Wind, water and solar technologies can provide one hundred percent of the world's energy and completely eliminate the need for fossil fuels
In December 2009, leaders from around the world met in Copenhagen to try to agree on cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the next decades. The most effective step to achieve this goal will be a mass transition from fossil fuels to clean and renewable energy sources. If the leaders could feel confident enough that such a transition was possible, they would sign a historic agreement. We think they could.
The former vice president of the United States, Al Gore, threw down a gauntlet in 2008: within ten years America's electricity production must be based on 2030 percent carbon-free fuel. When we began to assess the feasibility of such a change, we were faced with an even greater challenge: to determine how to provide one hundred percent of the world's energy, for any purpose, through solar, water and wind resources as early as XNUMX. We present our program here.
For at least ten years, scientists have been striving to establish this moment by analyzing different parts of the challenge. The most recent study, conducted at Stanford University in 2009, ranked energy systems according to their impact on global warming, pollution, water supply, land use, wildlife, and several other issues at hand. The best sources of energy were from wind, water and sunlight (commonly referred to by the acronym WWS): wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, tidal energy and hydroelectric energy. Options for using nuclear energy, coal combined with carbon capture technologies or ethanol turned out to be inferior options, as did oil and natural gas. The study also found that vehicles powered by electric batteries or hydrogen fuel cells charged by wind-water-solar sources would largely eliminate pollution from the transportation sector.
Our plan requires millions of wind turbines, water machines and solar devices. Although the numbers are high, it is not an insurmountable obstacle; Humanity has managed to create great transformations in the past. In World War II, the United States adapted automobile factories to produce 300,000 airplanes, and other countries produced another 486,000 airplanes. In 1956, the United States began building the interstate highway system, and 35 years later it stretched 75,000 km and changed the face of commerce and society.
Is the conversion of the world's energy systems possible? Is it possible to achieve this goal in twenty years? The answers depend on the technologies chosen, the availability of certain important materials and political and economic factors.
Clean technologies only
Renewable energy comes from enticing sources: wind, which also creates waves; water, which produces hydroelectric energy, tidal energy and geothermal energy (water heated by underground rocks); And the sun, which feeds photovoltaic cells and its rays focused on solar power plants heats a liquid that drives turbines to produce electricity. Our program includes only technologies that are prevalent today and not technologies that may be around in another 20 or 30 years.
To ensure that our system remains clean, we have taken into account only technologies that the amount of greenhouse gases and air pollutants they emit is close to zero throughout their life cycle, including setting up, starting up and stopping activity. For example, even the most environmentally friendly sources of ethanol create, when burned in vehicles, air pollution that will cause deaths at a rate similar to that caused by burning gasoline. The carbon emissions obtained from nuclear energy are 25 times greater than the emissions from wind energy, if you take into account the construction of the reactor and the transportation of the uranium and its refining. Carbon capture and sequestration technologies can reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, but they will increase air pollution and amplify all the other destructive effects of coal mining, transportation, and processing, because more coal will need to be burned for fuel during capture and storage. Therefore, we have taken into account only technologies that do not involve the disposal of considerable waste or the risk of terrorism.
In our plan, the wind, water and sun will provide electric power for heating and transportation: industries will have to change their face if they want to leave the world with any hope of slowing climate change. We assumed that most of the heating means fueled by mineral fuel (as well as ovens and stoves) can be replaced with electric systems, and that most transportation fueled by mineral fuel can be replaced by vehicles powered by batteries and fuel cells. Electrolysis will break down water using electricity generated from wind, water or the sun, to produce hydrogen that will fuel the fuel cells and be burned in airplanes and industry.
Plenty of supplies
Today, the maximum power consumed around the world at any given moment is about 12.5 billion watts (terawatts, or TW for short), according to the statistics unit of the American Department of Energy (EIA). This agency predicts that by 2030, with the growth of the global population and the improvement of living conditions, the world will consume 16.9 t, about 2.8 t of which in the USA alone. The mix of sources is similar to the mix of sources we use today, and relies to a very large extent on mineral fuel. But it is interesting to see that if the world is fueled entirely by wind, water and solar sources, without any mineral fuel or biomass burning, energy will be saved: the global power demand will be only 11.5 t, and the demand in the US alone will be 1.8 t. The reason for saving, usually, is that electricity is a more economical way to use energy. For example, only 17% to 20% of the energy in gasoline is used to propel vehicles (everything else becomes heat and is wasted), while 75% to 86% of the electricity supplied to electric vehicles becomes motion.
