Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

Will the Children of Today Be Living in a World Powered by Renewable Energy by 2050?

By Jane Burgermeister
February 3, 2009 | 22 Comments

Do you like this news?

Bookmark

Feed

Vienna, Austria [RenewableEnergyWorld.com] The world needs a one-off switch-over to renewable energy -- and this could be largely accomplished in just forty years time, slashing energy costs and greenhouse gases while allowing healthy economic growth, experts say.

The study estimates that 56% of primary energy demand will be covered by renewable energy sources by 2050 while energy efficiency potentials will have been largely exploited. As a result, primary energy demand will stabilize at 2060 levels.

By 2050, 80 percent of the world's electricity could be coming from renewable energy sources provided efforts are made, in parallel, to improve energy efficiency, according to a study by the German Aerospace Center (DLR). That means, the children of today might well grow up to experience a world where the energy they use comes almost entirely from the sun, wind, sea and biomass.

By 2090, the shift to renewable energy around the world could be almost 99 percent completed reducing pressure on the environment and laying the foundations for a new era of prosperity based on green energy.

Also, the short-term financial costs of switching over to renewable energy will be outweighed by the long-term financial benefits, according to the study. In fact, the projected savings to be made by not using the amount of coal we do today could amount to US $15.9 trillion by 2030 alone — a sum that would pay the whole US $15 trillion bill needed to switch over the entire world to renewable energy power sources once and for all.

The accumulated savings of a switch-over to renewable energy by 2030 could be as high as US $18.7 trillion or $750 billion a year, according to one DLR scenario.

The DLR estimates that the world today spends approximately US $2 trillion on its electricity supply, which comes primarily from fossil fuels. However, it calculates that this cost could rise to almost US $9 trillion by 2050 on current trends of soaring oil and coal prices as well as the rising cost of dealing with the environmental impact of carbon emissions. However, if the world largely completes its switch over to renewable energy by 2050 and introduces energy saving measures in parallel, the bill for the annual electricity supply will only be about US $4 trillion a year — a savings of $5 trillion.

Consumers could also be faced with more affordable or even no energy bills once installation costs for renewable energy micro-generators and weatherization have been met, ushering in a new era of energy self sufficiency for householders.

The goal of obtaining 80 percent of our electricity from renewables is achievable even if the world, including China and India, continues to see high economic growth, says the DLR.

The Energy [R]evolution Report commissioned by Greenpeace International and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) also outlines a scenario that would see a fairer redistribution of the burden of cutting greenhouses around the globe. Under the DLR plan, America and Western Europe would decrease their high per capita energy use by switching over to renewable energy and introducing energy saving measures as soon as possible while countries such as China and India would initially slow down their increase in energy demand before starting the switch-over to green energy.

This would bring the western industrialized and the non-western countries closer together in terms of the amount of energy they consume by 2050, although even using this "scissors" approach North America and Western Europe will still be using far more energy per capita than India or China in 40 years time.

The DLR study has also put forward an action plan that would see 32.5 percent of the world's electricity supply coming from renewable energy by as early as 2020. Until 2020, the current spectrum of renewable technologies such as wind power, hydro power and biomass are expected to play a key role. After 2020, by contrast, new technologies generating abundant and low cost clean energy are expected to become available and to play an increasingly important part in the world's green tech mix.

Technologies like dye-sensitive solar cells and thin-film photovoltaics are being developed rapidly and present a huge potential for cost reduction. Also, major innovations in geothermal and ocean wave technology can be expected as research in these areas increases in the future.

The DLR study says that there has to be a drastic reduction in primary energy demand for the world to switch to largely renewables by 2050. The introduction of a raft of energy saving measures will ensure that there is only a slight increase in the total primary energy demand from the 474,900 petajoules [roughly 30 million kilowatt-hours], in 2005 to 480,860 petajoules in 2050, compared to 867,700 petajoules In 2050 without such energy efficiency measures.

