focusing on facts: can we get all of our energy from renewables? - electricity storage

In my recent post, Pro's limited vision
One commenter wrote: "It's a fact that only carbon-
Basic energy and nuclear energy have enough energy density to meet the needs of our world.
All renewable energy is not shut down.
I replied, it's far from where there's only carbon.
Energy based on nuclear energy can meet the needs of the world.
Many studies have shown that the combination of renewable energy can indeed meet this demand.
It will be easier to rethink what we use energy for and how it really improves our lives.
I am referring to a number of sources to a certain extent, including 2009 articles in the Scientific American entitled "plans to use renewable energy to power 100% of the Earth's regions" and this study, this report and other promising work suggest that, in fact, renewable energy does have the potential to meet our energy needs. Â (
See relevant story: Take all the way with renewable energy? âx80x9c)
A recent climate progress report provides an indicator that we may even move in the right direction, noting that wind and solar power account for 100% of new energy sources in the United States, according to government data. S.
Electricity generation in September.
And the early report of 2011 (
See here and here)
In terms of investment and capacity growth, renewable energy has surpassed traditional energy sources.
Then, almost on demand, by the immeasurable Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)
In a recent statement, President Obama said we need major technological breakthroughs to tackle climate change.
Our country already has the technology to protect the climate while promoting prosperity. Hereâx80x99s how.
In last June, your National Renewable Energy Lab showed how to produce 80 to 90% of US electricity from proven, reliable and increasingly competitive renewable sources such as solar and wind.
Lovins points out the findings in his RMI book Reinventing fires, which describes how the combination of energy efficiency and renewable energy can indeed meet the world's future energy needs.
With mature construction and industrial technologies, energy efficiency can save an estimated 44% of electricity demand by 2050, he wrote, and the returns from these technologies are far faster than any new source of supply.
Wasting less energy and getting the rest of it at a lower and stable price will strongly boost employment and growth. âx80x9d (
Similarly, a new report from the energy efficiency policy alliance committee said that by 2030, we can double our energy productivity. )
Lovins went on to say that the traditional view is wrong and that solar and wind power are not feasible without a breakthrough in power storage.
Analysis and proof of experience, 60-
80% solar and wind power is located in an area that can keep the lights on with flexible supply and demand forecasts and balances, and storage or backup is usually less needed than traditional large power stations are now.
That's how Germany has become a -- without adding storage-
Fourth renewable
Last spring, more than half of the power load was met with solar energy alone.
The smart grid will make it more successful and resilient. âx80x9d(
You may have heard that Fox News has been fairly notable recently, and solar is better in Germany than here because they have more sun than we do.
There are many reasons why solar energy is more successful there than here, all of which involve policies, incentives and economics, but the amount of sunlight is certainly not one of them. )
I bet the above commenters can provide a group of people who are equally confident --
Support the report of his statement.
My father is a science reporter.
And cover some of the early environmental stories)
There is a plaque on his desk that says "there are three aspects to each story ".
Yours, Mine and the truth
But that's before the era of instant digital communications, sound bites and civic solidarity.
Now it seems that there are only two aspects: your facts and my facts.
Anything, as long as it is repeated frequently, will now produce a feeling of fact.
Faith is confused with facts. (
Neil deGrasse Tyson recently wrote on Twitter: "I am often asked if I believe in global warming.
I only answer one question now: Do you believe in gravity? âx80x9d)
In fact, the fact that it is increasingly difficult to determine who is.
I subscribe to the "follow money" rule, or rather, don't follow money. Self-
Nowadays, interest is a very powerful force. money is the promoter of it.
Almost all climate denials can be traced back to company-funded research reports, often in the interest of fossil fuels.
Counterclaims are often used in "climate change" and elsewhere, and scientists manipulate facts to ensure that their research is funded, it's like the money is even a fraction of what the company's grant recipients and lobbyists receive. (
By the way, even then it doesn't always work. )
Before being labeled as a fact, don't mind that scientific discoveries have gone through intense competition peer review, while the only review of most company statements is conducted by their public relations department.
I know that not following the rules of money is a dangerous and widespread rule, and it is under great observation by Mark Twain that all generalization is wrong.
But I don't see anything to believe in.
A version of this post originally appeared in EcoOptimism.