Renewable Energy To Pass Gas by 2012 (IEA)

[jpak]

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/17139

Renewable energy will surpass gas as the second largest source of electricity by 2012, according to the latest report by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

World Energy Outlook 2008 states that only coal will produce more electricity than renewables three years from now, and that is taking into account an economic slowdown, the Paris-based agency said.

"Renewables-based electricity generation is expected to grow substantially over the coming decades, benefiting from high fossil-fuel prices, declining investment costs and government support," said the report.

The IEA said renewables will take the second-place spot behind coal, even if governments are slow to create legislative incentives for a transition to a low-carbon economy.

<more>

[midnight]

1. This is the new ecomomy and I'm happy to see it rearing it's head.

[Jamastiene]

2. That is an awfully long time to suffer with gas,

isn't it?

:P


This is great news. The sooner we get off of gas, the better.

[Berry Cool]

3. Heh heh heh...

...you said "pass gas"...heh heh.

[madokie]

4. And I thought it was just me :-)

This is good news

[Dead_Parrot]

5. Bloody hell

I can see why they didn't link to the IEA report - Energy use increases to 712 EJ, CO₂ emissions go from 28Gt/yr today to 41Gt/yr by 2030 due to the insane number of new coal-fired plants, and global temperature are set to increase by 6°C.

But hey! Renewables overtake NG!

"The share of non-hydro renewables in power generation grows from 1% in 2006 to 4% in 2030"

Awesome. Let's have a big party to celebrate.

[jpak]

7. That was the Laisser-Faire Reference Scenario

and did not include the effects of *new policies*.

We just had an election here and we will see *new policies* implemented soon.

Bloody hell indeed...

:evilgrin:

[Dead_Parrot]

8. Given that most of that growth is in China...

I'll be fascinated to see how Obama's policies will stop it. Carpet bombing, maybe?

[kristopher]

9. There is a very simple and effective policy tool

There is a very simple and effective policy tool for us; access to our market. By linking carbon production to product access, we can to a very large degree, drive China's economy. Simply put, a system that taxes the carbon used to produce products entering our market. Obama has shown an inclination to use trade as a lever in this manner for both labor and environmental protection.

[jpak]

10. That's true, but Bush and Reagan sold them our federal debt - and lots of it

Which may trump anything Obama may propose.

Thank you asshole republicans

[Dead_Parrot]

12. It would be foolish to assume...

...that the US is sole driver of Chinese manufacturing. Although the US is the biggest single importer, most of the growth - an extra $250B in 2007 - is to other countries: If the US stopped importing tomorrow, the slack would be picked up in just over a year: Barely enough time to put the paperwork through.

They own everybody.

A global recession might slow them down, but that just puts extra pressure on cheap-as-possible generation, and then we're all back where we started.

[kristopher]

14. China isn't going "cheap as possible"

They are developing all energy sources aggressively, they aren't prioritizing by cost, but by availability of raw resource.

The idea that we can't affect their development is silly. While we aren't their sole market, we are the lone holdout to major industrial nations seeking immediate action on climate change, so why would you think such action would be in isolation?

[NickB79]

18. Sure they aren't.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111803625.html?nav=rss_world

"SHANGHAI -- In February, the Fuan textile factory became one of the first major casualties of China's anti-pollution campaign when the multimillion-dollar company was shut down for dumping waste from dyes into a neighboring river and turning it red.

But as the country's economy began to cool this fall and job losses mounted, the company was resurrected. Encouraged by the government, Fuan changed its name, moved to a new location and quietly reopened.

With the global economy at the edge of recession, China appears to be turning away from previous pledges to improve its record on environmental protection. In this, China is hardly alone: A climate-change proposal in Europe that a few months ago seemed like a sure thing has now divided the continent because of its anticipated expense, and worldwide, money for the development of renewable energy sources has been drying up."