"Smart power" will improve the efficiency of buildings and transport, and the DLR predicts that the city centers of the future, for example, could be producing power and heat as well as consuming it. The buildings will have photovoltaic facades not only for energy production but also as an element of architectural design. Solar thermal collectors are set to produce hot water in the networked cities of tomorrow where energy comes from a variety of sources, large and small in scale.

In addition, the DLR predicts that the energy supply system of the future will move from the large and centralized one of today's world towards a much more decentralized one, based on a wide mix of energy sources. These will be tailored to the geography of a particular region to optimize its specific and unique potential.

According to the DLR, solar photovoltaics, followed by wind power, concentrated solar power and geothermal, have the highest potential for development from technologies currently available.

To study notes huge amounts of energy currently wasted from cooling towers could be harnessed for co-generation.

A further piece in the puzzle to create a world powered by renewable energy is to make the transport sector more efficient by switching over to electric vehicles powered by renewable energy sources and also by building up public transport system.

Government legislation will have a vital role to play in facilitating the energy revolution according to the DLR. It recommends that governments phase out subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy; put a cost on carbon emissions and so take into account their damage to the environment. Also, governments should introduce strict energy efficiency standards and legally binding targets for renewable energy as well as increase the budgets for research into renewable energy and energy saving measures.

If all goes according to plan, the DLR predicts that by 2050, around 77% of electricity will be produced from renewable energy sources and a capacity of 9,100 GW will produce 28,600 TWh/a of renewable electricity in 2050. In the heat supply sector, the contribution of renewables such as biomass, solar collectors and geothermal will increase to 70% by 2050.

The study estimates that 56% of primary energy demand will be covered by renewable energy sources by 2050 when energy efficiency potentials will have been largely exploited. As a result, primary energy demand will stabilize at 2060 levels. The proportion of renewables to cover this primary energy demain will continue to rise.

By 2070 over 93% of electricity will be produced from renewable energy sources, with whatever gas-fired power plants remaining in use serving as a backup for power. By 2080, about 90% of primary energy demand will be covered by renewable energy sources and by 2090 the renewable share will reach 98.2%. By 2100, a capacity of 23,100 GW will produce 56,800 TWh of renewable electricity or 17 times more than today.

Geothermal Energy, Solar Energy, Wind Power, Energy Efficiency

22 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 22

leonard-boghian-168091

February 3, 2009

Renewable energy it is yhe best way,for the entire world ,to survive.

Comment
2 of 22

steven-mielke-81365

February 3, 2009

The author writes: "In fact, the projected savings to be made by not using the amount of coal we do today could amount to US $15.9 trillion by 2030 alone — a sum that would pay the whole US $15 trillion bill needed to switch over the entire world to renewable energy power sources once and for all."

This is a strange claim. At present burning coal is the cheapest means of generating electricity. Thus, any switchover to renewable generation, while environmentally laudable and possibly even necessary, will cost most than the coal generation displaced and the net effect from such a switchover will be increased expense. The notion that we will actually save money by a rapid changeover to new technologies, which will involve idling many existing plants before their rated lifespan, is wildly optimistic.

Clearly the author's crystal ball is sharper than mine because she claims to be able to predict with 3-significant-figure accuracy the percentage of renewable generation some 90+ years into the future. Judging from her economic projections, I can only conclude her crystal ball is also rose tinted!

Comment
3 of 22

adrian-akau-36758

February 3, 2009

I am not sure about the figures Jane presents but it makes sense to gradually switch energy production away from coal thermal. China, for example, is using almost a billion tons of coal annually and its supply is predicted to last about 40-45 years more at the present rate of burning.

Of course, the US has a much better supply of coal but the difficulty in burning coal is that it is responsible for health problems. The particulates produced reach all human cells and are not a natural to the body. I do not have a report of their chemical analysis but have seen papers that they tend to produce cancer. If so, who is to be held responsible for this undogeable health hazard?

Then we have the tailings from coal mines going into our streams and lakes giving the fish such gruesome sores that they are no longer fit for human consumption. Who do we hold responsible for water contamination and fish spoilage?

We have the tops of some our mountains being removed to get after coal. Who is responsible for this permanent scarring of our environment? Is it right for our beauty of our country to be "sold" for money? Who is to determine the proper penalty for this act of environmental assault?