Even if the demand rises to 16.9 t, wind, water and solar sources will be able to generate much more power. Careful studies by us and others show that the energy that can be produced from wind all over the world is about 1,700 t.u. Solar energy alone offers 6,500 t. Of course, the wind and sun in the open sea, over high mountain peaks and over protected areas will not be available for use. If we ignore these areas and areas lacking in wind that are unlikely to be developed, we still have the power of 40 to 85 t from wind and the power of 580 t from the sun, each of which greatly exceeds human demand in the future. However, today we produce only 0.02 t of wind power and 0.008 t of solar power. These sources treasure among them a tremendous potential that is not being used.
The other wind, water and solar technologies will help create a flexible spectrum of options. Although all sources can expand to a very large extent, there are practical limitations: wave power can only be generated near coastal areas; Many geothermal sources are located too deep and it is not profitable to tap them; And even though hydro-electric power is better today than any other wind, water and solar source - most of the suitable large reserves are already in use.
The plan: Power plants are needed
It is clear as day that there is enough renewable energy. How then will we move to a new infrastructure that will supply the world with 11.5 t? We chose a mix of technologies: most of them will be based on wind and solar, and mature methods related to water will supply 9% of the demand (other combinations of wind and solar will be equally successful).
The wind will provide 51% of the demand with the help of 3.8 million large wind turbines (each weighing five megawatts) around the world. Although this amount may sound huge, it is interesting to note that the world produces 73 million cars and light trucks each year. Another 40% of the power will come from photovoltaic solar facilities and facilities for concentrating sunlight (CSP), and approximately 30% of the photovoltaic production will come from panels that will be placed on the roofs of private houses and commercial buildings. About 89,000 solar concentrating stations and photovoltaic installations will be needed, each of which will provide an average of 300 megawatts. Our mix also includes 900 hydroelectric stations worldwide, 70% of which are already in place.
Only about 0.8% of the wind infrastructure is currently installed. The 3.8 million wind turbines will cover an area of less than 50 square kilometers (less than the area of Manhattan). If you also take into account the required spaces between them, their area will be about a percent of the Earth's land surface, but the empty space between the turbines could be used for agriculture, livestock or open space - on land or at sea. The facilities for concentrating sunlight and the photovoltaic facilities that will not be located on the roofs will occupy approximately 0.33% of the Earth's land surface. It will take time to build such an extensive infrastructure. But the construction of the current power plant network also required time. And remember that if we stay with mineral fuel, by 2030 the demand will rise to 16.9 t, and we will need about 13,000 new and large power plants fueled by coal, which will occupy a much larger area of land, just like the mines that will supply them with the fuel.
The material pull
The wide scope of the infrastructure for generating energy from wind, water and the sun is not an obstacle, but some of the materials required for its construction may be prohibitively expensive or subject to price manipulation.
There is enough concrete and steel to build millions of wind turbines, and both of these materials are fully recyclable. The most problematic materials, apparently, will be the metals known as "rare trace metals", such as neodymium found in the power generators of turbines. Although there is no shortage of these metals, they can be obtained at a low price, especially in China, so countries like the United States may replace their dependence on oil from the Middle East with dependence on metals from the Far East. However, manufacturers are striving to produce turbines without this component, so this limitation may turn out to be meaningless.
Photovoltaic cells are based on silicon (silicon), cadmium tellurium, or copper indium sulfide and copper indium selenium in a crystalline or amorphous state. A limited supply of tellurium and indium may reduce the chances of success for some types of thin film solar cells, but it is possible that the other types that are not affected by this will be able to fill the gap. The cells contain silver, and this may make mass production difficult, but we can overcome this setback if we find ways to reduce the amount of silver in the cells. Recycling of old appropriate parts could also contribute to dealing with the materials problem.
Three components may pose a challenge to those seeking to produce millions of electric vehicles: rare trace metals for the electric motors, lithium for the batteries and platinum for the fuel cells. More than half of the world's lithium reserves are found in Bolivia and Chile. This concentration along with the rapidly growing demand could raise prices considerably. A more serious problem was raised by the Meridian International Research Council (MIR), which claims that the amount of lithium that is profitable to produce in the world is a long way from the amount required to build a global economy based on electric vehicles. Recycling could change the equation, but the recycling economy depends, among other things, on whether the batteries are manufactured in advance in a way that will facilitate their recycling, and the industry is aware of this matter. The long-term use of platinum also depends on the cycle; The reserves available today could allow the annual production of 20 million vehicles with fuel cells alongside other industrial uses for less than a century.
