Most of the Paris COP21 attending delegates presented their countries Renewble energy fraction target meanly around 30% for 2030. Are we ready for a 100% target now??? Do we really need an energy transition?
It costs but it is possible to get 100% . you have to fight against change resistance and bad behaviors...
It is badly needed(transition), to control globle worming, and pollution. Should be implemented by all countries of world, for men kind......
The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years - Mark Z. Jacobson (Stanford). Commercial processes would be powered by electricity and hydrogen. In all cases, the hydrogen would be produced from electricity. Thus, wind, water and sun would power the world.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/january/jacobson-world-energy-012611.html
Thanks Krishnan for the attached pertinent Louis Bergeron paper.
I agree with Bhupendra for the long time transition needed for switching to sustainable alternative energy. May be this is right for high industralized countries like USA, BRICS,EU , Japan...but not for the rest of the world in general. Now is a 100% RE target realistic to meet a variable demand with variable energy availability even with storage? Changing Humans behavior can help save around 40-50 % energy ...
I would like to underline these sentences from Krishnan attached paper:
"Based on our findings, there are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources," said Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering. "It is a question of whether we have the societal and political will."
"But it is possible, without even having to go to new technologies," Jacobson said. "We really need to just decide collectively that this is the direction we want to head as a society."
I think the emphasis on just renewable energy is not enough. For one thing, in practice, that takes a long time. More importantly, it may eventually not even be enough to solve the problem! A global and concerted effort at reforestation is needed. It makes the planet look better, and creates a more robust, self regulating system, where we would not rely only on our collective ability to hold our breaths (so to speak).
The numbers are not hard to find. Humans generate approximately 3% of the total daily output of CO2. If we had as much forest as there was before the industrial era, there would be no need to worry over our small extra contribution. The problem is that we are simultaneously (still) deforesting and dumping more CO2 into the ecosystem.
I did some back of the envelope estimates not too long ago. If we could restore at least half of the forest we have destroyed, that would be just enough to process the CO2 we are generating today. Combined with renewable energy, I think this is the more credible long term solution. Because if we continue to deforest, nothing will stop CO2 concentrations from increasing.
Forest restoration is taking place in the US and other parts. Unfortunately, although the net is positive forest growth in the US and some other countries, the net is still negative, globally. That has to change. Sooner or later, you know, you do have to take another breath. We can't allow just that act to cause a calamity.
For sure deforestation is a major issue when fighting Global warming and earth 's Climate Change. We need a global solution to return to last century equilibrium at least. We need to restore forests, oceans, deserts, mountains, cities, agricultural fields, underground resources, aquifers, ...and we must clean and recycle the waste left by humans in the last decades. But can we return back or is it too late to restore wildlife biodiversity? Is the climate change irreversible? We must change and adapt to new conditions but we can at least reverse the' curves'.
I think we need global constraints to switch individually to sustainable behaviors to restore natural equilibrium of our planet. May be we can switch to 100% Renewables target if we do it individually (local production)
By considering available conventional sources and its consumption, it is gradually coming to end but at the same time need of energy is continuously rising.
In order to keep pace with growth and development we have only one Eco-friendly source of energy option with us, That is "Renewable Sources"
This is an economics question. The best energy source is the one with the lowest cost when taking all the costs into consideration. Unfortunately, we have no widely-accepted cost for CO2 or other emissions. Without that, establishing renewable energy targets amount to little more than guesswork.
Adding my 2 cents' worth, a way to generate Hydrogen without using electricity continuously (electrical power is required for fabrication), is to develop production engineering methods for mass production of Titanium Dioxide panels, to produce Hydrogen gas from water, using sunlight as the only source of energy.
The University of New South Wales, several years ago, has developed the technology in the laboratory, based on the suggestion of two visiting professors from Japan to accomplish this:
http://www.lightparty.com/Energy/NewEnergySourceHere.html
The benefit of this method, is no electricity is required for producing Hydrogen.
The question to ask is if the energy investment expended in the fabrication of these panels is much less than the energy generated from the Hydrogen gas produced by these Titanium Oxide panels?
One answer to the above question, posed by Mr. Sacchetta, I refer to as the Ruedlinger-Sacchetta (alphabetic order) method, developed through informal collaboration between myself and Mr C. Sacchetta from the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO).
It s an economic question but not only: we need a low cost kWH to switch to Renewable energy and also a high cost of fossil energy. We need also constraints and laws that will force the switching to RE (politics+environment protection). Of course resources are limited but nobody can tel how much fossils are still "sleeping"underground?
