Renewable Energy Could Power The World By 2050

| Create!

Above Photo: Power to heat, to cool, to drive the world’s industries: Renewables can supply it all. Image: By Jason Blackeye on Unsplash

While the consensus that the world could have a clean energy economy by 2050 is good news, it is not fast enough. The technology already exists to put in place a Green House Gas free energy economy. The political will is what is lacking. Our job is to change that political reality and demand the transition to a clean, sustainable energy economy by 2030. It can be done. KZ

LONDON, 19 February, 2020 − Virtually all the world’s demand for electricity to run transport and to heat and cool homes and offices, as well as to provide the power demanded by industry, could be met by renewable energy by mid-century.

This is the consensus of 47 peer-reviewed research papers from 13 independent groups with a total of 91 authors that have been brought together by Stanford University in California.

Some of the papers take a broad sweep across the world, adding together the potential for each technology to see if individual countries or whole regions could survive on renewables.

Special examinations of small island states, sub-Saharan Africa and individual countries like Germany look to see what are the barriers to progress and how they could be removed.

In every case the findings are that the technology exists to achieve 100% renewable power if the political will to achieve it can be mustered.

“It seems that every part of the world can now find a system that edges fossil fuels out in costs”

The collection of papers is a powerful rebuff to those who say that renewables are not reliable or cannot be expanded fast enough to take over from fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Once proper energy efficiency measures are in place, a combination of wind, solar and water power, with various forms of storage capacity, can add up to 100% of energy needs in every part of the planet.

Stanford puts one of its own papers at the top of the list. It studies the impacts of the Green New Deal proposals on grid stability, costs, jobs, health and climate in 143 countries.

With the world already approaching 1.5°C of heating, it says, seven million people killed by air pollution annually, and limited fossil fuel resources potentially sparking conflict, Stanford’s researchers wanted to compare business-as-usual with a 100% transition to wind-water-solar energy, efficiency and storage by 2050 – with at least 80% by 2030.

By grouping the countries of the world together into 24 regions co-operating on grid stability and storage solutions, supply could match demand by 2050-2052 with 100% reliance on renewables. The amount of energy used overall would be reduced by 57.1%, costs would fall by a similar amount, and 28.6 million more long-term full-time jobs would be created than under business-as-usual.

Clean air bonus

The remarkable consensus among researchers is perhaps surprising, since climate and weather conditions differ so much in different latitudes. It seems though that as the cost of renewables, particularly wind and solar, has tumbled, and energy storage solutions multiplied, every part of the world can now find a system that edges fossil fuels out in costs.

That, plus the benefit of clean air, particularly in Asian countries like India and China, makes renewables far more beneficial on any cost-benefit analysis.

The appearance of so many papers mirrors the consensus that climate scientists have managed to achieve in warning the world’s political leaders that time is running out for them to act to keep the temperature below dangerous levels.

Since in total the solutions offered cover countries producing more than 97% of the world’s greenhouse gases, they provide a blueprint for the next round of UN climate talks, to be held in Glasgow in November. At COP-26, as the conference is called, politicians will be asked to make new commitments to avoid dangerous climate change.

This Stanford file shows them that all they need is political will for them to be able to achieve climate stability. − Climate News Network

  • You promote neocolonialism for money:

    https : / / www . theverge . com / 2019/2/15/18226210/energy-renewables-materials-mining-environment-neodymium-copper-lithium-cobalt

  • voza0db

    These type of articles are not “Popular Resistance” material!

    First a modern degenerate slave like me can’t read any of those papers (and some are just simple articles! I can also write an article for FREE without Government or Private Profit interests saying that same BS!), which is always a good sign that this is just mambo jambo to feed to the lower brain capabilities of the average hillbilly!

    Second, from those abstracts one CANNOT CONCLUDE the given hypothesis “Renewable Energy Could Power The World By 2050“, simply because, like already stated, one can’t read the entire study without spending a little fortune (to read probably crap!), and because a few of them are old and based on energy consumption from the early 2000’s and also because other are just for a single country with specific characteristics.

    Third… Since we’re talking about this delusion I’ve UPDATED my math!

    Here’s the 22 Feb 2020 result!

    Start date:October 1, 2019

    In order to reach the goals of a CARBON NEUTRAL (doesn’t mean carbon free!) CIVILIZATION by 2050, we are today (February 22, 2020) already behind with:

    216 carbon neutral nuclear power stations.

    OR,

    for those greeners that don’t like nuclear reactors to boil water to generate electricity…

    43,200 square miles of brand new carbon neutral WIND FARMS

    In order to have a better visualization of what this area means do enjoy the sight!
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f416fb8cc6b2f8011d59cf89fd86bec9a2b2cb1db2b02204bede0306bb059590.jpg

    I still don’t know how WE can build nuclear or wind (or solar or water) with zero carbon emissions so one needs to increase the additional decommission of fossil fuel generation.

    So… even though in pay-per-read garbage it all sounds great, in REALITY we aren’t able to achieve such task, and the reason is in front of us all.

  • Pat moore

    Did they consider we might not have that much time?

  • StevenStarr

    Thanks for posting, very informative.

  • voza0db

    It seems many billions of uman animals aren’t really concerned about time!

  • voza0db

    Gaza down votes! What a surprise…

  • chetdude

    ESPECIALLY if a global effort toward Birth Control as a Sacrament begins lowering our population to one that our Planet can sustain: by 2050, about 4 billion…

  • Great article! ✨👍

    If 🦅 Sanders becomes POTUS, this desperately needed transition to 🌞 🎍 100% Renewable Energy plan has legs. Otherwise, we are ALL profit over people and planet ☠️ TOAST. 🥵

  • mwildfire

    I don’t believe birth control could get us to 4 billion by 2050, not without premature deaths. Even if no one had more than one child starting today, I think it would take longer than that.

  • mwildfire

    I downvote too, between your excessive annoying use of exclamation marks and your offensive use of the word “hillbilly.”

  • voza0db

    Excessive use of these!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Please… Try to “exclamation” some more!

    Reality is that most americans are hillbillies! (another one of those JUST FOR YOU! Ops and another one…)

  • voza0db

    But since you aren’t aware of the reason why I use these lovely marks !

    Free school:
    Exclamation marks were originally called the “note of admiration.” They are still, to this day, used to express excitement. They are also used to express surprise, astonishment, or any other such strong emotion.

    For ME, writing about the United States of Terrorism, causes all of that, and most of the topics discussed here in PR are cause for admiration, surprise and astonishment. And all of that makes me feel strong emotions! See…

  • chetdude

    Don’t worry, the gigatons of GHG that’s already been spewed into the air for short-term corporate profits and “growth” over the last 100 years will help cause premature deaths… (semi – /s)…