Renewables' Replacement Of Fossil Fuels Lags Well Behind Estimates

[hatrack]

Renewable energy is not replacing fossil fuels as quickly as scientists have been forecasting, leading to a serious underestimation of what still needs to be done to stabilise the world’s climate, according to a new analysis.

“Enormous advances in energy technology will be needed to stabilise atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations at acceptable levels,” wrote Roger Pielke Jr, a University of Colorado Boulder political scientists and his co-authors in an article in a recent edition of Nature magazine.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, expected that people around the world would begin using more renewable energy, reducing global dependence on the fossil fuels generating greenhouse gases.

EDIT

Instead, people are using more oil, gas and coal than ever before, pumping more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, said Tom Wigley, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and co-author of the Nature article. “The US government is putting some money into renewable energy, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to what’s necessary,” Wigley said.

EDIT

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/World-fossil-fuel-energy-use-growing--study/293313/

[NNadir]

1. "Replace" is hardly a useful word in this place.

Basically the "renewables will save us" faith has failed to stem the increase in the use of dangerous fossil fuels.

There is NOT ONE "renewables will save us advocate" who can give us a realistic plan for the phasing out of fossil fuels.

NOT ONE.

[GliderGuider]

2. That's because we will not phase out fossil fuel use

At least not in the context of our current global culture. We will of course reduce our use of fossil fuels when there is less of them available for use. At that point we will promptly begin to piss and moan that "somebody" should seen this coming and should have done "something" years ago to make sure we didn't run short of the energy we need to keep on killing the planet.

Don't worry, it will all work out. It always does. Just not always the way we want.

[NNadir]

5. It is preternaturally the case that we will not phase out fossil fuels while irrationally trashing

the best proved alternatives in favor of unproved elaborate fantasies.

There's always some dumb guy or gal around to claim that we don't need nuclear power because some guy has put up a web site imagining some kind of tidal system.

Say what you will, we will get what we deserve.

[GliderGuider]

6. "We will get what we deserve"

When has Mom Nature ever worked any other way?

[malakai2]

24. Stochastic events?

Works in our favor, what, half the time? Too bad this is a one shot deal.

[jpak]

10. Global additions of nuclear power are lagging *way* behind additions of renewables

and have been for the last few years.

Nuclear power cannot "save us" or "replace fossils fuels".

**Reality**

[NickB79]

18. And renewables are lagging behind fossil fuels, as this report shows

For example, the 100 GW of new wind power you frequently like to mention are dwarfed by the 500 GW of coal and natural gas installed globally in the same time frame.

Renewable power cannot "save us" or "replace fossils fuels" either.

**Reality**

[The2ndWheel]

3. "the world’s energy consumption was becoming more efficient"

"with less energy required per unit of gross domestic product"

Which made all the energy that was still in the ground cheaper, which led to easier production and consumption.

"but they didn’t consider carefully what might happen in places like India and China"

Well then who the fuck is putting these people in charge?

"Tom Henley, spokesman for Xcel Energy in Colorado, said people in the state are also consuming more energy per year."

Why? Because we've made the whole process of energy more efficient. If you make things cheaper for greater amounts of people, what is going to...son of a...who is doing the math at these global institutions?????

Didn't consider India and China? Can I get off the ride now?

[heidler1]

4. My observation of people in regard to this is were too hooked on having our toys.

The only real hope is that we run out of fossil fuel before we destroy the climate or fossil fuel gets so expensive that only the rich can afford it. Only then would we pass laws severely limiting use to essentials. The price has already caused the major trucking firms to lower governor speed to 62.5 MPH.

Speed limits are the easiest first step. So far the speed argument is about safety and speed, but if cars were limited to 50 MPH you wouldn't need such big engines and in a 8 hour day you could not burn up as much fuel. Speeders should receive no pity and be ridiculed for doing it. Electric cars would be more practical.

Solar power is DC, battery powered cars use DC. Electric cars should come with a voltage matching solar collector to charge your own battery.

[kristopher]

7. Energy up, $$ up, use down, substitutes deployed.

Energy up, $$ up, use down, substitutes deployed.

China energy $$ up - India energy up $$ up - 134 developing countries energy up, $$ up, - permanent demand shift.

Carbon $$ up, energy $$ up, use down - permanent supply shift- substitutes deployed



Energy $$ down, use up - substitutes not deployed.
???


permanent demand shift + permanent demand shift = substitutes deployed

IMO

Changed down to up on edit.

[depakid]

8. Typical cornucopian fantasy

Neoclassical economic platitudes + two bucks only gets you a cup of coffee.

[kristopher]

11. if there were no viable alternatives you'd be correct.

But there are viable alternatives and you aren't correct.

[depakid]

13. Not on the scale that we're discussing

and not without repercussions (and externalities) to other parts of the system.

[kristopher]

14. That isn't even close to being true. I've supported my statement that there are..

viable alternatives. And I've supported the change in economic conditions that are in place now that have never been in place before. Acting as if these facts do not exist is akin to sticking your fingers in you ears, closing your eyes and speakiing loudly in order to drown out the information you don't want to hear.

Tell me WHY wind wont work.

Tell me WHY solar wont work.

Tell me WHY wave/tidal/current wont work.

Between the three of those we have enough energy available, exploitable with current technology, to run half a dozen or more civilizations at current and projected levels of consumption.

[Dead_Parrot]

16. Alternatively...

...tell us why they aren't working, and we'll go from there.



Hmmm, still seems to be going up.

