[Graeme]

635 GW Possible with U.S. Political Shift

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow much power can renewable energy generate in the U.S. if the appropriate mix of policies and market-based incentives are implemented? According to a joint report coordinated by the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE), the answer is 635 gigawatts (GW) by 2025.

Released yesterday, the 2007 Outlook on Renewable Energy in America projects that wind power could account for 248 GW; solar energy 164 GW; hydro, ocean and tidal energy 23 GW; geothermal energy 100 GW; and biomass and biofuels 100 GW.

But unless steps are taken to change the perceptions of U.S. politicians and policymakers, the report concludes that coordinated, sustained policies that expand renewable energy markets, promote and deploy new technology, and encourage renewable energy use in critical market sectors can't happen.

[Cobra_Strike]

Once again, its a real shame all that money was sunk into the pit that is Iraq. We could have had a bundle of clean power if the money was better spent.

[Newsseeker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cobra_Strike', 'O')nce again, its a real shame all that money was sunk into the pit that is Iraq. We could have had a bundle of clean power if the money was better spent.

[aahala]

I guess any claim about the future that is not self-contradictory
or is not a violation of a physical law is possible, but it's reports
like this that are so extreme as to give renewables a bad name.

Look at these numbers: 248 GWH from wind in another 18 years.
That's 100 times what we have built the last 18 years. The 164
from solar(I presume cells) is more than 400 times the power added last year for the entire world!

Stated in another way, the report claims we could go from .6%
of grid power from wind to more than 50% of the present
production. What would be the annualized rate of growth on
that? Solar is even worse, much worse. In 2006 solar wasn't
.6% of the grid, but like 2% of wind!!!

[Newsseeker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('aahala', 'I') guess any claim about the future that is not self-contradictory
or is not a violation of a physical law is possible, but it's reports
like this that are so extreme as to give renewables a bad name.

Look at these numbers: 248 GWH from wind in another 18 years.
That's 100 times what we have built the last 18 years. The 164
from solar(I presume cells) is more than 400 times the power added last year for the entire world!

Stated in another way, the report claims we could go from .6%
of grid power from wind to more than 50% of the present
production. What would be the annualized rate of growth on
that? Solar is even worse, much worse. In 2006 solar wasn't
.6% of the grid, but like 2% of wind!!!

[Ludi]

I agree with aahala. These kinds of claims not apparently based on reality, but on some mythical "could" - I find them extremely annoying and not helpful.

[Valdemar]

It's possible in the same way it's possible for me to become a multi-billionaire by extracting gold from seawater. In other words, total wishful thinking assuming little niggles like reality don't impede the theoretical limit to which we can manufacture solar and wind if we had no obstacles like lobbyists, cost and myopic sight.

[Andy]

The report is very aggressive but certainly not impossible if we decided to focus on renewables primarily. That is the gist of what they are saying. Certainly in the U.S, the issue is not lack of applicable resource with the desert southwest, the great plains, the northeast offshore etc. Take wind for example, let's assume a 20% or so growth rate per year (not impossible but extremely unlikely), that is 26 times current installed capacity or about 280,000 MW installed. That is the kind of lofty thinking we need regarding the goals to be set for renewables along with aggressive conservation and efficiency.

[matt21811]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cobra_Strike', 'O')nce again, its a real shame all that money was sunk into the pit that is Iraq. We could have had a bundle of clean power if the money was better spent.

[Starvid]

Electricity aint the problem, remember?

We could build 635 GW of nuclear power just like that, but that won't help much.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('matt21811', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cobra_Strike', 'O')nce again, its a real shame all that money was sunk into the pit that is Iraq. We could have had a bundle of clean power if the money was better spent.

[matt21811]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'E')lectricity aint the problem, remember?

We could build 635 GW of nuclear power just like that, but that won't help much.

[Valdemar]

This also assumes the US even has something of an economy in the next few years. With the housing boom, the horrific loss of value in the dollar and Iraq, they couldn't have picked a better time to start saying "Hey, if we pump a few trillion into renewables, we'll be okay". The US can ill afford to do such massive projects today as it is. And yet, they can ill afford to not do such projects.

I'd suggest cutting money from somewhere else in the US budget, but frankly I'd sooner see the US embracing socialism than cut down on, say, military spending.

[matt21811]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Valdemar', 'I')'d sooner see the US embracing socialism than cut down on, say, military spending.

[Valdemar]

And give up the American Empire that's doing so well? I think not, you anti-American person.

[matt21811]

Sorry, I got caught out because the first paragraph of your post was, presumably, not sarcastic.

[Valdemar]

The opening was serious, yes. The bit about socialism, well, consider how likely that is when stacked next to the US cutting back on energy use. They seem pretty comparable.

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('matt21811', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'E')lectricity aint the problem, remember?

We could build 635 GW of nuclear power just like that, but that won't help much.

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('aahala', 'I') guess any claim about the future that is not self-contradictory
or is not a violation of a physical law is possible, but it's reports
like this that are so extreme as to give renewables a bad name.

Look at these numbers: 248 GWH from wind in another 18 years.
That's 100 times what we have built the last 18 years. The 164
from solar(I presume cells) is more than 400 times the power added last year for the entire world!

Stated in another way, the report claims we could go from .6%
of grid power from wind to more than 50% of the present
production. What would be the annualized rate of growth on
that? Solar is even worse, much worse. In 2006 solar wasn't
.6% of the grid, but like 2% of wind!!!

[matt21811]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '
')
But when you start talking about adding the last 100 GW in 3 years...