Solar Hydrogen that s interesting. A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences announces the development of a transparent film that uses energy from the sun to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, without some of the dangerous side effects inherent in the process. This is for the future and does not answer my question: should we switch for renewables NOW......with a short transition (let say 10 years)...The same duration to prepare the Apollo mission
There are already many autonomous solar power plants feeding cities and villages....Of course at this time Many cities relying on fossil energy cannot switch directly to RE without a transition. But It s technically possible.
In my opinion, it will be good to focus on renewable technologies than that of conventional one. If we will not start working on these renewable technologies than later we may be forced to work on it.
Mahamad
Carbone pricing and new environmental rules...fossile ressources extinction... can force the switching to Renewable Energy technologies. Now we have the technology to switch NOW to Renewables even if we have to improve their efficiency and minimize their cost....
Fossil fuel is still the most readily available form of energy for countries that posses fossil resources. Especially for developing countries that have fossil fuel resources, turning completely to renewables leaves them with an economic gap, since renewables installation and production must be supported by goverment funds, especially in the case of private investors, in order for the investement to be viable. So i believe that this decision is country dependent especially for developing economies.
The decision is country dependant when you have independant countries...
I agree with you that developping countries who have already fossil fuels should focus on these ressources. In fact as the oilproducers countries belong to the sun belt area then they are the good prey to test new renewble energy technologies....it looks like a neo energy-colonialism...
I suggest you start with a little model situation. The Boumerdes power plant is an old coal-fired subcritical station which should be decommissioned first, no matter what target. If you decide to go off-grid to decrease the load on this power plant, which energy technology would you use: wind, solar, thermal solar, reciprocating gas-fired, gas turbine, fuel cell? Will it be possible to go off-grid for your family or neighborhood? Will it be economically feasible? What will you have to give up to achieve your personal 100% target? The answer can be extrapolated to the whole economy.
I think there are a lot of discussions and efforts done about technological, economic feasibility of RE or environmental impacts reduction using RE. What found less attention in the discussions yet, is the consideration of RE from planning and operational science point of view. Planning focusing on renewable energy is still 'ressource driven' planning, what we need is 'value focused' planning because renewable energies are still means in context of sustainable development.
Andrey the model example is a good approach for answering the question of switchability now to RE, Even if the example does not match the Boumerdes case. Electricity comes from Natural Gas (low cost: 2 c €/Nm3) GT and CC power plants (almost clean technology)...then Renewables have no chance to win the race...I can go 100% RE for my home (electricity, hot water, food, water, water reuse...) even if it s not economically feasible. This is not true for the whole community ...but some countries like Danemark are in the right way to reach not the 100% but approx the 50%.
Atom you are considering value focused planing of RE,. what I agree with, but whether we like it or not , the decision making needs technoeconomic and environmental/social impact analysis....
Nice discussion about renewable energy and whether we should move from the current polluting and risky forms of energy towards more renewables in the mix of our energy portfolio!
In my opinion, and as environmentalist, I am for this kind for transition. In fact, we are very late, and the damage we have done to the planet so far is huge and irreversible. All what we can do today, by introducing renewables instead of fossil fuels, is stop this damage and keep it at the level we have today. All statistical analysis showed that if we continue “business as usual” we are heading to a disaster. Global warming is not coming … it is already there, and we are all affected by its catastrophic scenarios.
For me, we should move to renewable energy, sooner or later, it is a must, … and FULL STOP :) ....
I think a goal of 30% renewable energy is a very good start. I agree that delaying the research funding for this topic is not wise at all. The simple answer is not always the best answer especially if you care about a time span of more than just right now. There will be other people who will want to live on this planet. The current population is not any more important than them. Thinking about us right now is quite selfish.
Ali, thanks for sharing your vision which I agree with: sooner or later we should move to Renewable Energy. But I think the Market (and the politicians) will decide How? and When? which technology? There is a tough competition between fossiles and Renewables but also between renewable technologies altogether.
As stated in Solar Energy facts – Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) Vs Photovoltaic panels (PV) by Dino Green on January 13, 2012:
Energy markets consider three main factors in deciding on power sources: cost of energy, ancillary services and power dispatch-ability on demand. Obviously, in a recently long-shaken and uncertain global economic environment, energy investors consider competitive cost of energy the most important issue. That is why in 2011 in the US we have seen a sudden shift from planned CSP power plants being converted to Photovoltaic (PV) – this trend continues in 2012. As long as energy price of PV plants is less than the Energy price of equivalent CSP , and continue to decline, PV will remain a preferable solution over CSP for energy investors. CSP systems will need to demonstrate high performance in all three attributes, competitive thermal-energy-storage costs, energy dispatch-ability and reliability as an ancillary solution, in order to remain attractive and competitive against Photovoltaic panels.
May be to switch to Renewable technologies we should force the decision makers choice?
