Renewable energy like solar and wind power can only truly replace coal power plants when it saves money for people who are not personally concerned about the environment.
Fortunately, investment bankers from Citigroup believe that the solar and wind industries will grow much faster than previously thought. According to a new report, fossil fuels may only comprise 28% of the energy industry by 2040, down from the 64% share seen today.
This report indicates that solar and wind will grow much faster than an earlier report released by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Reports from the EIA indicated that only 18% of electricity will come from non-hydro renewables in 2040.
The financial experts at Citigroup have found that, by 2020, global solar growth may be 65% higher than the IEA prediction. They predict that PV solar installation rates will be 53 GW between 2013 and 2020, while the IEA only predicts 33-34 GW every year between these years. GTM Research’s PV forecast is greater than both Citigroup and the IEA, finding an average of 75.5 GW per year during the seven years between 2013 and 2020.
The same trend can be seen in wind investment predictions; Citi believes wind installations will be 54 GW every year on average from 2013-2020, while the IEA estimates 38-42 GW. According to Citi’s report, wind will actually be completely economically competitive with fossil fuels by 2020, though solar will take longer to reach this point.
The IEA and the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) are known for intentionally reporting their lowest estimates. It has even been suggested that these governmental agencies rely on poorly-thought-out assumptions and that they have a bias toward fossil fuel interests.
The low estimates could be an effort to hedge their bets in case solar and wind don’t take off as quickly as predicted. However, according to Eric Gimon and Sonia Aggarwal of America’s Power Plan, if costs are constantly underestimated, it will complicate efforts to create quality policy and regulations.
Wind power kills 3 times as many birds in one year as the Exon Valdez oil spill. That dosen’the include the environmental damage of noise and vibrations or visual blight that wind turbines cause.
When the overall environmental damage caused by so called environmental friendly wind power is realized it is my opinion that it will be far greater than fossil fuels.
Do you really Want to invest in something that will result in endless litigation and unknown costs? I wouldn’t.
Solar power is insignificant and will always be. The cost and pollution caused by manufacturing solar cells has not been considered by peddling opportunists of these devices. Other solar systems fry as many birds as a windmill kills. Again visual pollution is unacceptable if the scale of solar is increased for insignificant power returns.
Fossil fuels are the reason the first world country’s are so clean and the environment far better than historical power production used by the 2nd and 3rd world countries.
The answer my friends is not blowing in the wind, it is in fossil fuels and technology that reduces any impact caused by their use.
Long term, the only hope is nuclear fusion. Investing in the development of this technology is mankind’s best hope. Mini fission reactors may help fill in some of the void. In the meantime, the next 500-1000 years, fossil fuels will keep us warm or cool, produce all the food needed, and preserve our environment.
Extremist zealots will respond to my argument by personal attacks, but will not back up their criticism by facts, because they cannot. The facts are not on their side, physics is physics, mother nature is a bitch, not the benevolent loving creature portrayed by environmentalists.