Exclusive: Renewable energies to leap, costs fall: U.N. (IPCC new report coming out)

[bananas]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/04/us-energy-ipcc-idUSTRE74325N20110504

Exclusive: Renewable energies to leap, costs fall: U.N.
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
OSLO | Wed May 4, 2011 12:15pm EDT

(Reuters) - Renewable energies such as wind or solar power are set to surge by 2050, and expected advances in technology will bring significant cost cuts, a draft United Nations report showed on Wednesday.

<snip>

The 30-page summary for policymakers, part of a Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources, will be published on May 9.

<snip>

Most of the 164 scenarios showed renewable energies would rise to supply above 100 exajoules (EJ) a year by 2050, reaching 200-400 EJ a year in many scenarios. That is up from 64 EJ in 2008, when world supply was 492 EJ, it said.

<snip>

Renewables' share of total energy supply varied widely in the scenarios, reaching up to 77 percent of total energy supply by 2050.

<snip>

The draft was written before Fukushima, don't know if it will be reflected in the final report.

[flamingdem]

1. The trend is our friend nt

[kestrel91316]

2. I know at least one DUer who posts on E/E who has got to be positively

frothing at the mouth over this news, lol.

[bananas]

4. He's on "forced mutual ignore" so he can't see it.

Fortunately, that also means he can't disrupt this thread.

[kestrel91316]

7. Oh did our dear NN finally get a pizza?

[bananas]

10. Unfortunately, no, just forced mutual ignore

The moderators have forced us onto each others ignore list,
so we can't see or respond to each other.

[kestrel91316]

13. Well he has been pretty scarce around these parts since Fukushima

started looking like it was a really huge mess.

[madokie]

18. Is this something that can be requested?

forced ignore I mean.

[Nederland]

23. What news?

There isn't any actual news in this report, it is a projection. In fact, the closest thing to any actual data is this:

In 2008 renewable energy production accounted for about 12.9 percent of global primary energy supply and was dominated by bioenergy with 10.2 percent, followed by hydro power, wind, geothermal, solar power and ocean energy.

So renewable energy accounts for 12.9 percent of the global primary energy supply, but the vast majority of that number is something other than wind or solar. The bottom line is that wind and solar continue to represent a pitiful percentage of the global energy mix. When that changes you'll have something to crow about.

[kristopher]

3. You beat me...

I was going to post this:

The IPCC 4th Assessment Report (AR4) covered the full range of mitigation options, which necessarily limited its treatment of renewable energy (RE) sources. Within the constraints of time and space, the AR4 showed that RE has the potential to contribute to the mitigation of climate change via the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector.

Following the AR4, many governments as well as important actors in civil society and the private sector asked for more substantial information and broader coverage of all questions pertaining to the use of RE. As expressed by the interventions of many governments at the 25th Plenary Session of the IPCC at Mauritius – at which the scoping of an IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energies was approved - this is particularly true of certain countries and regions where specific information is lacking. Following the scoping meeting in Luebeck Germany in January, 2008, the outline of the IPCC WG III’s Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN) was approved at the IPCC Plenary in Budapest in April, 2008.

Due to the dynamic development of markets and investment and the experience gained from enabling policy frameworks, substantial additional evidence has emerged since the AR4. Significant new information and analysis has been reported in the literature on technological development and deployment, regional assessments, environmental and socio-economic impacts, cost reductions as well as mounting practical experience with implementation.

The IPCC WG III SRREN is expected to provide a better understanding of:

resources by region and impacts of climate change on these resources;

the mitigation potential of RE sources;

the linkages between RE growth and co-benefits in achieving sustainable development by region;

the impacts on global, regional and national energy security;

the technology and market status, future developments and projected rates of deployment;
the options and constraints for integration into the energy supply system and other markets, including energy storage options;
the economic and environmental costs, benefits, risks and impacts of deployment;
capacity building, technology transfer and financing in different regions;
policy options, outcomes and conditions for effectiveness; and
the accelerated deployment that could be achieved in a sustainable manner.

More at:
http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/publications/special-reports/srren/special-report-renewable-energy-sources

[jpak]

5. Greenies win - nuclear fails

yup

:toast:

[FBaggins]

6. So even in the most optomistic scenario... Jacobsen was dead wrong?

What a shocker!

Most of the 164 scenarios showed renewable energies would rise to supply above 100 exajoules (EJ) a year by 2050, reaching 200-400 EJ a year in many scenarios. That is up from 64 EJ in 2008, when world supply was 492 EJ, it said.

Demand for 2050 is projected to be 900-1,000 EJs. So even in the most optomistic projection (400 EJ), the world still need more generation from other sources than it currently gets from all sources combined. If nuclear is off the table, where do you think that's going to come from?

[bananas]

8. No, the most optimistic scenario had 77% from renewables

And you're making a logical error which I'm not going to bother explaining right now.

