![Energy [R]evolution](http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/8/greenpeace___energy_revolution.jpg)
We often hear about how the world "can't" reduce emissions as much as it needs to, that we "have to" keep using coal because it's abundant, that renewables "can't" replace fossil fuels because of intermittency and cost, and that shifting to a clean energy economy would be "too expensive."
As I've said here many times, this use of categoricals is meant to shut down debate. And it's not true -- the word is not "can't," it's "won't." If we set our minds to it, of course it's possible. If you like to know how, I commend your attention to Energy [R]evolution, a report developed by Greenpeace "in conjunction with specialists from the institute of Technical Thermodynamics at the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) and more than 30 scientists and engineers from universities, institutes and the renewable energy industry around the world."
The report shows in detail how we can reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions over 60 percent by 2080 and eliminate fossil-fuel use by 2090, while maintaining economic growth (particularly rapid growth in the developing world) and heeding issues of equity and fairness. It's a three-step approach:
Step 1: Electrical efficiency
* Exploit all technical potential for electrical efficiency via technical standards
Step 2: Structural changes
* Change the way we produce energy in large centralised power stations towards a decentralised energy system, using large-scale renewable resources that use locally available energy sources such as wind, sun or geothermal
* Cogeneration -- end the huge amounts of waste energy via cooling towers
Step 3: Energy-efficient transport
* Build up efficient public transport systems
* Implement efficient cars, trucks, etc.
The needed investments between now and 2030 will amount to around $14.7 trillion (more than the IEA's projected $11.3 invested under business-as-usual), but crucially, the long-term focus is not only on reducing emissions but on reducing and stabilizing energy costs:
If we carry on with business as usual, electricity supply costs will nearly double by 2020. Unchecked growth in energy demand, increases in fossil fuel prices and the cost of CO2 emissions result in the total electricity supply costs rising from today's USD 1,750 billion per year to more than USD 3,800 billion in 2020.
The Energy [R]evolution Scenario not only complies with global CO2 reduction targets, it also helps to stabilise energy costs and relieve the economic pressure on society. Increasing energy efficiency and shifting energy supply to renewables leads to long-term costs for electricity supply that are one-third lower than if we continue in our current trends. It becomes clear that pursuing stringent environmental targets in the energy sector also pays off financially.
You can read a short summary [PDF] or, if you're feeling ambitious, dig into the full 212-page report [PDF]. There's also a good write-up on Reuters.
The release of the report was accompanied by this deeply creepy video, which I hesitate to include at all, but do so nonetheless just to immortalize its weirdness:
Anyway, bookmark the link, for the next time you hear the word "can't."
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets
Comments
View as Flat
Jon Rynn Posted 4:13 am
31 Oct 2008
They put transit front and center! Yeay!
They put a lot of emphasis on CHP. Wonder if Sean Casten will eventually weigh in on their numbers
They don't mention ground source heat pumps, which could be very helpful
Interesting idea of "localizing energy generation", which might go well with localizing food and manufacturing production
This seems to be an update of an former report
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 5:17 am
31 Oct 2008
I've not read the whole report, but the summary seems to be very focused on small scale residential and commercial CHP. That's all good, but my experience is that it is a lot harder to get those projects done commercially than their industrial brethren - and by extension, much harder to get the same societal impact given transaction size.
That is in no way meant to be dismissive - just that I can't comment very intelligently on (what appears) to be a market space that I've had some success in, but have mostly chosen to focus business development resources elsewhere.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:29 am
31 Oct 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:13 am
31 Oct 2008
Evil Number 1) Monopolistic organizations that want to turn back time and force me to use their outdated technology (Windows).
Evil Number 2) Greedy Greens that want me to pay taxes and tariffs for super expensive because they tell me these are somehow better (Mac OSX).
What I want is simple, clean and the ability to control the process like Hydrogen. Give me the LINUX of energy -- Hydrogen!
Permalink
racc Posted 3:29 am
02 Nov 2008
Seems like we would be better focusing on shorter term goals, like reducing fossil fuel at all, now. That said, this seems like the ideas, especially with regards to transit, are great.
http://www.everyoneforever.org/
Permalink
soilsfrauline Posted 5:12 am
02 Nov 2008
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 7:27 am
02 Nov 2008
Obviously, we would need to switch long before then.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 10:26 pm
02 Nov 2008
...at our current rate and increase in consumption of fossil fuels, we'll run out long before 2090.
Here you miss a fundamental point. Greenpeace (gollum) is out there to service fossil fuel interets (sauron), until that moment in the future where we no longer have fossil fuels. Squeeze all the juice that is there out of oil, gas and maybe coal. All the super-corporations will then be happy.. their investments will have to pay to the last drop. A tiny bit of their money will eventually change hands, to wet the hands of their stooges; the top-bosses in greenpeace and the like.
The foot-soldiers of these organizations will keep shouting at the top of their voice, thinking that they are doing a service to the world.
Now the secret is that this doesn't have to be this way. If we have the will, we can phase out all forms of fossil fuels by 2030, or even earlier. All coal and natural gas plants should be replaced with 4th generation nuclear power.
All the good stuff that is coming out of installing energy efficiency, wind and solar power systems can be a welcome addition in this process.
For a smarter plan, please check out the book of Tom Blees : Prescription for the Planet.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Solar John Posted 12:33 am
03 Nov 2008
Solar John
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:45 am
03 Nov 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:01 am
03 Nov 2008
And yet they assume that by 2050, there will only be a few percent shift from cars/air to rail. Like I said, great data!
Permalink