You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Renewable Energy Will Cost $6T over Ten Years - U.N.
2009-09-02
It will cost between $500 billion and $600 billion every year for the next 10 years to allow developing nations to grow using renewable energy resources, instead of relying on dirty fuels that worsen global warming, or nuclear energy, which is just nasty according to a United Nations report released Tuesday.
Karl Rove Strikes again!
That astronomical estimate, far higher than any previously suggested by the United Nations, comes at a time when developed and developing nations are still deeply divided over who bears the responsibility for shouldering the expense of deploying cleaner energy resources, much less what the actual amount might be.
Maybe The One will step up to the plate.
Posted by:Bobby

#6  "And we all know what ASSUME stands for."

Yep, tipover - Assume always begins with an ASS.

(I see no reason to credit the usual phrase since I'm not involved in the assery.)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2009-09-02 19:41  

#5  We get all our electricity from Hydropower, that's a "renewable energy source".
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2009-09-02 19:40  

#4  And that assumes that the human caused global warming is a valid theory. And we all know what ASSUME stands for.
Posted by: tipover   2009-09-02 16:38  

#3  LH- Don't forget that at $120bbl oil can be mined from oil shale at a much greater profit. This was the big hold-up in previous generations. One of my professors was involved in the exploration in E. KY of oil shale processing at the end of the 1970's. His project was killed when the price of oil dropped.

Don't forget, every single proposal put forward give the Third World a pass and lumps all of responsibility for change over to the Western World. As you said, this does not include China or India, but does include Japan.
Posted by: Jame Retief   2009-09-02 15:49  

#2  1. that includes India and China. Who can both afford to do plenty, China especially. and since climate change is likely to particularly effect their coastlands and agriculture, they have particular incentive to do something about it.

2. 100% replacement of all new fossil fuels with renewables is a strawman. It ignores all the other arrows in the quiver, including energy efficiency, clean coal, and even the gains from switching from coal and oil to nat gas. Also I suspect they are leaving out nuclear.

3. The question of the cost of renewables is debatable, and its not clear to me what the basis of their numbers is, what assumptions they make about technology and cost change for renewables is, etc.

4. The other big variable is the cost of fossil fuels. Are they assuming current prices for fossil fuels? Is that realistic? At 120 bucks a barrel for crude, going to renewables doesnt look as expensive as it does at $70 bucks a barrel
Posted by: liberal hawk   2009-09-02 15:22  

#1  Sorry, the US already gives $700 billion/year for developing nations to grow. Try the Euros. They love everything renewable, except their population.
Posted by: ed   2009-09-02 15:03  

00:00