Browse
Engage
Research
Onshore and offshore wind, solar thermal and photovoltaics, waste-to-energy, geothermal and next-generation and sugar-based biofuels were identified as large-scale clean energy sectors that governments throughout the world should pursue to address energy security and climate change, the report (PDF) said.
The report, released at the annual meeting in Davos, suggests the transition to clean energy should be included in government stimulus plans, which is similar to U.S. President Barack Obama's efforts to include billions in renewable energy and energy efficiency measures in the massive stimulus bill making its way though Congress.
The report's release comes within days of Texas awarding $5 billion in projects aimed at propping up capacity of the state's transmission lines, which currently cannot handle incredible growth in wind energy generation.
When the projects are completed, there could be up to 2,900 miles of new power lines. Texas leads the country in wind generation, and current power lines are near capacity.
Externalities bite
During the past several decades, industrial societies have been geologically subsidized by a "fossil carbon trust fund." We've been making withdraws at ever increasing rates and only recently begun to notice that during the revelry, we've been trashing our own house! "Cheap energy" has only been "cheap" because we've conveniently ignored the impacts of adding that fossil carbon to the atmosphere and biosphere... you know, the ones that FEED us.
We've been living ~way~ beyond our (ecologically sustainable) means, and now the time has come to learn to live within a budget; using no more energy that the sun, the wind, and the tides provide daily, taking no more resources from nature than can be replenished annually, and recycling mineral resources that cannot be replaced. Living on a budget -- paying the true cost of the goods we extract and services we receive -- is ALWAYS more expensive without subsidies.
[Do a little research on what it's going to cost California to contain, channel, hold and transport water that Nature has, for millenia, conveniently held in mountain snow packs and glaciers then slowly released into river basins. These externalized "natural services" are not cheap... especially once you actually have to start paying for them! Remind yourself of that *one* example when you hear moaning about how expensive "alternative energy" and "sustainable business practices" are.]
We've been living a drunkard's dream, and now we have two choices: either sober up and live responsibly (sustainably) OR drive the ecosystem and the economy head-on into a (literal!) global climatic meltdown. [Does this thing have crumple zones or airbags?]
[WARNING: Sarcasm ahead.]
I mean, who really cares if the land on which one third of humanity lives will either be flooded by rising sea levels, lose access to fresh drinking water because of salt water intrusion, and/or be lashed by more frequent and/or more powerful storms?!
We'll all be dead when the worst hits (we can hope), and future generations can fend for themselves... right?!
Party on!
Drill, baby, drill!
Burn, baby, burn!
It ain't our problem!
$515B a year until 2030 and no fossil fuels?
Instead of concentrating so much on weening the need for fossil fuels, why not take some of that $515B and incentive the US population for using alternative energy sources on their homes. It's great that we want to eliminate our dependency on foreign oil and fossil fuels but lets face it, no matter how hard Governments try to slow down the use of these products, consumers will still see the demand. Push alternative energy...wind, solar, hydro. Increase buybacks to electric companies. Put up wind turbines to power two rooms in your house. All of these things can be done to help elimate the need of fossil fuels.
http://www.mygreenresources.org
5 Billion
When does the work start on this 5 Billion dollar project and when will it be done?