Home | About | Donate

'Impossible Becoming Possible' as Clean Energy Surges


'Impossible Becoming Possible' as Clean Energy Surges

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

Offering a "clear sign that an energy transition is underway," renewable energy comprised nearly half of the world's power generation capacity in 2014 and is already the second-largest electricity source on the planet after coal, according to a new report published Tuesday by the International Energy Agency (IEA).


Great but we in the over consuming West must drastically reduce our appetites and stop lecturing other nations, usually non white, to stop procreating.


We don't need to lecture other nations to stop procreating. We can help make education available to them. Educated people tend to have less children.


"renewable energy comprised nearly half of the world's power generation capacity in 2014"

I find this hard to believe, but if it were true and I were CEO of Exxon I'd be getting out of oil and getting into alternative energy very, very quickly. There is a fast buck to be made there!


"It would be a grave mistake to index our attention to energy security to changes in the oil price," said IEA executive director Fatih Birol. "Now is not the time to relax. Quite the opposite: a period of low oil prices is the moment to reinforce our capacity to deal with future energy security threats."

That was President Jimmy Carter's plea when we were having gasoline rationing. He put Solar panels on the White House roof. That was about 40 years ago. Prices dropped and Regan took the Solar Panels off the roof. Meanwhile Brazil became ethanol independent.

Prosecute Exxon!


Climate changes challenges

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Pollution Include

  1. Carbon Dioxide (CO2), 82%
  2. Methane (CH4), 9%
  3. Nitrous Oxide (N2O), 6%
  4. Flouronidated Gases, 3%
    Source: EPA

Implement low-carbon energy base that promotes conservation, conversion into renewal energy sources and fusion technology, providing a fair transition from fossil fuels and a “global treaty” to block the export of fossil fuels. How to do these?

(A) Implement the climate protection bill by Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Bernie Sanders that includes a carbon tax on the nearly 3000 of the largest fossil fuel polluters, covering about 85 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
(B) Implement the modest Obama’s Clean Power Plan that pushed for 32 percent diminishes in carbon dioxide surges from power plants by 2030 with the base year of 2005, and requiring a 28 percent of a power production to be generated from renewable sources.
(C) End tax breaks and subsidies for big oil, gas and coal companies. Representative Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced the End Polluter Welfare Act to stop taxpayer-funded $135 billion giveaways to oil, gas and coal companies.
(D) Eliminate and inevitably boycott Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) gasses which are intense greenhouse gasses used as a part of fridges and ventilation systems and are discharged essentially amid repairing of or toward the end of the life-span of these items.
(E) Keep it in the Ground Act. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), alongside Sen. Bernie Sanders, have introduced in Nov 2015 the bill Keep It In The Ground Act, that would bar new leases on coal, gas, oil, and tar sands extraction on federal lands in the U.S.
[F] Expand research and development into climate change mitigation techniques. These include efforts to cut or prevent the emissions of greenhouse gases-limiting the magnitude of future warming.

For more details: https://progressivewishlist.wordpress.com/


I haven't seen figures for 2015, but the IEA has figures for 2013.

IEA 2013 Fuel shares in world total primary energy supply
fossil fuels
Coal 30.5%
Oil 27.3%
Nat Gas 22.6%
other 0.4%
Nuke 5%
biofuels 10.4%
hydro 2.5%
other 1.3% (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.)

The reason I put quotes around renewables is most of it comes from biofuels and much of that is not considered sustainably renewable for example all of the wood burning from areas being deforested or ethanol produced from corn grown with fossil fuel inputs, fossil water and depleting soil.

The claim this article begins with is absurd.


"This historic fall was caused by a 'perfect storm' of circumstance: dire fossil fuel economics, rising renewable energy uptake, slowing global energy demand, and China’s crackdown on air pollution",
"Slowing global energy demand" can only lead to one conclusion, the Obama administration's claims about economic growth in the US just like everything else they put forth is total bullshit as far as growth in this country and the world is concerned! Seeing that the US military has been the world's largest consumer of energy over the last decade. It's very hard to make a case for world wide economic growth if overall energy consumption is down!


So the answer is 3.8% safe, renewable low-CO2 energy (wind, solar, hydro); 5% dangerous, low-CO2 energy; and the rest hydrocarbons at 91.2%. If I were CEO of Exxon, I wouldn't be worried about the competition.


I would be very surprised if they are not. I wonder how much technology they have bought & hidden.


How is it absurd if the percent listed for "renewables" is accurate?

You think it is absurd because they used "renewables" instead of "sustainable renewables". Your criticism is out of context.

I agree that wood and biofuels grown on farmland are not sustainable. But they are carbon neutral, and do not create the toxins and pollutants created by fossil fuels. So there is nothing absurd about those standards.

The best biofuels come from algae, which can be grown on rooftops, instead of farmland needed for food crops. Algae is also much cheaper to grow and convert to biofuels. However, a huge farmland biofuel infrastructure, including generous government subsidies, has been created in the US by the factory farming industrial complex, so it won't go away anytime soon, unfortunately.

Using farmland and forests for biofuel alternatives may be absurd in their own right. But that absurdity is nothing compared to the absurd continuation of fossil fuel monopolies, exasperated by trillion dollar fossil fuel wars.


I wish we would phase in tax on greenhouse emissions. For small burners of fossil fuel, we need to make assumptions on what sort of greenhouse emissions they are likely to be on entering atmosphere and tax when sold to any user too small to be expected to measure their own emissions. When we get enough renewable energy to cause any measurable drop in emissions we need to add tax on energy regardless of carbon footprint. Revenue from tax on emissions need to be used entirely to buy fossil fuel reserves as mineral rights from too big to fail fossil fuel firms to avoid wasting MUCH effort fighting too big to fail fossil fuel firms over tax. Revenue from energy tax can be split between buying mineral rights and other means to slow climate change--including CO2 capture from ambient air and storing it, and desalinating seawater to help adapt to drought from climate change, etc.


Coal is almost all either carbon rather than hydrocarbons and minerals that get left in ashes from coal. Nuclear power is at least not churning out CO2.
But it does add up to over 90% fossil fuel and not quite 10% other.


The claim is that we are getting more GDP with less consumption of energy. We must be spending more money on stuff other than energy.


We have already stopped making Hydroflurocarbons, and are trying to recover them from discarded fridges etc in dumps. In addition to stopping any new leases, we also should buy fossil fuel as much as possible as mineral rights from private owners of either land with mineral rights either still attached or mineral leases. Adaptation to climate change includes desalination of seawater including for irrigation.


They are referring to rated capacity which is very misleading because both wind and solar are intermittent, and what % of time they are available depends on where they are installed--% of time available can be as much as 50% for wind turbines in good locations, and is maybe 12% in southern New England where solar is cost-competitive only due to a combination of subsidies, green bragging rights (some want it badly enough to pay high prices for it), and inability to put wind turbines in suburbs due to NIMBY screaming over noise.


What is the carbon footprint of building a nuclear power plant and then decommissioning it, plus of course the carbon footprint of mining uranium?