Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Shifting to 100% Renewable Energy Would Save Money

By Louis Bergeron, Stanford University
October 21, 2009   |   11 Comments
The numbers show that wind, water and solar energy would reduce world power demand by 30 percent, thereby avoiding 13,000 coal power plants.

Do you like this research & reports?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
The study further provides examples of how a combination of renewable energy sources could be used to meet hour-by-hour power demand, addressing the commonly asked question, given the inherent variability of wind speed and sunshine, can these sources consistently produce enough power?
11 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 11
October 21, 2009
Hi:

Nice general article review... not surprising at all on the results. All the tech we need is here now for the most part... that is of course not the problem as noted in the article.

Man will not go the way of the dinosaur for lack of technology or knowledge. He will do so because of his inability to control the social systems that he created along with his own population.

It is funny that in Matrix I, agent "Smith" likened humans to a virus when talking to Morphious. .....We keep multiplying until we have used up all the resources in an area, then move on..... paraphrased...
I wonder if a virus "thinks" about multiplying itself out of existence by killing the host..??..

.....Bill
No image available
Comment
2 of 11
Anonymous
October 23, 2009
There is a well-known saying - "Those who refuse to do the arithmetic are doomed to nonsense". Although I am a life-long advocate of renewable energy, it is also obvious that we are doomed because simple arithmetic shows that the goal of achieving the lofty pipe dream by the year 2030 is not possible. Here's a bunch of folks that need to get a strong dose of reality. The renewables may be out there, but the lack of political will and economics won't let it happen. Did these characters just figure out that fossil fuels are inefficient? Most people I've run into over the last 50 years seemed to already know that. You also have to wonder if they know anything about arithmetic. They propose 3.8 million large wind turbines by 2030. That means we have to build, erect, and integrate into the power networks 520 wind units a day – yes each day! The plan also requires 490,000 tidal turbines (67 per day); 5,350 geothermal plants (about 3 every 4 days); 720,000 wave converters (almost 100 every day); and 1.7 billion rooftop photovoltaic systems (almost 233,000 every day) – Huh!!!!!!!!
Comment
3 of 11
October 23, 2009
Looks like we have a lot of work to do. If humanity wakes up to the impending dire repercussions awaiting us and a war like effort is applied this recession will be over soon and full employment will be just around the corner. What does six billion people plus a concerted effort equal ?
Comment
4 of 11
October 23, 2009
No one can take away your ability to change your mind. Your mind is what God created, where the world was created, and where time was created also. It falls into linear perspective that we made the world we have now, and we can change it by changing what we believe its purpose is. Once that simple step is made the entire universe changes direction and can flow towards you instead of away from you.
When minds learn that what is real cannot be destroyed, and that only what is real can only be extended by sharing will the new world begin. It is quite often that the separate minds (the ego) will not step up to accepting truth untill they have exhausted every illusionary solution they can possibly concieve of. It will be up to us to determine if we have the will to accept the new mind order that awareness of peace will establish or become an extinct blip on a miniscule spec in space.
Perhaps we can begin by throwing PACs and all corporate lobbiests out of representative gpvernment so people are represented instead of money. Treat people with value by funding medical care and education instead of war machines and other fearmongering ideas. This is one world. The only one. It is in your mind right now. How will you make it sustainable for the generation. How will you do it right now! It all is up to you to determine how to see. No one else is at fault here. Forgive the past because it is an illusion made in your mind alone God did not make illusions. You did, and insanity is the result. Are you ready.
No image available
Comment
5 of 11
Anonymous
October 26, 2009
This is arrant nonsense. There is no economics data here to suggest that any of this would "save money" as the title of the article states. Furthermore the study cited is one of the poorest I have ever seen--and competition for the lowest quality study of this type is considerable. This site needs an editor to exert a minimum of quality control.
Comment
6 of 11
October 26, 2009
Anonymous (directly above),

It appears that you may be unsure or embarrassed about your position. If you wish to be taken seriously - you may want to consider signing your comments. Otherwise, you will be viewed as one of those angry bloggers who will disagree with any position, no matter how valid, simply to substitute for some insecurity, need for attention, etc.

As to this, or any other article on Renewable Energy, we, the readers are the editors of the quality of it's content. The readers who comment with substantively backed accolades or retorts more than adequately fill this roll. Opinions are like....well, never mind - your ears are likely shut anyway.

Have A Nice Day!
No image available
Comment
7 of 11
Anonymous
October 26, 2009
Now Jeffrey....
You should not assume that anonymous posts are rooted in insecurity or anger.... Possibly I only want google searches on my name to yield hits for my articles in refereed journals rather than blog posts. And possibly I hope my opinion will stand on its own merit....

Editors do serve a useful role in filtering at least some of the chaff from the wheat. Here we have an article than claims in the title that renewable energy will "save money" but the text makes absolutely no attempt at an economic argument. Nor is there any such argument in the single (and rather weak) source (the article of Jacobson and Delucchi) cited in this piece. I wonder if you have read this reference; I note that you offer no counter argument to my point concerning the complete lack of evidence cited to support the premise in the title--either herein on in the cited material.

Entirely unsubstantiated opinion pieces by uncredentialed "science writers" who are essentially university media agents promoting the work of their institution really don't merit support from this site.
Anonymous from comment 6
Comment
8 of 11
October 28, 2009
I just shifted my electricity supplier to renewable only power. It is more expensive. But only in $. My electric bike is now solar powered and I am no longer contributing to a negative balance of payments for my country or to the air and noise pollution of my town.

If only to clear the skies around the world, we should all give clean renewables a go! A zero emmissions world would really be a fantastic legacy for us to pass on...WAY better than a base on the moon or 50 new nuclear power stations for example.

And don't forget, the planet will be fine whatever we do. It is us that is in danger of dying off if we continue our ravaging and burning rather than sustainably harvesting the energy and resources we need.

And by the way, where are the political parties that are touting ZERO future emission levels (and a fully sustainable food supply) goal ???!!!!!

They would get my vote.
Comment
9 of 11
October 30, 2009
"The key is turning to wind, water and solar energy to generate electrical power"

The "turning" is the difficult part. Momentum for continued use of fossil fuels is still high at the present time and will probably remain that way for years to come. It is not a matter just of money per se but clarity of thinking on this matter. We cannot continue indefinitely depending so greatly upon fossil fuels because we already know that they are insidiously harmful in producing products that cause pollution to our environment and sickness to us. The resulting gases blanket our Earth trap heat and cause global warming. They are convient but, like fast foods are, in the long run, not good for a steady diet.

The real question is why anyone would want to continue along this path without making an effort to promote an alternative solution.

adrianakau2aol.colm
Comment
10 of 11
October 31, 2009
36758

....ahh....MONEY!! in obscene amounts.

.....Bill
Comment
11 of 11
November 3, 2009
Anonymous (Comment # 6, 8),

Nice retort! While I still prefer critical reviews and comments come from a known source - I will concede to the need for anonymity on occasion.

Jeffrey
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!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

The Switch US Solar Institute North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners Concepts NREC Enphase Energy Comdel Session Solar
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters