As long as the choice of renewable energy source leads to less greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. carbon dioxide, methane etc) then the use of such energy must help. But it can't quickly solve all the problems because the renewable energy generating capacity needs to be so much larger than it presently is.

Yes you are absolutely right Mahamad that renewable energy is a clean source of energy emitting no harmful emissions and pollutants specially wind energy,hydro ,solar heating and cooling, solar PV cells ...etc. But the problem as mentioned by Tony above is that it is now contributing very little in Global energy supply. due to its high exploitation initial  cost..

Hello,

The largest share of GHG emissions is contributed from the utilization of Fossil Fuels that are limited Energy Fuels of our Earth.

It is very evident that the harnessing of the potential of Renewable Energies is the most appropriate solution to solve Global Warming and consequent Climate Change of nowadays Crisis that are effected from the previous deployments of Fossil Fuels.

I think if we don't want to left our planet as very dirty environment to our new generations and we want to create Sustainable Prosperous Earth, we should not see the present benefits.

Actually, the deployments of Renewable Energies are long term project plan.

We should wait the time till we gain the True Benefits for our Earth.  

Regards,

..., dear colleague ... unquestionably, step by step, anywhere on our globe the Utilization of Renewable Energy will be to overcome the Global Warming, and in real life will be introduced, in particular solar energy, which is used nowadays more less, compared with real potential. Let's believe and hope that we will be those of future generations that we will use as factors in the racianal renewable energy sources and reduce global warming ...

Mahamad, 

This does not require an "opinion". It is an accepted fact. There are numerous publications as well as webpages that you can access on the subject !

-Sanjay

Environmental and economic benefits of adding renewable energy to a state portfolio can include:

--- Generating energy that produces no greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels and reduces some types of air pollution

--- Diversifying energy supply and reducing dependence on imported fuels

--- Creating economic development and jobs in manufacturing, installation, and more

https://www3.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/state/topics/renewable.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/public-benefits-of-renewable.html#.VvqyoDEcbfc

Mahamad, I think  greener energy is the key solution to reducing the attendant environment impact caused by fossil fuel utilization. Even though renewable energy will have a greater penetration in the future fossil fuel will still constitute a mix in the energy scenario. This is predicated on the fact that not all regions globally may have the potential for all round greener energy resources. However, renewable energy has the potential to: (a) reduce global warming (b) improve livelihood (c) reducing poverty (d) Increase internal energy shortage (e) Boost the rural economy.

It does not matter if we are talking about a poor country, developing country or any other category of it. Humans have to learn how to live in a non predatory way. 

I think that the use of renewable energy to overcome the global warming is an urgent need. The following Web page would be of your interest:

http://eruditio.worldacademy.org/issue-5/article/urgent-need-renewable-energy

Arigatou Gozaimasu Prof. Dr. Tatsuo Tabata,

Yes, I agree your opinion.

That's why we are addressing and encouraging the international/regional Renewable Energy Roadmaps and Strategic Plannings for promotion of Renewable Energy Generation Capacities.

The high initial cost of Renewable Energy Generation Projects, only the present problem is overcome by funding supports policies, incentive programs and active stakeholders.

Regards,

The engineering answer is that we have the technology to drastically reduce our current energy consumption and to gradually replace fossil fuels with renewable resources. To what extent this happens is a political decision. If scientists and pre-school children were to run the world, this would happen in a foreseeable future. Political decisions are often irrational and with few exceptions they generally lack long-term vision and orientation. This forum is mainly for scientists, and scientific methods are not very good at predicting the state of irrational systems.

The RES generation is a clean power generation. Its contribution in present scenario is increasing exponentially.  installation of PV power generation plants has increased globally.

It is an unavoidable need of today's era for energy sector.

We cannot reduce energy demand from consumers. Rather it is growing day by day. Generating stations are consuming more and more fossil fuels to meet the demand of power from loads. This will increase our carbon foot-print and emission of green house gases which is responsible for GLOBAL WARMING and related dangerous effects on environment.

If we use RES to generate electricity, it will obviously reduce the use of fossil fuel and also results in less emission of green house gases which will reduce global warming somewhat.

But along with use of RES, it is equally important to conserve the energy. It is the best way to reduce the global warming.

How to Fight Global Warming?