Hessam, As you wrote, a 30% renewable energy goal is a good start...and I will add a wise decision for all the countries. Yes it s a pity that research funding for this topic are delayed while we need to innovate and improve efficiency.....For the next generations, we should act now (or Never?)
It is nice to transit to 100% renewable energy but it can't be done overnight. There are countries now with a capacity to switch to pure Green Energy but others may wait a little longer due to different reasons.
Wind and PV power are the most renewable energy can be used in the future
It is obvious that renewable energy will take the lead in the future. However, more technology is needed to ensure reduced cost specially initial cost of investment. This will facilitate its utilization for developing economies.
30% ENERGY target - rather than a 30% electricity target is actually quite a major step forward for many countries. As more and more countries approach this level of primary energy from renewable sources, the problems and advantages of this will become clearer - and therefore should pave the way for the next 30% to be a target too. There is however some debate whether a 100% renewable as a target itself is too limiting - and whether low-carbon should be the target (nuclear and decarbonised fossil fuels for example).
Dear Shafiqur Rehman
Wind power should be encouraged, specially in the middle east. Proper wind resource assessment is the key for its deployment in this region. Solar is being used here in Saudi Arabia. we have 10 MW, 3.5MW, 500kW sized grid connected PV power plants to name some. Also there is one district water heating system operational in an university. So,
I believe too that renewable targets, if set realistically, are achievable depending on the ressources (energy, funds, time, human, lobbies, technology, . ..) but why Wind power should be encouraged, specially in the middle east? To reach Sustainability we should encourage local production of Renewable and Clean energy (Wind, solar (PV, CSP), Biomass, ocean, ....).
Dear Samuel
100% renewable energy .....even 30% RE target in ten years is too much. May be 100% RE is too risky and not realistic target... I do not know if there are countries who are ready to switch to 100% pure Green Energy (2020? 2030? 2050?) but you are not supposed to build large scale solar power plants or very large wind farms....but if we help everyone reduce consumption and install home electricity generators or even self made wind turbines or PV panels then even poor countries can shift to green pure energy sources
Dear Faouzi
Wind and PV power are the most renewable energy to be used in the future? It may be right for the present situation but I am not sure you can do this kind of extrapolation to the future. The future belongs to mix energy sources adapted to local assessed resources (solar, wind, ocean, biomass...
Dear Fidelis
It is up to all of stakeholders, politicians,industry, consumers, ..... to make renewable energy lead in the future. But I am not sure that this will facilitate systematically its utilization for developing economies . Because you will have to buy RE technologies then only prosperous developing countries can afford to pay for ....this lead to another question: are Renewable energy technologies a luxury ?
Dear Grant Wilson
It looks like 30% ENERGY target rather than a 30% electricity target is more feasible in time. If you include in ENERGY (offices,residential, mobility, ...electricity and fuels consumption) then may be it will be easier for authorities to reach the 30% RE through installing very large scale solar Power plants and wind farms.... than 30 % ENERGY through changing energy consumption of individuals (you cannot force an individual to buy a BMW or a VW car but you can attract the same individuals to use an efficient sustainable city transportation services)
I think a 100% renewable as a target itself is too limiting and risky and of course low-carbon should not be the target but a constraint that will push the whole energy system to cleaner practices.
In my opinion, it is impossible to reach 100% of renewable generating capacity by 2030, excluding all other energy sources from the energy matrix of the majority of the countries. During the coming decades, most of the countries will be forced to have an energy matrix with different types of energy sources. For this reason, an energy transit period is needed, but in the sense of transforming the current energy mix of different countries.
In addition to the above, most of the current renewable energy sources cannot be used as a base-load energy and for this reason, the use of gas, nuclear power, among others will be needed during the coming decades.
Of course all countries should be transiting immediately to energy systems based on renewables. It is a matter not only of economy, environment protection, or of technology and intellectual ownership. It is a matter of survival as human species. Nowadays there are a plenty of research and literature on how this fast transit can be made with ease, and dozens of cities, counties and even whole countries, committed with this transition. The technologies are ready, and obviously they will continue their improvement in efficiency and costs every year lower and lower, as PV and wind technologies (and all others Ren Techs) have demonstrated. Fossil and nuclear technologies are now frankly obsolete, and we don't need them at all anymore !
More than 400 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere makes it thermally unstable and dangerous; there is an imperious need to reduce this levels of greenhouse effect gases, and that only can be achieved changing the unsustainable way of life that industrialized countries have had, beginning with the reduce of consume (energy and all kind of commodities), using renewables, changing way the food is produced and consumed, and avoiding the inneficient automovile transportation. All this implies a life and a circular economy based on renewable resources, these last shared with justice and equity, used and consumed in a very inteligent manner.
Depends on the country's goal.
