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

August 23, 2017
Infographic represents the roadmaps developed by Jacobson et al for 139 countries to use 100 percent wind-water-solar in all energy sectors by 2050. 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 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 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 video will load shortly.
Mark Z. Jacobson explains the energy transition timeline for 139 countries to 100 percent wind, water, and solar for all purposes by 2050. Credit: Jacobson et al./Joule 2017

The Joule paper is an expansion of 2015 roadmaps to transition each of the 50 United States to 100% clean, renewable energy (DOI: 10.1039/C5EE01283J) and an analysis of whether the electric grid can stay stable upon such a transition (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1510028112). 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, goal has been criticized by some for focusing only on wind, water, and 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 , 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."

Explore further: Iran and Middle East could adopt fully renewable electricity systems

More information: Joule (2017). DOI: 10.1016/j.joule.2017.07.005

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Enhancing solar power with diatoms

October 20, 2017

Diatoms, a kind of algae that reproduces prodigiously, have been called "the jewels of the sea" for their ability to manipulate light. Now, researchers hope to harness that property to boost solar technology.

38 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

WillieWard
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2017
All that at cost of ruination of natural landscapes, ruination of wildlife habitats, annihilation of millions of birds and other endangered species.
With Eco-nuts as friends, Nature doesn't need enemies.
Edenlegaia
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2017
All that at cost of ruination of natural landscapes, ruination of wildlife habitats, annihilation of millions of birds and other endangered species.
With Eco-nuts as friends, Nature doesn't need enemies.


That is, if we gather wind energy with actual turbines.
What if there was something less deadly for birds but still efficient, is not even better?
And regarding Solar and Water energy....it's not impossible to get that without "ruination of natual lanscape, wildlife habitats, annihilations of millions of birds (oops, not that one) and other endangered species.
And anger of the wild Willies. That, we may want to avoid at almost all costs.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2017
"It appears we can achieve the enormous social benefits of a zero-emission energy system at essentially no extra cost,"

But...but...but...profit?

All that at cost of ruination of natural landscapes, ruination of wildlife habitats, annihilation of millions of birds and other endangered species.

That's what coal/uranium mining, oil drilling, fracking, burning of fossil fuels (in powerplants and vehicles) does to a much greater extent...your point?

It's sorta ludicrous how you keep repeating the same BS while advocating stuff that does it all - just to a much greater extent. Double standard much?
Eikka
3 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2017
Paper:

Solutions are obtained by prioritizing storage for heat (in soil and water); cold (in ice and water); and electricity (in phase-change materials, pumped hydro, hydropower, and hydrogen), and using demand response.


Heat and cold storage are obvious, but pumped hydro and hydropower have their own ecological impact, GHG impact (methane emissions), and safety hazards (dams failures). The hydrogen economy is something of a pipe dream as the fuel is hard to produce and handle economically and safely, and "demand response" basically translates to energy rationing (for the poor, the rich can always buy it).
Overall, 85% of the transportation load and 70% of the loads for industrial high temperature, chemical, and electrical processes are assumed to be flexible or produced from H2


Not gonna happen.

The models' data also assumes that the overall output of WWS is the same year after year, so it has no provision or stockpiles for energy security.
Eikka
3 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2017
Especially for the space shuttle and electric planes argument: that's a massive handwave over the issue. There's a reason why a space rocket has miles wide exclusion zone around the launchpad, and airplane companies aren't even dreaming of flying electric jumbo jets across the continent - at the present they're looking at electric boosters for takeoff to save fuel because jets are terribly inefficient at low speeds.

Same problem with the cars. H2 is an unsafe fuel with piss-poor energy density, and the tech to use it is massively expensive. If it's going to get any use it has to be reformed into some dense liquid that is storable at room temperature, like methanol, to make any sense.

WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2017
...mining, oil drilling, fracking...
Eco-nuts believe materials for renewables do not needed be mined, i.e. appear by magic.
...burning of fossil fuels...
Eco-nuts believe all that will be manufactured/mined/transported/installed/recycled by wind/solar-powered machines.
Unlike Eco-nuts, fossil fuel barons seem to understand energy physics it's why they support renewables.
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2017
...mining, oil drilling, fracking...

Eco-nuts believe materials for renewables do not needed be mined, i.e. appear by magic....burning of fossil fuels...

Eco-nuts believe all that will be manufactured/mined/transported/installed/recycled by wind/solar-powered machines.