But I'm sure you're right; cost isn't a priority to the Chinese when it comes to environmental protection :eyes:

[kristopher]

20. That isn't a relevant example.

A non-energy company does something bad, is caught and punished by being temporarily shut down.

How does that apply to strong aggressive development of energy in all sectors with decision making based primarily on the raw resource and the available technology for extraction. That isn't a "cheap as possible: approach; no, that would be when they select the absolute lowest cost energy technologies and build them while not deploying more expensive technologies.

The free market approach in the US has led us to pursue a course of "cheap as possible" energy investment; with the exception of nuclear energy, which they've continued to throw money at in spite of it being one of the most expensive technologies.

[NickB79]

21. Well, there is this particular quote

"worldwide, money for the development of renewable energy sources has been drying up."

If countries such as China are being forced to cut back on renewable energy as development money dries up, what will they turn to to meet demand?

[kristopher]

22. China's economy has *fallen* to an 8% rate of growth. nt

[NickB79]

23. But they are still *growing* at 8%/year

A growing economy implies a growing demand for energy, and 8% annual growth is an astonishingly high number in and of itself. If energy demand is still growing while development of renewables is falling, what will take up the slack? Coal? Natural gas? Nuclear?

[kristopher]

24. Do me a favor...

Go back and read the tread, then make a comment that has some relationship to the discussion.

Thanks.

[NickB79]

25. Will do, KKKristopher

:eyes:

[NNadir]

11. What new policy? Talking endlessly about a putative future that never comes?

That's the same policy that the "renewables will save us" crowd has been offering for years here, right on this website, and for decades before this website existed.

Nothing new...

We've had a brazillion "by year-such-and-such" posts here - including a particularly ridiculous one about the brazillion solar roofs in California.

The only way renewable energy will pass dangerous natural gas is if the gas runs out.

There are going to be a lot of stupid anti-nukes huddling in the dark when that happens, especially because it seems that Mom's holdings in the trust funds went south.

Meanwhile on planet earth, after years and years and years and years of "renewables will save us" talk, the destruction of the Pantanal, the Sumatran rain forests and the strip mining of the American midwest, the reality in the present is still here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

All the garbage burning in the world won't drive the gas apologists out of business, but the poverty they did so much to create might.

Anti-nuke renewables are sort of like Republicans: no amount of reality effects their rhetoric.

Have a nice fluffy whiny day.

[jpak]

13. LOL!!!!1111

Mission Accomplished

:rofl:

Obama won, McCain lost - no nukes for you.

:D

Oh yeah - you heat your upscale yuppie house with gas - which makes you a gas apologist.

What will YOU do when the gas runs out???

:evilgrin:

[excess_3]

6. hydro power is not new .n/t

[JohnWxy]

15. Eye catching title you got there. Great news!

[diane in sf]

16. nice title...

[One_Life_To_Give]

17. Sugar coated Disaster?

So in the next 37 months we are either going to field over ten times the total renewalbles fielded to date. Or Nat Gas will be so expensive that Coal will be substituted for it.

If I was a gambling man I'd make a conciderable wager on the later.

[NNadir]

19. It has long been a disaster. The BBC tonight is covering the working conditions of Brazilian

biofuels workers, none of whom drive German cars meeting the so called "renewable fuel portfolio."

Of course, while our morally bankrupt car cultist of the obnoxious and abysmally educated "renewables will save our cars" cretins drink it up on Thanksgiving with their equally stupid pals, these people suffer increased risks of serious diseases.

Mind you, if there when there were a few deaths in Goiana from released Cs-137 from a cancer treatment machine, these stupid fucks cried like babies for decades. On the other hand, when millions of poor nearly enslaved farm workers are denied basic decent living conditions, they couldn't care less.

I have written on this disgusting situation put together by the shell game renewables industry before on another website:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/16/105448/03">Those Happy Sugarcane Workers In Brazil: The Car Culture and Urinary Carcinogens.

It is remarkable that BBC radio is reporting on these people, since in general the West couldn't care less who it kills so that it can lie to itself.