The shift from our current fossil fuel based economies to sustainable renewable energy economies is usually presented as a great challenge. That is also the message coming from the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen. Oil companies tell us that it can be done but that we need decades to get there. The numbers tell a bit of a different story. Total world energy consumption is about 15 terawatts (2005). All that energy can be generated by today's solar panel technology on a sunny piece of land of about 550 by 550 kilometers (340 square miles). That is for instance about 3% of the surface of the United States and China, 4% of the surface of Australia, 3.5% of Brazil and 9% of India. And we just need to capture about 20% of the solar energy that hits such an area. Of course the beauty of solar energy is that it can be generated locally. So we are not going to see such a centralized production. But the numbers clearly convey that the challenge is not as huge as it is often presented.
Another argument that is frequently used goes that renewable energy is not always available where it is needed. That is true. There are places where there is not enough sunshine, not enough wind etc. But again that challenge is not as big as it is made out to be. Scientific American recently calculated the renewable power available in readily accessible locations. The numbers are staggering: there is 2 terawatts (TW) hydro energy easily available, 40-85 TW wind energy and 580 TW solar energy. So there is about 40 times more clean energy available than we need for the present world consumption. All that energy can be captured with technology that already exists! From that perspective the generation of renewable energy is hardly the huge challenge that we are told it is.
The challenge that we do face is another one. There are deeply vested interests connected to the current fossil fuel based energy supply. The current leading energy companies need to undergo a huge transformation to be able to play in the very local energy supply world of the future. There is a big difference between oil refineries and big power plants and a few solar panels on a roof and a windmill in the garden. Such transformations are challenging and, no doubt, painful.
Governments can support the necessary transformation in two ways. They can support renewable energy development with taxation that punishes polluting and unhealthy power generation. That is the simplest and most effective way to stimulate the creation of the clean energy economy. At the same time they can help the current big energy companies re-structure and transform in the very same way as they have done in the past with farmers, shipping companies and most recently in Detroit.
This is the conversation that should take place in Copenhagen. And we should talk about the many inspiring renewable energy solutions that are already in the works. Ode Magazine presents a nice selection in a special Copenhagen issue that is available for free here. We have many problems in our world but the generation of renewable energy to fight global warming is certainly not among those.
For the record, Big Solar is run by Chevron, Shell, Goldman Sachs, BP Oil and the other mercenaries, and is absolutely LOUSY for the planet and for us. We need to fight for feed in tariffs (like 50 grown up countries already have) and loan programs so we do not see any differences in our annual "electricity" outlay (other than possible modest profits!), when we install clean, democratic PV on our rooftops!
Big Oil, Big Banks and Big Renewables are all in the same exact racket - ripping off ratepayers and taxpayers while further destroying our planet with GHGs and millions of acres of our functioning ecosystems. These are BAD people with BAD projects and we need to divert the money and policy towards NON deadly, clean, affordable power that WE own.
Feed in tariffs and low-interest loans attached to the property (not the borrower) are the only sustainable future and we need to fight hard because Big Energy is bribing our legislators, greenwashing their disgusting projects and ruining our shot at a new paradigm.
Maybe India can help.
If you’re interested in solar energy or any other alternative energies, check out http://www.greencollareconomy.com. It has hundreds of case studies on emerging green technology and solar power. It's also the largest b2b green directory on the web.
News for you all, the sun doesn't shine at night, and its output is affected by early morning, cloudy days and winter.
Arcadia Fl, $150M, 180 acres (.3 sq miles) of solar panels, the largest solar photovoltaic plant in the country, just opened a few months ago by Obama hisself, 42,000 megawatt-hours annually, 25-megawatt peak, 4.7mega avg.
.3*15000000/4.7= 1 million sq miles of solar cells costing minimum $500 trillion or 15 sq miles containing 10000 new mass produced nukes at a cost of $10trillion located on existing coal plant sites.
