Worth a look
In light of the latest "Yay nuclear power is awesome and solar/wind won't cut it and only fools think otherwise to either of these propositions" media and blogosphere blitz, I refer you all here:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201103180039?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mediamatters%2Flatest+(Media+Matters+-+Latest+Items)
You unfortunately have to scroll a looong way down to get to them, but great collection of excerpts from linked articles about the viability of solar, wind, and other sorts of power.
Unfortunately, media matters starts with a collection of right wing rants before getting to the part about why the right wing rants are wrong. (and they left out possibly the stupidest comment of all, from left wing Ian Welsh, who is often a worthwhile read, with one of his reasons for preferring nuclear power to solar being "the manufacture of solar panels produces highly toxic byproducts." If you don't immediately get why that statement is both horrifying and laughable, please go away and don't come back until less ignorant.) Yes, right wing talk radio and Fox spout stupid opinions and (more than) occasionally outright lie, but really, how many people are going to read past this to the good stuff?
For that reason, some of it I will put under the cut:
Scientific American: There Is "Plenty Of Supply" For Renewables To Provide 100 Percent Of The World's Energy. Discussing its plan for wind, water, and solar technologies to provide 100 percent of the world's energy by 2030, Scientific American argued that there is "plenty of supply" to be able to do so. The magazine wrote:
Today the maximum power consumed worldwide at any given moment is about 12.5 trillion watts (terawatts, or TW), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The agency projects that in 2030 the world will require 16.9 TW of power as global population and living standards rise, with about 2.8 TW in the U.S. The mix of sources is similar to today's, heavily dependent on fossil fuels. If, however, the planet were powered entirely by WWS, with no fossil-fuel or biomass combustion, an intriguing savings would occur. Global power demand would be only 11.5 TW, and U.S. demand would be 1.8 TW. That decline occurs because, in most cases, electrification is a more efficient way to use energy. For example, only 17 to 20 percent of the energy in gasoline is used to move a vehicle (the rest is wasted as heat), whereas 75 to 86 percent of the electricity delivered to an electric vehicle goes into motion.
Even if demand did rise to 16.9 TW, WWS sources could provide far more power. Detailed studies by us and others indicate that energy from the wind, worldwide, is about 1,700 TW. Solar, alone, offers 6,500 TW. Of course, wind and sun out in the open seas, over high mountains and across protected regions would not be available. If we subtract these and low-wind areas not likely to be developed, we are still left with 40 to 85 TW for wind and 580 TW for solar, each far beyond future human demand. Yet currently we generate only 0.02 TW of wind power and 0.008 TW of solar. These sources hold an incredible amount of untapped potential. [Scientific American, 10/26/09]
Scientific American: "The Worldwide Footprint Of The 3.8 Million Turbines Would Be Less Than ... Manhattan." In its 100-percent renewable scenario, Scientific American estimated that wind energy would supply 51 percent of the demand, "provided by 3.8 million large wind turbines (each rated at five megawatts) worldwide." It stated:
Although that quantity may sound enormous, it is interesting to note that the world manufactures 73 million cars and light trucks every year. Another 40 percent of the power comes from photovoltaics and concentrated solar plants, with about 30 percent of the photovoltaic output from rooftop panels on homes and commercial buildings. About 89,000 photovoltaic and concentrated solar power plants, averaging 300 megawatts apiece, would be needed. Our mix also includes 900 hydroelectric stations worldwide, 70 percent of which are already in place.
Only about 0.8 percent of the wind base is installed today. The worldwide footprint of the 3.8 million turbines would be less than 50 square kilometers (smaller than Manhattan). When the needed spacing between them is figured, they would occupy about 1 percent of the earth's land, but the empty space among turbines could be used for agriculture or ranching or as open land or ocean. The nonrooftop photovoltaics and concentrated solar plants would occupy about 0.33 percent of the planet's land. Building such an extensive infrastructure will take time. But so did the current power plant network. And remember that if we stick with fossil fuels, demand by 2030 will rise to 16.9 TW, requiring about 13,000 large new coal plants, which themselves would occupy a lot more land, as would the mining to supply them. [Scientific American, 10/26/09]
Scientific American Predicts Renewables To Be Less Costly In The Long Run. In answering the question of how affordable renewables would be in its 2030 scenario, the magazine wrote:
For each technology, we calculated how much it would cost a producer to generate power and transmit it across the grid. We included the annualized cost of capital, land, operations, maintenance, energy storage to help offset intermittent supply, and transmission. Today the cost of wind, geothermal and hydroelectric are all less than seven cents a kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh); wave and solar are higher. But by 2020 and beyond wind, wave and hydro are expected to be 4¢/kWh or less.