The biggest cause of global warming is the carbon dioxide released when fossil fuels -- such as oil and coal -- are burned for energy. So when you save energy, you fight global warming and save money, too.

The utilization of renewable energy is just one out of many measures for fighting global warming. Measures are listed below.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/gsteps.asp

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"The power of renewable energy

Renewable energy is a practical, affordable solution to our electricity needs. By ramping up renewable energy, we can:

• Reduce air pollution
• Cut global warming emissions
• Create new jobs and industries
• Diversify our power supply
• Decrease dependence on coal and other fossil fuels
• Move America toward a cleaner, healthier energy future"....

Please, see the link for more detail information...

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/energy/smart-energy-solutions/smart-energy-solutions-increase-renewable-energy#.Vvud8lV97IU

Dear Mahamad Nabab Alam,

Look the link. May be useful.

http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-and-solutions-to-the-global-energy-crisis.php

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/future-renewable-energy-india/

Regards, Shafagat

It is difficult but achievable. 

Hi Mahamad,

The Global warming is one of most discussed world-problems. What I am registered is, that not one effect caused the global warming rather minimal three effects, which interacted in complex way.

-          Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 - carbon dioxide; Methane (CH4); Nitrous oxide (N2O); Fluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons (CFHCs); Sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride;

-          Particulate matter (PM) or particulates emissions

-          Number of earthling in particular the high population densities in some regions of the earth

If you recognize this three main effects and their complex interaction, then you can the effect of reduction of CO2 emission right classify. However, you are encounting here also on opinions that say that there exists no global warming, so it is first useful to discuss individually the 3 effects. This is likely to be not controversial.

 Mainly Greenhouse gas issuers

-          geogene so natural CO2 production

-          anthropogenic, ie generated by human activity CO2 production (by transport, heating, electricity, industry)

-          Anthropogenic Methane is about one half in the agriculture, forestry and other uses of land and biomaterial in animal production, wastewater treatment plants and landfills, the other half is by the industry

-          Nitrous oxide (N2O) mainly from agriculture (livestock, fertilizers and cultivation of legumes, biomass)

-          Fluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) produced specifically for the most part and used as a propellant, refrigeration or fire extinguishing agent

-          Sulfur hexafluoride, SF6 is used as an insulating gas or quenching gas in high-voltage switchgear as well as used as an etching gas in the semiconductor industry.

 Particulate Matter

Some particulates occur naturally, originating from volcanoes, dust storms, forest and grassland fires, living vegetation, and sea spray. Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels in vehicles, power plants and various industrial processes also generate significant amounts of particulates. Coal combustion in developing countries is the primary method for heating homes and supplying energy. Because salt spray over the oceans is the overwhelmingly most common form of particulate in the atmosphere, anthropogenic aerosols—those made by human activities—currently account for about 10 percent of the total mass of aerosols in our atmosphere.

 From the enumeration of different effects on global warming you can see that only a part comes from power plant with fossil fuel. So that’s clearly that the replacing of power plants with fossil fuel by energy production renewable fuel has an effect on the global warming how big I don’t know, because, we have regional decisions with long-term effects and but we want global effects in time. In this connection is the question from interest if the nuclear power production are renewable energy. I think no, but the nuclear power production is without CO2 emission. However, it leaves radioactive waste which are difficult to dispose of and have a long life. From very great influence on our life are the particulates, especially because particulates act immediately, you can see it and you feel it, in your health.

You see, we have to do many things at once. The best, we change our whole live, worldwide, thats not possible. What we can do? Many small steps in the hope to move our environment in a better condition for the next generations.

Regards

Michael Lersow

Egypt is making good progress towards becoming a significant player in the renewable energy industry. Renewable energy projects already enjoy priority of dispatch and Egypt’s central bank guarantees all financial obligations of the Egyptian Electricity Transmission Company under the PPAs. The Government recognises that reforms are necessary to attract private sector investment and the new electricity law is making serious attempts to address private sector concerns.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/06/egypt-s-renewable-energy-drive-gains-steam.html

http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/74735/renewable-energy-in-egypt-hydro-solar-and-wind

I think it is one key to invest in non-conventional renewable energy today, to ensure our existence in the future.

Hello,

The potential of the conventional energy can be utilized only during its limited life.

Rightnow, we are suffering the drawbacks (Global Warming & Climate Change) of the past developmental pathway of, “Growth first, Clean up later”. 

