Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumWill Solar Save the Planet?
As the IPCC sounds another alarm about climate change, solar energy supporters believe they have a solution.
Mark Hertsgaard October 2, 2013 (In Oct 21 edition of The Nation)
Were actually winning the fight against climate change, but most people dont know it yet.
That may seem a strange statement to make in a week when a landmark scientific report declares that humanity must quit fossil fuels within thirty years or risk catastrophic climate change. But Danny Kennedy, a former top Greenpeace activist who helps run the global solar company Sungevity, says that solar and wind power are growing so fast worldwide that they will displace fossil fuels much sooner than usually thought. He has lots of supporting data, much of which comes from the crazy tree-huggers at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Deutsche Bank and the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Meanwhile, its renewables to the rescue. Kennedy argues that wind and especially solar are growing exponentially as millions around the world leave fossil fuels behind. In Germany, which has pledged to forsake fossil fuels and nuclear, there are now thirty gigawatts of solar on rooftopsthats the equivalent of thirty nuclear power plants, he says. In China, renewables will make up more than half the power capacity added through 2030, when renewables capacity will equal coals, projects Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The solar growth rates in Kennedys homeland, Australia, are even steeper, rising from a mere 900 households in 2006 to 1 million today. There is nothing else like these rates of adopting a new technology, he says. Theyre faster than the adoption rates for cellphones.
Solar is expanding even faster than wind power, thanks to plummeting costs and financing programs that enable people to put solar panels on their roofs with no money down yet lower monthly bills. Solar is growing so fast it is going to overtake everything, said Jon Wellinghoff, chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in August. It is going to be the dominant player. Everybodys roof is out there.
....
Much more at:
http://www.thenation.com/article/176475/will-solar-save-planet#
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Give or take a few millenia
Bennyboy
(10,440 posts)Here in CA it is more expensive to be tied to the electric company now.
Riftaxe
(2,693 posts)When it achieves a mere 40% inefficiency without its god awful manufacturing process, perhaps.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)...but thanks for your thought.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)That's the true measure of worth, after all. Do you have any feeling for when we'll see that happen?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)If you want to form your own answer to your question you might take the most aggressive projections for deploying solar, and then consider the impact of a much more rapid rollout.
I don't do fortune telling - I'm just interested in seeing the possible happen as soon as we can.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Chickenshit perhaps, but safe.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)That would better be applied to the endless reams of garbage you produce when you pretend you are forecasting energy trends.
I know what I don't know.
I know the trends indicate renewables are deploying far more rapidly than anyone hoped even 10 years ago.
I don't know (nor does anyone else) how, in the short and medium term, that is going to play out across the globe in the political and economic spheres.
I know that given present technologies, the resource and economic dynamics dictate that we will inevitably move to renewable sources of power.
I don't know how long fossil fuels and nuclear can fight a rearguard action delaying this transition.
I know that IF WE HAD THE POLITICAL WILL, we could turn the corner within a decade.
I don't know what good thing we can do to create that political will.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Its too threatening to our status-seeking brains. Ergo, it won't happen.
See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/112758118#post5
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Thanks for coughing that hairball up for everyone.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)This is standard stuff in the field of evolutionary psychology (EP). Here's an example reference to start with, and there are tons more:
Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status
The problem is that most people don't like hearing that some human behavioral doors may be closed. We've all grown up thinking that any behavior that seems possible is possible; if we're not doing it, it's because of correctable failures in morality or cognition. It turns out that's not true - it simply looks true because we haven't had the insight into the core drivers of behavior. That is changing now due to the growing scientific acceptance of EP over the past 25 years.
What EP is discovering is that while our individual behavior isn't entirely automatic, group behavior tends toward a mean that's established by our evolutionary history.
I understand why you find that hard to accept - after all your field of advocacy depends on human behavior being malleable. finding out that it's not is very hard to swallow.
FBaggins
(26,727 posts)Psychology (evolutionary or otherwise) isn't really a science.
Science requires:
A clear terminology
Quantifiability
Controlled experimental conditions
Reproducability
Testability/predictability
Psychology essentially fails on all five.
To spare the hurt feelings of those with perfectly valid (if unscientific) focuses... I'll allow a partial acceptance of "soft" science and "hard" science. But however you label them, they really aren't the same thing.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)EP isn't as soft as social psychology. There is confirmation coming in from neuroscience using fMRI and similar technologies. There's still a lot of inference going on, but it explains how humans behave in very consistent and parsimonious ways.
You might also read Baumeister and Masicampo: http://sites.sas.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/prospection/files/945.pdf
I would invite you to investigate and make up your mind for yourself. Don't emulate the Cardinals who refused to look through Galileo's telescope.
NickB79
(19,233 posts)Oh god, that's just too much
You don't do fortune telling, but you're more than willing to post uncountable charts and industry pieces cheerleading that we'll be, or could be, at X-GW of renewables by such-and-such date over and over and over again (lest we forget the Jacobsen debacle for one such example).