Unlike Eco-nuts, fossil fuel barons seem to understand energy physics it's why they support renewables.


And WillieTard believes that the changeover to renewables will somehow be accompanied by a never ending AND ever increasing demand for more materials, too deeply moron to understand that once the infrastructure is built, demand for additional material decreases sharply, as additional material is only needed for maintenance(when it can't be recycled) or to add new capacity.

All while virtually eliminating fuel extraction/refining/transportation cost and associated pollution.

WillieTard?

What a MAROON.
aksdad
3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2017
It appears we can achieve the enormous social benefits of a zero-emission energy system at essentially no extra cost

Uhhh... most of the enormous social benefits were achieved long ago thanks to coal and petroleum. They are what fueled industrial revolutions around the globe which drastically improved the quality of life of billions of people; lighting and heating their homes, providing transportation, mobility and automation that vastly increased the efficiency of agricultural production. Any additional "social benefits" of renewable energy above what has already been achieved are incomparably small. Moving to unreliable and intermittent energy production is in fact turning the clock back a couple centuries. Until renewables become as reliable and energy-dense as fossil fuels their role will be relegated to supplemental energy production only.
aksdad
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2017
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

Utter nonsense. Claims of "air pollution deaths" are based on statistical malpractice that projects deaths from the insinuated secondary effects of particulate pollution that presumably exacerbates chronic lung conditions and shortens lives. In contrast, thousands die each year in poor countries from the real, direct effects of indoor air pollution in the form of soot and carbon monoxide from burning wood and cattle dung.

Solar and wind power actually destabilize energy prices due to their intermittent production. It is reliable "base load" power from coal, natural gas and nuclear fission that stabilizes energy prices.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2017
They are what fueled industrial revolutions around the globe which drastically improved the quality of life of billions of people;

And now they are starting to decrease the quality of life. As long as the garbarge heap wasn't too big no one noticed. Now that we're constantly breathing that garbage and it's affecting our climate it's time to do something about it.

Any additional "social benefits" of renewable energy above what has already been achieved are incomparably small.

I would file "survival of the human race" under a lot of things. "Small" is not one of them.

Moving to unreliable and intermittent energy production

As the article points out: It needs not be unreliable or intermittent if deployed with adequate backup. Plenty of studies show how much is needed to get grid stability as good as we have today.

What a MAROON.

Why would you call Willie as a brown chestnut?
MR166
3 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2017
Excuse me but did I miss the section where they talk about viable energy storage for these intermittent sources of power? Heat storage in rocks looks to be very inefficient.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2017
Greentards believe that a solar panel, or a wind turbine, generates enough energy to recycle or manufacture another solar panel, or another wind turbine, or a set of batteries, although in practice it's happening nowhere.
"Wind might be renewable, but wind turbines are not."
https://pbs.twimg...F2W_.jpg
"Sunlight may be renewable, but solar panels are not."
https://pbs.twimg...gIg6.jpg
"Big growth in wind energy, but what about the waste? The 16,000 tonnes *per year* are "huge problem," say Germans."
https://pbs.twimg...n_Cs.jpg
https://www.clean...riticism
aksdad
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2017
And now they are starting to decrease the quality of life.

In what way are fossil fuels and nuclear power starting to decrease quality of life? The U.S. EPA tracks air and water quality and the trend for the last 25 to 35 years shows continued improvement in air quality and water quality.

https://www.epa.gov/air-trends

In places like Beijing and in developing countries, pollution is a problem that they will solve in time. The U.S. and other post-industrial, wealthy nations, manage pollution and waste just fine and continue to do it better each year. The future's so bright, we gotta wear shades. Unfortunately the alarmists don't see it that way; but some people aren't happy unless they're gloomy about something.
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2017
Greentards believe that a solar panel, or a wind turbine, generates enough energy to recycle or manufacture another solar panel, or another wind turbine, or a set of batteries, although in practice it's happening nowhere.


WillieTard believes that renewables can't produce enough power to recycle wind and solar equipment components.

Well --that's WillieTard, all day, every day.

Willietard-- is fossil fuel capable of recycling an offshore drilling platform? How about a coal mine? A gas or oil pipeline?