[FBaggins]

15. Let me guess...

...that "logical error" is based on you assuming that we've finally gotten a handle on demand and it won't go up?

Yeah... I'd avoid "explaining" that one too. Just to keep from getting laughed at.

[kristopher]

9. I guess that is what passes for a reasoned argument in the fission club.

Doesn't say much in the real world, though.

[NickB79]

11. Good thing we have until 2050 to get there

I mean, if we were already seeing substantial, possibly irreversible effects to the planet from global warming and to society from Peak Oil today, man I'd be sweating bullets right about now, but thank goodness we aren't.

Right?

[kristopher]

12. That mischaracterizes the 2050 benchmark- why do you want to do that?

This is a progressive discussion forum and renewable energy is a solid pillar of progressive energy policy. You routinely mischaracterize issues related to renewable energy in order to create false negative impressions of renewable energy. That isn't well intentioned criticism that you are practicing, but is instead typical of standard, rightwing smear tactics towards progressive policies of all types.

Since you engage in this behavior in support of the nuclear fission industry, I'll assume that is your motive in this case. So the response to your baseless sniping is that no matter what the pace of renewable deployment (the paper discusses policy options and their effect on economic trends) it is able to be technically done FASTER and for less money than the alternative of nuclear and coalCCS.

Renewbles are also cleaner, safer, and more sustainable than the nuclear/coalCCS option.

[Nihil]

14. Probably for a similar reason that you regularly refer to "coalCCS" (*) - personal bias....

(*) Something that doesn't exist (being merely greenwash for the
most polluting power industry in the world) but which allows you
to make your arguments without facing the true negatives of the
full picture.

:shrug:


> and renewable energy is should be a solid pillar of progressive energy policy.

Fixed it for you. (Currently not true due to Obama's support for coal,
never mind the arguments about nuclear or not.)


> That isn't well intentioned criticism that you are practicing,
> but is instead typical of standard, rightwing smear tactics
> towards progressive policies of all types.

Speaking of "standard, rightwing smear tactics" ...

[kristopher]

16. That makes no sense at all.

Renewable energy IS a solid plank, there is no dispute on that that point, so your "fix" is meaningless. I have no idea what your point is with the rest of of your cryptogram. This is a progressive forum, promotion of renewable energy is an established solid progressive policy - just as solid as pro-choice and equal rights - and there are a LOT of people here who are sick of the right wing style attacks on discussions about this topic.

If you have a problem with that let's hear it clearly stated.

[Nihil]

17. Not when you keep your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears.

> Renewable energy IS a solid plank, there is no dispute on that that point,
> so your "fix" is meaningless.

My "fix" is necessary in order to accommodate Obama's love affair with coal
(usually under the pretence that it can be "cleaned" up).

I agreed (and agree) with you that it *should* be such a pillar (or plank)
of progressive energy policy but disagree that "there is no dispute on that
point" as the President himself disputes "that point" by his repeated support
of coal.


> and there are a LOT of people here who are sick of the right wing style attacks
> on discussions about this topic.
> If you have a problem with that let's hear it clearly stated.

I have a problem with the hypocrisy that you are exhibiting every single time
that you apply the "You're either with us 100% or you're against us" binary
thinking that characterises the very "right wing style attacks" that you are
pretending to deplore.

You repeatedly apply that rule to anyone who disputes any issue with you.

You repeatedly call people "right-wing", "conservative" and other smearing
terms when they dare to suggest that your opinion is not to be automatically
taken as some kind of received gospel.

THAT is what I have a problem with.
I hope you can "hear" it clearly this time.

[kristopher]

20. Bullshit.

There are documented, established tactics used by climate deniers where they seek to legitimize their rightwing message by rebranding themselves as "skeptics" and pretending they are participating in legitimate but critical discussion of "the science" when in reality they are doing nothing but pushing debunked right-wing claptrap that is designed to sway public opinion towards the policy position desired by the RIGHT WING.

The same exact tactic is being used against renewable energy here. All the oxygen is used defending against DEBUNKED, FALSE, RIGHTWING INDUSTRY CREATED PROPAGANDA DESIGNED TO CREATE FEAR, UNCERTAINTY AND DOUBT TOWARDS RENEWABLES. For example, how many times have we had a discussion about whether or not renewables can meet our energy needs? In the scientific community that point was settled 20 years ago; you will find no scientist that values their reputation who will challenge that in a peer reviewed publication. Another is the criticisms leveled towards people like Jacobson and Lovins. These are straight out of the rightwing playbook chapter focusing on "attacks on science".

Another, more immediate case in point is the claim you are making about Obama. Yes, in conjunction with REPUBLICANS he has adopted an "all of the above" strategy towards energy, however that in no way lessens the fact that promotion of renewables is a fundamental policy plank of the progressive agenda.

