Are current renewable energy strategies worth it?

!Kaggen said:
This article by Lomberg brings up some arguments against current renewable energy strategies.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/co...-in-global-energy-production-by-bj-rn-lomborg

Does he have a point?
Click to expand...

Yes, he has several points. And he has several things wrong. Lomborg's basic shortcoming, IMHO, is that he focuses on continued economical growth. Economical growth has done a lot of good for mankind, and large populations still have a lot of it coming, but in the long run, we need to find a way of having a zero growth, sustainable society.

Hans
 
Not very well written but yes he has a point. Tangling pre -industrial renewables and current is nonsense.

Solar is currently a disruptive technology as it's so cheap that it upsets energy structure but is still provided with subsidies ( tho so is fossil fuel ).

Solar IS cheaper that fossil fuels now for some nations and that is without subsidies.

Solar Report Stunner: Unsubsidized 'Grid Parity Has Been Reached ...
thinkprogress.org/.../2013/.../solar-report-stunner-unsubsidized-grid-pari...‎
Mar 3, 2013 - As a result, Deutsche Bank actually increased its forecast for solar demand in 2013 to 30 gigawatts — a 20 percent increase over 2012.
Click to expand...
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...dia-italy-with-more-countries-coming-in-2014/

With no storage tho solar and wind have issues and as Spain shows management of the transition.

He makes no mention of nuclear despite it supplying 15% of the global electricity supply and in my case 40% of our Ontario supply.

The article is a hash but the world IS moving to decarbonize with Sweden leading towards a carbon neutral industrial society by 2050 and even the US is down 11% in emissions last year due to a combination of technologies and less reliance on coal which is the main villain that needs to be gone for first world use.

R&D subsidies are good use of public funds but in my view wind and solar direct subsidies need to be reduced tho not eliminated as the external downstream cost of using fossil fuels needs to be figured into the equation.
There is a societal benefit to clean air and reduced AGW.

Nuclear is where subsidies are needed for upfront costs as long term nuclear is extremely cost effective and low carbon.

Dealing with hydrocarbon fuels and replacing with a renewable form or electrical transport remains a real technical challenge.

Meanwhile conventional ICE are getting extremely efficient. Hybrids would seem a very sensible approach for a good long time.

There are a lot of fronts of technical progress in batteries and creating hydrocarbon fuels from C02 exhaust of power plants = no one technology will get the planet to carbon neutral in my view.

But there is a lot of money and jobs in the progression once the fossil fuel lobby loses its subsidies and starts getting hit with a carbon tax as Sweden and Norway have done and as even the oil sands heads are calling for.

Oil sands, green groups unlikely allies in push for carbon tax - The ...
www.theglobeandmail.com › ... › Industry News › Energy & Resources‎
Mar 7, 2012 - Ottawa is facing growing calls for a carbon tax from some surprising ... Oil sands producers and some environmental groups that agree on little .
Click to expand...

Sweden has done it with strong focused leadership and a plan ....for instance they resisted the call for ending nuclear from the dimwit anti-nuclear crowd.

For places like the US, Canada and Australia the right wing handcuffs efforts and in the case of the latter two are simply out of touch and purposefully avoiding environmental issues.

Taxing carbon and supporting cost effective renewables is a role for gov but as with everything how it's managed is the key.

Sweden and some others brilliantly, Spain and some others including Ontario abominably....lessons to be had all around for this transition to low carbon.

•••


As Hans correctly pointed out...economic metrics are flawed and decarbon is part of a larger societal move towards sustainable economies.

There can still be growth but "better" not "more" as the mantra.

Growth in energy efficient housing instead of more housing for example.

Growth in the a fuel efficient fleet and electric vehicles is another - not more gas guzzlers.

Until metrics of economic success are changed....we'll just see more nonsense a we see in Britain no where growth in the housing bubble is celebrated.....

You'd think they'd learned from 2008...
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
Yes, he has several points. And he has several things wrong. Lomborg's basic shortcoming, IMHO, is that he focuses on continued economical growth. Economical growth has done a lot of good for mankind, and large populations still have a lot of it coming, but in the long run, we need to find a way of having a zero growth, sustainable society.

Hans
Click to expand...


Yes the eternal question of whether more is less.
I think without addressing lifestyle choices we will not solve the energy problem no matter the technology.
 
I disagree.....there is no reason not to have a fully sustainable first world industrial society ( that is what Sweden is in line for ).

We do not need zero growth....in fact we need immense growth but in the direction of sustainable procedures.....tear every old building down in Britain and put in high tech energy conservation dwellings and cut Britains energy needs in half or more.

Put triple pane windows into every dwelling in N America and cut energy needs ( both heating and cooling enormously ) and all for the cost of a high tech factory ....less than the cost of an oil platform.

Young's Family Restaurant in Durham, NH expects to save nearly 50 percent on its energy costs, thanks in part to the Retail Merchants Association of New Hampshire's Energy Efficiency Program, made possible by a RGGI-funded grant. “I knew that there had to be opportunities for me to reduce my energy costs, but did not realize the significant savings that could be realized through efficiency," said Ken Young. "The entire audit process was a great education for me. In just the first couple months after the project, I am seeing cost savings that I would have never guessed could have been achieved while greatly improving the comfort within the restaurant.”
Click to expand...

