Monday, October 20, 2014

On the Assertion by Folks Such as Al Gore and Barack Obama that the World Already has the Technology Necessary to Meet the World's Burgeoning Energy Needs While Simultaneously Also Decarbonizing

They are either ignorant or they're lying. I cites specifically the research of Martin Hoffert of NYU which clearly shows that even if were to implement ALL of the stabilization wedges (many of which aren't even feasible in the first case; wind turbines replacing coal-fired plants, for example) that the environmental lobby has been advocating, we still wouldn't even come close to the goals of a) stabilizing atmospheric CO2 levels at 500 ppm (it gets even more comical if the goal is 350 or 400 ppm) and b) securing the additional 255 quads of energy that the world will need by 2030 (derived at via a 2% annual increase - a 3% annual increase being even more imposing)........................................................................................I think that we just have to face it here, folks - our leaders are living in a fantasy world and, because of that, don't even remotely comprehend the scope of the upcoming challenge. In the words of environmental scientist and policy expert, Roger Pielke from the University of Colorado, "One can even invent seemingly more realistic scenarios involving the deployment of a new nuclear power station somewhere in the world every day for the next four decades or the deployment of 2,000,000 (emphasis mine) wind turbines, but these are not practically realistic scenarios. The fact is that no one knows how to decarbonize a large economy, much less the world, using existing technology on timescales implied by emission-reduction targets currently suggested by policy makers. Throwing everything we can think of at the problem is not nearly enough." Well stated, Mr. Pielke, well stated.


dmarks said...

Or how about that solar project out west that saves desert tortoises, and erases all birds from the air?

How many of these would be needed to take care of the rest of the US?

"Silent Spring II: Electric Bungle-oo"

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Solar I don't have as big an issue with as wind and ethanol (well, other than the cronyness). The power density is higher and the resource intensity is lower. But even here, Pielke estimates that for Australia to reach its emission goals, they would have to close X number of coal-fired power plants (measured in the hundreds) and replace them with 29,000 solar farms....So, to answer your question, we'd probably have build well over 100,000 of these suckers.

Rational Nation USA said...

Good for the economy? Maintenance and replacement cost? Oh the possibilities.

Rational Nation USA said...

Ignorant or lying... certainly an effective way to limit discussion.

BB-Idaho said...

In the interim, even the fossil
fuel industries are competing with each other . Bakken & fracking
are starting to contribute to a glut, while some still blame Obama for throttling them.