"I was comparing "like with like". The German figure of "only 6-7%" is also for electricity generation."
Fair enough, but I thought Arthur's question was about energy rather than electricity...
"I think it is reasonable to express wind power as a percentage of electricity generated not as a percentage of total power budget. Otherwise you end up with rhetorical tricks like being able to claim that wind power is only ever theoretically capable of meeting 1/3 of our energy needs (because 2/3 are not needs for electricity at the current time)."
Aye, but it's often proposed that if there is sufficient ramp-up of renewable electricity generation then that could in the longer term displace current non-electricity energy for uses like electric cars, heating, etc. The low current percentages of overall energy from e.g. wind rather illustrate just how far from reality that currently is.
"Many of these bloggers have this fixed idea that if a proposal is not in principle and on its own capable of solving the whole problem then it's not a solution. I don't believe that any single realistic scheme is going to work but instead a hundred part way schemes which meet part of the problem. "
Mmm, maybe that was the case a while ago but not many serious climate commentators now go that way IMO. The 'wedge' approach, combining all sorts of measures, is quite popular. See e.g.
Aye, but it's often proposed that if there is sufficient ramp-up of renewable electricity generation then that could in the longer term displace current non-electricity energy for uses like electric cars, heating, etc.
Not an unreasonable hope. Then the percentages given for electricity generation though are against a background of massively increasing demand for electricity though. Not too unreasonable to hope that if we create more efficient devices while electricity expands to take more of the "energy pie" (by taking some transport and other fossil fuel roles in commercial/industry) that at least the rate of growth won't increase.
Mmm, maybe that was the case a while ago but not many serious climate commentators now go that way IMO. The 'wedge' approach, combining all sorts of measures, is quite popular.
A much more reasonable idea IMHO -- if not even smaller parts than that.
Fair enough, but I thought Arthur's question was about energy rather than electricity...
"I think it is reasonable to express wind power as a percentage of electricity generated not as a percentage of total power budget. Otherwise you end up with rhetorical tricks like being able to claim that wind power is only ever theoretically capable of meeting 1/3 of our energy needs (because 2/3 are not needs for electricity at the current time)."
Aye, but it's often proposed that if there is sufficient ramp-up of renewable electricity generation then that could in the longer term displace current non-electricity energy for uses like electric cars, heating, etc. The low current percentages of overall energy from e.g. wind rather illustrate just how far from reality that currently is.
"Many of these bloggers have this fixed idea that if a proposal is not in principle and on its own capable of solving the whole problem then it's not a solution. I don't believe that any single realistic scheme is going to work but instead a hundred part way schemes which meet part of the problem. "
Mmm, maybe that was the case a while ago but not many serious climate commentators now go that way IMO. The 'wedge' approach, combining all sorts of measures, is quite popular. See e.g.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/
Reply
Not an unreasonable hope. Then the percentages given for electricity generation though are against a background of massively increasing demand for electricity though. Not too unreasonable to hope that if we create more efficient devices while electricity expands to take more of the "energy pie" (by taking some transport and other fossil fuel roles in commercial/industry) that at least the rate of growth won't increase.
Mmm, maybe that was the case a while ago but not many serious climate commentators now go that way IMO. The 'wedge' approach, combining all sorts of measures, is quite popular.
A much more reasonable idea IMHO -- if not even smaller parts than that.
Reply
Leave a comment