"Wind might be renewable, but wind turbines are not."
https://pbs.twimg...F2W_.jpg


Nice photo of a damaged solar assembly.

contd
aksdad
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2017
Here is a panel of leading climate scientists—James Hansen, Tom Wigley, Kerry Emanuel, and Ken Caldeira—politely criticizing Mark Jacobson's earlier report outlining a 100% renewable energy future for the U.S.

https://www.youtu...0pkv6QDo

They are at a conference promoting nuclear power, which they recognize as the cleanest, safest, most efficient, reliable large-scale power production technology developed so far and an important component to reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Jacobson's U.S. plan, based on "unrealistic assumptions" as his colleague at Stanford, Ken Caldeira says, has now been extended to 138 other countries and is no more realistic.

https://atomicins...s-plans/
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2017
contd

"Big growth in wind energy, but what about the waste? The 16,000 tonnes *per year* are "huge problem," say Germans."
https://pbs.twimg...n_Cs.jpg
https://www.clean...riticism


An article detailing the difficulties of recycling wind turbine blades. Excellent. Now that the problem has been identified, it would appear to not be insurmountable. Maybe some engineering and material science people can develop a better, recyclable, blade?

How about you, WillieTard? Think of the service you be doing for all life on earth by designing this blade! Oh --right...

OK, then --instead, think about all the $$$ that would be in it for you, Amirite?

Finally, Willietard's second linked article discusses the DECREASING costs of incorporating renewable energy into the grid.

You're really on a streak, here, WillieTard --one that closely resembles the streak in the trolldiaper that swaths your spotted trollbottom.
.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2017
In what way are fossil fuels and nuclear power starting to decrease quality of life?

Climate change?
Pollution? (from acid rain to NOx levels in cities...and the citizens of Fukushima or Pripyat certainly can't say nuclear increased their quality of life)
Wars for oil?
You name it.

(Hint: pollution "getting better" doesn't mean the same as 'good air quality'. It just means that it was terribly shitty in the past. Remember smog? That it isn't thick enough so that you can cut it with a knife is not the same as "countryside air")
aksdad
3.3 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2017
Unlike Eco-nuts, fossil fuel barons seem to understand energy physics it's why they support renewables.

WillieWard is exactly right. And prominent climate scientists James Hansen, Tom Wigley, Kerry Emmanuel, and Ken Caldeira also understand energy physics which is why the dismiss as unrealistic any plan that calls for 100% renewables with the current state of technology. See here from the COP21 Climate Summit in Paris:

http://energyforh...t-cop21/

They champion energy production that is reliable, sustainable, and environmentally friendly. Though I disagree with their views on global warming, it is interesting to hear their realistic approach to reducing carbon emissions which contrasts sharply with Mark Jacobson's.
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2017
Here is a panel of leading climate scientists—James Hansen, Tom Wigley, Kerry Emanuel, and Ken Caldeira—politely criticizing Mark Jacobson's earlier report outlining a 100% renewable energy future for the U.S.

https://www.youtu...0pkv6QDo


Sacbag again displays a talent for IMPUTATION. Three of the panel offer some criticisms. None reject it.

They are at a conference promoting nuclear power, which they recognize as the cleanest, safest, most efficient, reliable large-scale power production technology developed so far and an important component to reducing carbon dioxide emissions.


Only one makes an outright endorsement of Nuke, after first citing its historic death/KWH safety record, well known to utterly ignore any and all effects on health not directly linked to power generation, and power generation only. The same holds true for the claimed cost/KWH trope.

contd
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2017
contd

Hansen says nothing on either issue. One suspects that this video segment was edited to present only those comments that appeared to support nuke and cast doubt upon the feasability of Jacobson's proposition.

Taken so far out of context, we don't even really know what the individual panelist's views are with regard to Nuclear, or what their intent was impaneling for this conference.

Luckily for us, sacbag has kindly provided ITS context.

The best part is that their only real objection appears to be Jacobson's reliance upon stored hydro to back up intermittent supply of renewables. I agree with that criticism. Fortunately, it's a problem that has already been solved, as there are currently several grid-scale back up storage systems available. This development has occurred since the COP 21 conference, which was HELD IN 2015.

sacbag, exposed once again as peddler of disinformation, hell-bent on preventing any solution to AGW.
aksdad
3 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2017
Climate change? Pollution? (from acid rain to NOx levels in cities...and the citizens of Fukushima or Pripyat certainly can't say nuclear increased their quality of life)


-There is no evidence that carbon emissions from fossil fuels are contributing significantly to climate change. There simply is no way to accurately measure it. The approximately 1° C of increase since the late 1800's falls within the range of natural variability.

https://phys.org/...ral.html

-Acid rain is overblown (like human-caused climate change, incidentally)

https://junkscien...othesis/

https://www.forbe...40af53fc

Note that at the EPA air quality trends page that pollution from sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, which supposedly causes acid rain, continue to decline.
aksdad
5 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2017
Hansen says nothing on either issue. One suspects that this video segment was edited to present only those comments that appeared to support nuke and cast doubt upon the feasability of Jacobson's proposition.

