Though China leads, many other countries also are building small - scale structures, as the economics of generation increasingly favor renewable
sources over fossil fuels.
However, a majority of Americans say they would prefer a focus on alternative energy
sources over fossil fuel development.
Not exact matches
Indeed, a recent research report from New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) found that the majority of methane released in the air
over the last 10 years likely came from agricultural
sources (cow burps) as opposed to
fossil fuel production.
Viewed in one dimension, the standoff
over construction of a 1,172 - mile, $ US 3.8 billion oil pipeline pits thousands of protesters massed on the prairie to safeguard a sole
source of tribal drinking water from the
fossil fuel industry and its allies in government and finance.
The findings suggest that without nuclear power utilities would turn to
fossil fuels over renewable
sources.
The study also concludes that,
over a 15 - year period, cutting the black carbon produced by burning
fossil fuels, vegetation, dung and other
sources could reduce the warming the Earth has experienced since the Industrial Revolution — about 0.8 degrees Celsius — by 17 to 23 percent.
From the Post Carbon Institute comes a quick video of the history of
fossil fuels and the growth of the modern economy
over the last 300 years: You might also be interested in this recent post: «Energy
source transitions
over time - what comes next?
The jist of this is that we must NOT suddenly switch off carbon / sulphur producing industries
over the planet but instead we must first dramatically reduce CO2 emissions from every conceivable
source, then gradually tackle coal /
fossil fuel sources to smoothly remove the soot from the air to prevent a sudden leap in average global temps which if it is indeed 2.75 C as the UNEP predicts will permanently destroy the climates ability to regulate itself and lead to catastrophic changes on the land and sea.
Even though the country already generates
over 99 percent of its electricity from renewable
sources and ran entirely on alternative energy for 250 days in 2016, completely banning
fossil fuels across all industries will likely prove difficult.
As we move toward all of these goals, and
over time put the age of
fossil fuels behind us, we must consider every alternative
source of power, and that includes nuclear power.
Sea salt comes from sea spray
over the oceans, dust from dry desert areas, black carbon from burning of forests and
fossil fuels, sulphates derive from ocean plankton and burning coal, nitrates derive from fertiliser use, car exhausts and lightning, and secondary organics come from the stew of volatile organic compounds from industrial and natural
sources alike.
In addition, in Table 1 of the referenced
source, only about 50 % of the estimated emissions from
fossil fuels over the nearly 200 year period from 1800 to 1994 (given in petragrams Pg) is taken up by the oceans, disregarding estimated and highly uncertain
source emissions from land use.
Here's something about which I'm sure we can agree:
Fossil fuels will naturally
over the course of time become more expensive, more so if we don't bring other
sources of energy online.
Renewable energy
sources are replacing
fossil fuels now, all
over the world, and increasingly are doing so at cost * savings.
Over the past half century, I think
fossil fuels have become a
source of complacency rather than a stimulus for growth.
The Council of the American Physical Society believes that the use of renewable energy
sources, the adoption of new ways of producing and using
fossil fuels, increased consideration of safe and cost effective uses of nuclear power, and the introduction of energy - efficient technologies can,
over time, promote the United States» energy security and reduce stress on the world's environment.
Mongabay: Why did climate activists choose to focus on the pipeline
over the Obama administration's approval of drilling in the Arctic, which is opening a new
source of
fossil fuels and, if a spill occurs, could be near - impossible to clean - up?
This proved that the increased CO2 concentration
over the last century was due to
fossil fuel combustion, not volcanic activity or an other
source.
The United States faces a vexing challenge in switching from conventional to clean
sources to generate electricity: How do we replace
fossil fuel when natural gas costs $ 4 per million BTU and demand for electricity is expected to increase by
over 20 % by 2035?
That major
fossil fuel producers are now following the global trend should be taken as the most emphatic evidence yet that the switch to renewable
sources of energy is,
over the long term, irreversible.
They choose
fossil fuels over renewable energy
sources because they are cheaper and tend to think short - term instead of looking ahead.
The Cabinet member responsible replied that she was happy to be able to announce that, recognising the growing financial risks associated with
fossil fuels, the Council would commit to transferring
over time any current investments in these «traditional» energy
sources.
By doing so, it helps maintain the state's status quo of having below average grid interconnection rules and incentivizing centralized,
fossil fuel - based power generation
over renewable
sources.
C. Technically, it is still possible to solve the climate problem, but there are two essential requirements: (1) a simple across - the - board (all
fossil fuels) rising carbon fee [2] collected from
fossil fuel companies at the domestic
source (mine or port of entry), not a carbon price «scheme,» and the money must go to the public, not to government coffers, otherwise the public will not allow the fee to rise as needed for phase -
over to clean energy, (2) honest government support for, rather than strangulation of, RD&D (research, development and demonstration) of clean energy technologies, including advanced generation, safe nuclear power.
«The only way I can explain the trend
over time,» Hastings said, «are the nitric oxide
sources, because we've introduced this whole new
source — and that's
fossil fuels burning.»
Renewable energy is projected to be the fastest growing
source of primary energy
over the next 25 years, but
fossil fuels remain the dominant
source of energy.
But with
fossil fuels, the issue is no longer just about siting, choosing among
sources carefully, or mitigating impacts after the fact; we must stop expanding their use immediately and categorically, and transition away from them
over time.
For too long, oil companies have reaped massive profits through a monopoly
over our transportation options, leaving people with few alternatives to
fossil fuels —
fuels which are by far Washington's largest
source of climate and air pollution.
If the propaganda and articles generated by the industry are any indication there is serious concern by
fossil fuel users
over any attempts to impose limits on mercury emissions from coal burning
sources.
Fossil fuels will be replaced by other energy
sources,
over time, in the same way as all previous major infrastructure technology transitions have occurred.