For comparison, the average cost in the U.S. in 2007 of conventional power generation and transmission was about 7¢/kWh, and it is projected to be 8¢/kWh in 2020. Power from wind turbines, for example, already costs about the same or less than it does from a new coal or natural gas plant, and in the future wind power is expected to be the least costly of all options. The competitive cost of wind has made it the second-largest source of new electric power generation in the U.S. for the past three years, behind natural gas and ahead of coal.
Solar power is relatively expensive now but should be competitive as early as 2020. A careful analysis by Vasilis Fthenakis of Brookhaven National Laboratory indicates that within 10 years, photovoltaic system costs could drop to about 10¢/kWh, including long-distance transmission and the cost of compressed-air storage of power for use at night. The same analysis estimates that concentrated solar power systems with enough thermal storage to generate electricity 24 hours a day in spring, summer and fall could deliver electricity at 10¢/kWh or less. [Scientific American, 10/26/09]
Hydropower Supplies Nearly 40 Percent Of Norway's Total Energy
International Energy Agency Review Of Norway's Energy Policies Found Country Is Well-Placed To Make Necessary Investments For A Low-Carbon Future." In its review of Norway's energy policies, the International Energy Agency (IEA) concluded that "Norway is pursuing ambitious, forward-thinking energy policies, but could go further in its efforts to become a low-carbon economy." The IEA added:
Norway 2011 Review says that it will be challenging for Norway to meet its 2020 target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30% compared with 1990 levels, because both the country's electricity supply and its energy use in buildings are already essentially carbon-free due to hydropower use.
The authors add, however, that because of the large revenue generated from oil and gas exports, Norway is particularly well-placed to invest in developing new solutions to achieve the desired low-carbon future. These solutions include new measures to promote greater energy efficiency and use of renewable energy.
"Norway's climate and energy policies stand out as a positive example for other countries," said Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director of the IEA, at the launch of the review in Oslo, on 15 March. "But Norway must now invest in developing new measures in order to continue moving forward towards its ultimate goal of becoming carbon-neutral by 2050."
[...]
Norway's total primary energy supply was 26.5 million tonnes of oil equivalent in 2009. Its energy mix is dominated by hydropower, which accounts for nearly 40% of its total primary energy supply, followed by oil (34%) and natural gas (20%), biomass and waste (5%) and coal (2%). [International Energy Agency, 3/15/11]
Of course, the first commenter to the article probably had it right when they said
It doesn't matter how much data you present. It doesn't matter how logical your position is, or how it is in everyone's best interest (economically and environmentally) to move towards renewable energy.
The talking heads will always be against it, and people who listen to them don't do silly things like reading or thinking for themselves.
So I'm not sure why I'm posting this.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201103180039?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mediamatters%2Flatest+(Media+Matters+-+Latest+Items)
You unfortunately have to scroll a looong way down to get to them, but great collection of excerpts from linked articles about the viability of solar, wind, and other sorts of power.
Unfortunately, media matters starts with a collection of right wing rants before getting to the part about why the right wing rants are wrong. (and they left out possibly the stupidest comment of all, from left wing Ian Welsh, who is often a worthwhile read, with one of his reasons for preferring nuclear power to solar being "the manufacture of solar panels produces highly toxic byproducts." If you don't immediately get why that statement is both horrifying and laughable, please go away and don't come back until less ignorant.) Yes, right wing talk radio and Fox spout stupid opinions and (more than) occasionally outright lie, but really, how many people are going to read past this to the good stuff?
For that reason, some of it I will put under the cut:
Scientific American: There Is "Plenty Of Supply" For Renewables To Provide 100 Percent Of The World's Energy. Discussing its plan for wind, water, and solar technologies to provide 100 percent of the world's energy by 2030, Scientific American argued that there is "plenty of supply" to be able to do so. The magazine wrote:
Today the maximum power consumed worldwide at any given moment is about 12.5 trillion watts (terawatts, or TW), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The agency projects that in 2030 the world will require 16.9 TW of power as global population and living standards rise, with about 2.8 TW in the U.S. The mix of sources is similar to today's, heavily dependent on fossil fuels. If, however, the planet were powered entirely by WWS, with no fossil-fuel or biomass combustion, an intriguing savings would occur. Global power demand would be only 11.5 TW, and U.S. demand would be 1.8 TW. That decline occurs because, in most cases, electrification is a more efficient way to use energy. For example, only 17 to 20 percent of the energy in gasoline is used to move a vehicle (the rest is wasted as heat), whereas 75 to 86 percent of the electricity delivered to an electric vehicle goes into motion.