Here is a list of success stories based on energy savings...
http://www.rggi.org/rggi_benefits/success_stories

Lots of jobs instead of fat oil sheiks.

UPS understands

Since the deployment of this route planning technology in 2004, UPS has eliminated millions of miles off delivery routes, taking already-expedient routes and giving them razor edge efficiency.
As a result, UPS:
Saved 10 million gallons of gas Reduced CO2 emissions by 100,000 metric tons, equivalent to 5,300 passenger cars off the road for an entire year.
Click to expand...
http://www.pressroom.ups.com/Fact+S...+the+"Right"+Way+by+Avoiding+Left+Turns.print

no left turns...:boggled:

The list goes on and on.

http://www.jll.com/case-studies/6/new-office-tower-soars-to-leed-platinum

The building, the third tallest in New York, was awarded LEED Platinum, and the Bank’s tenant space received LEED Gold
Storm/grey water retention and recycling systems have reduced potable water consumption by 50 percent
A co-generation plant produces 70 percent of building power, and will pay for itself in seven years
Click to expand...

and it's a stunning design

wiki image

BankofAmericaTower.jpg
 
Last edited:
I appreciate your optimism, I am not so sure these changes will be fast enough or even enough.
 
I agree with macdoc. Matt Ridley makes this point:
One reason we are richer, healthier, taller, cleverer, longer-lived, and freer than ever before is that the four most basic human needs-food, clothing, fuel, and shelter-have grown markedly cheaper. Take one example: In 1800, a candle providing one hour's light cost six hours' work. In the 1880s, the same light from a kerosene lamp took 15 minutes' work to pay for. In 1950, it was eight seconds. Today, it's half a second. In these terms, we are 43,200 times better off than in 1800.
Click to expand...
In this example, we can have our cake and eat it too with both economic growth and less impact on the planet as LED lights use far less resources than say, whale oil or kerosene lamps. Likewise, a bushel of wheat requires less land than it did before Norman Borlaug's varieties were developed. I think we can have economic growth and less impact on the environment at the same time.
 
appreciate your optimism, I am not so sure these changes will be fast enough or even enough.
Click to expand...

That is a different question.

You did not think it could be done.
I disagree.

Will it be done - some areas yes, others will lag as we see now.
 
!Kaggen said:
I think without addressing lifestyle choices we will not solve the energy problem no matter the technology.
Click to expand...

That's undoubtedly true, but a lot of lifestyle choices are being thrust upon us. I literally cannot buy a car that is as inefficient and polluting as the first car I owned. There are no appliances on the market that are as inefficient as the appliances I grew up with. With each passing day, entertainment content requires fewer resources both to produce and to deliver.

There's always room for improvement, of course, but it's vastly more difficult to squander resources today than it was when I was a kid.
 
Ray Brady said:
There's always room for improvement, of course, but it's vastly more difficult to squander resources today than it was when I was a kid.
Click to expand...

We had no car at all when I was kid, also no c/h or a/c. It's far easier for me (with car, c/h and a/c) to squander resources.

Global growth and development - such as we're seeing in China, India, Brazil and elsewhere - puts higher energy use within the reach of more and more people. They're perfectly entitled to that, of course, but going from 'no car' to 'energy efficient car' is not a reduction in energy use.
 
!Kaggen said:
Yes the eternal question of whether more is less.
I think without addressing lifestyle choices we will not solve the energy problem no matter the technology.
Click to expand...
Every KWH generated by a renewable source is one that doesn't need to be generated by fossil fuels. Yes, we need to reduce our energy consumption considerably, but we also need to develop alternatives to nonrenewable sources.
 
Don't know if they are worth it but wind is growing leaps and bounds in West Texas. I drive out to Lubbock and up to Orla on a fairly regular basis. I was out to Lubbock in July and just drove to Santa Fe for a week of skiing the last week of this year. The wind farms have multiplied out past Coleman and in addition, they are now as far east as Goldwaithe. I have been driving out this way for 15 years now and there used to be just two wind farms on this route. The one west of Abilene and the one in Roscoe. Now there are about 30. Texas leads the nation in wind production. We are the leading energy producer of the US both in renewable and in hydrocarbons.

Here is a wind farm map and it's not even up to date because it doesn't include the one in Goldwaithe. That is how fast the wind energy production is growing in Texas. The farms go up quickly but I am not sure what the interconnection time is. The really interesting thing about the wind farms is that they don't really interfere with either farming or oil production. These wind farms are found on land supporting oil wells and cotton production.
 

Attachments

  • windfarms.jpg
    windfarms.jpg
    29.5 KB · Views: 8
I'm undecided on wind...I think it should stand on its own now and not be subsidized but that does not seem to be in the cards and lots of places are putting them in including here in Ontario.

Yet wind does not show a very strong efficiency and is hard on the grid. I suppose it all helps but frankly I'd rather see more nukes.
 
They're worth it for the hucksters and crooks lining their pockets with this stuff.
 
As opposed to the hucksters and crook lining their pockets with coal subsidies??

At least the windmills don't kill people and cook the planet....can't say the same for coal :rolleyes:
 
macdoc said:
As opposed to the hucksters and crook lining their pockets with coal subsidies??

At least the windmills don't kill people and cook the planet....can't say the same for coal :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

At least coal actually provides electricity and not exorbitantly expensive and inefficient mickey mouse power.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom