$36 Trillion for Clean Energy, IEA reports.

[jc456]

IEA calls for 36 trillion in clean energy funds - Jun. 12 2012

IEA calls for $36 trillion more in clean energy investments

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The International Energy Agency said the world's clean energyinvestments are sorely lacking and this week called for an additional $36 trillion of funding by 2050.

In a sharply-worded introduction to a 700-page report, IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said governments and private industry need to do far more if the world is to hold global warming to what most scientists say is an acceptable level.


"Our ongoing failure to realize the full potential of clean energy technology is alarming," said van der Hoeven. "Under current policies, both energy demand and emissions are likely to double by 2050."

The IEA consists of mostly industrialized nations and was set up in the early 1970s to counterbalance OPEC. It conducts energy market research and helps coordinate releases from strategic oil stockpiles.

Thought most scientists were saying we already passed the tipping point where we coulda prevented our own demise from climate change?

No, that is not what is being said by the climate scientists at all. What they are saying is that we have passed the point where we will have to deal with the effects of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere. How severe will those effects be? We don't know, but we are already seeing effects in the fires in our forests and many other effects, also.

Effects they can't prove! LOL rocks. GHG's with no validation.

 

[Judicial review]

California is a desert.

 

[whitehall]

The Hussein administration tried to support solar energy corporations but they failed. Wind turbines seem to be a migratory bird killing joke. So what would the 36 trillion confiscated taxpayer dollars accomplish?

 

[bripat9643]

IEA calls for 36 trillion in clean energy funds - Jun. 12 2012

IEA calls for $36 trillion more in clean energy investments

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The International Energy Agency said the world's clean energyinvestments are sorely lacking and this week called for an additional $36 trillion of funding by 2050.

In a sharply-worded introduction to a 700-page report, IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said governments and private industry need to do far more if the world is to hold global warming to what most scientists say is an acceptable level.


"Our ongoing failure to realize the full potential of clean energy technology is alarming," said van der Hoeven. "Under current policies, both energy demand and emissions are likely to double by 2050."

The IEA consists of mostly industrialized nations and was set up in the early 1970s to counterbalance OPEC. It conducts energy market research and helps coordinate releases from strategic oil stockpiles.

Thought most scientists were saying we already passed the tipping point where we coulda prevented our own demise from climate change?

No, that is not what is being said by the climate scientists at all. What they are saying is that we have passed the point where we will have to deal with the effects of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere. How severe will those effects be? We don't know, but we are already seeing effects in the fires in our forests and many other effects, also.

 

[Wuwei]

Some folks are today, questioning, forgetting, the amount of money that the Wind and Solar power industry is demanding so I thought a bump would remind folks.

Here is a chart from From Hall and Day (2009) that addresses that.

What that chart is saying is that if you use domestic oil or nuclear power, for example, to build windmills, you would gain more energy output at a lower cost for energy, than just burning the oil or uranium.

 

[elektra]

Some folks are today, questioning, forgetting, the amount of money that the Wind and Solar power industry is demanding so I thought a bump would remind folks.

Here is a chart from From Hall and Day (2009) that addresses that.

What that chart is saying is that if you use domestic oil or nuclear power, for example, to build windmills, you would gain more energy output at a lower cost for energy, than just burning the oil or uranium.

???? Your chart says literally,

"The EROI of most "green" energy sources, such as photovoltaics, is presently low."

Energy return is low! Per investment! You do not understand what that means. Little energy for big investment!

Further to highlight you lack of understanding, you do not build Wind Turbines or Solar with Nuclear Energy, you need Coke, from coal.

And how about a, LINK!

 

[bripat9643]

Some folks are today, questioning, forgetting, the amount of money that the Wind and Solar power industry is demanding so I thought a bump would remind folks.

Here is a chart from From Hall and Day (2009) that addresses that.

What that chart is saying is that if you use domestic oil or nuclear power, for example, to build windmills, you would gain more energy output at a lower cost for energy, than just burning the oil or uranium.

???? Your chart says literally,

"The EROI of most "green" energy sources, such as photovoltaics, is presently low."

Energy return is low! Per investment! You do not understand what that means. Little energy for big investment!

Further to highlight you lack of understanding, you do not build Wind Turbines or Solar with Nuclear Energy, you need Coke, from coal.

And how about a, LINK!

