Summed in in one graph that says it all.
Roger Andrews writes:
If decarbonization is to be achieved by expanding renewables the expansion will have to come in wind, solar and biomass. So let’s take hydro out and see how far growth in wind, solar and biomass has carried us along the decarbonization path so far:
Clearly they still have a long way to go.
Source: http://euanmearns.com/renewable-energy-growth-in-perspective/
@ur momisugly philjourdan says:
“They have centuries to go. What happens when they run out of windy places, and wide open spaces?”
Centuries? Build the solar farms on Jupiter and laser it back to collectors along the equator.
@KevinM
Why not just build them on the sun? it is closer, has more real estate(?) and would get a higher concentration than a planet 5 times further from the sun than Earth.
@ur momisugly tom s says:
“I was ay a coffee shop that has a daily trivia question and it said thus; In what year is wind and solar expected to be the dominant energy source worldwide?. Their answer was 2025….😁”
Jeffrey Sachs wrote a best selling book in 2005 claiming Earth will be poverty free that same year. I’m glad I’ll still be almost young enough to party.
” Build the solar farms on Jupiter”
Errrm, I meant wind farms.
@KevinM – Errrm, I meant wind farms.
Ah! Never mind then. 😉
That much!?!? I thought I’d need my 10X magnifier to see the contribution but it’s clearly visible with just my reading glasses.
Anyway, that’s about twice what I figured, so I guess those couple of trillion dollars spent on green energy weren’t a waste after all, eh?
(/sarc really necessary?)
Biomass is carbon neutral, as pointed out above, because the carbon recirculates into the biomass, the air, plants (biomass), the air when burned, biomass…
In which case, fossil fuels and ONLY fossil fuels are “superrenewable” because they, too recirculate endlessly after you burn them the first time.
What is more important: fossil fuels and only fossils make MORE LIFE on Earth. We are carbon based life forms.
We can argue about economics. We can praise nuclear (ignoring Sternglass’ research), but none of those increase life. Only fossil fuels.
To be honest, I don’t think even the life-increasing effect of fossils will ever impress the greens. They are afraid of carbon dioxide. They know that planets use CO2 and give off oxygen while people breathe in the oxygen to burn sugars and fats, releasing carbon dioxide. So they think CO2 is a waste product and therefore harmful. The reality is that CO2 has been part of the environment of life since we were bacteria in the Hadean seas. Most previous eras had far more carbon dioxide that the recent ones, so most of our physiology is selected for higher levels. It is not only plants, but humans as well, that are carbon-dioxide starved. When we get THAT across, then all the folks worshiping politicians as “the scientists” will finally discover that WE are the scientists, and understand what we have been saying.
Statistical data points are wonderful things, they can be made to mean anything to anyone. So a green head (not the fly) can joyously explain how green enregy has increased by over 300% since 1980 and then enjoin foolish humanity to repent and worship at the temple of green energy. Of course this view misses the greater context and scale but is a common fault in Climate Change Activism, er I mean Climate Science.
Whats funny, if we could have just stopped the fantastical growth of junk mail since 1980, we might have reduced more energy pollution than all of the green energy initiatives combined.
the solution is obvious: we need to spend MOAR money on renewable energy sources.
I’ve been fighting this battle for 30 years. (The solar/wind/renewable drum beat.) Some times I get TIRED of doing it. Could we divide the United states down the MIDDLE? All the refineries, coal plants, etc. on one side (probably East of the Mississippi) and all the wind power and solar to the West. (Now the paradox here is the boat load of 100,000,000 left leaning zombies on the east coast who would have to move to utopia, i.e. west of the Mississippi)…however it would be such a wonderful proposal. Those EAST of the M, would take all that nasty OIL and COAL away from those in the WEST of the big M, “cleaning” the land of those nasty materials. To the west of the Mississippi would be nothing but blue sky, flowers, love and peace. Meanwhile, those on the East of the Mississippi would have to “die” from their own deadly (AKA CO2) releases and “chemicals”…with the overflow going off into the Atlantic, and Europe and Africa. Who, in a rational world, would essentially threaten the people East of the Mississippi with WAR, because of their “poisoning” their air/water.
