Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stanford, UCD Researchers Say 100% Renewable Energy Possible By 2050

Posted by timothy on from the triumph-of-the-will dept.

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."

4 of 360 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Perpetual energy is against the laws of physics by FauxPasIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Right. If only we had some sort of giant fusion reactor constantly sending us more energy... but what would we CALL it ?

    --
    25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
  2. Re:PR Puff Piece by locofungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Niiiiiiice. $19 trillions just for the wind turbines (around 5M each), $100 trillions for the rooftop PV systems (around 60K each), but there is no economic issue. Right.

    85 million bbl/day oil consumption (2007)

    At $100 per bbl that's $8.5 billion per day or, by 2050 $120 trillion, almost exactly the same cost as you've given above.

    Oil is less than $100/bbl now but is almost certainly going to be a lot more than $100/bbl by 2050 (unless, of course, we've switched most of our power generation to alternatives so that there's no longer the same demand)

    Right now, migrating off oil is looking approximately economically neutral. There's a cashflow issue - if we do it over the next 40 years we're going to need about $3 trillion tied up in building new infrastructure (assuming it takes about 1 year from starting building to bringing something on line - dams are obviously slower, wind farms seem to be quicker). But the longer we leave it the more urgent it's going to become (eventually there will be a time when we have to be off oil) and the more cash we'll have to tie up in order to build the infrastructure more quickly.

    Tim.

    --
    God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
  3. Re:2050 probably won't be good enough.. by spydum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gasoline is not the only thing derived from petroleum resources.. You will still depend heavily on OPEC for all of your plastics, fertilizers, pesticides, and thousands of other uses. So OPEC will still continue to be pretty difficult to ignore.

  4. Re:2050 probably won't be good enough.. by ShakaUVM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most of the war and the fights in the world that has lead to people suffering, also by hunger. Has been communism against democracy. And I don't know who to blame the most. To me it seems that the "Democratic" countries has done more damage than good. Look at vietnam, somalia etc etc.

    You don't know who to blame the most?

    Here's a clue: the Khmer Rouge murdered a million or two of their own people. And their numbers were vastly exceeded by the Soviets and the Red Chinese.

    Nothing the US or other democracies did can ever compare with the scope of genocides, atrocities, and mass starvations caused by communism in the 20th century.