• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A new study from Stanford says the whole world could run on renewables by 2050.

Anomalism

Anomalism

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
2,159
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf

We develop road maps for converting the all-purpose energy (electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, industry, and agriculture/forestry/fishing) infrastructures of each of the 139 countries of the world to ones powered by wind, water, and sunlight (WWS). As of the end of 2014, 3.6% of the WWS energy generation capacity needed for a 100% world has already been installed in these countries, with Norway (58%), Paraguay (54%), and Iceland (46%) the furthest along. The road maps envision 80% conversion by 2030 and 100% conversion of all countries by 2050.
Click to expand...
 
Saudi Arabia and the Koch brothers are going to be pissed!
 
34 years is a long time ...but I wish them luck.
 
Optimistic to think that we won't find problems with WWS and have a need for some other source. It wasn't that long ago that hydroelectric was going solve so many problems. Now dams are being dismantled.
 
I think it's entirely possible to shift the energy grid to solar and almost completely eliminate coal. I don't see oil, a major driver of much of the world's economy going anywhere anytime soon because the industry as a whole worldwide provides millions of direct and indirect jobs.
 
Dittohead not! said:
They have the money, and therefore the power, to see to it that we don't go on renewables for a very long time.
Click to expand...

This election cycle is proving how on a national level, "establishment" politics and the money associated with it are not as effective as everyone thought. If Trump and Sanders win their respective nominations for the D and R parties, I'll have proved my point.

On a local and state level, we are beholden by corporate influence. The Democrats are not beholden by big oil as much as the Republicans, so in more progressive areas of the country I could see renewable energy sources popping up big time.
 
Also for the record, I work in the petroleum industry and have no desire to see my job eliminated, so there is no incentive for me to give out "liberal bias" even though I'm a liberal. Just being a realist. Many factors can and will come into play to determine the future of the U.S. and worlds energy policies. I can see countries like China having the desire to get away from petroleum due to their issues with pollution in their major cities and rivers. I could also see the switch from petroleum to renewable energy sources being successfully implemented elsewhere being a catalyst for change in the U.S.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Saudi Arabia and the Koch brothers are going to be pissed!
Click to expand...

Well, you can bet if this is real, the Koch brothers will get in on the ground floor, and rise to the top.
 
If the uber efficient Germans can't make renewables work after investing 500 billion Euros in it then nobody can. 800,000 German homes were cut off from their energy last year because they couldn't afford to pay their sky high bills any more due to massive renewable subsidy. They are now being forced into the largest fossil fuel plant building programme since WW2 in order to try and bring the costs of their energy production down. The cost of German electricity is currently over three times that of the US per KwH

Studies like this are ivory tower pie in the sky idealism. In the real world doesn't work like this
 
OrphanSlug said:
Saudi Arabia and the Koch brothers are going to be pissed!
Click to expand...

Perhaps Saudi Arabia. the Koch Bothers would do just fine.

They are leading proponents of all kinds of energy and will be at the leading edge of any drive toward any kind of energy that can be sold at profit.

They will probably do so providing a much more economical, clean alternative than newbies to the field.

As a 100 Billion dollar company diversified and successful in several areas, Koch is a really bad thing from the view point of the Democrat Party. Anything successful and entrepreneurial is the enemy according to Obama and his team.

If it's not failing and in need of subsidies from and control by the government, it really isn't a good thing for the country according to the orthodoxy of the Obamabots.

If you want answers that work in the real world, just check any "Enemies List" in this White House and you will probably hold a pretty good place to start in finding your answers. I'm pretty sure that Koch Industries is right at the top of all of his enemies lists.

Koch Industries, Inc.| Companies
 
akrunner88 said:
I think it's entirely possible to shift the energy grid to solar and almost completely eliminate coal. I don't see oil, a major driver of much of the world's economy going anywhere anytime soon because the industry as a whole worldwide provides millions of direct and indirect jobs.
Click to expand...

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
<snip>
What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?

In 2014, the United States generated about 4,093 billion kilowatthours of electricity.1 About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum).

Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2014:

Coal = 39%
Natural gas = 27%
Nuclear = 19%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
Biomass = 1.7%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Solar = 0.4%
Wind = 4.4%
Petroleum = 1%
Other gases < 1%
<snip>
 
akrunner88 said:
Also for the record, I work in the petroleum industry and have no desire to see my job eliminated, so there is no incentive for me to give out "liberal bias" even though I'm a liberal. Just being a realist. Many factors can and will come into play to determine the future of the U.S. and worlds energy policies. I can see countries like China having the desire to get away from petroleum due to their issues with pollution in their major cities and rivers. I could also see the switch from petroleum to renewable energy sources being successfully implemented elsewhere being a catalyst for change in the U.S.
Click to expand...