Therefore, to save our Earth and Next Generations towards the Sustainable Future, we must harvest the Clean & Green Fuels.

Regards,

I'm not sure why all the emphasis is so commonly placed on just the human CO2 emissions.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

The above, and many similar sources, say that human emissions of CO2 amount to a small percentage of the total. The above says 3.9%, which is actually more than other sources state, but the number is consistently in that 3% range (for the time being).

The above also says that 40% of this human-generated CO2 is sequestered naturally. So the question should be, what are the numbers here? Why is 60% of our own CO2 not being sequestered by natural mechanisms? Shouldn't additional CO2 encourage more plant growth, as it does in greenhouses when an excess of CO2 is deliberately introduced? Why is this effect not self-regulating CO2 levels?

Let's note that CO2 is CO2. A natural mechanism that sequesters CO2 does not care whether it was produced from fossil fuels or from anything else. So in addition to the now customary calls for reduction in use of fossil fuels, why aren't we equally, in the popular press and social gatherings, investigating how to credibly increase natural sequestration mechanisms?

This site notes that in the US, indeed, we have managed to sequester some additional amounts of our own CO2.

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

Quoting:

"In the United States, since 1990, the management of forests and non-agricultural land has acted as a net sink of CO2, which means that more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, and stored in plants and trees, than is emitted. This sink offset about 13% of total emissions in 2013 and is discussed in more detail in the Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry section."

So that's interesting. It leads to a logical conclusion that maybe human deforestation efforts are also responsible for the rising CO2 levels. We might add only a small annual amount of CO2, in the 3% range, but we are simultaneously still, globally, deforesting. Ouch.

The first link indicates that 60% of human generated CO2 is going un-sequestered. That should be 29 Gigatons * 0.6 = 17.4 GT of CO2 that we must sequester annually, through "encouragement" of natural mechanisms.

This site says that forests and wetlands are especially effective as terrestrial CO2 sequestration mechanisms, and let's say roughly 3 tons/acre/year (right kind of forest and wetland).

http://teeic.indianaffairs.gov/er/carbon/apptech/terrapp/index.htm

So in order to sequester an extra 17.4 GT of annual CO2, the excess produced by humans that is not already being sequestered, we would need to add about 6 billion acres, worldwide, of such forests and wetlands.

This site

http://kanat.jsc.vsc.edu/student/callahan/mainpage.htm

says that there used to be 14.8 billion acres of forest globally, 8000 years ago, and humans deforestation destroyed 6.2 billion of these acres of forest!!

As you can see, it would help a lot if we would work to replenish at least some of that forest. If we could replenish all of the forest we destroyed, we would not have rising CO2 levels at all, even if we continued to burn fossil fuels.

Yes, I agree that the forests are including the vital important players to conserve the Ecosystem of our planet.

following up on Niranjan with a quote from Dr. Seuss: "... and unless someone like you is going to care an awful whole lot, nothing is going to get better, it's not."

A very interesting and useful way is to utilize/harvest Energy from Sea/Seawater. Also, at the same time if we could get fresh water as a bye-product, can solve issues of fresh/drinking water in many parts of the country.

http://www.ecowavepower.com/wave-energy-catching-harvesting-energy-from-sea-waves/

http://www.energyharvestingjournal.com/articles/8286/low-cost-technology-to-produce-electricity-from-sea-waves

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/renewables/a-new-idea-for-green-energy-deep-ocean-current-power

http://blogs.rsc.org/ee/2014/06/16/harvesting-electricity-from-seawater/

http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:511498/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

“Both art and science are ways to see more in what you're looking at. Good art and good science both add dimensions to what you see.”

                                                          ----   Lee Anne Willson 

The introduction of renewable energy must be supported by reducing of fossil fuel energy, and through energy conservation by efficient increase of existed power plants, and through careful handling with energy in the whole society. However, the reduction of energy consumption is independent of renewable energy in the advanced industrial countries necessary, for the environment and for the life quality.

Regards

Michael Lersow

Dear Raj,

Very interesting idea, but only regional to use, because the most countries without ocean coast and in Europe we use in the most cases groundwater for drinking water.

Good answer

Michael Lersow

Future success of renewable energy sources (primarily, solar PV and wind turbines) depends on:

1) Development of breakthrough technologies for energy storage to offset the intermittency of solar PV and wind turbines.