[bananas]

22. The stolen election of 2000 had a lot to do with that

Instead of President Gore, we've had 8 years of Bush and Cheney,
congress dominated by Republicans,
media purged of "liberals" (Phil Donahue, Dan Rather, etc),
a 24-year-old political appointee at NASA putting a gag order on Jim Hansen,
Cheney's secret energy meetings,
"nukes for mangoes",
the GNEP scam,
etc etc etc.

This may have been the most pro-nuclear government the US has ever had,
both the administration and congress dominated by pro-nuclear Republicans,
and it will be another eight to ten years before any of the handful of new nukes come online.
By then, solar prices will reach a tipping point, in the meantime wind power is growing exponentially,
despite all the foot-dragging by the administration and congress.

As James Hansen recently said, "Near-term demands for energy can be satisfied via a real emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energies. Neither carbon sequestration nor nuclear power can help in the near-term, and they both have serious issues even over the longer term." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x141286

edit to add: If McCain wins "Selection 2008", we're cooked.

[Nihil]

17. Woohoo ... take *that* you peak oil doom-merchants!

> Tell me WHY wave/tidal/current wont work.
>
> Between the three of those we have enough energy available, exploitable
> with current technology, to run half a dozen or more civilizations at
> current and projected levels of consumption.

*Smack*
There you go - no need for facts, numbers or science when you have FAITH!

HALLELUJAH! We are all SAVED!

:crazy:

[kristopher]

19. What other facts do you need? They are staring you in the face every day.

Energy use is up and is going to stay up. That has increased the price of energy.
Carbon costs are being added to the price of fossil fuels. This increases the price of energy.

In the seventies, oil shortages and the price of dealing with particulate pollution raised the cost of energy. It was a temporary increase that did not sustain the birthing of alternative sources of energy.

The basic resource represented by wind, solar, and wave/tidal/current that is available to be tapped is vast.

Technology has improved the ability to extract energy from wind, solar, and wave/tidal/current to the point where it is cost competitive.

As the demand from other parts of the world continue to rise, the price of energy will continue to rise.

The higher the price of energy the more incentive there is for deployment of wind, solar, and wave/tidal/current.

[NNadir]

21. Um, is your logic so poor that you are asking people to prove negatives?

Never mind. I already know the answer to that question, Kiddie.

There are zero fundie anti-nukes who can think; there are zero fundie anti-nukes who understand reason or logic, but, listen, Kiddie, the onus is on you to prove that solar, wind, and wave power will work.

After your done with that, why don't you prove that Jesus won't come back from the dead and suddenly strike all of the fundie anti-nukes dead for being morally vapid assholes?

I however can prove the thesis that 50 years of wishful thinking about solar, wind, and tidal fantasies has not done a single thing to arrest climate change.

The first element of this proof consists of a 1957 run-down on the potentials of solar, wind and tidal energy:

http://energybulletin.net/23151.html

I have thus established premise 1 therefore that stupid fantasies about renewable energy are more than 50 years old.

Next, I only need to establish that 50 years later, fossil fuels have not been eliminated and that solar, wind, tidal and geothermal combined are trivial forms of energy that have done nothing to eliminate dangerous fossil fuel use:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table18.xls

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee2.xls

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee3.xls

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee4.xls

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls

I realize that the entire anti-nuke fundie cult is unable to convert units of energy, but I couldn't care less. This is a case where for those competent to understand the proof, the result is proved.

[kristopher]

23. If brains were dynamite...

I've laid out the factors that are in place now that didn't exist before. As usual, your criticism is off point, poorly thought out and utterly devoid of validity. Challenging someone to demonstrating why these arguments are wrong isn't "asking people to prove a negative". Care to give it a try, short stuff?

Energy use is up and is going to stay up. That has increased the price of energy.
Carbon costs are being added to the price of fossil fuels. This permanently increases the price of energy.

In the seventies, oil shortages and the price of dealing with particulate pollution raised the cost of energy. It was a temporary increase that did not sustain the birthing of alternative sources of energy.

The basic resource represented by wind, solar, and wave/tidal/current that is available to be tapped is vast.

Technology has improved the ability to extract energy from wind, solar, and wave/tidal/current to the point where it is cost competitive.

As the demand from other parts of the world continue to rise, the price of energy will continue to rise.

The higher the price of energy the more incentive there is for deployment of wind, solar, and wave/tidal/current.



Your assertion that "I only need to establish that 50 years later, fossil fuels have not been eliminated and that solar, wind, tidal and geothermal combined are trivial forms of energy that have done nothing to eliminate dangerous fossil fuel use" is probably one of the most pathetic bits of reasoning (and I use that word loosely) that I've ever seen. If the discussion were about the past, you would be right on top of things. However, in the face of dramatically altered circumstances, to claim that as some sort of proof where we are going from here is proof of nothing except your lack of mental development.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/eon-set-for-mod-showdown-over-controversial-wind-farm-805424.html

[NNadir]

25. As usual, no data. There are zero fundie anti-nukes who know how to cite data, or how to

interpret it.

Zero.

The entire "renewables will save us" cult consists of soothsaying and prayer.

QED, Kiddie.

[diane in sf]

15. Are you Marvin posting under another name?

[NNadir]

9. I'm just wondering...

...is this supposed to be coherent?

Never mind, I really don't want to know.

[kristopher]

12. No you aren't.

And of course you don't; that's well established.

[NNadir]

20. Good points.

For once you have managed to be accidentally right about something, just as a broken clock is right two times a day.