• 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!

Renewable energy can power the world, says landmark IPCC study

Re: Solar Power and the future

It can. Is everyone gonna grow food?
 
Re: Solar Power and the future

Very expensive batteries.
 
Re: Solar Power and the future

Very expensive batteries.

Compared to the expense of what? Most people's utilities are $2500-$5000 per year. How much are those batteries, and can you make your own? What is it about self-sufficiency that we don't know? The point is that there is plenty of solar power. The inertia factor that is the greatest impediment is the status quo Centralized Distribution Network that can afford to buy and sell your sock puppets in Washington, D. C. It is the fact that this network gets cut out of the loop with down home solar that is the stumbling block, not lack of technology or practicality.
 
Re: Solar Power and the future

Investing in renewables to the extent needed would cost only about 1% of global GDP annually, said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC.

Yeah, it'll only cost $582,600,000,000 per year, for 40 years, so 23.30400 trillion dollars to get 80% of the worlds power from the sun, but I'm sure the only problem is inertia. :roll:
 
Re: Solar Power and the future

Yeah, it'll only cost $582,600,000,000 per year, for 40 years, so 23.30400 trillion dollars to get 80% of the worlds power from the sun, but I'm sure the only problem is inertia. :roll:
1% is 1%
It won't happen evenly. I suspect China will end up dedicating more than 1% to develop these sorts of things.
 
Re: Solar Power and the future

Compared to the expense of what?

I meant ecology but you see some of the point. Batteries, maintenence, disposal, etc. All that stuff still exists.

We'd might as well burn we we got on the way; if the thread title is good and true, then we'll get there for sure - what's the problem?
 
Re: Solar Power and the future

1% is 1%
It won't happen evenly. I suspect China will end up dedicating more than 1% to develop these sorts of things.

How many billions more would the US have to go into debt to fund that? That's several billion every year for 40 years, wonder if that could have an impact on the worlds economy at all.
 
Re: Solar Power and the future

Yeah, it'll only cost $582,600,000,000 per year, for 40 years, so 23.30400 trillion dollars to get 80% of the worlds power from the sun, but I'm sure the only problem is inertia. :roll:

That only problem "inertia" is a huge block put in place by existing mega Corporate power centers, not a people thing. It is what needs to be addressed to cure the problem, although some people want global warming and a slow roast, I guess.
 
Re: Solar Power and the future

1% is 1%
It won't happen evenly. I suspect China will end up dedicating more than 1% to develop these sorts of things.

Everyone will. The only quesion is when. I think later is better. Let them develop it and we can steal something for once.
 
Re: Solar Power and the future


What's the rush? You think we can stop climate change?
 
Re: Solar Power and the future

That only problem "inertia" is a huge block put in place by existing mega Corporate power centers, not a people thing. It is what needs to be addressed to cure the problem, although some people want global warming and a slow roast, I guess.

Personally, I want a combination of wind, solar, hydro, osmotic, geothermal, nuclear, tidal, etc.... Converting 80% of the world to a single form of power generation is ridiculous, it would be inefficient compared to suiting a type of generation to a specific area where it can get the most power, solar would be inefficient at high and low latitudes where wind or hydro could work better. There are plenty of reasons to oppose such a stupid idea, doesn't mean I don't want renewable energy.
 
Re: Solar Power and the future

Compared to the expense of what? Most people's utilities are $2500-$5000 per year. How much are those batteries, and can you make your own? What is it about self-sufficiency that we don't know? The point is that there is plenty of solar power. The inertia factor that is the greatest impediment is the status quo Centralized Distribution Network that can afford to buy and sell your sock puppets in Washington, D. C. It is the fact that this network gets cut out of the loop with down home solar that is the stumbling block, not lack of technology or practicality.

What happens when we use the sun up?
 
Re: Solar Power and the future

Everyone will. The only quesion is when. I think later is better. Let them develop it and we can steal something for once.
I suppose we can't be on the forefront of technology forever. Though, I think there may be some strategic value to supplying the technology to service the world's energy needs.
 
Re: Solar Power and the future

With respect to renewable energy, several quick thoughts:

1) Renewable sources will likely provide an increasing share of energy over the longer-term for obvious reasons (geopolitical risk, depletion of conventional sources, increasing attractiveness as a substitute for conventional sources as renewable technologies advance).