We have numerous ash storage sites located around the US. According to the TVA spokes person, there were no contaminants in the water from the ash plant. Unfortunately, the water test results released were on water taken from sites located upstream of the disaster. The TVA report was not a true statement of the situation. Who is responsible for this type of "white lie" told over national TV?

Yes, a transition to renewable enrgy costs money but what is the worth of the health of our nation and the loss of our land? Is it right to rely on medicare? I am for inexpensive energy but not a type of energy that cheapens life itself and this is what coal is doing to us.

Just think that if coal runs out in China, the skys there might again turn blue.

adrianakau2aol.com

Comment
4 of 22

sherry-jan-156046

February 3, 2009

There could be no better investment in America than to invest in America becoming energy independent. The high cost of fuel this past year did serious damage to our economy and society. After a brief reprieve gas prices are inching back up again. Our nation should not allow other nations to have such power over us and our economy . We have so much available to us in the way of technology and free sources of energy. WE seriously need to get on with becoming an energy independent nation. We are spending billions upon billions in bail out dollars. Why not spend some of those billions in getting alternative energy projects set up. We could create clean cheap energy, millions of badly needed new green jobs and lessen our dependence on foreign oil all in one fell swoop. I just read an eye opening book by Jeff Wilson called The Manhattan Project of 2009. It would cost the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon to drive and charge an electric car.If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV's instead had plug-in electric drive trains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota. Why don't we use some of the billions in bail out money to bail us out of our dependence on foreign oil? This past year the high cost of fuel so seriously damaged our economy and society that the ripple effects will be felt for years to come.

Comment
5 of 22

jean-pitot-133630

February 4, 2009

Yeah Sherry Jan, because it has always been the United States versus the rest of the world, hasn't it?

Comment
6 of 22

jan-zandboer-168057

February 4, 2009

I agree with Jean Pitot, this is not a case of being independent, again your thoughts are very selfish Sherry Jan, as you should think about the rest of the world once and start thinking what you have been doing wrong for so many years and how you can solve this problem now to make the whole of this planet a better place to live!!

Comment
7 of 22

martin-sherring-158533

February 4, 2009

I think the financial calculations here are a bit disingenuous. Renewables generally have big up-front costs and little or no ongoing fuel cost, so if you ignore the interest cost of funding the renewables' construction, and assume big increases in fossil fuel costs, then you can show big savings from renewables. Are the assumptions realistic? Increasing fossil fuel prices seems a one-way bet, zero interest rates, despite current economic issues, less likely.

I also think an 80% switch to renewables for electricity generation is probably insufficiently ambitious. Electricity generation is the easiest bit of de-carbonising our economy. Transport and heat are much harder - so I'd say we need to be aiming for 100% renewable electricity asap.

But, in a way, the most important bit of the article is about the need for a drastic reduction in consumption. All renewables are much less energy dense than fossil fuels, so unless we want a world where we can't move for wind turbines and PV arrays, we're going to have to find ways of living with less.

Comment
8 of 22

yasser-al-saleh-163116

February 4, 2009

I have not read the DLR study yet, but one obvious flaw of this article is the serious misinterpretation of the main objective of these scenarios. As an academic with interest in this field, I can assure you that such foresight-based scenarios are NOT predictions, they are nothing but representations of POSSIBLE future images. That is an important fact that we - scenarios developers - tend to make clear before presenting our scenarios. Thanks for the effort though, Jane. I share with you the desire to exploit all possible renewable energy sources, for us and for the generations to come.

Comment
9 of 22

thomas-schmidt-36371

February 4, 2009

"slashing energy costs"
"new era of prosperity"
"long-term financial benefits
"a sum that would pay the whole US $15 trillion"
"high economic growth"
" a savings of $5 trillion"

These... Well, lets just call them what they really are shall we? I mean why mince words? These lies, were taken straight from the story above. We all know that the end users are not going to reap the financial benefits of any of this. Its the RE industry leaders and, the established energy infrastructure leaders and, the pollticians they are in bed with. They are the ones that will reap these financial benefits at our expense just like its always been with any other infrastructure.