However, in the REAL WORLD of the passive, unable to do anything militarily, Europe and Africa, there would be NO reaction at all! Of course, silly me, I forgot all that “deadly” polution (CO2) coming from CHINA! TO which the people west of the Mississippi should also respond with “deadly force”. BUT WAIT, the people west of the Mississippi are now all “flower children”, left wing “negociators and lovers”. Not a fighter amongst them. So the Chinese (and Indians) can do whatever they want. SO, I have SOLVED IT! The perfect solar, conservation, wind, renewable society…living in peace and harmony, and the terrible warmongering, fossil burning, enviromentally destructive neandrethals, “isolated” on the Eastern 1/2 of the USA.
One problem, I have not be able to solve: When the “Westerners” convert all their agriculture to making ETHANOL, they will have food shortages and deaths from mal-nutrition. However, again a marvelous, self presenting “cure”. If they are all completely DRUNK, they won’t feel a whit of pain as they pass on, out of the way. I am SUCH a GENIUS!
Jake J says:
July 18, 2014 at 10:52 am
I thought maybe I was missing your intended sarcasm but view several subsequent comments I have to conclude you really believe that.
No. Even if we had a scalable, cheap, safe grid storage technology it would only make wind power marginally less awful. It would not change the other problems with wind. (1) practical wind energy recovery is limited by location (as is hydro). The best locations get built first and there is a decreasing return on later locations. (2) Wind turbines produce useful power only within a certain range of wind speed; to little and they don’t spin fast enough; too much and they have to be feathered to prevent damage. Wind turbines at even the best locations seldom average above 25% of their nameplate capacity over a calendar year. (3) the offical EIA figure of a 25-year service lifetime has not been achieved by turbines in use to date. Major service procedures are difficult and quite expensive. In other words, the capital cost per megawatt hour is significantly higher than the official EIA levelized cost accounting (4) Even with the best turbine technology there simply isn’t that much energy in wind — about 1 watt/sq. meter of swept blade area.
And besides, if the hoped-for grid storage technology does become a reality, there is a much better use for it than backup up for intermittent sources like wind. Use it instead to eliminate or at least reduce peaking plants, which are less efficient than base load sources. Keep those big thermal and nuclear plants running at capacity and store the excess at periods of low load to release back onto the grid as needed. We’ll need fewer power plants overall and we can keep the most efficient ones 100% busy between their scheduled maintenance intervals.
@max Hugoson (July 18, 2014 at 1:54 pm)
I think pretty much all recoverable uranium in the US is west of the Mississippi. Actually there are 21 states where uranium has been found. Alabama, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia would join the COG states in your scheme (Coal, Oil, Gas) and all the rest would be with the flower children.
I wonder where the recoverable thorium deposits are?
Quick google search came up with:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/current-and-future-generation/thorium/
http://thoriumforum.com/reserve-estimates-thorium-around-world
@ur momisugly Jake J, I agree that solar PV and solar thermal may have a great future in sunny places. The cost of solar may continue to fall and the cost of FF may continue to rise. It is the mandatory, subsidised deployment at present that is the problem. Where I stay (Aberdeen Scotland) the Sun seldom shines and solar PV is deployed with random orientation – because it really makes little difference. We reckon load is about 8% and the energy used to create panels is never recovered.
Oh, I see you meant just in Murica…
Mr Google came up with this:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1336/pdf/C1336.pdf
Bjorn Lomborg: Facebook Photo 2013.
Renewables share of Global Energy, 1800-2035 (projected)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151880636298968&set=pb.146605843967.-2207520000.1405719474.&type=3&theater
From Lomborg’s comments:
Retired Engineer says:
July 18, 2014 at 12:52 pm
The barriers to entry for nuclear power were/are sufficiently steep enough to have prevented any alternative to the current Light Water Reactors (LWRs). Please note that LWRs were chosen, not because they were the best fit for commercial power reactors, but because they were the best fit for the nascent nuclear Navy. The commercialization of this technology was enabled by the Navy’s choice. A shift from LWRs to Thorium, SMRs, or any other competing nuclear technology, has an uphill commercial/regulatory/industrial battle…but not necessarily an uphill engineering battle.
