IPCC releases 1000 page "Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation"

[bananas]

and is immediately attacked.
Joe Romm points out: "the “source” of this attack on the IPCC is one of the most thoroughly debunked and discredited disinformers Steven McIntyre"
Here are two articles, the first from Greenpeace, the second by Joe Romm.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/climate/the-ipccs-renewables-report-finds-a-clean-ene/blog/35322

The IPCC’s renewables report finds a clean energy future is possible – so why be so upset?
Blogpost by Sven Teske - June 16, 2011 at 17:56

This week, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made public the full text of its renewables report, which details a revolutionary vision for reducing Greenhouse emissions by using renewables to replace fossil fuels, and phasing out nuclear power along the way.

Before any ink even had a chance to dry, however, the report was already under attack from some desperate commentators who appear to have a strange, fundamental disbelief in the possibility of a clean energy future.

According to the IPCC’s ‘Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation’ (SRREN), by harnessing just 2.5% of viable renewable energy sources, with currently available technologies, its possible to provide up to 80% of the world’s energy demand by 2050. In order to achieve that, the study considers that demand for energy will be reduced by increased efficiency measures, which are both thermodynamically possible as well the best basis for policy: efficiency, after all is the cleanest and cheapest way of ‘generating’ energy. This is good news, but to reap the benefits of this vision, it’s now up to governments to take the necessary action to make it happen.

I am happy to say that not only was I one of the contributors who worked together to create the 1000 page IPCC report, but the document also contains an in-depth study of Greenpeace’s Energy evolution, which was chosen as one of the lead scenarios.

It’s this inclusion of Greenpeace opinion that seems to have outraged writer Mark Lynas, who has posted a blog based on claims by Steve McIntyre, who Lynas describes as “a thorn in the side of the IPCC and climate science generally for a long time”. Lynas accuses Greenpeace of starting with “some conclusions and then set about justifying them” – a trap he seems to have fallen into himself, by assuming that anything that comes from a non-governmental organisation (NGO) must be, by default, wrong, even if its findings have been recognised up by the German Space Agency and the hundreds of experts that worked on the development of the IPCC report.

<snip>

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/16/246665/ipcc-renewables-2/

IPCC Criticized for Making an Accurate Statement: Renewables Could Meet Over 75% of Global Energy Needs in 2050
By Joe Romm on Jun 16, 2011 at 12:56 pm

Last month, Climate Progress reported “IPCC special report finds renewables could meet over three quarters (75%) of global energy needs in 2050.”

This conclusion is hardly news. Indeed it is rather obvious. Nor did the IPCC suggest it would be easy or cheap — contrary to what bloggers like Andy Revkin first claimed in a rush to pile on. Indeed the IPCC said it would cost more than $10 trillion in investment over the next two decades alone and require many major policies changes. Duh.

Stanford University’s Mark Jacobsen notes in an email to me today that there is an abundance of support for even stronger statements in the peer-reviewed literature:

Based on an independent analysis by Dr. Mark Delucchi (from U.C. Davis) and myself, published in several papers between 2009 and 2011, prior to the IPCC report we believe that a 100 percent conversion to clean, renewable electric power sources (wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal, and wave power) and electric vehicles and hydrogen for transportation, heating and cooling, and high temperature processes, is technically feasible and economical.

So why have Andy Revkin and Mark Lynas used their blogs to attack the IPCC? Because the source of the obvious conclusion was apparently unacceptable to them — Greenpeace.

As an ironic aside, the “source” of this attack on the IPCC is one of the most thoroughly debunked and discredited disinformers Steven McIntyre. So I’m wondering whether we can now ignore Revkin and Lynas because they have used an infinitely less credible source than Greenpeace (see, for instance, here).

<snip>

[kristopher]

1. "a strange, fundamental disbelief in the possibility of a clean energy future"

That's a good way to put it. It boggles the mind what lengths of rationalization such critics go to in order to reconcile their criticisms of the science supporting renewable energy with their supposed dedication to both science and the environment.


I read Lynas' piece on the Italian referendum the other day and it was in the same vein. There was one particular commenter that stood out taking Lynas to task in a remarkably thorough manner, however. If you read it, note vesuvianvan.


"...desperate commentators who appear to have a strange, fundamental disbelief in the possibility of a clean energy future."

[bananas]

2. Wow - lots of good informed comments there!

Found the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jun/15/italy-nuclear-referendum?commentpage=all#start-of-comments

The commenter you refer to was probably VenusianVan,
he provided a lot of links to back up his statements.

There are good comments by others as well, this one caught my eye:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jun/15/italy-nuclear-referendum?commentpage=all#comment-11191312

AfterOil

16 June 2011 9:14AM

EdF and Areva's annual reports show the uneconomic nature of nuclear power in stark detail.

EdF has had to sell prime assets to reduce its debt, while reducing its revenue by Eur 5 billion. Areva is struggling to complete the first EPR in Finland, while it is being sued by TVO the client for loss of revenue and countersueing for delays in approving designs. Similar problems in China will bring it to ruin.

The Fukushima four are between 37 and 38 years old, but by 2018, 48 of EdF's 58 reactors will be more than 30 years old of which 4 will be 40 and due for closure. The revenue from electricity sales is insufficient to cover its daily operating costs, let alone finance an upgrading, replacement, or the decommissioning or waste management. From July it has to sell 25% of its electricity at a lower price. Before the asset sales it was doubling its debt every 2 years, so without their revenue the financial plight will worsen.

There is no spare cash for EdF to build in the UK, so without a massive subsidy there will be no new build.

German RWE and E.On are pleading poverty without their NPPs and are unlikely to be allowed to fund their new build JV in the UK.

It was privatisation that heralded the end of new build in the UK, well before Fukushima executed the coup de grace..

But Lynas has overstated the contribution nuclear can make to emission reduction. Nuclear provides only 5.5% of the world's primary energy, which as electricity is a mere 2% of useful electrical energy. Its contribution to global warming alleviation is miniscule.

I think we can relax a little - there will be no new build in the UK - it cannot be financed by the private sector with the financial track record of its leading industry - and the government coffers are bare.

[GliderGuider]

4. There's a very good observation in the comment you excerpted.

I think we can relax a little - there will be no new build in the UK - it cannot be financed by the private sector with the financial track record of its leading industry - and the government coffers are bare.

IMO this is an accurate assessment of the situation, not just in the UK but for many other nuclear ex-aspirants around the world. With governments short on money, and outraged public opinion turning solidly against a nuclear industry whose reputation is in tatters, the probability of new builds is getting smaller by the second. This is the perfect moment for the renewables industry to capitalize on the opportunity that has appeared.

[GliderGuider]

3. Interesting article from Romm. I was interested by his comment at the end.

It is “stretching credibility” to think that the world will stabilize at 450 ppm, let alone 350 ppm — in practice. But the point of the report is not to look at what it politically possible today.

Romm is certainly being realistic about the art of the possible. I agree with him that when economics, logistics and politics are all taken into account we remain a long way from decarbonizing our civilization.
But Romm is right that Lynas' objections to the report are specious and puerile.

[joshcryer]

6. Heh, at least they're finally accepting that abatement isn't happening, no how, no way.

[Howzit]

5. The swine that caused the stink

http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/new-ipcc-error-renewables-report-conclusion-was-dictated-by-greenpeace/

http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/questions-the-ipcc-must-now-urgently-answer/


You can post a comment to set Lynas straight at the bottom of the pages.