IEA: SPEND $45 TRIL FOR WIND, CLEAN COAL AND NEW NUCLEAR

The IEA’s Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 calls for an “energy revolution” to meet rising world demand in the context of greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions constraints.

Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director, IEA: “The world faces the daunting combination of surging energy demand, rising GHG emissions and tightening resources. A global energy technology revolution is both necessary and achievable; but it will be a tough challenge…”

The report says business-as-usual will push GhGs up 130% and oil consumption up 70%.

To beat that sentence, the world needs to spend $100 to $200 million for the next 10 years and $1 trillion to $2 trillion for the following 3 decades for a total of $45 trillion, 1.1% of global GDP to 2050. $27 trillion will come from developing countries because they will be generating 2/3 of GhGs by 2050.

What does $45 trillion buy?

First, 35 coal-fired power plants and 20 gas-fired power plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology yearly from 2010 to 2050; second, 32 new nuclear plants a year; third, 17,500 wind turbines a year.

Also, as much solar energy and next generation biofuel production as the world can manage.

And a whole whole lot of efficiency improvements.

The good news: Oil demand falls to 27% of 2005 levels.

The bad news: The IEA report says the world will have to figure out how to make CCS technology work and where to safely store all the CO2 purged from coal- and gas-fired power plants via CCS. It doesn’t say how.

More bad news: The IEA report says the world will have to figure out how to deal with the problems of nuclear energy such as weapons proliferation and nuclear waste storage. It doesn’t say how.

The obvious alternative: Alternatives. Use all the technological and industrial effort and money that would otherwise go into CCS and nuclear to solve the challenges still facing solar; build three times as many wind turbines; and don’t waste time figuring out what to do with captured CO2 and nuclear waste.

And don’t waste time on liquid biofuels for transportation. Just prioritize and incentivize plug-in vehicles.

Seems too simple, doesn’t it? Here's the complication: There’s no way in that plan for people in the fossil fuels and nuclear industries to get rich (unless they invest in New Energy).

From the IEA report. (click to enlarge)

International Agency Urges the Start of an ‘Energy Revolution’
James Kanter, June 7, 2007 (NY Times)
and
World needs $45 trillion energy plan; International Energy Agency calls for construction of 32 nuclear power plants annually and vast expansion of wind power to cut emissions in half by 2050
June 6, 2008 (AP via CNN Money)
and
Now or Never – IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 shows pathways to sustained economic growth based on clean and affordable energy technology
6 June 2008 (International Energy Agency)

WHO
The International Energy Agency (Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director)

WHAT
The IEA’s Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 calls for major investment by the nations of the developed world to keep pace with growing energy demand. It describes an ACT scenario and a BLUE scenario.

WHEN
- Both scenarios describe energy demand through 2050.
- The ACT scenario takes world GhG emissions back to 2005 levels by 2050. The BLUE scenarios takes them 50% below 2005 levels by 2050.

From the IEA report. (click to enlarge)

WHERE
- The IEA advises 27 developed economies from Australia and New Zealand to the U.S. and the EU to South Korea and Japan.
- The report offers chapters on the power sector of the economy and the end-use sector of the economy.
- The IEA says the BLUE scenario is only possible if the entire world participates in the program.
- The report makes specific mention of growth in energy consumption and GhG generation in emerging powerhouse economies like China and India.

WHY
- IPCC scientists have said it will take cuts in GhGs even more stringent than the BLUE scenario to mitigate the worst impacts of global climate change.
- The estimated cost of BLUE is $45 trillion, 1.1% of global GDP to 2050. ($100 to $200 million for the next 10 years and $1 trillion to $2 trillion for the following 3 decades.)
- The estimated cost of ACT is $17 trillion – but that does not include the costs of climate change devastations.
- The call for building nuclear plants faces objections from nuclear energy opponents and their many legitimate questions.
- The call for building CCS faces the problem of proving the technology and finding safe sequestration sites.

From the IEA report. (click to enlarge)

QUOTES
- Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director, IEA: "Meeting this target of 50% cut in emissions represents a formidable challenge, and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale…"
- Dolf Gielen, IEA energy analyst/project leader: "[Present] development is clearly not sustainable…If industry is convinced there will be policy for serious, deep CO2 emission cuts, then these investments will be made by the private sector…"