Oh, names may change, resources change, how we use them my change, but the one thing that will never change is peoples greed for a monopoly over other people. Peoples greed for money.
I wish there was a better way for me to express this because it makes me sound like some kind of fanatic and nobody will want to believe it. They would rather believe in the lies told to them by people in business, to make money.
Renewable Energies is a way of putting a bandaid on the worlds sick enviroment. An enviroment that people just like them made sick. Money mongers.
Don't kid yourself, the people making this possible are going to become filthy stinking rich from it all. Just like all the people before them that got filthy stinking rich making the enviroment sick. Promising us a better life with all of their products.
Wake up people! Come back to reality! We are saving a bit of the planet Earth with RE and thats good. But we not ALL going to become filthy stinking rich from it. The RE industry leaders, the established energy infrastructure industry leaders and, the pollticians they are all in bed with will benefit from it financially. Same as always, always the same. World without end. Pity about Earth.

Comment
10 of 22

loretta-van-165852

February 4, 2009

I applaud the intent of Jane Burgermeister's article and the report on which it was based, even if they painted a rosy picture. The elephant in the closet is climate chaos - What Burgermeister writes about is not pipe dreams but utter necessity if we and other species are to survive on this lovely planet. I hope that all who read the article will work locally and beyond to have the vision become reality.

The stimulus package now being debated in the U.S. Senate could go a long way toward realizing the vision, if it removed provisions for nuclear and coal subsdies. All Americans should contact their Senators immediately, demanding that removal and demanding retention of those measures which would assure a great leap toward a more efficient, conservationist, and renewable energy future - for the U.S. and, by extension, for the world.

Comment
11 of 22

lmagic007-lmagic007-58442

February 4, 2009

I think the underlying point on cost, is that the price we will pay for CO2 emissions in decades time, will by far outweigh the cheapness of the price we pay today for coal. With coal, we are effectively delaying its true environmental dollar cost into the future. That's the key point.

Comment
12 of 22

tony-clark-77175

February 4, 2009

Thomas Schmidt admits to sounding like a fanatic --Trouble is ,he is right in what he says. So called renewable energies (especially wind power) are for the naive and gullible and will cost us big time in money and in health.
Nuclear power is really the only sensible option we have at this time.

Comment
13 of 22

toby-grotz-130926

February 4, 2009

The transition costs from fossil and nuclear based fuels can be estimated various ways using cuurent installed costs for wnid and solar. Is the U.S. the 100 Quad energy demand if replaced with renewables at $5/watt would cost $16 trillion. With a 60 percent reduction in energy usage via mass transportation, nationwide building retrofits, local food production, etc, the cost would be $7 trillion. (plus the cost of the afore mentioned conservation efforts.)

This calulation is more than what the article qoted for the world. I'm getting $123 trillion to switch to renewables worldwide. This, as I understand it is still less than the Toxix CDO's that are floating around the globe.
If you are interested in looking at these numbers with me please contact me at ggrotz@burnsmcd.com or in Kansas City at 816-333-9400 x 5629. I would look forward to discussing this with you. Thanks_Toby_Grotz

Comment
14 of 22

william-norton-81151

February 4, 2009

"We are saving a bit of the planet Earth with RE and thats good. But we not ALL going to become filthy stinking rich from it. The RE industry leaders, the established energy infrastructure industry leaders and, the pollticians they are all in bed with will benefit from it financially. Same as always, always the same. World without end. Pity about Earth."

A bit maudlin, don't you think? Thomas, I think you're missing the point. There is nothing wrong with becoming "stinking rich," as long as it is done honestly. As for the "new era of prosperity," I would guess she is referring to a higher standard of living, provided by the fact that businesses and residences will be carbon neutral--that is to say, they will produce as much energy as they consume. There will always be people who are cash poor (I'm one of them!), but this will mean no utility shutoff for even the poorest citizen, thus increasing the base standard for all. If on top of this we have fully-electric cars powered by these self-sufficient sources of electricity, we've raised the base standard that much more. The poor still won't be able to buy big screen TVs and vacation to Bermuda every year, but at least they won't freeze in the winter or not be able to commute to a night job.

