Slashdot Mirror
Stanford, UCD Researchers Say 100% Renewable Energy Possible By 2050
thecarchik writes with news of an analysis published in Energy Policy by researchers from Stanford University and the University of California-Davis. "There are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources, said author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford professor, saying it is only a question of 'whether we have the societal and political will.' During this decade, the two 'fuels of the future' will be electricity and gasoline. Beyond that, we can't project."
Talking about "first steps", could someone explain something to me. It's simple, and it's a stupid question, but I'd still like it answered :
Today's energy cycle :
Sun -> plants -> animals -> bacteria -> (adding geothermal energy) -> digging them up & using them
Tomorrow's energy cycle:
Sun -> using it
Sun -> athmospheric pressure differences -> using it
Anyone else notice what's missing from tomorrow's cycle ?
How is this good for plants and/or animals (or bacteria for that matter) ? When the usage of renewable energy grows we will have to take more and more energy away (directly) from the rest of the biosphere.
Now anyone who's learned the least little bit of thermodynamics or eveolution can tell you this : the biosphere can function perfectly well when it's warm. Not when it's cold (before idiots reply : deserts are caused by COLD, not heat). The biosphere can function perfectly well with pollution. It can function perfectly well with more water. With less water ... in general : the biosphere can function with what we're doing now.
It CANNOT function without energy.
And yes, we don't see these effects right now because there's only a truly tiny installed base of renewable energy (just like global warming was a totally negligible effect the first 100 years of oil use). When we install anywhere near the capacity needed to get 10% of worldwide energy from renewables, we will have no choice : we will have to make a region the size of a small continent entirely lifeless. For 100% we will absolutely need to "steal" so much energy half the atlantic ocean would no longer contain so much as a s single fish.
Free energy ? Is that what liberals think renewables are ? Oh dear God.
Renewable energy is only free in exactly the same way food is free : given land, very long-term investments, huge risk, and a *LOT* of patience you can make it "for free".
Now tell me : where can I get me food for free ?
And now let's compare : the price of oil, per unit of energy, currently stands at 5.8e6 BTU for $100 (let's round it seriously upward) : let's say $20 per million BTU
your "free" energy, should be within a factor of 10 of current agricultural energy prices : 150 BTU per pound, 3300 pounds per acre (you need oil-based fertilizer for these yields, but let's ignore that), 14 cents per pound =150*3300 BTU for 3300*0.14$ = 5e5 for $462 = about $1000 per million BTU (this is for corn, one of the more efficient plant species)
Let's suppose we can make renewables 10 times more efficient than they are now. That would be an accomplishment that far surpasses putting a man on the moon btw.
That would make the price per kilometer travelled for your car ... 5 times what it was during the oil crisis ...
"free" ... I think you're going to find "expensive" to be cheaper ... and that's ignoring the fact that there is going to be a (long) period with fundamentally less energy. Who gets to die ?