Renewable Energy in Decline

Renewable Energy in Decline

There are 19 comments on the NorCalBlogs story from Mar 1, 2014, titled Renewable Energy in Decline. In it, NorCalBlogs reports that:

The global energy outlook has changed radically in just six years. President Obama was elected in 2008 by voters who believed we were running out of oil and gas, that climate change needed to be halted, and that renewables were the energy source of the near future.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NorCalBlogs.

SpaceBlues

United States

#1 Mar 2, 2014
Population growth, the modernisation of lifestyles, higher electrification rates and rapidly
growing gross domestic product (GDP) in India drive a large increase in energy demand and put
pressure on the security, reliability and affordability of energy supply, all of which are strongly
linked to economic stability and development.
Globally, the erosion of energy security, the threat of disruptive climate change and the growing
energy needs of the developing world all pose major challenges to energy decision makers.
Energy security concerns are compounded by the increasingly urgent need to mitigate
greenhouse‐gas (GHG) emissions, including those relating to energy production and
consumption. Current energy consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission trends run directly
counter to the repeated warnings sent by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), which concludes that only scenarios resulting in a 50% to 85% reduction
of global CO2 emissions by 2050 (compared to 2000 levels) can limit the long‐term global mean
temperature rise to 2.0°Celsius (°C) to 2.4°C (IPCC, 2007).
The BLUE Scenario, developed by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and presented in Energy
Technology Perspectives 2010 (ETP 2010)(IEA, 2010), examines the least‐cost pathways for
meeting the goal of reducing global energy‐related CO2 emissions to 50% of 2005 levels by 2050
while also proposing measures to overcome technical and policy barriers. The BLUE Scenario is
consistent with a long‐term global rise in temperatures of 2.0°C to 3.0°C, but only if the reduction
in energy‐related CO2 emissions is combined with deep cuts in other GHG emissions.
The scenario envisaged in the BLUE Scenario required CO2 emissions reduction across all the energyconsuming
sectors. For industry, action is particularly crucial in the five most energy‐intensive sectors:
iron and steel; cement; chemicals and petrochemicals; pulp and paper; and aluminium. Globally,
these sectors currently account for 77% of total direct CO2 emissions from industry; in India, they
account for 56% of industrial energy consumption and 82% of direct CO2 emissions.
Box ES.1: Scenarios for the industrial sector
Each country and region of the world will contribute differently to the reduction in emissions
from the industrial sector, depending on the expected growth in production as well as the
potential for energy and CO2 savings.
- See more at: http://www.sustainabilityoutlook.in/content/l...

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#2 Mar 10, 2014
People are beginning to wise up to the truth about the fairytale called "renewables".
The reliable ones are not scaleable. The scaleable ones are not reliable. There is no way to get there from here.
Some form of nuclear energy is our only real hope.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#3 Mar 11, 2014
KitemanSA wrote:
People are beginning to wise up to the truth about the fairytale called "renewables".
The reliable ones are not scaleable. The scaleable ones are not reliable. There is no way to get there from here.
Some form of nuclear energy is our only real hope.
Yes, people are wising up to the nonrenevable, unsafe, unreliable, very very expensive, very polluting, sickening nuclear power.

Your hope is a fairy tale about the nuclear power and china syndrome, a nuclear industry term.

People understand scaleability with renewables but not the nuclear core because it is too complex in physics, safety, reliability, cost, etc.
DJ Jones

Salt Lake City, UT

#4 Mar 12, 2014
KitemanSA wrote:
People are beginning to wise up to the truth about the fairytale called "renewables".
The reliable ones are not scaleable. The scaleable ones are not reliable. There is no way to get there from here.
Some form of nuclear energy is our only real hope.
Not "people".....just you. Nuclear is unsafe in any form.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#5 Mar 13, 2014
The both of you seem to be innumerate.
Here are the world wide numbers:
Renewables kill .....~2,000,000 per year.
Fossil fuels kill .....~1,300,000 per year.
Including all the accidents etc., on average,
Nuclear Power kills ....... <300 per year.
And this accounts for the high estimates of the LNT model.
From the latest models, the actual number for nuclear is probably <5 per year, almost all of which was Chernobyl.

Nuclear remains the cheapest (after hydro and NG in the US) source available by far. If it weren't for the massive direct subsidies and purchase mandates, the unreliables would be out of business already.
SpaceBlues

United States

#6 Mar 14, 2014
KitemanSA wrote:
The both of you seem to be innumerate.
Here are the world wide numbers:
Renewables kill .....~2,000,000 per year.
Fossil fuels kill .....~1,300,000 per year.
Including all the accidents etc., on average,
Nuclear Power kills ....... <300 per year.
And this accounts for the high estimates of the LNT model.
From the latest models, the actual number for nuclear is probably <5 per year, almost all of which was Chernobyl.
Nuclear remains the cheapest (after hydro and NG in the US) source available by far. If it weren't for the massive direct subsidies and purchase mandates, the unreliables would be out of business already.
Are you posting for the bird brains like yourself?