2) Economic competitiveness of electricity generation from renewable energy sources relative to the cost of electricity generation from conventional fossil-fired power plants and nuclear power plants (NPPs).

Let's take electricity generation from solar PV as an example: The U.S. Department of Energy in its 2020 vision, has set a cost target of 1 US dollar per watt, or equivalently 6 cents per kWh, in order to be economically competitive relative to electricity from fossil-fired power plants. Currently, we're still far from this cost target. It all depends on lowering the manufacturing cost of the solar PV wafers and the availability of rare earth metals that are used in making the wafers.

PS: please note that there are other renewable energy sources (such as hydropower, geothermal, ocean wave and tidal energy, concentrated solar power, etc.) that are not addressed in my response to your question. 

Hope this information would be helpful to you.

I think the cost of silicon wafers is being overstated. The installed cost of a PV array depends on the photoactive layer, the remainder of the cell, the connections to the cell, the support structure for the cell, the interconnections between the cells, the support structure for the panel, the interconnection between the panels, the wiring to the inverter, the cost of the inverter and the cost to get it all in one place and assemble, test and commission it, and to maintain it. Ten years ago the dominant factor was indeed the silicon wafers but I don't think they are now. The cost of wafers has dropped enormously, the cost of the inverter has dropped significantly,  and the cost of the rest of the system has dropped very little or even increased. That is where we should now be putting our efforts, and it's an engineering problem rather than a scientific one.

Dr. Tajudeen Abdul Hameed (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dr_Tajudeen_Hameed) has shared the following about the question:

Dear Sir,,

Lets face the facts and real truth --- the day we can even reduce the formation of CO2 of any form to even an extent a 0.000000001% ---GLOBALLY---THEN--- we are the winner. Please try something as we are already too late.

Thanks

Right, Prof. Dr. Brignoli, I agree with your opinion.

So, Energy Efficiency is very important issue to consider.

COP21 held recently in Paris has all answers to your questions regarding this issue: http://www.cop21paris.org/about/cop21 

In my opinion, definitely the use of renewables will alleviate the problem of global warming, but will not solve it. The damage we have made as human beings to the environment is huge ... we can only limit at this level, and I am afraid  we have already reached  a "Tipping Point" on Earth!

Dear Mahamed,

It is no doubt that increasing the Renewable energy share for power generation has a positive impact on the environment. The world community is trying through some conventions and agreements take some drastic actions.  These actions should be firstly considered from the most pollution-export countries. However, the applications of Renewable energy in power systems are still expensive compared with the conventional ones (which use fossil fuels). In general, a very large initial investment for a given system would not be attractive. So, the economic aspects are closely coupled with the technical considerations in the development of any power system to achieve the desired objectives. This needs more research and development activities to be conducted in order to make these technologies feasibly efficient. 

Hello Mahamed,

I would like to share the following:

http://www.ijcst.org/Volume3/Issue2/p7_3_2.pdf

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srren/SRREN_FD_SPM_final.pdf

http://www.beren.sakarya.edu.tr/sites/beren.sakarya.edu.tr/file/1380752545-07-RenewEn.pdf.pdf

Yes, I agree with the opinion of Prof. Dr. Banovac.

The incentive mechanisms and subsidy policy are vitally needed to implement RE generation systems.

French first smart solar-energy district demonstration project is Nice Smart Grid project that located in the municipality of Carros in the Alpes-Maritimes department, near Nice on the Côte d’Azur. This smart grid demonstration project is led by ERDF (Electricité Réseau Distribution France), which manages the national low- and medium-voltage electricity distribution network. 

This project efficiently supplies the local grid with a substantial PV-generated power. Its novel aspect is that energy storage capability (1.5 MWh) is being added to the power distribution system, allowing ‘reserve’ energy to be made available when needed.

The budget for the Nice Grid project is approximately €30 million, of which €11 million is being provided by the French government and the European Union. This public funding comprises €7 million from the European Commission, and €4 million in refundable advances and grants from the French environment and energy management agency ADEME, following approval by the Commissariat Général à l’Investissement (General Commission for Investment).

The Nice Grid project is one of six smart grid demonstrations within the large-scale Grid4EU project, which aims to test advanced smart grid solutions with wide replicability and scalability potential for the European market.

