The IEA is suggesting a $45T program and over $1T/yr to cut carbon emissions 50% by 2050. See:

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=263

This is on the order of the $26-33T, $1.5T/yr, and 20 yrs I predicted in 2005 would take for 100% conversion. See:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BigPicture.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/EnergyCosts.pdf

However, that projected cost was for 100% elimination of carbon fuels.

The primary difference is the IEA plan relies on 32 new nuclear plants each year:

http://tinyurl.com/6387q2

and yet only 215 million sq m of solar panels total. That's only about $4.3T for solar, at 200W/m^2 and a $1 a watt, numbers which soon will be feasible.

The main reason for the long time and large cost of the IEA plan is the principle use of conventional nuclear energy.

This strikes me as very short sighted. The principal developments coming that will change this picture are:

1. Dramatic drops in cost per watt for solar power.

2. New cost effective technologies for energy storage and transmission.

3. Excessive risk, insurance costs, and political unrest associated with nuclear plants due to vulnerabilities.

4. Extreme long term increases in carbon based material cost - making the economics of solar more viable. Solar power production will have long term exponential growth without any government program. All government has to do is get out of the way. For example, any environmental assessment should be environmental cost/benefit based. When assessing the use of desert for example, we should compare the risk of extermination of all the major species of the world against partial the loss of life in a few thousand square meters of desert.

5. Carbon materials becoming be too valuable to burn, as opposed to being used as feed stock.

6. Hopefully, the advent of fusion power or other clean nuclear based equivalent in some form.

It appears most people just don't expect what is even already in the works in solar energy development.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/




Reply via email to