Even if demand did rise to 16.9 TW, WWS sources could provide far more power. Detailed studies by us and others indicate that energy from the wind, worldwide, is about 1,700 TW. Solar, alone, offers 6,500 TW. Of course, wind and sun out in the open seas, over high mountains and across protected regions would not be available. If we subtract these and low-wind areas not likely to be developed, we are still left with 40 to 85 TW for wind and 580 TW for solar, each far beyond future human demand. Yet currently we generate only 0.02 TW of wind power and 0.008 TW of solar. These sources hold an incredible amount of untapped potential. [Scientific American, 10/26/09]
Scientific American: "The Worldwide Footprint Of The 3.8 Million Turbines Would Be Less Than ... Manhattan." In its 100-percent renewable scenario, Scientific American estimated that wind energy would supply 51 percent of the demand, "provided by 3.8 million large wind turbines (each rated at five megawatts) worldwide." It stated:
Although that quantity may sound enormous, it is interesting to note that the world manufactures 73 million cars and light trucks every year. Another 40 percent of the power comes from photovoltaics and concentrated solar plants, with about 30 percent of the photovoltaic output from rooftop panels on homes and commercial buildings. About 89,000 photovoltaic and concentrated solar power plants, averaging 300 megawatts apiece, would be needed. Our mix also includes 900 hydroelectric stations worldwide, 70 percent of which are already in place.
Only about 0.8 percent of the wind base is installed today. The worldwide footprint of the 3.8 million turbines would be less than 50 square kilometers (smaller than Manhattan). When the needed spacing between them is figured, they would occupy about 1 percent of the earth's land, but the empty space among turbines could be used for agriculture or ranching or as open land or ocean. The nonrooftop photovoltaics and concentrated solar plants would occupy about 0.33 percent of the planet's land. Building such an extensive infrastructure will take time. But so did the current power plant network. And remember that if we stick with fossil fuels, demand by 2030 will rise to 16.9 TW, requiring about 13,000 large new coal plants, which themselves would occupy a lot more land, as would the mining to supply them. [Scientific American, 10/26/09]
Scientific American Predicts Renewables To Be Less Costly In The Long Run. In answering the question of how affordable renewables would be in its 2030 scenario, the magazine wrote:
For each technology, we calculated how much it would cost a producer to generate power and transmit it across the grid. We included the annualized cost of capital, land, operations, maintenance, energy storage to help offset intermittent supply, and transmission. Today the cost of wind, geothermal and hydroelectric are all less than seven cents a kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh); wave and solar are higher. But by 2020 and beyond wind, wave and hydro are expected to be 4¢/kWh or less.
For comparison, the average cost in the U.S. in 2007 of conventional power generation and transmission was about 7¢/kWh, and it is projected to be 8¢/kWh in 2020. Power from wind turbines, for example, already costs about the same or less than it does from a new coal or natural gas plant, and in the future wind power is expected to be the least costly of all options. The competitive cost of wind has made it the second-largest source of new electric power generation in the U.S. for the past three years, behind natural gas and ahead of coal.
Solar power is relatively expensive now but should be competitive as early as 2020. A careful analysis by Vasilis Fthenakis of Brookhaven National Laboratory indicates that within 10 years, photovoltaic system costs could drop to about 10¢/kWh, including long-distance transmission and the cost of compressed-air storage of power for use at night. The same analysis estimates that concentrated solar power systems with enough thermal storage to generate electricity 24 hours a day in spring, summer and fall could deliver electricity at 10¢/kWh or less. [Scientific American, 10/26/09]
Hydropower Supplies Nearly 40 Percent Of Norway's Total Energy
International Energy Agency Review Of Norway's Energy Policies Found Country Is Well-Placed To Make Necessary Investments For A Low-Carbon Future." In its review of Norway's energy policies, the International Energy Agency (IEA) concluded that "Norway is pursuing ambitious, forward-thinking energy policies, but could go further in its efforts to become a low-carbon economy." The IEA added:
Norway 2011 Review says that it will be challenging for Norway to meet its 2020 target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30% compared with 1990 levels, because both the country's electricity supply and its energy use in buildings are already essentially carbon-free due to hydropower use.
The authors add, however, that because of the large revenue generated from oil and gas exports, Norway is particularly well-placed to invest in developing new solutions to achieve the desired low-carbon future. These solutions include new measures to promote greater energy efficiency and use of renewable energy.
"Norway's climate and energy policies stand out as a positive example for other countries," said Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director of the IEA, at the launch of the review in Oslo, on 15 March. "But Norway must now invest in developing new measures in order to continue moving forward towards its ultimate goal of becoming carbon-neutral by 2050."
[...]
Norway's total primary energy supply was 26.5 million tonnes of oil equivalent in 2009. Its energy mix is dominated by hydropower, which accounts for nearly 40% of its total primary energy supply, followed by oil (34%) and natural gas (20%), biomass and waste (5%) and coal (2%). [International Energy Agency, 3/15/11]
Of course, the first commenter to the article probably had it right when they said
It doesn't matter how much data you present. It doesn't matter how logical your position is, or how it is in everyone's best interest (economically and environmentally) to move towards renewable energy.
The talking heads will always be against it, and people who listen to them don't do silly things like reading or thinking for themselves.
So I'm not sure why I'm posting this.