Actually, they can be made from aluminium, but that requires massive amounts of electrical power.

 

[elektra]

Actually, they can be made from aluminium, but that requires massive amounts of electrical power.

The towers are always steel, which requires coke to create the heat needed in smelting. The rebar in the base is also dependent on Coke. Aluminium, another process that is dependent on Coke. Coke coming from Coal.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, they can be made from aluminium, but that requires massive amounts of electrical power.

The towers are always steel, which requires coke to create the heat needed in smelting. The rebar in the base is also dependent on Coke. Aluminium, another process that is dependent on Coke. Coke coming from Coal.

No, coke isn't used in the process to make aluminum.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Actually, they can be made from aluminium, but that requires massive amounts of electrical power.

The towers are always steel, which requires coke to create the heat needed in smelting. The rebar in the base is also dependent on Coke. Aluminium, another process that is dependent on Coke. Coke coming from Coal.

No, coke isn't used in the process to make aluminum.

But it is used in creating the kilns, electrodes, and base salts of the brine water mix... MAG Corp had massive magnesium vats in SLC, Ut on the Great Salt Lake... Stank like hell and it is massively energy intensive..

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, they can be made from aluminium, but that requires massive amounts of electrical power.

The towers are always steel, which requires coke to create the heat needed in smelting. The rebar in the base is also dependent on Coke. Aluminium, another process that is dependent on Coke. Coke coming from Coal.

No, coke isn't used in the process to make aluminum.

But it is used in creating the kilns, electrodes, and base salts of the brine water mix... MAG Corp had massive magnesium vats in SLC, Ut on the Great Salt Lake... Stank like hell and it is massively energy intensive..

The buildings are also made with plenty of steel. As is most of the equipment, trucks, loaders, etc.

 

[Wuwei]

???? Your chart says literally,

"The EROI of most "green" energy sources, such as photovoltaics, is presently low."

Energy return is low! Per investment! You do not understand what that means. Little energy for big investment!

Further to highlight you lack of understanding, you do not build Wind Turbines or Solar with Nuclear Energy, you need Coke, from coal.

And how about a, LINK!

That's right the energy return of wind is low. "Low" is a relative term. Look at the chart again. Domestic oil is even lower. Nuclear, photovoltaics, tar sand oil are also lower in energy return. You need electricity to run the machinery to build the windmill. Any source of electricity will do. Nuclear is just an example. As far as coal, it's one of the cheapest elemental resources. What is your problem with it?

As far as the source of the chart, I gave it as Hall and Day (2009). Here is a table with more recent data by Hall and others.
EROI of different fuels and the implications for society

 

[Wuwei]

The towers are always steel, which requires coke to create the heat needed in smelting. The rebar in the base is also dependent on Coke. Aluminium, another process that is dependent on Coke. Coke coming from Coal.

You are still guessing about technology. You don't need coke for aluminium. Yes, steel is a high energy cost, but the coal is cheap. There are many other materials that are extremely expensive such as the generator magnets made of a rare earth, niobium.

All of those costs are included in the EROEI of a windmill. You don't need to keep guessing.

 

[Kosh]

$ 36 trillion dollars, I wonder if Congress can be bi-partisan, compromise, and work together to become filthy rich.

They already do that, just look at all the failed energy companies under Obama that the (D)'s profited from..

It is just another way to redistribute wealth on a global scale..

Proving once again that AGW is bunk!

 

[elektra]

The towers are always steel, which requires coke to create the heat needed in smelting. The rebar in the base is also dependent on Coke. Aluminium, another process that is dependent on Coke. Coke coming from Coal.

You are still guessing about technology. You don't need coke for aluminium. Yes, steel is a high energy cost, but the coal is cheap. There are many other materials that are extremely expensive such as the generator magnets made of a rare earth, niobium.

All of those costs are included in the EROEI of a windmill. You don't need to keep guessing.

I am partially wrong, we do need Coke to produce Aluminium, but it is Petroleum Coke, I did not realize there are two types of Coke. The anodes used to smelt alumina are made of Petroleum Coke. You simply can not make wind turbines without Coke, from Coal and Coke from Petroleum.

 

[elektra]

The towers are always steel, which requires coke to create the heat needed in smelting. The rebar in the base is also dependent on Coke. Aluminium, another process that is dependent on Coke. Coke coming from Coal.

