Renewables could be UK's major power source by 2030: WWF

[kristopher]

Renewables could be UK's major power source by 2030: WWF
Report says up to 90% of electricity could come from wind, solar, tidal and other sustainable sources - without the need for nuclear
Damian Carrington guardian.co.uk

The UK could be primarily powered by a secure and inexhaustible supply of renewable energy by 2030 without the need for new nuclear power plants, according to a report commissioned by WWF. Between 60% and 90% of the nation's electricity could come from wind, solar, tidal and other sustainable sources, with the rest supplied via an international supergrid and gas power stations.

"This report is inspiring, but also entirely realistic. It shows that a clean, renewable energy future really is within our grasp," said David Nussbaum, chief executive of WWF-UK. "Failure to commit to a high-renewables future would leave us facing the prospect of dangerous levels of climate change and high energy prices."

The soaring cost of energy bills has become a major political issue, with the prime minister, David Cameron, recently convening a meeting of industry energy leaders. The new report notes that meeting an existing 2020 renewable energy target will increase household bills by 4%, but that this could be more than offset by cuts in usage through better energy efficiency.

"Developing a low carbon and sustainable power sector in the UK is first and foremost a question of political will," concludes the report, which comes at a time when the Conservative party's commitment to be the "greenest government ever" is being seriously questioned...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/25/uk-renewables-2030-wwf

[tama]

1. They will be

non-renewables run out.

[FBaggins]

2. You can't think of any reason why Nussbaum would say that, now can you?

No bias desperation on his part. Nah!

[kristopher]

3. Yeah all those "biased" climate action NGOs are the same...

They ALL oppose the false premise that nuclear power is a solution to the planet's energy problems...

700 Climate oriented NGOs criticize Japan for promoting nuclear power
Japan criticized for pushing nuke plant exports despite accident

TOKYO (Kyodo) -- Japan has been given the Fossil of the Day "award" at a U.N. climate change conference in Panama for pushing a scheme to promote its exports of nuclear power generation technologies to developing countries as a way of curbing global warming, an international environmental group said Monday.

The Climate Action Network, which groups some 700 nongovernmental organizations in 90 countries, said in a press release it had given Japan "first place" in the award for pushing for a mechanism for exporting nuclear technology despite the ongoing crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi plant triggered by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

The network said the Fukushima calamity "certainly destroyed the myth that nuclear power is safe and clean" and rapped Japan for its failure "to learn an important lesson from the accident."

In a working group meeting on climate change in the Central American country, Japan refused to drop the option of including a scheme under which exporters of nuclear plants to developing countries can earn emissions credits in the so-called "clean development mechanism," the network said.

The mechanism...

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111004p2g00m0dm048000c.html

[FBaggins]

7. Nope... That's not it.

Nice try at evasion though.

You might look at the investment company he's a director of. Been in the news in recent weeks for abysmal performance and a big loss in a wind power investment. Sure could help him avoid a collapse if someone with government funds would buy into this nonsense.

[kristopher]

8. You're claiming all 700 Climate Action NGO's are corrupt?

And that this study by the World Wildlife Fund is the work of one person...

No freaking wonder you believe nuclear power is a good thing - reality is something you can ignore at will.

[FBaggins]

13. You trying to dodge the issue?

I'm shocked. Shocked I say!

But at least you here admit that the source of you OP is corrupt.

[kristopher]

14. It is time to de-bullshit you Baggins.

You are yet again attempting one of the nuclear industries standard ploys of character assassination. Since you lack the foundation to counter the content of the study itself you are obviously compelled to make any kind of negative allegation you can think of when the circumstances surrounding the study make your slimy insinuations absurd.

To that end you wrote in post #7, "You might look at the investment company he's a director of. Been in the news in recent weeks for abysmal performance and a big loss in a wind power investment. Sure could help him avoid a collapse if someone with government funds would buy into this nonsense."

So put up, Baggins. Lay out the evidence - hard evidence - and connect the dots. Show us how this study was initiated and conducted to further the financial well being of one member of the WWF. No insinuations, Baggins, just facts; especially a timeline.

Prove it.