James Hansen is a strong advocate of nuclear power for which he has been demonized by the environmental hippies. This video, from the same panel at the same conference, COP 21 Climate Summit in Paris, shows Hansen promoting nuclear power:

https://www.youtu...;t=6m03s

View the whole thing if you'd like context. These are leading climate scientists speaking at an international climate summit. They're all true believers that humans are causing global warming, but Hansen, to his credit, thinks nuclear power is a valid solution.

More here:

http://energyforh...t-cop21/
PTTG
5 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2017
Why are these fossil fuel people against jobs? Do they WANT to make more people unemployed?
aksdad
3 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2017
there are currently several grid-scale back up storage systems available. This development has occurred since the COP 21 conference, which was HELD IN 2015.

They've always been available, even before 2015. They're just not economically feasible.

Three of the panel offer some criticisms. None reject it.

They're being polite. Jacobson is a colleague of Ken Caldeira who says:

if you make unrealistic assumptions you can end up with unrealistic conclusions and I think that's what Mark Jacobson has done.

It's pretty difficult to interpret that any other way than as a rejection of Jacobson's conclusions. See for yourself:

https://www.youtu...;t=2m53s
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2017


Climate change? Pollution? (from acid rain to NOx levels in cities...and the citizens of Fukushima or Pripyat certainly can't say nuclear increased their quality of life)


-There is no evidence that carbon emissions from fossil fuels are contributing significantly to climate change, SAYS SACBAG. YET THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS DISAGREE WITH THIS LONE MAROON, There simply is no way to accurately measure it. The approximately(IOW, WELL OVER) 1° C of increase since the late 1800's falls within the range of natural variability.SAYS SACBAG, AGAIN- THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS DISAGREE WITH THIS LONE MAROON.

Note that at the EPA air quality trends page that pollution from sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, which supposedly causes acid rain, continue to decline.


SACBAG: NOTE THAT THE DECLINING TREND IN SO2/NO2 POLLUTION FOLLOWS THE SIGNING INTO LAW OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT, WAY BACK IN THE 1970S.

SACBAG: WHAT A MAROON.

WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2017
Four trillions of dollars already spent on wind/solar unicorn fantasy.
Greentards are celebrating, believing 100% is possible no matter economical/ecological costs.
In the real world:
"The share of electricity production from renewables has barely increased between 1990 and 2014 (from 19% to 21%)" most is hydro and biomass.
https://pbs.twimg...=600x314
https://ourworldi...OWID_WRL
Greentards will never understand: (installed capacity ≠ energy produced)!
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2017
WHAT A MAROON.

It's 'moron'...not 'maroon'

Everything else though - fully agree.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2017
Before irrefutable facts:
Greentards/Eco-nuts have no alternative except continue to lie to themselves and insult others that expose their cognitive dissonance and double standards. Lamentable!
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2017
"Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy." - Dr. James Hansen(climate scientist)
https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3759/661/original.jpg
" "Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them"
http://www.bbc.co...40099324
"Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources... I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy... We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources." - James Lovelock(environmentalist)
https://pbs.twimg...b7SI.jpg
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2017
"Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy." - Dr. James Hansen(climate scientist)


WillieTard-

You need to produce the source from which your "quote" is taken, so that we can determine the context in which the statement(as you claim, unattributed) was supposedly made.

Beyond that, to claim --much less believe-- that nuclear can be deployed any faster, cheaper, or more universally is complete gas.

As we all know, the chief difficulty in replacing fossil fuels is in terms of automotive/transport fuels and lubricants. Given that 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all modes of transport operate on fossil fuels, it will take some time to replace them with electrically-powered units, and will obviously require some coordination, legislation, and incentives.