Comment
15 of 22

harvey-storr-116491

February 4, 2009

The switch should be on and rapidly, I am an avid supporter of geothermal or hot rock technology, the arguement given against this is the remote locations of the sources (in australia) How can gov subsidise clean coal etc when the cost of transmission would be less than the subsidies. I believe the world can invest in all the renewables and the hidden savings in carbon reduction etc would far outweigh the upfront costs, Figures I have been given show there is enough energy in the Australian geothermal substrates to supply the world for over 200 years.

Harvey Australia

Comment
16 of 22

stop-killin-our-wilderness-136265

February 4, 2009

money quote:

"Smart power" will improve the efficiency of buildings and transport, and the DLR predicts that the city centers of the future, for example, could be producing power and heat as well as consuming it. The buildings will have photovoltaic facades not only for energy production but also as an element of architectural design. Solar thermal collectors are set to produce hot water in the networked cities of tomorrow where energy comes from a variety of sources, large and small in scale.

In addition, the DLR predicts that the energy supply system of the future will move from the large and centralized one of today's world towards a much more decentralized one, based on a wide mix of energy sources. These will be tailored to the geography of a particular region to optimize its specific and unique potential.

According to the DLR, solar photovoltaics, followed by wind power, concentrated solar power and geothermal, have the highest potential for development from technologies currently available."

BINGO! this is what i keep saying. solutions are all located at point of use. from demand reduction to ratepayer generation, to storage, conservation, efficiency and design solutions. NONE of our focus should be on some 19th century, backwards-looking Robber Baron model with Big Energy killing our ecosystems and holding ratepayers hostage.

the sooner we ALL demand feed in tariffs, loan programs for oversized ratepayer generation systems, and a moratorium on building out our public lands for private profits, the sooner we can start to heal the planet, salvage our economy, create jobs and economic stimulus and prop up property values. the longer we wait, the more entrenched the Big Solar, Big Wind, Big Transmission and other mercenaries become.

call your senators NOW and DEMAND that our resources be diverted to point of use and ratepayer-focused solutions, and away from wilderness slaughter and energy monopolies!

Comment
17 of 22

william-norton-81151

February 4, 2009

Harvey Storr:

"Figures I have been given show there is enough energy in the Australian geothermal substrates to supply the world for over 200 years."

Pretty incredible claim, Harvey. Who gave you these figures? I'm an absolute fanatic about this issue and want to be making my living at it yesterday! We need compelling and verifiable information if we are going to defeat the opposition, because the opposition is not just greedy corporatists. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Our biggest enemy is our own apathy, inertia, procrastination. It's part of the nature of the human beast and its collective entity, the corporation and its stockholders, that we don't think beyond the next quarter or so...certainly not beyond the next year. Long-term payback has to be irrefutable and then backed up by government or even benevolent corporate support. Send me what you've got. I'd love to hear it (metamorphosis57@hotmail.com).

Comment
18 of 22

Explorer

February 4, 2009

America can do this by 2020.

America must do this by 2020 if it wants a safe climate - look at what a rise of only 0.8 degrees has done to weather patterns and polar ice - it's obvious that a rise 2.5 times as big won't be safe for low lying areas, interior areas that dry out, cyclone alley, food production and many species.

Check out what the US can do in the face of war at:
http://www.history.army.mil/documents/mobpam.htm

Have no doubt that the US can repower with renewable energy by 2020 if it wants to.

Cheers
Paul

Comment
19 of 22

steven-mielke-81365

February 5, 2009

In comment #14 Paul writes:

"America can do this by 2020." and "Have no doubt that the US can repower with renewable energy by 2020 if it wants to."

