We could be free of fossil fuel by 2050

hbmcc

Active Member
.... but, it won't reduce demand on water generated electricity. Some very attractive stimulants to dump coal, oil, and gas. :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How 139 countries could be powered by 100 percent wind, water, and solar energy by 2050

Date: August 23, 2017 Source: Cell Press

Summary:

The latest roadmap to a 100 percent renewable energy future outlines infrastructure changes that 139 countries can make to be entirely powered by wind, water, and sunlight by 2050 after electrification of all energy sectors. Such a transition could mean less worldwide energy consumption due to the efficiency of clean, renewable electricity; and a net increase of over 24 million long-term jobs.

FULL STORY

Credit: The Solutions Project

The latest roadmap to a 100% renewable energy future from Stanford's Mark Z. Jacobson and 26 colleagues is the most specific global vision yet, outlining infrastructure changes that 139 countries can make to be entirely powered by wind, water, and sunlight by 2050 after electrification of all energy sectors. Such a transition could mean less worldwide energy consumption due to the efficiency of clean, renewable electricity; a net increase of over 24 million long-term jobs; an annual decrease in 4-7 million air pollution deaths per year; stabilization of energy prices; and annual savings of over $20 trillion in health and climate costs. The work appears August 23 in the journal Joule, Cell Press's new publication focused on sustainable energy.

The challenge of moving the world toward a low-carbon future in time to avoid exacerbating global warming and to create energy self-sufficient countries is one of the greatest of our time. The roadmaps developed by Jacobson's group provide one possible endpoint. For each of the 139 nations, they assess the raw renewable energy resources available to each country, the number of wind, water, and solar energy generators needed to be 80% renewable by 2030 and 100% by 2050, how much land and rooftop area these power sources would require (only around 1% of total available, with most of this open space between wind turbines that can be used for multiple purposes), and how this approach would reduce energy demand and cost compared with a business-as-usual scenario.

"Both individuals and governments can lead this change. Policymakers don't usually want to commit to doing something unless there is some reasonable science that can show it is possible, and that is what we are trying to do," says Jacobson, director of Stanford University's Atmosphere and Energy Program and co-founder of the Solutions Project, a U.S. non-profit educating the public and policymakers about a transition to 100% clean, renewable energy. "There are other scenarios. We are not saying that there is only one way we can do this, but having a scenario gives people direction."

The analyses specifically examined each country's electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, industrial, and agriculture/forestry/fishing sectors. Of the 139 countries -- selected because they were countries for which data were publically available from the International Energy Agency and collectively emit over 99% of all carbon dioxide worldwide -- the places the study showed that had a greater share of land per population (e.g., the United States, China, the European Union) are projected to have the easiest time making the transition to 100% wind, water, and solar. Another learning was that the most difficult places to transition may be highly populated, very small countries surrounded by lots of ocean, such as Singapore, which may require an investment in offshore solar to convert fully.

As a result of a transition, the roadmaps predict a number of collateral benefits. For example, by eliminating oil, gas, and uranium use, the energy associated with mining, transporting and refining these fuels is also eliminated, reducing international power demand by around 13%. Because electricity is more efficient than burning fossil fuels, demand should go down another 23%. The changes in infrastructure would also mean that countries wouldn't need to depend on one another for fossil fuels, reducing the frequency of international conflict over energy. Finally, communities currently living in energy deserts would have access to abundant clean, renewable power.

"Aside from eliminating emissions and avoiding 1.5 degrees Celsius global warming and beginning the process of letting carbon dioxide drain from the Earth's atmosphere, transitioning eliminates 4-7 million air pollution deaths each year and creates over 24 million long-term, full-time jobs by these plans," Jacobson says. "What is different between this study and other studies that have proposed solutions is that we are trying to examine not only the climate benefits of reducing carbon but also the air pollution benefits, job benefits, and cost benefits"

The Joule paper is an expansion of 2015 roadmaps to transition each of the 50 United States to 100% clean, renewable energy and an analysis of whether the electric grid can stay stable upon such a transition. Not only does this new study cover nearly the entire world, there are also improved calculations on the availability of rooftop solar energy, renewable energy resources, and jobs created versus lost.

The 100% clean, renewable energy goal has been criticized by some for focusing only on wind, water, and solar energy and excluding nuclear power, "clean coal," and biofuels. However, the researchers intentionally exclude nuclear power because of its 10-19 years between planning and operation, its high cost, and the acknowledged meltdown, weapons proliferation, and waste risks. "Clean coal" and biofuels are neglected because they both cause heavy air pollution, which Jacobson and coworkers are trying to eliminate, and emit over 50 times more carbon per unit of energy than wind, water, or solar power.

