SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A group of scientists have called for a "moonshot" renewable energy research program called the "Global Apollo":
They say they have generated interest from major nations in their plan for an investment of 0.02% of their GDP [about $150 billion over 10 years, and about the cost of the Apollo program in 2015 dollars] into research, development and demonstration (RD&D) of clean electricity. Their report, launched at London's Royal Society, says on current projections the world will exceed the 2C danger threshold of climate change by 2035.
The academics are led by the UK's former chief scientist Professor Sir David King. He told BBC News: "We have already discovered enough fossil fuels to wreck the climate many times over. There's only one thing that's going to stop us burning it – and that's if renewables become cheaper than fossil fuels. "Under our plan, we are aiming to make that happen globally within a decade." Another of the authors, former Cabinet Secretary Lord O'Donnell, told BBC News: "People never believed we could put a man on the Moon - but we did. People don't believe we can solve climate change - but we have no choice."
It complains that renewable energy has been starved of investment to a shocking degree, with publicly funded RD&D on renewable energy only $6bn a year – under 2% of the total of publicly funded research and development. The authors say this compares poorly with the $101bn spent worldwide on production subsidies for renewables and the $550bn "counter-productive" subsidies for fossil fuel energy.
Solar is the most favoured renewable source as the group says it has greatest potential for technology breakthroughs, and most new energy demand will be in sunny countries. The cost of solar has been plummeting and is already approaching competitive prices in places as different as Germany, California and Chile. But the authors believe next-generation plastic photovoltaics can to keep prices tumbling. They believe battery technology is improving fast – but think batteries and other forms of storage need to be massively developed to store intermittent renewable energy. The authors say much smarter software is needed to enable electricity grids to cope with the new sources of power. Some experts believe that energy technology has developed so fast that it simply needs further price support to keep volumes rising and costs falling. Others will complain that the Apollo group has done little to tackle the immense problem of replacing fossil fuels in heating.
Original Submission
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:31PM
$1 a gallon, and pour all the money at research, until we can tell OPEC to go fuck itself.
(Score: 3, Funny) by sudo rm -rf on Wednesday June 10 2015, @02:58PM
I propose to call it entropy tax
(Score: 2) by n1 on Wednesday June 10 2015, @05:10PM
That relies on people using the fuel sources they're not supposed to use. It can only work when it's still more cost effective to use fossil fuels over any alternative energy sources, and the subtle balance is required to maintain enough investment in research while keeping infrastructure alive and pricing people out of heating their homes and commuting/travel.
Even if that was achieved, what happens then when we have a surplus of sustainable/renewable energy, where does all the trillions of dollars go that are counting on the continued return-on-investment and growth from energy generation? Where is the profit in sustainable/renewable energy generation and supply?
I am being pessimistic, but I believe the majority of this 'green movement' as presented in corporate media, and especially now coming from the oil/gas industry, is actually to keep fossil fuels viable for as long as possible, supplementing it with alternative energy when necessary, but with the overall goal to extract maximum returns and dependency on the existing energy infrastructure.
It's all well and good to talk a good game on these things, but for the people who are trying to avoid fossil fuels in general, it's really not that simple when you try to remove your dependence from the grid and entrenched utility companies. There are laws and regulations stopping you from not contributing to the problem. Those can only be overcome if you're of a relatively high net-worth (and even then, only to an extent, as they still want the latest model Tesla or Lexus), these are people who have the least to gain by conserving energy and using sustainable resources. Unless a sense of social status is the primary goal, then there might be something to gain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @08:03PM
> pricing people out of heating their homes and commuting/travel
A dollar a gallon would still leave the price of fuel lower than its last peak, and at that time there was a very minimal decrease in use. It's a huge tax, but no one will be taxed out of commuting or travel.