Home | About | Donate

100% Renewable Energy: What We Can Do in 10 Years


100% Renewable Energy: What We Can Do in 10 Years

Richard Heinberg

If our transition to renewable energy is successful, we will achieve savings in the ongoing energy expenditures needed for economic production. We will be rewarded with a quality of life that is acceptable—and, perhaps, preferable to our current one (even though, for most Americans, material consumption will be scaled back from its current unsustainable level). We will have a much more stable climate than would otherwise be the case. And we will see greatly reduced health and environmental impacts from energy production activities.


Big Brother will not let the masses unplug from its (energy intensive) screens.
Fuck Big Brother.


Did you come away from this article dismayed and discouraged feeling that it will take 20 or 30 years at least and that is only if we somehow do the impossible and also be willing to go primitive while gradually getting off fossil fuels (80% off)?

Well gee that was the conclusion of this fossil fuel industry insider's previous articles explaining ever so reasonably why we need to continue using fossil fuels for 40 or so more years and then some. Same position except this time he doesn't use oil industry figures. BTW what figures does he use? He cites sources but gives no links to reports or data sources that we can check ourselves.

Did you know that to make concrete without fossil fuel heat would need a complete redesign of the process which he obviously thinks extremely difficult. You mean using a solar furnace instead of fossil fuel furnaces would be inconceivable (apparently it is for him)? The same for asphalt as another completely new redesign of the industry? Maybe using plastic like an epoxy binder or maybe just that solar cooked concrete?

He snidely inserts his 'Oops no more air travel... Now look what you've done wanting to get off oil'. There is so much that can be done using renewables that the carbon footprint of air travel would be fractional and easily sequestered by natural and man made systems. This is disinformation.

He keeps explaining that we can't do what is already being done. According to him we could never have achieved the level of renewables use that we have in the last few years so rapidly. It is almost like he is skipping over the last decade of renewables advances and technological innovation to promote the fossil fuel industry's 'Let's go slow getting off oil ' perspective.

Yet again in yet another article saying we still need oil.


From Mr. Heinberg's article:

"The renewable economy will likely be slower and more local; it will probably be a conserver economy rather than a consumer economy. It will also likely feature far less economic inequality. Economic growth may reverse itself as per capita consumption shrinks; if we are to avert a financial crash and perhaps a revolution as well, we may need a different economic organizing principle."

I think the above quote is solid. However, I find this to be a very "middle of the road" overall analysis (and I am referring to the body of the article), and here are my reasons for that assessment:

  1. No mention of the high-meat consumption of Western nations, the U.S. in particular is made.

  2. No mention is made of the high energy footprint cannibalized by the Military and its network of approximately 1000 bases, worldwide.

  3. Although mention is made of organic food systems and soil reconstitution, no nod is given to Vandana Shiva. She heads an organization consisting of the world's peasant farmers that numbers into the millions. THIS group and its knowledge of soil reconstitution is a major asset that should at minimum, be mentioned.

  4. The article's suggestions are offered without any mention of the type of political clout held by Big Oil, and the fact that many U.S. governors and senators don't even believe in Global Warming. (Of course their Energy sponsors insist on that position and "opinion"). This group stands in the way of progress and meaningful investments in greener technologies.

  5. The TIPP and TPP: This is Big Business' coup d'état upon global democracy in that its own trading partners will write the rules of trade and cast off any environmental imperatives that are defined as anathema to profits.

  6. The very real economic downturn that is global in scope will have a marked influence over consumer spending and prior "standards of living" that are based on material forms of consumption.

  7. "Disclosure." There is a growing list of persons coming forward with information about a long-term cover-up of alien craft brought down and their energy apparatuses reverse-engineered. In other words, while kept under wraps (and Top Secret), the ways to propel craft without any fossil fuels are known and have been known for decades.

What this means is that the ways to wean off of Big Oil and Big Coal and Big Gas already exist, and this knowledge would radically shift the existing paradigm and bring about The Transition required... if life is to remain sustainable for sentient species.

Here is the relevant link:


He's so articulate and says such important things. So here's another clip:


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Surreal... or the world as designed by The Great Mother?


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


His understanding is stuck in a tar pit (tar sands?) like a prehistoric animal in La Brea. Apparently he wants to convince us that we just need to keep using fossil fuels for a few more decades that's all. An apologist for fossil fuels really. Even his comment about concrete is specious. For example he doesn't mention that some types of concrete absorb CO2 and replacing asphalt streets with concrete would be a positive thing in general.

I think he is one of those people whose livelihood is dependent on fossil fuels and is presenting a fossil fuel based reasonable case!!!


"Solar and wind technologies have a drawback: They provide energy intermittently."

YooooHoooo. The sun shines 24 hours a day. The wind is blowing somewhere 24 hours a day. Is this so hard to grasp?


I'm afraid I see the article as the most optimistic view possible. What's actually going on beyond the lip service is deplorable.
Nevada PUC's net metering decision practically throws residential solar out of the state and Hawaiian Electric just cancelled at least 4 renewable energy projects (mostly solar) while asking to use a bit more coal.
Big Player SUNE is fighting against rumors of possible bankruptcy from swallowing Residential solar company VSLR while residential Solar City is dying on the vine as well. Other solar companies trading at a fraction of their previous worth.

All this when Solar technology has never been cheaper and at parity with the grid. The federal government signs climate agreements and pay lip service but at the level of the states, of dealing with the utilities, renewable energy is a lip service stage of advancement. Just enough to say "We're doing something"


There is an abundance of free energy / over unity hoaxes, frauds, and scams. (Even Greer has to concede that reality.) So how do you tell the difference? How do you know Greer hasn't been suckered, or is not a fraudster himself?


See, for example, submarines and some of the largest ships in the U.S. Navy.