I have no problem with legitimate discussion and criticism of information, but I'm not a fool that thinks just because some asshat says they have good intentions it means their claim is true; especially when they demonstrate it isn't by consistently promoting falsehoods and misinformation on renewable energy.

[Nihil]

21. Hypocrite.

And a lying hypocrite at that.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NickB79]

24. A mischaracterization, or a realization you can't bear to think about?

We ARE seeing potentially irreversible effects from global warming NOW (and much faster than previously estimated to boot), and we ARE seeing global oil production on a plataue for the past 5 years now. Neither one of these is really debatable. Why do you want to ignore the inevitable conclusion that we will see considerably more damage to the environment if it takes us another 40 years to phase out a majority of our fossil fuel use? I'd venture a guess that it's because you've invested heavily in a market-driven, capitalist approach to the growth of renewable energy, despite the fact that such a method is moving far too slowly to prevent the planet from breaking the dreaded 500ppm of CO2 barrier.

As for your continued claim that I somehow support the nuclear fission industry, I've repeatedly stated that I'm at best agnostic on nuclear power, and I can't think of the last time I actually supported the current fission industry. I find it noteworthy that YOU are the one who brings up nuclear power in virtually all of the discussions we've entered into here at DU, not me (see this thread for just one example). At best, I've stated that nuclear power could work IN THEORY, but here in the real world it appears that human nature, ie greed and corruption, derail even the best-laid plans.

[kristopher]

25. I stand by what I wrote.

Your remarks mischaracterizes the 2050 benchmark- why do you want to do that?

This is a progressive discussion forum and renewable energy is a solid pillar of progressive energy policy. You routinely mischaracterize issues related to renewable energy in order to create false negative impressions of renewable energy. That isn't well intentioned criticism that you are practicing, but is instead typical of standard, rightwing smear tactics towards progressive policies of all types.

Since you engage in this behavior in support of the nuclear fission industry, I'll assume that is your motive in this case. So the response to your baseless sniping is that no matter what the pace of renewable deployment (the paper discusses policy options and their effect on economic trends) it is able to be technically done FASTER and for less money than the alternative of nuclear and coalCCS.

Renewbles are also cleaner, safer, and more sustainable than the nuclear/coalCCS option.

To which I will add that your disclaimer notwithstanding, your posts have established an extremely clear position where you support and promote anything positive about nuclear while simultaneously taking every opportunity to malign fission's renewable energy competition. You don't need to sign a formal declaration, you establish your preferences by your actions.

[NickB79]

26. Which posts have I supported and promoted nuclear?

My discussions of nuclear power here at DU at this point are mostly theoretical, like how I discuss terraforming or interstellar travel on various science-fiction discussion boards.

As for this:

"So the response to your baseless sniping is that no matter what the pace of renewable deployment (the paper discusses policy options and their effect on economic trends) it is able to be technically done FASTER and for less money than the alternative of nuclear and coalCCS."

Did you notice that in my posts about the pace of deployment of renewables, I never claim that nuclear or coalCCS could do it faster or better? That's your strawman to beat up on, not mine. I personally don't think ANY new source of energy is better than renewables; I personally think that ALL options we have will fall short of what we need, unless we throw out our idea that we can use market forces (the Invisible Hand that most conservatives love so much) and find a way to fast-track all renewable construction so that we minimize the impact of global warming.

Like I said before, even with renewables growing at the pace suggested in the OP, it won't be enough to prevent us from hitting 500ppm of CO2.

[FBaggins]

27. You have to cut kris some slack.

He doesn't feel like he gets good value from his keystrokes unless he can repurpose them at least six times in other posts.

It causes him to frequently spam conversations.

So go easy on him. Original thoughts take extra effort and he runs at a solar-esque capacity factor sometimes. :)

[NickB79]

28. To add to my previous post

Because I missed the editing period:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x293204

That DU thread sums up my opinion on the whole renewables vs. coal vs. natural gas vs. nuclear argument: nothing we have available to us will get us where we need to go without massive reductions in energy consumption. Renewables can't be seen as a drop-in solution for our current energy crisis because the entire system is unsustainable no matter what energy source we use.

[kristopher]

29. role of efficiency and conservation are integral to the renewable strategy

The last I heard the role of efficiency and conservation are integral to the renewable strategy. No one anywhere has claimed it as a "drop-in solution for our current energy crisis"; but that is PRECISELY what the coalCCS/fission promoters are claiming we need because that it precisely what coalCCS and fission can do - provide an easy to visualize, "drop-in" answer to energy worries for those without the time to do real research on the issue.
When you use that phrasing you are implanting a sentence that has built in dissonance that is resolved by the reader thinking "That isn't true, nuclear is a "drop-in" solution; we can keep everything we have with nuclear".

So that begs the question of how you translate a positive belief in efficiency and conservation into a constant stream of posts that undermine renewables while giving attaboys to fission?

[madokie]

19. This has to be the best information I've read in quite some time

Rec'd

Thanks for posting this