgin, always knowing the Evil Nubian is the source of all wrong in the world..

Please keep your sexual fantasies to yourself.

[Narz]

Yep, the politics of energy have become pretty disgusting in the US.

I couldn't bring myself to watch the presidential debates. My bro who did almost busted a vain as he watch O and Rom try to out-do each other on how quickly each would un-sequester carbon (not their exact words, of course.)

Even a rapid build out at this point will not be enough to prevent beyond-calamitous climate chaos, of course. That we can't even begin to talk about this minimal, relatively painless step in the current 'political climate' shows just how utterly f'd we are.

Have to agree. I felt the exact same about the debates. What makes it worse though is that it doesn't reflect so much on politiics as it does on the American public. Politiicans tell the masses what they want to hear & most people evidently wanted to hear all this short term job-growth, f*** the planet stuff (Romney even came out & said it outright).

[sunweb]

Solar and Wind are not renewable. The energy from solar and from wind is of course renewable but the devices used to capture the energy of the sun and wind are not renewable. Nor are they green or sustainable. Nor are they clean or green if you include the mining, huge machines, fossil fuel requirements, transportation, toxic chemicals to get the components.

An oak tree is renewable. A horse is renewable. They reproduce themselves. The human-made equipment used to capture solar energy or wind energy is not renewable. There is considerable fossil fuel energy embedded in this equipment. The many components used in devices to capture solar energy, wind energy, tidal energy and biomass energy – aluminum, glass, copper, rare metals, petroleum in many forms to name a few – are fossil fuel dependent.

Wind used by sailing ships and old style “dutch” wind machines is renewable and sustainable.
From: Energy in the Real World with pictures of proof.
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/01/en ... world.html
Even if they could reproduce themselves, then they must produce all the products associated with the lifestyle. This business as usual or even a mini scaled down model is not going to happen. See:
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/10/to ... -bulb.html

[Plantagenet]

Solar and Wind are not renewable. The energy from solar and from wind is of course renewable but the devices used to capture the energy of the sun and wind are not renewable. Nor are they green or sustainable. Nor are they clean or green if you include the mining, huge machines, fossil fuel requirements, transportation, toxic chemicals to get the components.

An oak tree is renewable. A horse is renewable. They reproduce themselves. The human-made equipment used to capture solar energy or wind energy is not renewable. There is considerable fossil fuel energy embedded in this equipment. The many components used in devices to capture solar energy, wind energy, tidal energy and biomass energy – aluminum, glass, copper, rare metals, petroleum in many forms to name a few – are fossil fuel dependent.

Yes you are right than there is some use of fossil fuels to make windmills and PV panels. But once they are made they don't use fossil fuels to make electricity. That is a HUGE improvement over most existing electrical power plants that rely on fossils fuels like coal and NG to make electricity.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Increasing our use of renewables is good.

[careinke]

I think we could get there with a simple, but major change to our tax system. Replace ALL taxes with a consumption tax high enough to ensure a balanced budget. Then in addition, charge a carbon tax of $20 a ton, assessed at the well head or border (including the carbon cost of goods coming into the country). Announce the carbon tax will rise by 20% per year indefinitely. Take the carbon tax money and distribute it equally to all adult citizens.

You could speed the process even further by removing ALL government subsidies for all types of energy production or installation of energy saving devices.

Unrelated to helping reduce the carbon footprint, but if I could get away with it, I would also outlaw the selling of government bonds. You could eliminate the need for them by establishing a "project fund" that is funded through the consumption tax. This would effectively stabilize the amount of currency in the system eliminating inflation.

States and counties would also only use consumption taxes. All other taxes would be outlawed through a constitutional amendment.

Bottom line, you want to tax what you want to reduce (consumption), and you don't tax what you want (people working ie labor).

I'm pretty sure this idea could be sold to the Rethugs (balanced budget, no corporate taxes, etc.). You might also be able to sell it to the Dims with some safeguards for the poor but I'm not sure.

[Keith_McClary]

Suppose the energy payback time for solar is T and solar capacity is growing with time t at exp(t/T).
What is the net power production?

[SeaGypsy]

Do you replace- recycle a solar panel when it gets down to 80%, 50% or 10%? How solid state/ redundant is the particular technology? Some of these equations can't be done because lifespan of new products is guestimated. There are factors such as salinity (corrosion), with wide variables. One of the beauties of FF's is the consistency of return regardless of environment, a liter of gas being as useful in the tropics as in Antarctica, day or night, wind, hail, rain or shine. Density, portability, consistency of return and performance, flexibility of application; nothing comes close to oil or oil derivatives. The future is electric (as I have argued before) but there are some big ifs and buts to transition.

[careinke]

Do you replace- recycle a solar panel when it gets down to 80%, 50% or 10%? How solid state/ redundant is the particular technology? Some of these equations can't be done because lifespan of new products is guestimated. There are factors such as salinity (corrosion), with wide variables. One of the beauties of FF's is the consistency of return regardless of environment, a liter of gas being as useful in the tropics as in Antarctica, day or night, wind, hail, rain or shine. Density, portability, consistency of return and performance, flexibility of application; nothing comes close to oil or oil derivatives. The future is electric (as I have argued before) but there are some big ifs and buts to transition.

The problem with FF's is we will all be dead if we continue to use them. FF's are best when they stay in the ground.