 |
| A graphic showing the great disparity between current alternative energy instalments and total possible clean energy instalments in India alone. Notice that solar power is literally off the charts for potential, but has the fewest instalments. Summary My article reported on a recently released report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The highlight of the report is the conclusion that there is far, far more possibilities for clean energy available that we have yet to tap into. In fact, we've only hit the tip of the iceberg for most alternatives, especially solar, as the graphic notes. The really exciting part, though, is that the report concludes that there is more potential for clean energy then there is demand for power! Isn't that great? The report goes on to say that wind and solar may grow twenty-fold over the next four decades. The lownote of the article was the report's belief that less than 2.5% of the total potential will in fact be used in practice. The report also predicted that up to 5.1 trillion dollars in investments would be required to meet it's predictions and transition to a fossil-fuel free existence. Reflection Isn't that fantastic? A world that doesn't rely on fossil fuels won't be some sort of anarchic dystopia, as is sometimes suggested! And, if we get a move on converting to these alternative energies now, we can save some of what's left of the environment, too! I can't believe how little clean energy we use considering how much is out there, waiting for us to harness it. Before I read this article, I had been under the impression that clean energy sources were rare and difficult to find. While this is true for some sources (eg geothermal and wave), for many sources that is completely untrue. In fact solar and wind power, which also happen to be the two sources most accessible for home owners, have loads of possible plants completely untapped! This article has significantly changed my perception of the fossil fuel dilemma. It bothers me how little of the potential the report predicts will actually be harnessed, though. Questions 1) Do you think that the UN's assessment and predictions sound reasonable? 2) How do you think we can increase the number of clean energy instalments? 3) Where do you think the $5.1 trillion dollars will come from, the public or private sector? 4) How do you think governments could help make the transition from fossil fuels to clean energies? |
Sunday, May 8, 2011
UN Renewables ‘Bible’ Says Clean Energy Can Outstrip Demand
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-04/un-renewables-bible-says-in-report-that-clean-energy-can-outstrip-demand.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Opinion/Reflection
ReplyDeleteI personally think that for the most part, this article provides remarkable news. With the high demand for fossil fuels (like coal) nowadays, it’s wonderful to learn that there is potential for alternative energy sources to be used, especially since fossil fuels will eventually run out. Plus, alternative energy sources tend to be better for the environment.
I was amazed to read that people are demanding more alternative energy usage than they are demanding power. This is great because if people learn to cut back on power, then that just might make the transition to alternative energy sources a lot easier (not relying on constant power as much). And if the transition is a lot easier, then more people might do it. If more people do it, then more alternative energy sources will be used, less fossil fuels will be burned for power, and the environment will benefit.
It was surprising to read that over the next four decades, solar and wind energy usage might grow 20 percent. I didn’t even think that large of an increase was possible. But now that I know it is, I have more faith that alternative energy may be used as the main source of power in the future.
Since all good things have downsides, I wasn’t at all shocked to learn that less than 2.5% of the alternative energy sources’ potential will actually be put to use. That’s sad because knowing alternative energy can be a main source of power and that people just aren’t willing to give it a try is frustrating, especially since I feel like I can’t do anything about it.
Finally, I was extremely happy to read that there is a possibility our world can get rid of fossil fuels once and for all. It would be so amazing if that happened, no matter what the cost. And if you truly think about it, 5.1 trillion dollars in investments isn’t that much of a price to pay, considering how much money has already been spent on fossil fuels in years past as well as how much will be spent in the future (with less and less coal around, the price will continue to go up). In the end, it would save our world money. Also, we are going to wind up running out of fossil fuels anyway, so what I want to know is why people can’t start the transition now to make the rest a lot easier when the time comes and it’s necessary to switch to alternative energy sources.
This article relates to class because for the past week or so, we have been learning about different forms of alternative energy, including their advantages and disadvantages. I never knew, however, that it was actually a possibility for our world to be 100% free of fossil fuel usage. And that is a great fact to know which I will hold onto for a while.