Major corporations like Apple, Google, and T - Mobile are all choosing renewable
sources over dirty
fossil fuels and it's clear that the renewable energy revolution is well underway.
Biomass is a renewable energy
source not only because the energy in it comes from the sun, but also because biomass can re-grow
over a relatively short period of time compared with the hundreds of millions of years that it took for
fossil fuels to form.
While
fossil fuels will account for most of the increased energy supply, renewable
sources of energy will also gain importance, as a result of concerns
over high
fossil fuel prices, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and energy import dependence.
These remaining
fossil fuels should last us at least 200 to 300 years (probably much longer, as they get replaced by other
sources over the next centuries).
While
fossil fuels will remain an important
source of energy, renewable energies will also gain importance, as a result of concerns
over high
fossil fuel prices, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and energy import dependence.
Although variable renewable energy
sources were critical to European society for some 500 years before
fossil fuels took
over, there were no chemical batteries, no electric transmission lines, and no balancing capacity of
fossil fuel power plants to deal with the variable energy output of wind and water power.
Americans under the age of 50 are especially likely to support alternative energy
sources over expanding
fossil fuels.
By contrast, conservative Republicans back the expansion of
fossil fuels over developing alternative energy
sources by a margin of 54 % to 33 %.
That doesn't happen so much if people reduce
fossil -
fuel demand
over the next few decades via efficiency and substitution of other energy
sources, which doesn't happen overnight.
The views in the clips are extreme but represent a grab bag of climate science denialist talking points, ignoring the mountains of evidence gathered from multiple
sources over many decades of the impacts of loading the atmosphere and the oceans with carbon dioxide from burning
fossil fuels.
But I simply can't dissemble with my ex-colleagues; the
fossil fuels that we had so much fun (and profit) finding are the
source of a major global problem and the industry we work (or worked) in has to close down
over the next two or three decades.
Renewable, low - carbon and zero - carbon energy
sources would be preferred and the reigning
fossil fuels slowly edged out because of a lowered carbon cap
over time.
Given historical climate and physics, the only way that implicit endorsement means «implicitly endors [ing] that humans are a cause of warming» where «a» is something less than primary (that is,
over half) is if there is some as - yet undiscovered sink absorbing human CO2 emissions and, simultaneously, an as - yet undiscovered
source of CO2 that is releasing it into the atmosphere - and moreover, the CO2 from this mysterious
source just happens to possess a carbon isotope signature that matches
fossil fuel CO2 as a total coincidence.
While there are many
sources of emissions, burning
fossil fuels has caused 75 % of these emissions
over 20 years.
The «technology to eliminate
fossil fuel combustion» includes solar and wind energy, geothermal energy, a variety of hydropower energy
sources, combustion of biomass to generate electricity (an entirely different matter than liquid biofuels for transport) and more — ALL of which is already at hand, and already being deployed at both large and small scales all
over the world.
No, he seems to mean that if we allow the Keystone XL to set a precedent — that we aim aim to develop dirtier, more expensive, unconventional
fossil fuels instead of renewable
sources — then it will be game
over for the climate system as we know it.
RealClimate is wonderful, and an excellent
source of reliable information.As I've said before, methane is an extremely dangerous component to global warming.Comment # 20 is correct.There is a sharp melting point to frozen methane.A huge increase in the release of methane could happen within the next 50 years.At what point in the Earth's temperature rise and the rise of co2 would a huge methane melt occur?No one has answered that definitive issue.If I ask you all at what point would huge amounts of extra methane start melting, i.e at what temperature rise of the ocean near the Artic methane ice deposits would the methane melt, or at what point in the rise of co2 concentrations in the atmosphere would the methane melt, I believe that no one could currently tell me the actual answer as to where the sharp melting point exists.Of course, once that tipping point has been reached, and billions of tons of methane outgass from what had been locked stores of methane, locked away for an eternity, it is exactly the same as the burning of stored
fossil fuels which have been stored for an eternity as well.And even though methane does not have as long a life as co2, while it is around in the air it can cause other tipping points, i.e. permafrost melting, to arrive much sooner.I will reiterate what I've said before on this and other sites.Methane is a hugely underreported, underestimated risk.How about RealClimate attempts to model exactly what would happen to other tipping points, such as the melting permafrost, if indeed a huge increase in the melting of the methal hydrate ice WERE to occur within the next 50 years.My amateur guess is that the huge, albeit temporary, increase in methane
over even three or four decades might push other relevent tipping points to arrive much, much, sooner than they normally would, thereby vastly incresing negative feedback mechanisms.We KNOW that quick, huge, changes occured in the Earth's climate in the past.See other relevent posts in the past from Realclimate.Climate often does not change slowly, but undergoes huge, quick, changes periodically, due to negative feedbacks accumulating, and tipping the climate to a quick change.Why should the danger from huge potential methane releases be vievwed with any less trepidation?
Moreover, unlike
fossil fuels whose EROI necessarily gets worse
over time, as the lowest - cost, highest - quality supplies are exhausted, the EROI of wind and solar gets better
over time because the energy
sources themselves are both free and inexhaustible, so the EROI is purely a function of the rapidly improving technology.
«Energy from gas power stations has been rebranded as a green, low - carbon
source of power by a $ 80bn European Union program, in a triumph of the deep - pocketed
fossil fuel industry lobby
over renewable forms of power.
But then I went on to envisage, at least in my own mind, a time when large
fossil fuel generators had all closed own — mainly in order to avoid ruining our one and only habitable planet — and that the 24/7 power supply would be a mix of Solar PV, solar thermal (eg CSP), wind and the lesser
sources such as hydro, tidal, geothermal etc having taken
over the complete electricity supply — especially since Australia doesn't have, and is almost certain never to have, nuclear fission plants.