Renewable energy will not solve climate change

[kristopher]

Note this is from ABC Australia.

Renewable energy will not solve climate change
Renewable energy and energy efficiency are not the solutions to climate change. Instead we need to more closely examine carbon capture and storage.

DAVID HONE ABC Environment 10 MAR 2014

WHETHER AT UNITED NATIONS climate change summits or one of the many 'green growth' forums, renewables and energy efficiency are consistently regarded as the solution to global warming. Even the coal industry adopted the efficiency line in its Warsaw Communiqué (pdf), released ahead of the UN's climate change summit last November.

But a closer look at the global energy system, together with a more refined understanding of the emissions challenge, reveals that fossil fuels will likely remain dominant throughout this century — meaning that carbon capture and storage (CCS) may well be the critical technology for mitigating climate change.

<snip>

"Energy efficiency may drive, not limit, the increase in emissions"

http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2014/03/10/3959171.htm

I posted this because it incorporates two themes that are being pushed right now:
1) Renewable energy isn't adequate to serve society's energy needs and
2) "Energy efficiency may drive, not limit, the increase in emissions".

It also clearly shows the "environmental" origins of these themes.
"David Hone is Chief Climate Change Adviser at Royal Dutch Shell."

Note that the line about energy efficiency driving emissions is in quotes and comes shortly after an unrelated remark about the latest IPCC report. The quote is not traceable to any source but it's placement and the font styling is designed to create the false impression that it comes from the IPCC report.

So when you hear this proven false claim about energy efficiency driving consumption, please bear in mind that growth in energy consumption is a central element of the business model that supports the existence of coal/nuclear power generation.

[GliderGuider]

1. Jevons, rebound and backfire

This is a wider, global-economy look at the principle, by Tim Garrett of the University of Utah.

http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Economics/Jevons_Paradox.html

Still, many economists argue for the existence of a “rebound effect”, whereby increasing energy productivity spurs fractionally greater emissions further down the road. One form is the “direct” rebound effect. People may choose to drive more often if a vehicle is fuel efficient, because driving is useful or pleasurable and now more affordable. There are also “indirect rebound effects”, which extend the response to differing economic sectors. Less money spent on fuel for efficient vehicles might enable more money to be spent on fuel for home heating.

A few studies even point to an extreme form of rebound termed “backfire”: gains in energy efficiency lead ultimately to more rather than less energy consumption. First discussion of the principle came from William Stanley Jevons in 1865. Jevons was emphatic that energy efficient steam engines had accelerated Britain’s consumption of coal. The cost of steam-powered coal extraction became cheaper and, because coal was very useful, more attractive.

However, calculation of the total magnitude of rebound or backfire has proved both contentious and elusive. A major reason is that any given efficiency improvement has knock-on effects that eventually propagate through the entire global economy. Calculating the ultimate impact is daunting if not impossible.

For example, suppose that efficient vehicles enable a savings in transportation costs that allows for more money to be then spent on household heating. By raising home comfort, workers sleep better. They become more productive where they are employed. With higher profits, their employers reward the workers with raises. In turn, the workers spend the money on goods produced overseas with coal-generated electricity.

So, in this fashion, the ramifications of any given efficiency action might multiply indefinitely, spreading at a variety of rates throughout the global economy. Barring global analysis of rebound effects over long time scales, conclusions may be quantitative but uncertain, and dependent on the time and spatial scales considered.

The global economy depends on continuously increasing efficiency of both material and energy resource usage for part of its growth rate.

[kristopher]

2. Just like clockwork

The manure spreaders are here to defend the horse hockey.

The rebound effect has been analyzed to death and it is a few percent at most. That analysis is not accepted as legitimate by anyone except the likes of the author of the OP.

[GliderGuider]

3. So, increasing efficiency does NOT result in faster economic growth? nt

[kristopher]

4. This sounds similar, doesn't it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112766626#post12

Whether they come at it pushing coal or nuclear, they use the same messaging.