What I don't get is how little the deaths of hundreds of millions of people mean to you renewable devotees by delaying the elimination of deadly radioactive toxic coal emissions, and fossil fuels until we inevitably slide over the climate precipice waiting for renewables from Dreamland. Do you really believe the death of billions and the potential end of civilization is equal to six more inches added to the world's soccer stadium sized pile of nuclear waste?
For 1 trillion dollars we can blanket every home in the U.S. with solar panels and if we build a more sophisticated electrical grid it will be easier to share the energy across the U.S. This scenario may not meet all of our energy demands but it is enough to get rid of the need for coal generated electricity. When the coal plants are no longer needed maybe then you can convince the government to allow you to put a nuclear plant in its place.
I doubt it though, according to the Energy Department, over the past two decades, the estimated cleanup costs at 22 nuclear sites in the U.S. have escalated from $180 billion to $240 billion. I don’t care how much you tout the latest IF reactor technology, do you really think it’s realistic to think that the public is going to allow an average of fifty IF reactors to built in every state?
We could also go the way of Germany, and have solar/wind generators attached to each dwelling. Makes sense to me.
As for cars I suspect the carmakers have known for decades how to make energy efficient vehicles. It's just not profitable for them. It always comes down to money. We need to train our children to worship the right kind of green.
Hard to believe new energy systems are under development. They promise to be cost-competitive, renewable, abundant and available everywhere.
Miniscule amounts of ordinary water are likely to become the fuel of choice for hybrid cars, trucks and buses. One gallon of water may propel a car 1,000 miles.
Hydrogen is the fuel of the future, but not in the manner anticipated by conventional wisdom.
Rowan University has validated a new energy source: fractional Hydrogen. GEN3 Partners, who advise Fortune 100 firms, has repeated the experiments.
They demonstrate that a barrel of water can equal 200 barrels of oil.
Small, prototype, power plants have been announced by BlackLight Power for 2010. And, 8,000+ megawatts are the subject of Agreements with utilities.
Our firm is developing fractional Hydrogen to run hybrid engines. Vehicles powered by small amounts of water are expected to become power plants when parked and may pay for themselves.
See 5 Steps to Revive the Auto Industry and the Economy at: http://www.aesopinstitute.org
This love affair with cars can speed society beyond fossil fuels faster than any visible alternative.
An engine was developed 30 years ago that provides a high level of confidence that we can rapidly develop water fueled vehicles.
What is needed is to accelerate the process by moving development onto a 24/7 basis!
It is also, except for hydro, not efficient, requiring massive machines over huge areas to collect the diffuse resource. And without traditional thermal backup, it requires equal buildup of means of storage, which not only adds to the adverse environmental impact but also drastically reduces efficiency yet more.
Meaningful carbon and pollution taxes would not bring in more renewables any more than current massive subsidies do. But they might inspire more conservation and efficiency, a result that would truly help the planet, not just "transform" our means of exploitation.
The cost and implementation could be spread over ten years and the government could negotiate a better cost from the American solar vendors each year. On the high end I estimate the cost would be $250 billion each year, over a ten year period but with competitive bidding it could be cut in half. If the government can’t fully fund this then they can charge the wealthy homeowners the equivalent cost of the energy savings for ten years.
Energy independence for the country and every homeowner, hundreds of thousands of new jobs created, money savings each month for a struggling middle class, and a globally competitive U.S. industry. Since the coal and oil industry are subsidize 100 billion a year we can just transfer those funds to the U.S. solar industry. I don’t see the down side to this.
Taking sunlight from our rooftop is not taking it from other living things.
We keep hearing about all these "green jobs". Solar power, wind, geothermal, etc., will solve all the world's problems.
Instead of talking about it, why not begin the process yourself?
So, we're all trying to educate each other, until the anger and outrage is enough to run these corporate thugs out of town. Want to join?
And I, the inventor, am 'entitled' to get it from your government (no, I am not asking for your money).
And when i develop it, it will cost 4 time your current energy costs. But do not fear, your government will subsidize (entitle) you to use.
Now isn't that clear? No worrries.