2) It remains unclear which source of renewable energy will "break out" from the pack so to speak. Indeed, the summary released by IPCC states, "Scenarios do not indicate an obvious single dominant RE technology at a global level; in addition, the global overall technical potentials do not constrain the future contribution of RE." However, it is probably more likely than not that some disruptive innovation will lead to a qualitative edge for a particular source. That has typically been the story with emerging industries and there is little reason to believe that the experience in the renewable energy sector would be any different.

3) Experience/learning curves coupled with technological advances should lead to lower cost production for a variety of renewable energy sources.

4) Investment and research could lead to one or more countries gaining a qualitative comparative edge in renewable energy technology. Countries facing factor disadvantages in conventional energy sources, rapidly growing energy consumption needs, and a large market of prospective customers, might have the greatest incentive to pursue renewable energy research and development. For example, China is aggressively pursuing R&D in solar energy. Already, China may be near or in the lead globally in solar energy technology.

5) A significant barrier to renewable energy investment could be the looming era of austerity for parts of Western Europe and the U.S. Huge fiscal challenges could reduce public investments as political leaders try to cushion the need to restructure popular entitlement/mandatory spending programs. It is not implausible that a country outside of Western Europe or besides the U.S. could gain a sustainable competitive advantage in one or more renewable energy technologies.

6) Biofuels face an additional barrier. The need to feed people/animals generated by growing populations in some countries and improving nutrition that corresponds with economic development could compete with use for biofuels. The former situation would very likely take precedent over time, especially as developing countries gain greater global clout.

FWIW, the summary of the IPCC report can be found at: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/srren-spm-fd4

The full report will be posted on May 31, 2011 at: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report
 
Re: Solar Power and the future

Personally, I want a combination of wind, solar, hydro, osmotic, geothermal, nuclear, tidal, etc.... Converting 80% of the world to a single form of power generation is ridiculous, it would be inefficient compared to suiting a type of generation to a specific area where it can get the most power, solar would be inefficient at high and low latitudes where wind or hydro could work better. There are plenty of reasons to oppose such a stupid idea, doesn't mean I don't want renewable energy.

Although I suspect that a single or small group of renewable energy technologies could break out from the pack so to speak, different sources might be better fits for different countries. For example, Australia with areas that enjoy large amounts of sunshine might have a better match with solar technologies, while parts of Russia with much less sunshine might do better with wind power. Of course, one can't rule out improved transmission capabilities in the very long-range that could mitigate some of those differences.
 
Re: Solar Power and the future

We have several good choices for making electricity, varying from really clean to fairly clean. When we decide to go nuclear and stop burning dirt, we will just do it.

The harder nut to crack is transportation fuels. The USA is a big country, we can't do town to town public transport as easily as small countries. We have lots of land, but not enough fresh water to make biofuels in the amounts needed. Perhaps the biofuel makers will learn to use sewer effluents from our larger cities.
If anything can get us to change our wasteful habits, it will be transportation fuel shortages.
 
Re: Solar Power and the future

IPCC....hahahaha! What a joke they are.

j-mac
 
That's great. Private investors oughta be rolling in by the thousands to fund it. Yes?

Or the Nation could stop subsidizing Nukes, Oil, Coal, Gas, etc. the status quo of the Centralized Distribution Network and spend the same money subsidizing a de-Centralized network such as local renewables and home generation. It'd be free and create a million jobs and release money in local economies, but Exxon/Mobil would suffer. Can't have Exxon/Mobil not be subsidized. Can't have Chevron not be subsidized. Can't have ConEd not subsidized. Those poor millionaires and billionaires. Jeesh, they'd have to get off the gov't dole for big Corporations. That's unRepublican. unConservative. Liberal. Lefty lunacy to try and positively impact the individuals.
 
And in the mean time? What would this country do for energy on its way to your demolition of these energy concerns and this Utopian small commune world you envision?


j-mac
 
And in the mean time? What would this country do for energy on its way to your demolition of these energy concerns and this Utopian small commune world you envision?


j-mac

In the meantime, they continue to drive around in their coal-powered hybrids and electric cars and claim to be "green".
 
Back
Top Bottom