[FBaggins]

15. "You are yet again attempting... character assassination"

Lol!

Fail to see the irony. Don't you?

So put up, Baggins. Lay out the evidence - hard evidence - and connect the dots. Show us how this study was initiated and conducted to further the financial well being of one member of the WWF.

Lol again. What an interesting attempt at spin. It's no longer sufficient to point out that a shill would directly benefit from the government action that he encourages. You have to provide a magic brain recording proving that the profit was their intent... and not just a convenient coincidence.

[kristopher]

16. More unsubstantiated slime from the nuclear industry...

Thank you for confirming that you are making it up as you go along. You are a wonderful rep for my side of the discussion about why the nuclear industry should not be trusted. The overt willingness to fabricate anything is not how trust is established.

[FBaggins]

17. Still can't see it, eh?

No matter what the facts are... they're "slime from the nuclear industry" if they're inconvenient. The source could be a government study... a study from a major university... a study from an established professional organization... and it can all be washed away by claiming that they're all really in the clutches of the evil nuclear industry.

Even pointing out a similar connection between interest groups and companies that directly profit from government decisions that they lobby for (in exactly the same "iron triangle" fashion that you claim to disdain) is itself rubished by you as coming from that same nuclear indistry

That's an awfully convenient delusional system you've got constructed for yourself there, kris. But then again, most paranoia is internally consistent, isn't it? It's when it bumps into the real world that it rattles you.

You've been rattled quite a bit lately.

[kristopher]

18. It is perfectly clear - you tried to slime someone and you have zero evidence.

You are yet again attempting one of the nuclear industries standard ploys of character assassination. Since you lack the foundation to counter the content of the study itself you are obviously compelled to make any kind of negative allegation you can think of when the circumstances surrounding the study make your slimy insinuations absurd.

To that end you wrote in post #7, "You might look at the investment company he's a director of. Been in the news in recent weeks for abysmal performance and a big loss in a wind power investment. Sure could help him avoid a collapse if someone with government funds would buy into this nonsense."

So put up, Baggins. Lay out the evidence - hard evidence - and connect the dots. Show us how this study was initiated and conducted to further the financial well being of one member of the WWF. No insinuations, Baggins, just facts; especially a timeline.

You sound just like those who attack Gore for his work on climate change.

[FBaggins]

19. What would constitute "evidence" in your mind?

Your past track record isn't encouraging.

[GliderGuider]

4. That sure will will be nice.

[NickB79]

5. What's the status of the international supergrid they mention?

Is it related to the supergrid idea that's occasionally bounced around to connect N. Africa with Europe to transport solar energy?

[NickB79]

6. Ugh, it calls for CCS if they can't reach 90% renewables

"In the most ambitious 90% scenarios, the carbon emissions from those gas plants do not need to be captured and stored underground in order to meet the UK's climate change targets, but in the less ambitious 60% scenarios, about one-third of the gas plants would require carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to be fitted."

That might be a problem, seeing as CCS is not looking promising at all right now.

[kristopher]

9. In other words if they build renewables aggressively they can do away with fossil fuel emissions.

That surprises you?

[NickB79]

10. No, but I just hope they can get the funding and investment to build aggressively enough to hit 90%

Short of that, the article says they'll require carbon capture and storage, and anything that needs CCS to meet carbon requirements doesn't inspire confidence IMO.

[kristopher]

11. We should then hope they do not waste money on ineffective solutions like nuclear.

Right?

[GliderGuider]

12. As some wise man said, "Hope is not a plan."

They will do whatever they decide to do, for reasons that will appear to make sense to them at the time. The outcome will be sub-optimal. That's life for you.

[NickB79]

20. Sure. Use whatever is the most efficient appropriation of money and resources

That puts out the least carbon per GW, whatever the energy experts determine that to be.

It's funny you should introduce nuclear our discussion, though, since I made no mention of it and have repeatedly claimed to be agnostic when it comes to nukes.

But that's just your thing, I suppose.

[kristopher]

21. There are claims that are true and claims that aren't...

And that one by you would fall in the latter category.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=313433&mesg_id=313689