Comments on: 100%, 99%, 80%, 70% — How Much Can/Should The World Be Powered By Renewable Energy?

By: Ross Chandler

Ross Chandler — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:14:00 +0000

Agreed.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:12:00 +0000

Studies regarding total renewable energy potential have now been added (thanks to Hans for providing most of the links): http://cleantechnica.com/70-80-99-9-100-renewables-study-central/

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:59:00 +0000

Sorry, I made that comment late last night and seemed to be out of my mind when i did. Thanks for the note.

By: Hans

Hans — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:28:00 +0000

Why do you think no (scientific) studies have been carried out on the global renewable energy potential?

There have been many studies, and updates are carried out regularly. on the worldwide potential of renewable energy. Just a handful of the many reports and articles on the subject:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421506003326

http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/report_role_potential_renewable_energy_efficiency_global_energy_supply.pdf

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/Energy/Home-GEA.en.html

http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2004-0309-123617/full.pdf

http://eeg.tuwien.ac.at/eeg.tuwien.ac.at_pages/research/downloads/PR_242_Potentials_and_prospects_for_RE_at_global_scale__Resch_et_al_(2008).pdf

http://www.ewea.org/press-releases/detail/?tx_ttnewstt_news=1905&cHash=57e94c2e1175425be0852b78526d34e7

http://www.nrel.gov/gis/re_potential.html (just USA)

http://scholar.google.de/scholar?start=20&q=global+renewable+energy+potential+&hl=de&as_sdt=0
Even GW Bush used “the google”.

By: Damir Agic

Damir Agic — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 04:21:00 +0000

WORLD MASTER PLAN / NOTICE
After a study in the USA and a global master calculation from AGDA PROJECTMANAGER ( it was generated the some result ) only … read more :
http://www.agda-ev.org/03-01.html

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:46:00 +0000

I wish someone would produce a study showing something like this. Not sure why it hasn’t been done. (Or has it?)

By: JMin2020

JMin2020 — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:18:00 +0000

I look forward to the updates Zach.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:20:00 +0000

Thanks! doom & gloom can certainly get addictive. i also try to pull people out of the trenches a little bit when i can.

By: Neil Blanchard

Neil Blanchard — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:43:00 +0000

Right – solar alone around the world *could* supply 11,000X more energy than the entire world uses, but we cannot gather all of that or even 1% of it. Given our ability to gather all the energy from various renewable source, and realistic ability to implement them – is how the 16X factor was estimated.

The bottom line is we can certainly get 100% of the energy we need from renewable sources.

Neil

By: Ross Chandler

Ross Chandler — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:05:00 +0000

1600% is an underestimate. Only a small part of the Sahara is needed to power all our energy needs and there’s also include geothermal, wind, wave and tidal.

By: Neil Blanchard

Neil Blanchard — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:21:00 +0000

A conservative estimate of how much renewable energy we *could* gather is 1600% of the entire world’s energy needs!

We are surrounded by renewable energy, and there is a sustainable abundance. We already know how to gather far more energy than we could possibly need. Germany is well on their way to this – and they only get about as much sun as *Alaska*! If they can do it, then certainly the USA can do it, and with a intelligent mix of sources, renewable energy can meet 100% of need virtually any where!

Neil

By: Marshall Harris

Marshall Harris — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 19:49:00 +0000

You sir get a thumbs up. I agree 100%… maybe 120%. lol

By: James Wimberley

James Wimberley — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 19:36:00 +0000

You miss out 120%. That’s for the massive carbon sequestration required
by Hansen’s 350 ppm of CO2 objective. He may be wrong. but it’s a
serious analysis and proposal. 80% renewable is not. As a matter of
logic, to stabilise the climate we must at least go carbon-neutral. So 100% renewable is the floor, not the ceiling.

By: agelbert

agelbert — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 19:19:00 +0000

Agreed. That’s where rapid carbon sequestering from the fastest growing angiosperm on the planet (Lemna minor) which can double its mass in a single day and be fertilized with animal feces (it actually cleans the water) and needs no pesticides comes in. While it is true that algae grows faster, algae is more climate finicky and requires more controlled conditions so I hope Lemna minor comes in to its own in the coming years. Full info on it here:
http://www.doomsteaddiner.org/forum/index.php?topic=478.150
Note: You need to scroll past some comments to get to the article by me (Agelbert).

By: Ross Chandler

Ross Chandler — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:10:00 +0000

With much melting and sea level rise already locked in we’re going to have to go above 100% of our immediate energy needs to power terraforming efforts to fix CO2 out of the atmosphere and/or increase the earth’s albedo.

By: agelbert

agelbert — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:28:00 +0000

Thanks Zachary,
I posted a link to your story at the Doomstead Diner in the hope that some of the doom and gloomers will come over and read your excellent and thorough information and research on the reality that renewables can, should and will replace fossil and nuclear fuels if Homo SAP is to survive as a dues paying member of the biosphere along with all the other life forms here.