China's issues with pollution seem most directly attributable to their use of Coal.
 
akrunner88 said:
This election cycle is proving how on a national level, "establishment" politics and the money associated with it are not as effective as everyone thought. If Trump and Sanders win their respective nominations for the D and R parties, I'll have proved my point.

On a local and state level, we are beholden by corporate influence. The Democrats are not beholden by big oil as much as the Republicans, so in more progressive areas of the country I could see renewable energy sources popping up big time.
Click to expand...

You should probably study the resources for a few more years before making such a silly pronouncement.
 
code1211 said:
China's issues with pollution seem most directly attributable to their use of Coal.
Click to expand...

I've actually been to places like Wuxi in central China and the pollution there has to be seen to be believed. I'd seriously doubt than anywhere in the US has ever been that bad and only perhaps London in the early 50s comes close :(
 
code1211 said:
China's issues with pollution seem most directly attributable to their use of Coal.
Click to expand...

actually it isn't so much the coal as the lack of proper scrubbers and other leading technology that can cut down on emissions.
why? it is expensive.

plus the coal they are using is bad coal it isn't the good stuff that we have here in the US.
that requires more technology to clean it better.

I am more of a future driver than a now driver.

I say push nuclear plants and spend more money into fusion projects.
they are getting better and better and the technology break through is coming.

if they can do that then who cares about solar power.

German fusion reactor achieves first plasma

this is the wave of new energy and this is what we need to invest in.
 
ludin said:
actually it isn't so much the coal as the lack of proper scrubbers and other leading technology that can cut down on emissions.
why? it is expensive.

plus the coal they are using is bad coal it isn't the good stuff that we have here in the US.
that requires more technology to clean it better.
Click to expand...

Add to that, that these plants are often old decomissioned/replaced ex European or US stock shipped piece by piece to China and reassembled. This too is cheaper than building new but also helps explain what I've seen out there

I am more of a future driver than a now driver.
Click to expand...

Even as a now driver the current gas fracking technologies promise far cleaner and abundant fossil fuel supply for at least the next century and who knows what we might have invented by then.

Just look at how far we have progressed over the last 100years ! :shock:
 
flogger said:
Add to that, that these plants are often old decomissioned/replaced ex European or US stock shipped piece by piece to China and reassembled. This too is cheaper than building new but also helps explain what I've seen out there



Even as a now driver the current gas fracking technologies promise far cleaner and abundant fossil fuel supply for at least the next century and who knows what we might have invented by then.

Just look at how far we have progressed over the last 100years ! :shock:
Click to expand...

fusion is the next wave. I say dump our money into that.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Saudi Arabia and the Koch brothers are going to be pissed!
Click to expand...

No. They will be laughing all the way to the bank arm in arm with the Democrat billionaires when they use us to fund renewable energy while they profit from it. Along with their puppets.:lamo

bush clinton.jpg
 
flogger said:
If the uber efficient Germans can't make renewables work after investing 500 billion Euros in it then nobody can. 800,000 German homes were cut off from their energy last year because they couldn't afford to pay their sky high bills any more due to massive renewable subsidy. They are now being forced into the largest fossil fuel plant building programme since WW2 in order to try and bring the costs of their energy production down. The cost of German electricity is currently over three times that of the US per KwH

Studies like this are ivory tower pie in the sky idealism. In the real world doesn't work like this
Click to expand...

There is no one solution. I think conservation is still the best way to conserve renewable fuels. For the past 20 years I have invested my money into what saves me the most. Insulation windows and doors were first. I sealed up my house so tight I had to pipe in fresh air. I cut my heating and AC bill by 2/3. I have done the same with my electric usage. I am paying less today to operate my house than I did 20 years ago. I have friends with the same size home paying over $300 to heat them in the winter when I am around $75. I have started to run out of things to upgrade. It becomes more challenging every week.
 
flogger said:
They have been saying that since at least the 60s so a (long) time will tell
Click to expand...

read the article. they just fired a new one up in Germany. it was a test but a very successful one.
the finally found how to control the plasma bursts into something that can be stable.
 
ludin said:
read the article. they just fired a new one up in Germany. it was a test but a very successful one.
the finally found how to control the plasma bursts into something that can be stable.
Click to expand...

Whoa, wait: They just fired up a fusion plant in Germany? Really? You'd think that one would be on the six O:Clock news at the very least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom