We can fix global warming for $45 Trillion,

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Wesley, Jun 7, 2008.

  1. Wesley

    Wesley Well-Known Member

    Apr 12, 2006
    70,964
    542
    113
    Envr Engr/Program Manager
    Omaha
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_bi_ge/japan_iea_climate_change

    $45 trillion needed to combat warming
    By JOSEPH COLEMAN, Associated Press Writer Fri Jun 6, 7:06 AM ET


    TOKYO - The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.
    [SIZE=-2]ADVERTISEMENT[/SIZE]

    The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a "energy revolution" that would greatly reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth.
    "Meeting this target of 50 percent cut in emissions represents a formidable challenge, and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said.
    A U.N.-network of scientists concluded last year that emissions have to be cut by at least half by 2050 to avoid an increase in world temperatures of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees above pre-18th century levels.
    Scientists say temperature increases beyond that could trigger devastating effects, such as widespread loss of species, famines and droughts, and swamping of heavily populated coastal areas by rising oceans.
    Environment ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized countries and Russia backed the 50 percent target in a meeting in Japan last month and called for it to be officially endorsed at the G-8 summit in July.
    The IEA report mapped out two main scenarios: one in which emissions are reduced to 2005 levels by 2050, and a second that would bring them to half of 2005 levels by mid-century.
    The scenario for deeper cuts would require massive investment in energy technology development and deployment, a wide-ranging campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency, and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy.
    Assuming an average 3.3 percent global economic growth over the 2010-2050 period, governments and the private sector would have to make additional investments of $45 trillion in energy, or 1.1 percent of the world's gross domestic product, the report said.
    That would be an investment more than three times the current size of the entire U.S. economy.
    The second scenario also calls for an accelerated ramping up of development of so-called "carbon capture and storage" technology allowing coal-powered power plants to catch emissions and inject them underground.
    The study said that an average of 35 coal-powered plants and 20 gas-powered power plants would have to be fitted with carbon capture and storage equipment each year between 2010 and 2050.
    In addition, the world would have to construct 32 new nuclear power plants each year, and wind-power turbines would have to be increased by 17,000 units annually. Nations would have to achieve an eight-fold reduction in carbon intensity — the amount of carbon needed to produce a unit of energy — in the transport sector.
    Such action would drastically reduce oil demand to 27 percent of 2005 demand. Failure to act would lead to a doubling of energy demand and a 130 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, IEA officials said.
    "This development is clearly not sustainable," said Dolf Gielen, an IEA energy analyst and leader for the project.
    Gielen said most of the $45 trillion forecast investment — about $27 trillion — would be borne by developing countries, which will be responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
    Most of the money would be in the commercialization of energy technologies developed by governments and the private sector.
    "If industry is convinced there will be policy for serious, deep CO2 emission cuts, then these investments will be made by the private sector," Gielen said.
     
  2. brianhos

    brianhos Moderator
    Staff Member Bookie

    Jun 1, 2006
    41,157
    740
    113
    Computer geek
    Trenchtown
    But the environmental wackos will not less us build nuclear anymore, or coal, or gas, or really anything.
     
  3. Wesley

    Wesley Well-Known Member

    Apr 12, 2006
    70,964
    542
    113
    Envr Engr/Program Manager
    Omaha
    They would have nothing to complain about.
     
  4. ffelknirznarf

    ffelknirznarf Well-Known Member

    Apr 23, 2007
    1,048
    31
    48
    Think of the good paying jobs that would be created. I would feel good about it.
     
  5. cytech

    cytech Well-Known Member

    Apr 10, 2006
    6,353
    118
    63
    Hiawatha, Iowa
    While I love the idea of doing what they propose and I think it should be done, I don't think it will actually stop the problem as they claim it will, most likely it would just make it take a little longer for the same result to happen.
     
  6. Seth

    Seth Active Member

    Mar 17, 2006
    917
    26
    28
    Attorney
    NOLA
    Nuclear used to be viewed as a "green" energy source and I firmly believe that in time, it will be again. It's interesting to look back at how perceptions change. For instance, Republicans were the original conservationists. Now, they're so pro-business, the environment has taken a back seat. As for nuclear, the technology has now caught up to the early promises that proponents touted. My hope is that $4+/gallon gas will help speed up the perception change and get us back on track.

    My biggest fear is that by the time the public is convinced that nuclear is THE ONLY WAY to stem and eliminate our thirst for oil, it will be either be cost prohibitive or supply will be so short, it's difficult or impossible to build the plants.

    I got my degree in EE (power systems emphasis) and thought about getting my masters at aTm in nuclear engineering just to work on this issue. I went w/ the law degree instead, but I think that at some point, I might go back and get the Nuc. Eng. degree anyway. Who knows, maybe I'll become a politician and/or lobbyist and help get our energy policy FIXED.
     
  7. Seth

    Seth Active Member

    Mar 17, 2006
    917
    26
    28
    Attorney
    NOLA
    Absolutely. Instead of investing in a $200+ billion war, just think if we'd invested in domestic infrastructure and energy sources. We could've put 1/10th of it just in research and development for new transportation systems and revived Detroit & the Big 3 overnight. What frustrates the hell out of me is that an energy solution is at least 10+ years out, assuming we start NOW. Since our political system only looks at the 4-8 year range, no one is even contemplating a long-term fix. If (or when) i run for office, Kyle (who regularly posts on this board) is gonna be my running mate and this is gonna be our primary platform. :wink:
     
  8. alaskaguy

    alaskaguy Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    10,204
    217
    63
    I could use some global warming about now. Here it is June 6th and it has been snowing here throughout the day.
     
  9. IcSyU

    IcSyU Well-Known Member

    Nov 27, 2007
    24,920
    1,056
    113
    Rochester, MN
    Let me dig out my check book so we can have this here problem fixed...
     
  10. ffelknirznarf

    ffelknirznarf Well-Known Member

    Apr 23, 2007
    1,048
    31
    48
    Actually the US has already invested 526+ billion in the war. The first Iraq war we actually turned a proft because of the "coalition of the willing" paid our costs plus more. This one we are paying for ourselves.

    National Priorities Project | Bringing the Federal Budget Home

    We better start developing this technology now or we are going to end up paying a lot more to the countries which do develop the technology.

    I would rather pay people here to develop the latest technology than pay another country to license it. It is obvious we can't continue to afford to pay the current energy prices.


     
  11. Stormin

    Stormin Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    35,092
    347
    83
    One number stood out to me. Oil demand would only be 27% of 2005 demand for oil. The middle east would almost be irrelevant. Terrorist funding would dry up.
     
  12. Kyle

    Kyle Well-Known Member

    Mar 30, 2006
    4,075
    119
    63
    As Seth mentioned, we've discussed this issue, and I'm convinced that nuclear is the most viable energy source we currently have. Unfortunately, it will take action at the federal level to truly make it a legitimate option, but no one is talking about it. Those that do are usually in opposition to any action because of the strong "not in my back yard" sentiments surrounding it.

    The waste created by current plants can actually be reprocessed and used again, creating much less waste, with a significantly shorter half-life than standard waste. It is also a national security risk because of the clear potential for dirty bombs if terrorists get a hold of it. The federal government therefore needs to take the initiative of creating a national disposal protocol, whereby it could take responsibility for securely transporting the waste to a secure site where it could be reprocessed, used again, and then securely stored. The federal government is the only entity in the country that would have the ability to make this happen. The Yucca Mountain site appears to be among the most promising sites, but unfortunately absolutely nothing is going to occur there while Harry Reid is in charge of the senate.

    As you can probably tell, this is one area where I wholeheartedly disagree with most democrats, although I haven't heard such plans out of the republicans either. The energy policy of this county is dictated way too much by special interests (namely oil and ethanol) rather than sound reason.
     
  13. herbicide

    herbicide Well-Known Member

    Mar 23, 2006
    8,719
    223
    63
    Ankeny, IA
    I agree 100%, and the sad part about it is energy policy is far from the only policy that is controlled by special interest groups. This is not a republican or democrat issue, both their hands are dirty.
     
  14. everyyard

    everyyard Well-Known Member

    Nov 24, 2006
    6,484
    376
    83
    Male
    Yes, but the rednecks would rather use that money to fight for oil so it will never happen.
     
  15. CycloneErik

    CycloneErik Well-Known Member

    Jan 31, 2008
    68,430
    2,240
    113
    Grad Student
    Jamerica
    Think of the # of jobs that the outcry over this thing creates. Could it be that these folks have found themselves a cash cow?
     
  16. balken

    balken Well-Known Member

    Apr 14, 2006
    2,751
    324
    83
    I'll bet Ross Jardine could trade our way to $45 trillion. We just need to get him about $10 billion of seed money...
     
  17. ffelknirznarf

    ffelknirznarf Well-Known Member

    Apr 23, 2007
    1,048
    31
    48
    I think it is much more likely that the oil/coal interests are trying to protect their cash cow.

     
  18. balken

    balken Well-Known Member

    Apr 14, 2006
    2,751
    324
    83
    If this "cash cow" is worth $45 million, problem solved. If there is any cash left over, free Jagermeister shots for everyone.
     
  19. Seth

    Seth Active Member

    Mar 17, 2006
    917
    26
    28
    Attorney
    NOLA
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Kyle again." <3 ya anyway bud.
     
  20. jeff0514

    jeff0514 Member

    Apr 12, 2006
    562
    10
    18
    Yep this is such a hoax. Let's start drilling in Alaska and off-shore and bring this gas price down a little. Other more sustainable forms of energy aren't going to develop overnight.
     

Share This Page