Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: The Viability of Germany’s Energiewende: Mark Jacobson Answers 3 Questions [View all]kristopher
(29,798 posts)8. More of your hypothetical bullpucky
We can meet some energy demand by building renewable electrical sources instead of fossil fuels. We can also gain energy efficiency by substituting more-efficient electrical motors for combustion engines for example, or improve the efficiency of using fossil fuels for things like space and process heat.
But these two together will only reduce the amount of CO2 flowing into the atmosphere if the global sum of sum of renewable builds plus efficiency improvements stays ahead of the growing global energy demand.
But these two together will only reduce the amount of CO2 flowing into the atmosphere if the global sum of sum of renewable builds plus efficiency improvements stays ahead of the growing global energy demand.
Can you say, "Duh"?
For example, assume that energy demand grows by 2.2%, pa, which is the recent 30 year trailing average primary energy growth rate. Then assume we can supply 0.4% of it from low-carbon sources like renewables - also the trailing 30 year average growth rate of low carbon sources. Assume we get 0.8% as efficiency improvements - the 20-year trailing average of improvements in the energy intensity of global GDP (this actually requires us to double our current 0.8% rate of improvement that is already doing its job to lower energy consumption). 0.4 + 0.8 - 1.2. We need 2.2%, so we're still short by 1%.
Q: Why would anyone use a thirty year trailing average to look at the forward effects of infrastructure change that has already demonstrated that assumption to be invalid?
A: In order to create a false narrative.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
33 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The Viability of Germany’s Energiewende: Mark Jacobson Answers 3 Questions [View all]
kristopher
Oct 2013
OP
Why didn't Japan build their own airliners instead of buying from Boeing / Airbus?
PamW
Oct 2013
#12
Agreed. I just wanted to get the idea out there, and this was as good a place as any.
GliderGuider
Oct 2013
#6
At least you've stopped trying to beat us to death with Mark Z. Jacobsen...
GliderGuider
Oct 2013
#24