It is obviously not possible to go to 100% renewable electricity generation in 2020 without ruinous expense (and dramatic cuts in total generation). And why would we want to?? If our goal is to stop increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, then we need to address world energy usage not just the US usage, and we need replacements for oil, natural gas used in heating, etc. We need to be focused on the ultimate goal, not some intermediate target if we are to be successful--one does not win a marathon by starting off in the same manner as one would run a 100 yard dash. Ignoring economic realities is a recipe for failure. Paul's suggestion would, for instance, involve shutting down most of our current power generation plants (the value of which run into the Trillions--that 'T' is not a typo--of dollars) before their rated lifetimes; the impact of that step alone would cause an enormous spike in electricity prices.

Anyone who thinks that going 100% renewable for electricity generation in the US is even possible might want to try to answer the question of what the generation mix (i.e., the percentages that would come from each source such as wind, solar, etc.) would be that would get us there and how one would get around the intermittency issues with this mix. Then think about how you would be able to ramp up production of the needed materials, and create the needed transmission grid alterations on an 11 year time scale. If you think you can work that out, pinch yourself because you must be dreaming!

Comment
20 of 22

fred-linn-151968

February 16, 2009

From Steven-------"It is obviously not possible to go to 100% renewable electricity generation in 2020 without ruinous expense (and dramatic cuts in total generation)."-------

--------"If you think you can work that out, pinch yourself because you must be dreaming!"-----------

Pinch yourself. You are the one who is dreaming Steven.

Your claim that changing over will cost trillions of $$$ and idle most of our current facilities is absurd. We create havoc with the environment every way that it is possible to everyday we use coal, and everyday we delay switching is costing us more and more to continue to use coal.
The only thing we use the coal for once it is out of the ground is to boil water. There are myriad ways to boil water----including sunlight used directly, concentrated solar.
We can switch from coal to natural gas use almost overnight----all we do is take the coal grates out of the furnaces and replace them with gas burners like on a kitchen stove. The buildings, boilers, turbines, generators, controls and condensation towers all remain exactly the same. It would be no more difficult or technically sophisticated than converting a charcoal BBQ grill to a gas grill-----only larger. We'd still be using fossil fuel methane, but we can mix in biomethane in any proportion we want with no loss in performance. We simply up the % of biomethane in the mix when and as it becomes available. Nature produces methane anyway in breaking down cellulose whether we catch it and burn it or not. If we catch it and burn it---we reduce GHG effect because methane captures infrared 17X better than CO2. We exchange high GHG methane for comparatively low GHG CO2. As little as 6% mix of biomethane will be the point at which we start reducing GHG effect compared to using coal.

Using wind and solar are cummulative in their effect at reducing GHG compared to coal. They do not require fuel, coal does.

Comment
21 of 22

fred-linn-151968

February 16, 2009

From Thomas Schmidt-------"These... Well, lets just call them what they really are shall we? I mean why mince words? These lies, were taken straight from the story above. We all know that the end users are not going to reap the financial benefits of any of this. Its the RE industry leaders and, the established energy infrastructure leaders and, the pollticians they are in bed with. They are the ones that will reap these financial benefits at our expense just like its always been with any other infrastructure."---------

If you invest in renewable energy technology----then you will be part of the infrastructure that reaps the benefits.
If you do not invest, then you are right, someone else will reap the benefits from you.
If you do not invest in renewable energy, your only choice is to continue to use the present technology and allow the current fossil fuel companies and utilities to continue to reap financial benefits from you the same as always----business as usual.

Comment
22 of 22

fred-linn-151968

February 18, 2009

Argue trivial points all you want. Petroleum as well as coal is now being produced by stripmining. For a look at what stripmining does to the earth---go to your library and get the March 2009 issue of National Geographic Magazine----and turn to page 39. The article "Canadian Oil Boom" has frontpiece fold out photospreads showing the pristine boreal forests and the stripmined areas in overlapping is pages. All you have to do is flip the page to see the before/after of stripmining.

Then come back and tell me we should be complacent, and do nothing and just keep right on doing what we are doing now---business as usual.

There are many people who want to do exactly the same thing on public lands in the western US.

Who wants the US doing the same thing do the land and waters that the Canadians are doing? Coal mining already is. Do we want more of that?

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/kunzig-text/1

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!