You are still guessing about technology. You don't need coke for aluminium. Yes, steel is a high energy cost, but the coal is cheap. There are many other materials that are extremely expensive such as the generator magnets made of a rare earth, niobium.

All of those costs are included in the EROEI of a windmill. You don't need to keep guessing.

Well, I am guessing, but guessing based on my experience working with metals. Now I have a question, there is a Carbon Liner used in alumina smelting. Is that Carbon Liner made of carbon from Coal or Coke, or is that carbon liner a petroleum product?

It takes a lot of searching to figure out the industrial processes. It goes beyond simply looking at a wikipedia page. Care to take a shot at this or are you simply trolling?

As I have recently stated, I was wrong about Coke from Coal, Coke from petroleum is used as the anode in alumina smelting. Now I have discovered something called the Carbon Liner? Where does that Carbon come from?

 

[elektra]

The towers are always steel, which requires coke to create the heat needed in smelting. The rebar in the base is also dependent on Coke. Aluminium, another process that is dependent on Coke. Coke coming from Coal.

You are still guessing about technology. You don't need coke for aluminium. Yes, steel is a high energy cost, but the coal is cheap. There are many other materials that are extremely expensive such as the generator magnets made of a rare earth, niobium.

All of those costs are included in the EROEI of a windmill. You don't need to keep guessing.

Damn, I should never question if I am right, even when I am guessing, I am right. Coke from Coal is needed to make aluminium. Carbon lines are made from coal!

Patent US4113831 - Recovery of sodium fluoride and other chemicals from spent carbon liners

Cathode pots of electrolytic furnaces used in the production of aluminum are lined with side carbon and bottom carbon compositions which are electrically conductive. The bottom carbon is generally of graded anthracite coal and coke bonded together with pitch

Anthracite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anthracite is a hard, compact variety of coal that has a submetallic luster. It has the highest carbon content, the fewest impurities, and the highest calorific content of all types of coal except for graphite.

 

[skookerasbil]

Most of this will be paid by investors running into solar energy and out of coal!!! Solar is now the second most installed source of energy in this country as of last year.

The big dogs at the top of the private energy sector are going to invest trillions!

Holy fuck........these progressives go through life without ever thinking about "costs". Its fascinating. This asshole is talking about "trillions" of $$ as if you get it out of a Cracker Jacks package. Ever notice that about progressives?


Why do you think there are 40 million bumper stickers coining progressives as mental cases?


How about zero chance of companies investing 36 trillion in renewables asshole.........far better chance of me giving Jennifer Lawrence a poke tonight!!

Not a single renewable energy projection decades forward shows renewables generating anything more than 7%-10% of our energy.......do the math.....out to 2050. This stuff is fantasy play by mental cases.

 

[skookerasbil]

New York Times April 2016........."renewable energy stumbling and bumbling towards the future"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/b...e-energy-stumbles-toward-the-future.html?_r=0






[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/solarfail.png.html][/URL]





[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Laughing%20gif.gif.html][/URL]

 

[Wuwei]

The towers are always steel, which requires coke to create the heat needed in smelting. The rebar in the base is also dependent on Coke. Aluminium, another process that is dependent on Coke. Coke coming from Coal.

You are still guessing about technology. You don't need coke for aluminium. Yes, steel is a high energy cost, but the coal is cheap. There are many other materials that are extremely expensive such as the generator magnets made of a rare earth, niobium.

All of those costs are included in the EROEI of a windmill. You don't need to keep guessing.

Damn, I should never question if I am right, even when I am guessing, I am right. Coke from Coal is needed to make aluminium. Carbon lines are made from coal!

Patent US4113831 - Recovery of sodium fluoride and other chemicals from spent carbon liners

Cathode pots of electrolytic furnaces used in the production of aluminum are lined with side carbon and bottom carbon compositions which are electrically conductive. The bottom carbon is generally of graded anthracite coal and coke bonded together with pitch

Anthracite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anthracite is a hard, compact variety of coal that has a submetallic luster. It has the highest carbon content, the fewest impurities, and the highest calorific content of all types of coal except for graphite.

I imagine any coal used in making a pot is a small cost of the entire windmill life cycle. I'm not as concerned with what the materials are as I am about the total cost from manufacture, construction, to maintenance. The chart I showed does cover all costs and favorably compares it with oil and photovoltaics.