No time like now.
Edenlegaia
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
As we all know, the chief difficulty in replacing fossil fuels is in terms of automotive/transport fuels and lubricants. Given that 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all modes of transport operate on fossil fuels, it will take some time to replace them with electrically-powered units, and will obviously require some coordination, legislation, and incentives.

No time like now.


It will take money, before anything. People won't buy what they can't buy. It's actually the case. Projections on how much EV there'll be in the (not so far) future in the world are delusional.
But public transports could and should quickly be converted. In few years, they'll probably be the norm.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017
Recapitulating:
- The share of electricity production from renewables has barely increased between 1990 and 2014 (from 19% to 21%), most are hydro and biomass;
- In 43 years fossil fuels lost 4 points of market share in world energy supply, but in absolute terms their consumption increased;
- Worldwide investment in renewables reaches US$ 4 trillion, with little to show mainly in terms of CO2 reduction;
- Most of CO2 reduction is due principally to replacement of coal by gas/fracking;
- Four trillions of dollars spent for almost nothing in terms of CO2 reduction.
In conclusion, intermittent renewables will be remembered as the most expensive scam of the history. The future is carbon-free nuclear power, a proven decarbonization method, our only hope to save the planet from Climate Change and from ruination of natural landscapes, disruption of wildlife habitats, annihilation of millions of birds and other species by wind/solar (bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers) and hydro dams.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2017
Carbon-free nuclear was already deployed cheap and fast, e.g. France; it's a proven method of curbing CO2 emissions and is the only scaleable way to decarbonize modern grids, hydro resources are limited.
"The mantra 'nuclear can't be done quickly enough...' is...mostly just taken as true, while the data prove the exact opposite."
https://pbs.twimg...Uh8B.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...mIe4.png
https://pbs.twimg...pg:large
https://actinidea...info.png
http://www.tandfo..._oc.jpeg
https://uploads.d...bfe4.jpg
Nuclear power can be used to produce hydrogen, methanol, ammonia and other carbon-free/low-carbon synthetic fuels.
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2017
"Nuclear power can be used to produce hydrogen, methanol, ammonia and other carbon-free/low-carbon synthetic fuels."

Well, sure, Willie, if we could afford it. And were not concerned about more meltdowns. Remember when the nukers told us they could not happen? And then when it happened, it could not go all the way down. Then, when that happened, it was championed as better than remewables, because they could run it flat-out for lots'a juice before it destroyed itself.

Sorry, Willie, you used up all the money for nukes. Now, you have to dig up another $980,000,000,000 for the "clean up" of Fukushima.

WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2017
...concerned about more meltdowns...
It is a myth, a mantra used by faux-greens to favor the fossil fuels(backup for intermittent renewables) which air pollution respects no border and kills millions of people every year.
Fukushima and Three Mile Island resulted in zero deaths from radiation exposure, and even including Chernobyl with the worst projected(not-confirmed) scenario, carbon-free nuclear power is the safest per unit of energy produced, fewer fatalities and less ecological impacts than renewables.
The elevated cost of "clean up" is due to exaggeration caused by antinuclear/pro-fossil-fuels feamongers, people are exposed to more radiation during a commercial flight(up to 65 mSv) than in Fukushima(20 mSv).
Solar panels are full of arsenide and chemical carcinogens:
https://pbs.twimg...pg:large
death/TWh:
https://pbs.twimg...mxQQ.jpg
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2017
This thread has long since ceased to have anything at all to do with the proposal of the good Doctor and now is merely a forum for trollery. The facts are straightforward: the only weakness of this plan is the call to use hydro as a backup.

Therefore, I will --ONCE AGAIN-- point out that the OBVIOUS SOLUTION --grid-scale battery backup-- is already available. Everything else is just so much gas being generated out of blind devotion to nuclear, or blind, IDIOT devotion to denierside ideology.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2017
This one even addresses @Eikka's pet bugaboo, grid stability. But he's still against it. First @Eikka claims it can't be done, then when it's done @Eikka whines about the technique, totally ignoring the fact that if there's one such solution there are many. There always were.

Same ol' same ol'.

Me, I'm an "all of the above" kinda guy. There are lots of solutions, and when it gets hot enough we'll be using them all. The earlier we start exploring them, the better.
TrollBane
not rated yet Sep 08, 2017
antialias asked "But...but...but...profit?" According to the South Park gnomes, profit will come from underpants, though I think they are missing a step somewhere.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.