The 100% wind, water, solar studies have also been questioned for depending on some technologies such as underground heat storage in rocks, which exists only in a few places, and the proposed use of electric and hydrogen fuel cell aircraft, which exist only in small planes at this time. Jacobson counters that underground heat storage is not required but certainly a viable option since it is similar to district heating, which provides 60% of Denmark's heat. He also says that space shuttles and rockets have been propelled with hydrogen, and aircraft companies are now investing in electric airplanes. Wind, water, and solar can also face daily and seasonal fluctuation, making it possible that they could miss large demands for energy, but the new study refers to a new paper that suggests these stability concerns can be addressed in several ways.

These analyses have also been criticized for the massive investment it would take to move a country to the desired goal. Jacobson says that the overall cost to society (the energy, health, and climate cost) of the proposed system is one-fourth of that of the current fossil fuel system. In terms of upfront costs, most of these would be needed in any case to replace existing energy, and the rest is an investment that far more than pays itself off over time by nearly eliminating health and climate costs.

"It appears we can achieve the enormous social benefits of a zero-emission energy system at essentially no extra cost," says co-author Mark Delucchi, a research scientist at the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley. "Our findings suggest that the benefits are so great that we should accelerate the transition to wind, water, and solar, as fast as possible, by retiring fossil-fuel systems early wherever we can."

"This paper helps push forward a conversation within and between the scientific, policy, and business communities about how to envision and plan for a decarbonized economy," writes Mark Dyson of Rocky Mountain Institute, in an accompanying preview of the paper. "The scientific community's growing body of work on global low-carbon energy transition pathways provides robust evidence that such a transition can be accomplished, and a growing understanding of the specific levers that need to be pulled to do so. Jacobson et al.'s present study provides sharper focus on one scenario, and refines a set of priorities for near-term action to enable it."

Story Source:

Materials provided by Cell Press. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal References:

1. Jacobson et al. 100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight (WWS) All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World. Joule, 2017 DOI: 10.1016/j.joule.2017.07.005

2. Mark Z. Jacobson, Mark A. Delucchi, Guillaume Bazouin, Zack A. F. Bauer, Christa C. Heavey, Emma Fisher, Sean B. Morris, Diniana J. Y. Piekutowski, Taylor A. Vencill, Tim W. Yeskoo. 100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy roadmaps for the 50 United States. Energy Environ. Sci., 2015; 8 (7): 2093 DOI: 10.1039/C5EE01283J

3. Mark Z. Jacobson, Mark A. Delucchi, Mary A. Cameron, Bethany A. Frew. Low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2015; 112 (49): 15060 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1510028112

Cite This Page:

Cell Press. "How 139 countries could be powered by 100 percent wind, water, and solar energy by 2050." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 23 August 2017. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170823121339.htm
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
Long on promises very short on detail.

Sounds great to me but dams are out of the question so scratch that off the list.

Windmills disrupt migratory routes for birds. So wind is out

so better invest heavily in solar.. and my new solar vehicle needs to be able to tow my solar bass boat for as far as i need to go without gaving to recharge.
 
A wonderful possibility but not likely with our present leadership. Especially, in leu of bucking the Paris Accord and the many policy blows to our environment. I have no doubt that other countries will definitely be on this agenda and shamefully not ours.
 

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
A wonderful possibility but not likely with our present leadership. Especially, in leu of bucking the Paris Accord and the many policy blows to our environment. I have no doubt that other countries will definitely be on this agenda and shamefully not ours.

At the point any of this can compete with the current mix of energy sources, they will find there way into the market. The current administration is using a common sense approach to managing this... as opposed to allowing a populous, feel good movement run roughshod and force their zealot ideals on everyone.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
A wonderful possibility but not likely with our present leadership. Especially, in leu of bucking the Paris Accord and the many policy blows to our environment. I have no doubt that other countries will definitely be on this agenda and shamefully not ours.

No one is stopping industry from developing energy technologies. It has nothing to do with government.
 

Yard Sale

Huge Member
Is it just a guilty conscience that makes the pro-dumpsterfire/climate deniers respond to this or what?

We get your position. 50 some odd pages have been spent on this already.