You can't fool the people with this trash.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#8 Mar 14, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Are you posting for the bird brains like yourself?
You can't fool the people with this trash.
To any other readers. Please observe the depth and breath of the wit of SB here. It is about one nanometer deep and maybe a femtometer broad.

The data are the data. His foolish denials don't change them.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#9 Mar 14, 2014
foster wrote:
<quoted text>
You willing to allow spent rods disposal near your home?
Actually, yes. Dry cask storage is quite safe. Even deep geologic disposal is "safe". But I would VASTLY prefer USING them and not WASTING them. They would make excellent fuel for Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#10 Mar 14, 2014
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Actually, yes. Dry cask storage is quite safe. Even deep geologic disposal is "safe". But I would VASTLY prefer USING them and not WASTING them. They would make excellent fuel for Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors.
LIAR.

Quite safe? That's not a measure of anything.

The LFTR's don't exist. Your propaganda is a repeat of the LWR's.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#11 Mar 14, 2014
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> To any other readers. Please observe the depth and breath of the wit of SB here. It is about one nanometer deep and maybe a femtometer broad.
The data are the data. His foolish denials don't change them.
Hey, I'm not all that you lie about.

Your assumptions are false but correct about yourself whom you should know.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#12 Mar 15, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LIAR.
Quite safe? That's not a measure of anything.
The LFTR's don't exist. Your propaganda is a repeat of the LWR's.
Good reader,
SpaceBlues seems quite Soviet in his propaganda pattern. Any time the USSR wanted to do something (or was about to be caught doing something) they accused the west of doing it. So when SB wants to lie, he accuses others of doing it.

LFTRs HAVE EXISTED. They have been proven in all significant facets. To build one is no problem. So using them to solve a long term problem is in no way a lie. The lie is the accusation of lying.

Of course, getting thru iron headed idiocy like that portrayed by SB and the NRC may not be so easy.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#13 Mar 15, 2014
I am still correct: The LFTR's don't exist. Say what about the NRC?

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#15 Mar 16, 2014
Yes, you are still correct; and still irrelevant. They can still be used to resolve the issue under recent discussion.

The NRC, i.e. the NEWclear Rejection Commission, is a mixed blessing. They are very good at suppressing unsafe designs but only because they are very good at suppressing NEW designs.
Alison Young

Ahmedabad, India

#18 May 20, 2014
It is very nice to renewable energy because to today day by day Petrol or Diesel Rates are increase so it is very important to change energy.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#19 May 26, 2014
Alison,
If you look at the history of the use of the unreliable sources like wind and solar, they come with an INCREASED use of fossil fuels to back them up. If you want clean, safe, carbon free electricity, support Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors.
steve

Menomonee Falls, WI

#20 May 26, 2014
Alison Young wrote:
It is very nice to renewable energy because to today day by day Petrol or Diesel Rates are increase so it is very important to change energy.
You are brilliantly correct.
mad scientist

Council Bluffs, IA

#21 May 31, 2014
KitemanSA wrote:
Alison,
If you look at the history of the use of the unreliable sources like wind and solar, they come with an INCREASED use of fossil fuels to back them up. If you want clean, safe, carbon free electricity, support Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors.
I know you would keep the world in the past but it will not happen. Renewable energy is here and it will continue as prices rise for our ancient ,outdated energy sources. You don't have to like it.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#22 Jun 12, 2014
mad scientist wrote:
<quoted text> I know you would keep the world in the past but it will not happen.
Dear "mad",
Is your appellation a reference to ancient times or are you truly "mad" as your post suggests?
Any minimal understanding of the written word would tell you that I look to the future, one where nuclear is helping the world as it could, and one where Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are used to bring peace and plenty to all humanity.
SpaceBlues

United States

#24 Jun 12, 2014
peroven? proven? Choose one. I don't care, LOL.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Alternative Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Beijing to spend $2.7 billion on cleaning capit... 4 hr Solarman 1
News 17:43 Mongolia opens first solar power plant 15 hr CAS 1
News Clouds part for commercial solar in Wyoming, to... 19 hr Solarman 4
News Wyoming lawmakers launch bill that would ban se... 19 hr Solarman 3
News Duke Energy Duke Energy turned N.C.'s sunny day... Wed Solarman 3
News In time left, Obama defies Trump as much as he can Wed The Real Donald T... 2
News Green Energy Scandal Brings Down Entire Government Tue Solarman 2
More from around the web