• 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!

Most of The World Could Be 100% Powered With Renewables by 2050

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
1,547
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
By 2050 most of the world could be 100% powered with renewable energy while at the same lead to a net increase of 24 million new jobs, according to a new 2050 roadmap.

Almost three quarters of the world's countries could be powered entirely by renewable energy sources by 2050 – if we want it badly enough, that is.

That's according to an ambitious new 2050 roadmap that calculates a move to an emissions-free future would create millions of jobs, cut trillions in health and climate costs, and help save the planet from global warming.


The estimates, produced by a team of almost 30 scientists, are based on an assessment of the capabilities of 139 countries to transition to 100 percent wind, water, and solar power in the next three and a bit decades.

https://www.sciencealert.com/most-of-the-world-could-be-100-powered-by-renewables-by-2050

Direct link to the study: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf
 
By 2050 most of the world could be 100% powered with renewable energy while at the same lead to a net increase of 24 million new jobs, according to a new 2050 roadmap.



https://www.sciencealert.com/most-of-the-world-could-be-100-powered-by-renewables-by-2050

Direct link to the study: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf

And what about batteries or some other storage, for the times of no sunlight and dead wind patterns?

Who's crystal ball says we will have adequate storage means by then?
 
Lots of things could happen if they were wanted "badly enough" but as demand for fossil fuels falls so does their cost because their supply exists. IMHO, short of a huge tax (effective ban?) on these current fossil fuels it is extremely unlikely to happen.
 
Lots of things could happen if they were wanted "badly enough" but as demand for fossil fuels falls so does their cost because their supply exists. IMHO, short of a huge tax (effective ban?) on these current fossil fuels it is extremely unlikely to happen.

Yes, they will be around until we have some incredible breakthrough in technology.
 
Yes, they will be around until we have some incredible breakthrough in technology.

It is very hard to predict what will be possible in 33 years much less what will be used 100%. I know that I rely on battery powered tools much more now than I did 30 years ago but I still use corded tools (circular saw, table saw, compound miter saw and air compressor) on many jobs.
 
By 2050 most of the world could be 100% powered with renewable energy while at the same lead to a net increase of 24 million new jobs, according to a new 2050 roadmap.



https://www.sciencealert.com/most-of-the-world-could-be-100-powered-by-renewables-by-2050

Direct link to the study: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf

I can paint a likely road map where it could happen sooner, but the people who do not like oil companies will not like it.
The alternatives lack viable storage, Nature show us that the best way to store energy in as a hydrocarbon.
When the price of oil gets about $90 a barrel, it will be more profitable for refineries to buy wholesale electricity and make their fuels from
water (Hydrogen) and CO2 (Carbon), the process is similar to modern cracking.
On the upside we could reduce new CO2 emissions, and make the transition transparent to most people.
Solar power could be stored as conventional fuels, and sold through existing infrastructure to existing demands.
 
Not to mention that most countries get their wealth from fossil fuels. I think those countries that are rich with fossil fuels will oppose this because it can harm their economy.
 
It is very hard to predict what will be possible in 33 years much less what will be used 100%. I know that I rely on battery powered tools much more now than I did 30 years ago but I still use corded tools (circular saw, table saw, compound miter saw and air compressor) on many jobs.

Yes, I like my battery tools. Still, to get transportation and industry to stop using fossil fuels...

love to see that wide bodied airplane!

Electric trains... Not unreasonable.

Still, the incredible increased need for on-demand electricity cannot be provided by solar or wind any time soon, without some incredible breakthrough.
 
Heads in the sand? Describing yourself by chance?

At present, we have no viable means to be 100% renewable in the next 33 years. My head is not in the sand, I am realistic.


There are certainly technological issues to be solved with Renewables but the fact that you don't know what those Solutions are doesn't mean they aren't out there or they aren't going to be coming it is also unlikely that renewals will provide all power in the future there will still be people burning firewood just as they do now. The objectionable part in all of this is you have a president pandering to the people that work in a dying industry instead of telling them to get out of that industry and get a job based in the future.
 
Heads in the sand? Describing yourself by chance?

At present, we have no viable means to be 100% renewable in the next 33 years. My head is not in the sand, I am realistic.


Substituting reason for sarcasm just tells me what kind of person you are.
 
