Coilín:

I hereby challenge Simon Barker to identify any "bogus statistics" in this paper.

 

I never said there were any bogus statistics in the paper.  No one source of electricity is the perfect source to all our energy needs.


My complaint is about people who very selectively pick out figures to criticize renewable energy sources, while quietly ignoring the equivalent costs and environmental issues with fossil fuel or nuclear power sources.  It's quite clear that they have an agenda, and will only look at those figures that suit that agenda.

davezawadi (David Stone):

This paper is very balanced in it's approach to the subject. It is all very complex, and therefore difficult to explain, particularly to the layman. The economic aspects are treated very well, and illustrate the mega-problem with the idea of 100% renewables, even if this could be engineered. The economic cost of a move to renewables is very large indeed, and the one point which is not really discussed is whether it is necessary at all. It also points out that the energy density of biofuel production is very low, but does not point out that we cannot afford this area which could otherwise be used for food production, when the world is overall short of food. The USA production of bio-ethanol to add to petrol has caused a large increase in world food prices for some crops, particularly maize, a staple food in Africa. Many "Greens" would find this paper useful to temper some of the more exagerated claims which are often made by the media.

Thanks, David! 

Glad you can see the point of the paper, and find it well balanced. 


The question of whether the energy transition is necessary at all is beyond the scope of this paper, although it does refer to another paper that estimates the time frames for decarbonization if we accept the IPCC reviewers' range of estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (being a measure of magnitude of effect of greenhouse gases on mean surface temperature). The overall aim is more to document and discuss the conflicts that arise between different policy priorities, assuming that climate mitigation is among them. 


We agree with your point that biofuel production competes for land with food production. We had written a brief review of the literature on this very important topic for an earlier draft, but had to edit it out to focus more on the engineering and environmental aspects. In fact, wind and solar also tend to compete for land with other uses, via "energy sprawl", but biofuels are particularly likely to compete for agricultural land, while the others do not sprawl quite as much and can more readily be sited on land of little agricultural potential. 


We agree that "Greens" - meaning any party, NGO or individual activist or advocate with a special interest in environmental issues - would be well advised to take account of the environmental impacts of each energy technology, as reported in the research literature. Contrary to popular media narratives, now promoted even by some of the oil majors, the impacts of the supposed "green" energy sources can actually be very severe.