What percentage renewables?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I came across two estimates today. The first sounds optimistic that renewable energy can generate up to 40% of energy needs by 2050. However, there is a cost. The second estimate is optimistic that 95% of 2050 energy needs can be met by renewables and the cost is actually negative.

Let us know which group of scientists you think is using voodoo economics in the comments section.

Compare this:

Could Renewables Supply 40 Percent of Global Power by 2050?

Scientists at a climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, told reporters on Wednesday that some authorities may be downplaying the potential for sources like wind and solar to deliver future power needs.

Peter Lund, a professor of energy systems at the Helsinki University of Technology, said his forecasts for the potential of renewable sources were about double those of the International Energy Agency.

But Mr. Lund also acknowledged that reaching such ambitious targets would cost large sums of money, requiring investments of up to 20 billion euros ($25 billion) annually up to 2025. Mr. Lund said another 10 percent would need to be added atop those costs to build out the infrastructure and create the systems that could deliver clean power.

Up to half that amount would have to come in the form of government subsidies. "After that, these technologies will probably be O.K. on their own," said Mr. Lund, who encouraged governments and investors to "think of this financial support as an investment in the future."

To this (from the inbox):

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Greenpeace, the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), and Dr. Joseph Romm of the Center for American Progress today released a report commissioned from the German Aerospace Center (the German equivalent of NASA) that shows how the United States can meet the energy needs of a growing economy and achieve science-based cuts in global warming pollution – without nuclear power or coal. The report, entitled "Energy [R]evolution," is co-authored by Greenpeace and EREC and includes a foreword by Dr. R.K. Pachauri, chairman of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The report finds that off-the-shelf clean energy technology can cut U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels by at least 23 percent from current levels by 2020 and 85 percent by 2050 (equal to a 12 percent cut by 2020 and an 83 percent cut by 2050 from 1990 levels) – at half the cost and double the job-creation of what it would take to meet U.S. energy needs with dirty energy sources.

...

"What this report shows is that doing what science says is necessary won't just provide the planet a living future, it actually will create far more jobs and save far more money than business as usual," said Greenpeace Global Warming Campaign Director Steven Biel. "And it will do it without exposing us to the unnecessary risks and pointless boondoggles that would come with any further investments in nuclear or coal."

The blueprint details the specific technologies and timetables necessary to achieve these goals, such as:

• By using the most energy efficient technologies, total primary energy demand will decline by 24 percent by 2050, while under the reference scenario demand will increase by 40 percent.
• Renewable energy will grow from just 8.9 percent of U.S. electricity generation in 2005 to 95.2 percent in 2050.
• Electricity from nuclear, coal, and oil will be completely phased out by 2050.
• The savings in fuel costs under the clean energy scenario is nearly double the additional up-front investment needed to end our reliance on fossil fuels.

More information and the full report are available on the web at

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/energyrevolution

http://www.env-econ.net/2009/03/what-perce...renewables.html