So big energy might oppose it. What people would be stupid enough to cast votes in support of big energy wanting to continue to pollute the world and capitalize on our shared worlds finite resources?
No, our population is much smarter than that. Clearly.
 
By 2050 most of the world could be 100% powered with renewable energy while at the same lead to a net increase of 24 million new jobs, according to a new 2050 roadmap.



https://www.sciencealert.com/most-of-the-world-could-be-100-powered-by-renewables-by-2050

Direct link to the study: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf

We could do it in 10 years if we instead invest in renewable 'fossil fuels'. Just think, all of that carbon we're putting out is being right now converted into future oil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas

But, nuclear is the future anyway. We should wasting money on these other pipe dreams.
 
So big energy might oppose it. What people would be stupid enough to cast votes in support of big energy wanting to continue to pollute the world and capitalize on our shared worlds finite resources?
No, our population is much smarter than that. Clearly.

There is a very common misconception that oil companies sell oil, the reality is that oil companies
buy oil from ether external sources or internal division, and refine that oil into the finished fuel products they really sell.
The way I see it big energy will be the path that Humans move forward in a sustainable path.
The refineries buy all the surplus electricity that will be present as alternatives move forward, and
store that energy as carbon neutral fuels, to be sold in existing distribution networks.
The current price point is about $90 a barrel, where the greater profit will be in making their own feedstocks.
 
By 2050 most of the world could be 100% powered with renewable energy while at the same lead to a net increase of 24 million new jobs, according to a new 2050 roadmap.



https://www.sciencealert.com/most-of-the-world-could-be-100-powered-by-renewables-by-2050

Direct link to the study: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf

There are many challenges to such a utopian dream, all of which derail the rather naive belief that humans and cultures could achieve such a result.

I realize that science, and scientists, can't quantify humans, so they just ignore them.

Over the last 100 years, there are Nations and cultures that have failed to reach even the most modest of modernization goals common among more advanced industrialized countries.

Expecting these nations to make some quantum leap into the future is a bit fantastical.

Further, the transition period to 100% renewables globally will take investment beyond the wildest imagination of even the most pessimistic among us.

That channeling of resources could potentially have a cataclysmic impact on the global economy that the projected "24 million new jobs" couldn't begin to counter.

To think it all could be done by 2050 calls into question the motivation for such a claim, or at least at minimum, the sanity of the authors and scientists behind this claim.

There is little question a transition to alternative energy will take place in the coming decades and centuries.

It will be rational and reasoned efforts that will drive that transition, not agenda driven groups using energy discussion as a means to an end.
 
There are certainly technological issues to be solved with Renewables but the fact that you don't know what those Solutions are doesn't mean they aren't out there or they aren't going to be coming it is also unlikely that renewals will provide all power in the future there will still be people burning firewood just as they do now. The objectionable part in all of this is you have a president pandering to the people that work in a dying industry instead of telling them to get out of that industry and get a job based in the future.

OMG...

You serious?

If there was a solution, now, the corporation that has it would exploit it for profit!
 
OMG...

You serious?

If there was a solution, now, the corporation that has it would exploit it for profit!

Actually the storage solution does have a solution currently but it's a bit on the expensive side just because you're ignorant of reality doesnt mean reality doesn't exist. Companies are indeed providing storage solutions for profit.
 
Actually the storage solution does have a solution currently but it's a bit on the expensive side just because you're ignorant of reality doesnt mean reality doesn't exist. Companies are indeed providing storage solutions for profit.

Yes, I know there are "expensive" storage solutions.

have any that are promising to be cost effective within 33 years?
 
How do you plan on powering freight trains and 18 wheelers, without dramatically increasing the price of almost all consumer goods significantly?
 
How do you plan on powering freight trains and 18 wheelers, without dramatically increasing the price of almost all consumer goods significantly?

Same way the Milwaukee Road did it in 1912 Over the Rockies and over the Cascades. Same way all diesel-electric locomotives are run now by electricity.
 
Yes, I know there are "expensive" storage solutions.

have any that are promising to be cost effective within 33 years?


Your assumptions are negative pessimistic and anti-American. 30 years ago the price of solar cells was very high today they are very cheap. There is no reason to think otherwise when it comes to storage.
 
Back
Top Bottom