If you are aiming economic growth but renewable is still expensive, go for conventional energy sources.
The developed countries have had their industrial revolution and growth and they polluted this earth. They should be held responsible now. If they want developing countries to go renewable, they should provide the fund.
But if you can afford renewables and have economic growth at the same time, that should be the best.
Dear Jorge
I agree for you that the 100% Renewable Fraction target is impossible to reach by 2030 ........even by 2050...even 50% by 2030 for all the planet. Even during fossil fuels golden age we did not have 100% fraction fossiles. It depends on the local resources, the level of development and the financial capacities....
But I do not agree concerning the use of gas, nuclear power, among others during the coming decades (except if we reach a fossiles addiction state). I agree that the market is still in demand of fossil fuel power plants (GT or CC) and most of the current renewable energy sources cannot be used as a base-load energy , but who knows what will be the RE installed capacity in 2030?
Dear Eduardo
Totally agree with you that not only humans but the whole life in our planet is at risk due to the impact of industrialization on the environment ....the technology is there, innovation too so why the transition is too slow?
Dear Eqwan
The third scenario is more realistic : The world economy is starving, oil markets are experiencing very bad times while fossile energy reserves are declining....then Renewable energy is an opportunity for Global transition (energy transition, jobs transition, social and political transition, knwoledge transition, etc......). Investments in RE industries has created until 2014 (not including hydropower) 7.7 000 000 jobs!!
Of I agree with you that it depends of evry country goal.
100% Renewable Energy Possible by 2050, Says Greenpeace Report
Tierney Smith, TckTckTck | September 21, 2015 9:08 am |
http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/21/100-renewables-2050-greenpeace/
Researched in collaboration with the German Aerospace Centre (DLR), the report finds that the clean energy transition—including the electricity, transport and heating sectors—will create 20 million jobs over the next 15 years, and—unlike coal—will provide energy access to the one third of people globally that currently have none.
Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution report author Sven Teske said:
“The solar and wind industries have come of age, and are cost-competitive with coal. It’s the responsibility of the fossil fuel industry to prepare for these changes in the labour market and make provisions. Governments need to manage the dismantling of the fossil fuel industry which is moving rapidly into irrelevance. Every dollar invested in new fossil fuel projects is high risk capital which might end up as stranded investment.”
Greenpeace and DLR found that the investment necessary to reach a 100 per cent renewable goal will be a considerable US$1 trillion a year.
However, this will be more than covered by the US$1.07 trillion in savings on fuel costs alone in the same period, not to mention the vast co-benefits to human health and the avoided costs from climate change-related extreme weather that come with the renewable transition.
Such a transition would see CO2 emissions fall from the current 30 gigatonnes a year to 20 gigatonnes by 2030.
That was a very interesting discussion (March 2016) which is still relevant today (July 2016).
Here in Canada we are still trying to convince people to get away from fossil fuels. The last government was totally behind fossil fuel developments and that is why it lost power (a few months ago). Now, the work to change into renewables can continue.
In my location hydro power is the chief source of power. Solar power is being tested for energy and hot water, but it is difficult due to the winter's below zero temperatures. However, the new fashion is "geothermal power": Getting heat from the ground for the winter and coolness for the summer. It still needs a bit of electricity to function using the "heat pump", but in the long run it is relatively cheap source of energy. The source of this heat is just normal ground temperature at a depth of just 2 m below surface.
This "geothermal power" can be used in other countries as well and can be carbon-neutral if one used solar power to drive the pump, for example.
I think this question of switching definitely to Renewable energy will be relevant even next year (july 2017)...2018? ...because of the costs and the maturity of clean technologies...China is one of the driving forces to switching to RE but I fear that if the global economy crisis is not over then the RE fraction will stay at a very low level. ....
Shift from fossil fuels toward renewable energy and favorable government policy anticipated to drive the global ultra-thin solar cells market size.
Get PDF for more Professional and Technical insights @ https://goo.gl/gOLcwX
Solar cells refer as cell that converts light energy into electrical energy and is also known as photovoltaic cell. It is made up of one or more thin film (TF) or thin layer of photovoltaic material, such as plastic, metal or glass and a second generation cell. Thickness of thin film varies from nanometers to tens of micrometers (µm). It is light in weight, have a less friction, less material needed to build, flexible and have capability to produce up to 6 watts of power per gram.
Thin film solar cell can be used as glazing material that can be laminated onto windows, building integrated photovoltaic and use inflexible thin film solar panels in some of the largest photovoltaic power stations of world.
https://goo.gl/gOLcwX
Dear Hamit
Thanks for these pertinent documentation and links. Do you mean that switching asap to renewable energy needs carbon pricing?
Regards
Kamal
- Badges
- Science topic