Grid4EU will test the potential of smart grids in areas such as renewable energy integration, electric vehicle development, grid automation, energy storage, energy efficiency, and load reduction.

The Grid4EU project is the largest smart grid project to be funded by the European Union, which is contributing €25 million towards the total budget of €54 million.

Grid4EU brings together a consortium of six European energy distributors: ERDF in France (Nice Grid), Enel Distribuzione in Italy, Iberdrola in Spain, CEZ Distribuce in the Czech Republic, Vattenfall Eldistribution in Sweden, and RWE in Germany. The project also draws on the know-how of other industrial and scientific partners, representing 30 or so partners from some 10 EU countries.

I am sorry, but I had to come again and comment on this question. I see most of colleagues contributing with valuable answers to the raised question are more business oriented, ignoring the main issue which is the climate change we are already in and suffering from its consequences. Talking about this issue from an economical point of view will not help our environment, rather we need to scarify little bit (in term of business) in order to ensure a healthy planet for the future generations.

Firstly, if you are worried about climate change then you should read and understand this paper: “CALCULATION OF ATMOSPHERIC RADIATIVE FORCING (WARMING EFFECT) OF CARBON DIOXIDE AT ANY CONCENTRATION. Lightfoot, H.D., Mamer O.A., ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT, VOLUME 25, Number 8  2014, MULTI-SCIENCE PUBLISHING COMPANY LTD, 1439-1454.”

You will see that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a very small, virtually negligible cause of global warming.

Secondly, renewable energies are simply too small to replace fossil fuels and do not have the appropriate characteristics. All but biomass generate electricity. A reliable electricity supply is essential because we cannot live without electricity. Wind and solar are unreliable. They are inherently more expensive than other ways of generating electricity because when you build a wind turbine you also need to build another system for providing electricity when the wind does not. This also applies to solar feeding a grid.

Today we need oil to fly airplanes, power trucks and cars and to power farm machinery. We cannot grow, harvest, process and transport the vast amount of food needed to feed the world without oil. There are no alternatives on the scale required and nothing is in sight.

Batteries are at their physical limit. If we are to have electric powered vehicles there has to be another way of supplying the electricity. We need something that we do not know about to provide the electricity.

If you wish to know more about how much energy the world uses and the limitations of renewable energies, please see the first of ten parts of Nobody’s Fuel at: Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iquVtKwne2o

Hope some of this helps.

Nobody said that we should stop using oil … and also nobody said that the current renewable technologies are able to replace the oil in our heavy industry. However, a reduction in burning oil and the introduction of some renewables will definitely help in reducing the polluting emissions, and this is actually the trend taking place worldwide these days. Just look at what is going on in the United States and China, and the race towards leading the world in producing solar and wind energy. Before these two nations, the good examples are Germany and Spain in Europe. Many oil countries today are engaging in aggressive programs to build their renewable energy infrastructures (Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc …).   

In general, we should not expect oil companies, and people working for such companies who live from such industry, to support and promote renewables. It is clear that this is a debatable issue, and a 100% good answer does exist here. But what I am personally sure about is that continuing the use of oil “business as usual” is very damaging to our planet.

For the issue of climate change and it’s relation with emissions resulting from burning oil, I will let the giant oil company talk about it:

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives 

Mahamad Nabab Alam, I can add nothing new to this discussion. Try to use good science and logic when you try to evaluate the answers to your questions.

Best wishes,

HDL

Is the must importat way to get reduce the effects of climate change

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"If each one of us does our bit, we will be helping to keep global warming from harming our countries."

                                                               -----   Sienna Miller

... and to be logic and more scientific in my answer to your question dear Mahamad ... and away from protecting the environment, wouldn't be a better energy strategy diversifying our energy portfolio, instead of relying on only one source, which is currently the fossil fuels?  Having more renewables will let us extend the life of our oil and gas reserves, and will let us enjoy using it longer until new technologies allow having renewables with competitive efficiency. Back in time 40 years I couldn't imagine the mobile phone I am using today! ... Today, I have full confidence that engineering will provide the world with solutions to the low efficiency of renewables ... I hope, I will be there to witness the birth of  PV cells able to generate 1kW from 15cmX15cm cell dimension!     

Ali, I do not wish to be a wet blanket for your dream. However, if you do the appropriate calculations, you will find that your dream is impossible because of physical limits. For example, the sun provides approximately 1360 watts per square meter at the top of the atmosphere.

