IEAE reports costs to convert to renewable power

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by Rybold, Jun 6, 2008.

  1. Rybold

    Rybold globally warmed member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    2,760
    320
    3
    Location:
    Southern California
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    A U.N.-network of scientists concluded last year that emissions have to be cut by at least half by 2050 to avoid an increase in world temperatures of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees above pre-18th century levels.

    The study said that an average of 35 coal-powered plants and 20 gas-powered power plants would have to be fitted with carbon capture and storage equipment each year between 2010 and 2050.
    In addition, the world would have to construct 32 new nuclear power plants each year, and wind-power turbines would have to be increased by 17,000 units annually. Nations would have to achieve an eight-fold reduction in carbon intensity -- the amount of carbon needed to produce a unit of energy -- in the transport sector.
    Such action would drastically reduce oil demand to 27 percent of 2005 demand.

    Failure to act would lead to a doubling of energy demand and a 130 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, IEA officials said.
    "This development is clearly not sustainable," said Dolf Gielen, an IEA energy analyst and leader for the project.
    Gielen said most of the $45 trillion forecast investment -- about $27 trillion -- would be borne by developing countries, which will be responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

    $45 trillion needed to combat warming: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance
     
  2. jayman

    jayman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    13,439
    622
    0
    Location:
    Winnipeg Manitoba
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Sadly a lot of folks have failed to realize just how cheap oil really was. Now we have to scramble to replace it

    I wonder how long it will take folks to realize that oil is far more valuable as a chemical feedstock, and as fertilizer, pesticide, and herbicide?
     
  3. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    12
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    And how much Solar would have to be installed? Hmm. Seems they're not considering that as an option.

    There is no reason that Germany should be the #1 producer of solar in the world. The U.S. should be. And where solar isn't efficient....there's wind. We aren't utilizing geothermal as much as we could either.

    Nor do we recycle water as much as we could.

    I'm seeing a pattern here.

    (And nuclear is NOT the be all, end all of solving our problems, no matter how many plants we build.)
     
  4. tripp

    tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it?

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    4,717
    79
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    17000 units? That's a useless number. Give me capacity. The size of turbines is a moving target. They completely failed to mention CSP, which is going to be a huge player, at least regionally. PV and solar thermal can and will play a bigger role. Geothermal should probably also get a mention. Their goal is to probably be pretty conservative with these numbers and they're trying not to make too many assumptions about newer green technologies.
     
  5. Rybold

    Rybold globally warmed member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    2,760
    320
    3
    Location:
    Southern California
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    As a chemist myself, I've been thinking the same thing long before oil prices started to rise. I can't actually believe we burn millions of barrels of oil every day. Our society consumes millions of barrels to make plastic, polymers, and millions of other products that make our lives better, in addition to medical products and food packaging. And yet here we are BURNING this valuable resource, every day. It just doesn't make logical sense.
     
Loading...