Answer the Questions
ReplyDelete1. Yes, I do think the UN’s assessment and predictions sound reasonable. It is believable that only 2.5% of alternative energy’s potential will be used, and that it would cost 5.1 trillion dollars in investments to get rid of fossil fuels entirely. Without even knowing the prices of fossil fuels (I know they’re becoming more expensive, but that’s pretty much all), it is easy to assume that it would cost a lot to switch to another form of energy, no matter how ‘cheap’ it may be. So, 5.1 trillion dollars is a reasonable prediction. And despite how much using alternative energy sources will pay off in the long run, people are still stubborn about switching off of fossil fuels. That’s why the 2.5% potential utilized is believable for me. Finally, the fact that solar and wind energy will grow 20% in the next four decades makes sense, because they are the two forms of alternative energy that are the most popular (mainly because they're the most accessible), and have the least harmful effects on human health and the environment.
2. I think we can increase the number of clean energy installments by providing tax cuts for people who install forms of alternative energy (like solar panels and wind turbines) at their homes. These people would still need to be connected to the grid, though, because they wouldn’t get any power under certain circumstances (like cloudy or non windy days). Finally, people with alternative energy sources who generate extra power for the city should get paid. I know these measures are already effective in other places, but not here. So if you want to increase the use of alternative energy here in Horsham, I would recommend offering the above benefits, and if you want to increase the use of alternative energy in other areas, I would still recommend using the above benefits, but make sure they’re highly enforced (so that people receive benefits soon after they generate power).
3. I personally think that if we begin to switch entirely to alternative energy sources, the 5.1 trillion dollars will come from the public sector. The reason I feel this way is that I think in order for a plan this big to work, it would need to be enforced by the government. That’s the only way enough money could be raised and people would take the plan seriously. Unfortunately, I believe the way that the 5.1 trillion dollars would be raised would come from an increase in taxes. That’s not really fair to the public, but I think it would be the only way such a plan could work.
4. Like I said in response number 2, in order to install more clean energy or make the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy sources, there needs to be pubic incentives. In this case it would be the government providing those incentives, but to all areas of the world. After all, in order for a plan this big to work, people have to be cooperative, and the only way they’re going to spend extra money on installing alternative energy plants would be if they get something back in return. So, the government should provide tax cuts to those who install alternative energy sources and pay those who generate extra energy for an area. This way I feel would make people more willing to spend the extra money initially if they knew that they could greatly benefit in the long run.
Ask More Questions
1. If the government provided incentives for all areas, do you think people would be more willing to install alternative energy sources?
2. How will the 5.1 trillion dollars be obtained?
3. Why do you think that our area doesn’t pay people or give them tax cuts for installing alternative energy sources?
4. Do you believe that we could stop using fossil fuels entirely, and rely only on alternative energy sources?
5. Will a plan like this be put into action soon, or will it wait until we run out of fossil fuels?
Add a graphic
ReplyDeletehttp://carbon-based-ghg.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html
Part way down the page is a graphic which displays the logo for the IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for the UN.
http://solar.calfinder.com/blog/solar-information/how-does-wind-compare-to-solar-power/
This graphic shows a wind turbine and solar panels, two of the most popular alternative energy sources that are sometimes competing with one another to be used at/on homes.
Reflection
ReplyDeleteThis sounds really good, but you have to take into account that $5.1 trillion is WAAAAY more than even the most liberal Democrats will probably want to spend, and really, the federal government is the only source of that much capital within a reasonable timeframe. There's no way $5.1 T could be raised on stocks or private investment alone before we'll need the alternative energies when the oil fields all run dry. So this is actually not too pleasing for me to hear.
Responses
1) I think it's fair to assume that because of the current (relatively) cheap prices for oil compared to installing alternatives, the prediction that so little of the potential alternative resources will be actually used is very accurate.
2) I think the best way to get alternative-energy companies off the ground (and create more domestic jobs as well) is to impose a high tariff on Middle Eastern oil. As long as oil remains a more accessible resource, capitalism says we're going to use it. If alternative energy is cheaper, people will make the switch. However, the likelihood that anyone in the West would impose such a tariff is about 1 x 10^-1,000,000,000 percent.
3) Already answered that. Really, either way is possible, but if we want to avoid the energy crisis when the oil runs out, the governments of the world will HAVE to provide that $5.1 T
4) See #2
I think that this is great as you suggested but I also think that us using all alternative energy and no fossil fuel would only occur if we suffered some sort of disaster that cut off all fossil fuels for a period of 10-15 years.
ReplyDelete1)Yes. I see no reason why this could not happen quite easily.
2)I think they need to put in incentives for companies to build up this kind of alternative enrgy source.
3)I think that almost all of the investment money will come from Private Sector Investors.
4)See #2