The area 15cm by 15 cm is 0.0225 m-2. Therefore, the most 0.0225 m-2 of area could collect at 100% efficiency = 0.0225 x 1360 = 30.6 watts.

Even this small amount would only be possible with double axis tracking of PV cells.

Best wishes,

   H.D.L.

Back 200 years in time, when we were riding camels and counting on vapor locomotives to move, airplanes were also a dream ... just look today at what we are enjoying thanks to dreaming and the ability to realize dreams through engineering ... Maybe I will not be able to see the 15cm X 15 cm solar cell producing 1kW of power today, but I am confident that the son of my son will contribute to such breakthrough in having new materials and new technologies to do it ... I do not need to go through calculations today ... it is obvious ... but I am sure that nobody can stop my dreams and my sons' dreams in having a better planet to live in.    

Why permanent energy monitoring is needed to meet sustainability goals?

"As a result of concerns over global health and our responsibility to do as much as we can for our children and their children, many companies have moved sustainability near the top of their corporate priorities...

Energy systems are dynamic; they change every minute of every day. Industrial plants are continually adding, moving, and modifying energy systems to keep their product flowing smoothly. An added shift resulting from an increase in production could more than offset and obscure the savings from energy-efficiency improvements...

The only valid way to accurately measure and document energy savings is on a system-by-system basis with comprehensive instrumentation and data – a permanent energy monitoring system..."

https://www.plantservices.com/articles/2016/emo-why-permanent-energy-monitoring-to-meet-sustainability-goals/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=28195320&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-86DFzPRRPNLbdCVPO1uZnLqDKhJ1TqAv3ctS76UrU6o9mTBcdlBx2Pya0O_FFALnip7OlCEJi7KmXRP2PINkdXm5Sf8Q&_hsmi=28195320

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"We should not just consume hydrocarbon fuel but use it to develop nuclear energy, hydro power and renewable energy sources."

                                                                          ----   Vladimir Putin

Hello Mahamad,

Good Day!

From IRENA (2015), ‘REthinking Energy: Renewable Energy and Climate Change & IRENA (2014), REmap 2030: A Renewable Energy Roadmap, June 2014,

             A key pillar of several countries’ mitigation strategies is decarbonisation of the energy sector through RE deployment. Energy use accounts for just over two-thirds of total annual GHG emissions. A closer look shows that power generation is responsible for the bulk of these emissions, followed by manufacturing and transport.

              In 2012, an estimated 3.1 Gt CO2 eq of emissions was avoided through renewable energy use, compared to the emissions that would otherwise have occurred from fossil fuel-based power. Without renewable-based power generation, total emissions from the power sector would have been 20% higher. 

            To limit the global temperature rise, RE deployment must be accelerated. For the electricity sector, achieving a further reduction in absolute emissions will require a substantial decrease in the emissions intensity of power generation. The average emissions intensity has barely changed over the past 20 years. Under current policies and national plans, it is expected to fall from 575 grams per kilowatt hour (g/kWh) in 2010 to 488 g/kWh by 2030. A further reduction of the emissions intensity to 362 g/kWh – equivalent to a 40% intensity reduction from 1990 levels – could be achieved by scaling-up RE deployment.

             Ramping  up  renewables  is  essential  to  meet  climate  goals  without decelerating economic growth and reducing welfare.Policies in place and under consideration will take the global renewable energy share to 21% of total final energy consumption (TFEC) by 2030.

             Doubling the share of renewable sources in total final energy consumption (TFEC) from 18% in 2010 to 36% by 2030, combined with  significant  improvements  in  end-use  energy  efficiency,  is  required to limit global temperature increases to under 2oC. In this case, annual global energy-related CO2 emissions will actually increase from 30.3 Gt/year in 2010 to about 41.4 Gt/year by 2030 . The gap between the Reference Case and the REmap 2030 options (36%) corresponds to a reduction of 8.6 Gt of energy-related CO2 emissions per year by 2030, due to to avoided combustion of fossil fuels (of which 64% would have been coal, 20% oil and 16% natural gas).Emissions reduction from renewables deployment, coupled with achievableenergy efficiency improvements (7.3 Gt of CO2).  Realising  these  reductions  will  require substantial efforts to mobilise investments in the renewable energy sector.

