Clean energy seen 50 pct of supply by 2050: report - Reuters

[Eugene]

Clean energy seen 50 pct of supply by 2050: report

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

1 hour, 56 minutes ago

OSLO (Reuters) - Clean energies could surge to supply half of world demand by 2050
if governments crack down on use of fossil fuels, said a study by the renewable energy
industry and an environmental group on Thursday.

The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and Greenpeace said renewable energies
-- including wind, hydro, solar, tidal power and biomass -- could leap from 13.2 percent
of world supply if governments step up a fight against global warming.

"Renewable energy, combined with the smart use of energy, can deliver half of the world's
energy needs by 2050," EREC and Greenpeace said in a report entitled "Energy (R)evolution."
"The bad news is that time is running out."

The forecast is far more optimistic for renewable energies than a 2006 report by the
International Energy Agency (IEA), which predicted that the share of renewables would gain
fractionally by 2030 to 13.7 percent of world energy demand.

-snip-

Full article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070125/ts_nm/energy_renewable_dc_2

[GliderGuider]

1. Considering that there will be very little growth in hydro

And possibly even a slight decrease if Global Warming reduces the glacier melt that feeds many hydro-producing rivers worldwide...

This projection puts enormous faith in the ability of the wind, solar, tidal and biomass industries to deliver the goods. Having been involved in the tech bubble of the late '90s I can tell you that maintaining a 10+% growth rate for an entire industry over a number of years presents massive and unexpected difficulties. We desperately need this, but my experience counsels against PR-generated enthusiasm. This is one of the (few) times when I think the IEA is closer to the truth.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. From 0.5% to 13.7% in a mere 23 years

And one of the sponsors is Greenpeace, no less, which has nearly entirely shot its credibility.

Folks, we need to do a lot better than that. We need to sustain, at the minimum, 30% per annum growth for the next 15-20 years, and then hope that we have quite a more oil left than we think we have.

To think that we have 43 years, let alone 23 years, is delusional.

And that's without having to compensate for radical climate changes and their consequences, like continent-wide crop failures. A 50-70% per year growth rate would probably be more realistic for dealing with setbacks like climate change, and that still yokes us with a 20-year plan, which may be a little too long for most people to live on a starvation diet.

I'll say it again: we had 35 years or more to build a non-petroleum energy infrastructure, and we blew it cracking wise about eating granola and singing kumbayah, griping about nuclear power, and cruising along on $15/bbl sweet light crude.

Time's up. We have a few years left to make sure that we can keep most of the people in the world alive and healthy, but our leisurely timetable is gone. The question, whether or not you're in this for the anti-nukes action, is "can we replace more than half our oil use AND compensate for 3-5% economic growth demands, and do it in the next decade?"

If the answer is "no", then we're in trouble.

--p!

[GliderGuider]

3. There you go getting all realistic again

I did a second take at the oil price assumptions of both these guys and the IEA, as outlined in the article. $55 by 2030? $100 by 2050? What are these guys smoking? We've seen almost $80 already, and a realistic estimate for $100 is sometime in 2009. To anyone who's been following Peak Oil, such a complete disconnect can imply only one of two things. Either they are ignoring the signals around them and running strictly on paper assumptions (IEA's $55 by 2030) or the real projections are so dreadful that to put them on paper would cause widespread despair and paralysis. I can't imagine how even Greenpeace would consider a mere 1.5% pa rise in oil prices realistic given what they've done over the last 10 years.

The answer is "no". We're in trouble.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. I hate myself for doing that

It seems like a lot of effort to put into defeating nuclear energy, when the issue isn't even nukes anymore.

It's possible I misjudged the article and the links, but it seemed to be that they're straining at the same old gnuclear gnat. I do respect those who fear nuclear energy -- but not the demogogues.

And, y'know, I didn't even look at their oil price assumptions. We're in an oil market with nearly 40% price volatility figured over a year. That in itself is bad news.

My balance is bad -- I have a destroyed left ear and some damage to the right one -- and I'm looking into getting an adult tricycle with big baskets. The petroleum age won't last much longer, and it's going to take some time for the suburbs to be de-developed. Fortunately, I live in an area near a couple of college towns. They're small enough that you don't need a car, there's lots of pretty girls around for nasty old pervs like me, and best of all, there are usually a couple good otolaryngologists within spitting distance.

--p!