You have your rape and pillage agenda in place. Let us science believers/rest of the world discuss this like adults without your poop slinging please.
 

hbmcc

Active Member
And we witness through its acolytes, the insular intelligence of the GOP along with its sympathizers, and festering, greedy leaches ... already.

Besides that, the world is evolving toward energy independence. It has no tolerance for a xenophobic global loser.

I'm done. No more pablum for the intelligent....
 

Klickrolf

Active Member
We're gonna need lots, billions +, of batteries to give us power when it's dark or still. Where will the batteries come from? Will they be disposable? Will they be toxic? We are no where near a solution for uninterrupted power supplies without fossil fuels or dams. Where will we get the required CO2 to maintain, better yet "grow", the earth's carrying capacity all life demands? Seriously!
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
And we witness through its acolytes, the insular intelligence of the GOP along with its sympathizers, and festering, greedy leaches ... already.

Besides that, the world is evolving toward energy independence. It has no tolerance for a xenophobic global loser.

I'm done. No more pablum for the intelligent....


thanks for proving my point.. everyone is for energy independence... we ain't there yet and until we are we need as much cheap energy as we can get. It is the responsibility of consumers to demand clean energy in order to drive innovation and investment in the industry. That is not happening! The environmental movement is a minority of the population you cannot expect to have everything your way.

lets look for a few moments at what all those Co2 emissions bought us. make no mistake these things were bought by burning gasoline!

1. Europe free of Nazi control
2. Berliners not starving to death under Soviet occupation
3. Climate Science!
4. computers
5. cell phones
6. the media
global warming has to be the most hypocritical issue the earth has ever seen, and we are trying to be accommodating to it but you have got to be realistic.

what you guys are saying is that we either take the most radical approach to solving it or you are a Nazi.

being protective of American culture and wanting it to persist is not being Xenophobic It's called loving your country and no matter how much screaming some on the left do that is NOT a bad thing!
America is the best place on earth to live regardless of your skin pigment, religion lifestyle choice or any other way you want to define yourself, this is the best place for you to live!

I will not be ashamed of this country because of what some people say..

Here is another tid bit for you. the cause a hero fights for does not negate his heroism.

The Germans in WW2 had Heros, The Japanese had Heros, The North Koreans had Heros, The Soveit Union had lots of them. and you Know what? The Confederate army had heros and they all deserve statues! That's not racist that's called history.

I am sick to death of the lies being shoved down our throats.
 

hbmcc

Active Member
I am sick to death of the lies being shoved down our throats.

Then don't believe lies and repeat them.

Praising our past in a debatable (religious/glorifying) manner does nothing for progress into the future. Heroism has nothing to do with any of my comments.
 
Last edited:

Rob Allen

Active Member
Then don't believe lies and repeat them.

Praising our past in a debatable (religious/glorifying) manner does nothing for progress into the future. Heroism has nothing to do with any of my comments.

Bashing the president because he has different priorities than you does nothing for the future either.
The history of America is great and that is not debatable. Perfect? No but great.
 

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
We're gonna need lots, billions +, of batteries to give us power when it's dark or still. Where will the batteries come from? Will they be disposable? Will they be toxic? We are no where near a solution for uninterrupted power supplies without fossil fuels or dams. Where will we get the required CO2 to maintain, better yet "grow", the earth's carrying capacity all life demands? Seriously!

The issues you raise continue go unanswered. This is typical and a perfect example of what I stated. Ignoring stubborn facts because they get in the way of the feel good movement makes the proponents look foolish. That others out the Tom Foolery simply enrages them. What's unfortunate is that the good elements associated with sensible environmental changes get hindered because of the overreach of the extremists.

Is it just a guilty conscience that makes the pro-dumpsterfire/climate deniers respond to this or what?

We get your position. 50 some odd pages have been spent on this already.

You have your rape and pillage agenda in place. Let us science believers/rest of the world discuss this like adults without your poop slinging please.

So like the Steelhead forum and the subject of wild only vs. hatchery or the self centered interests of Occupy Skagit, you'd prefer that the airwaves be cleared of opposing views? That has a nice Orwellian feel to it. Those of us not buying into the green movement bullshit (at least not in entirety) both believe and understand science - as opposed to cherry picking and manipulating it. Concerning your "50 pages" comment, you might take note of the authors throwing the Molotov Cocktails.
 
I bashed all the presidents since FDR but I still slept at night. None of which I questioned their sanity or fitness for office. If you can't see that this one is far different then let our views regarding reality rest as vastly different.
 

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info
Top