Max Hugoson says:
July 18, 2014 at 1:54 pm
Would we be allowed to take our filthy oil money to the West for tourist-type activities? I kinda like the rockies…
rip
Jake J says:
July 18, 2014 at 10:52 am
Grid-scale storage is the key enabling technology. If that clicks into place, then that graph WILL end up looking like a hockey stick.
=================
You are caught up in the fable. There is no need for action now. In a few hundred years, maybe so. But the people then and there will deal with it. Creating a 21st century solution to a 24th century concern is ridiculous.
“The fastest growing energy sector of the 21st century”.
(AKA complete tripe. But it sounds good if nothing else)
Frodo says:
July 18, 2014 at 2:34 pm
Sadly, that places the vast majority of thorium depots in the West-of-the-Mississippi flower-children states as well.
Just love Go Home @10:31.
LeeHarvey says:
July 18, 2014 at 11:04 am
@ur momisugly Mario Lento –
I think they actually want us to die, not to live like cavemen.
++++++++++
At the very best, we’d need to live like cavemen. I do not disagree with your sentiment based on evidence from many of “their” statements.
philjourdan says:
July 18, 2014 at 1:22 pm
@Mario Lento – then the polar bears will REALLY be endangered!
+++++++++++++
True that… 🙂
It is the mandatory, subsidised deployment at present that is the problem. Where I stay (Aberdeen Scotland) the Sun seldom shines and solar PV is deployed with random orientation – because it really makes little difference. We reckon load is about 8% and the energy used to create panels is never recovered.
I can’t imagine too many places where it’s dumber to deploy solar panels than in Aberdeen, or anywhere in Scotland, or the entire U.K. for that matter. I’m thinking of rooftops in San Diego and Las Vegas.
It would not change the other problems with wind. (1) practical wind energy recovery is limited by location (as is hydro). The best locations get built first and there is a decreasing return on later locations. (2) Wind turbines produce useful power only within a certain range of wind speed; to little and they don’t spin fast enough; too much and they have to be feathered to prevent damage. Wind turbines at even the best locations seldom average above 25% of their nameplate capacity over a calendar year. (3) the offical EIA figure of a 25-year service lifetime has not been achieved by turbines in use to date. Major service procedures are difficult and quite expensive. In other words, the capital cost per megawatt hour is significantly higher than the official EIA levelized cost accounting (4) Even with the best turbine technology there simply isn’t that much energy in wind — about 1 watt/sq. meter of swept blade area.
First, I need to say that I’m very, ver far from a hair-to-his-ass hippie when it comes to this stuff. There are aspects of wind turbines that I definitely dislike, chief among them being the destruction of scenic vistas. But …
(1) We’re not even remotely close to exhausting the windy locations, at least in the United States, (2) The levelized cost estimates account for the factors you mention (3) Not only will this get better, but there’s enough slack to still make wind economical if cheap grid-scale storage is developed (4) There’s enough to matter. No one — certainly not me, anyway — ever would argue that we would or should depend on one method of generation.
And besides, if the hoped-for grid storage technology does become a reality, there is a much better use for it than backup up for intermittent sources like wind. Use it instead to eliminate or at least reduce peaking plants, which are less efficient than base load sources. Keep those big thermal and nuclear plants running at capacity and store the excess at periods of low load to release back onto the grid as needed. We’ll need fewer power plants overall and we can keep the most efficient ones 100% busy between their scheduled maintenance intervals.
Ultimately, this will be a matter for the invisible hand. One big upside of cheap grid-scale storage could be the elimination of subsidies.
Why take hydro out? Did its inclusion invalidate the argument?
Even so, it seems to me that the trend will reach about 50% by 2040 and then make fossil fuels obsolete by 2050.
Jake J, if what you claim is true, then we CAN get rid of subsidies NOW. So come on, put your own money (not mine) where YOUR mouth is and call for an immediate end to subsidies. If you can’t, then you’re just spewing hot air.
Cheers all.
Alex
I think hydro is pretty much fully developed, for one thing. Maybe some more rivers will be dammed, who knows, but it’s not going to grow in a big way. It’s old, established technology. Maybe there can be more efficient turbines with superconductors? I dunno.
The action, so to speak, is in wind and solar, where there have been big technological developments in the last 20 years, and where there’s lots of room to grow. But not (in my opinion) without much better storage. It does occur to me that maybe micro-level storage (each home) could work for solar panels in some applications.