             I would like to share the valuable IRENA's link:

             All the Best !

http://www.irena.org/rethinking/IRENA%20_REthinking_Energy_2nd_report_2015.pdf

http://www.irena.org/remap/IRENA_REmap_Report_June_2014.pdf

As long as the apparent cost of fossil fuels remains less than that of renewables then clearly economists and governments will tend to back fossil fuels. The case of the Carmichael coal mine in Queensland is a blinding example of double think. ALL the leaders at State and Federal levels agree that the level of bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef due to ocean warming is becoming horrendous. Yet not one of those responsible has got up and blocked the approval for this gigantic mine because of the massive financial 'profit' the state stands to make. As long as fossil fuels are valued in a way that largely ignores future costs to the environment this situation will continue. And the argument over RES will remain just that - an argument.

By the way did Putin actually say that? Wow.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Global warming is not a conqueror to kneel before - but a challenge to rise to. A challenge we must rise to."

                                                          ------  Joe Lieberman

Renewables added capacity and carbon units issued break records in 2020

David Parker, Chair of the Clean Energy Regulator said the continued rapid growth in rooftop solar PV in the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES) contributed 3 GW of the new renewable energy capacity, with the remaining 4 GW coming from power station accredited under the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target.

“Sustained low technology costs, increased work from home arrangements and a shift in household spending to home improvements during COVID-19 played a key role in the increase of rooftop solar PV systems under the SRES,” Parker said...

https://pacetoday.com.au/renewables-added-capacity-carbon-units-issued-break-records-2020/

Renewable energy can decrease the global warming because utilization of fossil fule should be minimize.

It is important to do due diligence and carefully examine both sides of an issue in order to make good decisions.

Thus, it is necessary to apply critical thinking to determine whether or not increasing CO2 is a factor in climate change.

Here is a link to a recent paper that might start you thinking: http://www.thelightfootinstitute.ca/imglib/IPCC-3-errors-CO2.pdf

In the end, you might conclude that the concept of CO2 causing dangerous climate change is not science, but is an “urban legend”.

You might then find it useful to sign the World Climate Declaration at: https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/World-Climate-Declaration-1.pdf

This will provide the ideal business environment for the growth of hydrogen as Victoria’s ambitious renewable energy targets are achieved over the next decade.

The pilot is required to offset all the minimal greenhouse gases produced.  For the project to progress to full commercial scale, it must achieve successful carbon capture and storage, enabling significant reduction in CO2 emissions...

https://pacetoday.com.au/hydrogen-production-success-world-first-project/

The Port of Rotterdam is a leader in the transition to renewable energy and has developed an ambitious hydrogen masterplan to become the major hydrogen import hub to supply North west Europe with renewable energy. At this moment, Rotterdam imports vast quantities of oil and coal.

Imports of hydrogen will replace these to a large extent in the years to come, as part of the decarbonisation of the European economy...

https://pacetoday.com.au/feasibility-study-export-sa-green-hydrogen-rotterdam/

Country-specific differences of current energy systems and relative generation technology favourability in Africa

Aligning development and climate goals means Africa’s energy systems will be based on clean energy technologies in the long term, but pathways to get there are uncertain and variable across countries. Although current debates about natural gas and renewables in Africa are heated, they largely ignore the substantial context specificity of the starting points, development objectives and uncertainties of each African country’s energy system trajectory...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-022-01152-0

Consumers today are looking for lower carbon products and services. Governments around the world are increasing regulations to reduce carbon emissions to meet their net zero greenhouse gas emissions targets. Navigating the path to net zero will create new opportunities for industrial manufacturing companies to embrace new technologies to accelerate lower carbon manufacturing. This article will delve into two essential focal points to improve CO2 reduction in the industrial sector:

• Increased energy efficiency through increased deployment of motor drives
• The impact of digital transformation strategies to deliver increased manufacturing efficiency...

https://profinews.com/2023/05/decarbonizing-industry-through-increased-efficiency/?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=Endeavor&utm_campaign=PROFINEWS

Pope Francis shamed and challenged world leaders on Wednesday to commit to binding targets to slow climate change before it’s too late, warning that God’s increasingly warming creation is fast reaching a “point of no return.”

https://apnews.com/article/vatican-pope-climate-dubai-un-c5cb4096202a117b34ca3d2d4a1b9e72