Reliability with the help of a smart mix
New infrastructure must meet the demand for energy with a reliability that does not fall short of that of the existing infrastructure. Wind, water and solar technologies generally suffer from less downtime than conventional sources. A coal-fired power plant in the US is shut down for 12.5% of the year on average for planned and unplanned maintenance. Modern wind turbines stop operating for less than 2% of the time on land and less than 5% at sea. Photovoltaic systems are disabled for less than 2% of the time. Furthermore, when a wave, solar or wind device is shut down, only a small proportion of the production is affected, and when a facility fueled by coal, natural gas or nuclear power is turned off - a significant proportion of the production is lost.
The main challenge facing wind and solar technologies is that in a given place the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine. Continuity problems can be mitigated by a smart balance of sources, such as producing a base supply using a stable source such as tidal energy or geothermal energy, relying on the wind at night, during which it is usually abundant, using solar energy during the day and turning to a reliable source such as hydro power -Electrical, which can be connected and disconnected quickly to ensure a uniform supply or to meet demand during peak hours. For example, combining wind farms that are only 150 to 300 km apart can compensate for hours of zero power in each of the farms when the wind is not blowing. Other things that can help are a combination of sources scattered over the surface to back each other up, installing smart electricity meters that will automatically charge vehicles when demand is low and building facilities that store power for future use.
A gale often blows when the sun is not shining, while the sun shines on days when there is no strong wind, so the combination of solar and wind can greatly help meet demand, especially when geothermal facilities provide a stable base and hydroelectric facilities are ready to fill the gaps.
cheap as coal
The mix of wind, water and solar sources in our plan can ensure a reliable supply of energy to the transport, industry, commerce and housing sectors. The next obvious question is whether it will be possible to meet the prices of the electricity produced in these ways. We calculated how much it would cost a manufacturer to produce electricity using each of the technologies and transmit it throughout the network. We included the annual price of the capital, the land, the operation, the maintenance, the energy storage, which is intended to solve the problem of the discontinuity of the supply, and the transportation. Today, the prices of wind energy, geothermal energy and hydroelectric energy are less than 7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Solar energy and wave energy are more expensive, but from 2020 electricity generated from wind, waves and hydroelectric stations is expected to cost 4 cents per kWh or less.
For comparison, in 2007 the average price of electricity generation and transmission in the US was about 7 cents per kWh, and the price is expected to rise to 8 cents per kWh in 2020. Already today the price of electricity from wind turbines, for example, is almost the same as the price of electricity from a new power plant powered by coal or natural gas, or even less than it, and in the future electricity produced from wind is expected to be the cheapest option. Due to its competitive price, wind is the second largest source in the United States of new electricity production in the last three years, after natural gas and before coal.
Solar electricity is relatively expensive, but already in 2020 it will be able to compete with the other sources. A careful analysis conducted by Vasilis Pedenakis from the American Brookhaven National Laboratory shows that within ten years the price of a photovoltaic system, including the cost of transporting it over long distances and the cost of storing the energy using compressed air intended for use at night, will drop to 10 cents per kWh. According to this analysis, systems for concentrating solar rays whose thermal storage capacity is sufficient to produce electricity for 24 hours a day in the spring, summer and fall will be able to transmit electricity at a price of 10 cents per kWh or less.
Transportation in the age of wind, water and sun will still move using batteries or fuel cells, so we must compare an economy based on electric vehicles to an economy based on vehicles with internal combustion engines. Careful analyzes conducted by one of us (Delucchi) with Tim Lippman from the University of California at Berkeley showed that the cost of traveling a distance of one kilometer calculated over the entire life span of mass-produced electric vehicles with lithium-ion batteries or nickel-metal hydride batteries (including replacing batteries) can compete in the cost of driving a kilometer with a gasoline-powered vehicle, if the gasoline is sold for more than half a dollar per liter.
If you take into account the external costs of producing fossil fuel (the monetary value of the damage to public health, the environment and the climate), wind, water and solar technologies further reduce the financial gap.
The general cost of establishing a wind, water and solar system around the world for 20 years may be about 100 billion (one thousand billion) dollars, in addition to the cost of transportation. But this is not money that the government or consumers waste. It is an investment that pays for itself through the sale of electricity and energy. And again, relying on conventional sources will raise the demand from 12.5 to 16.9 t, and will require the construction of thousands more conventional power plants, which will cost about 10 billion dollars, and tens of billions of dollars more will be required for health, environment and security matters. The wind, water and solar plan gives the world a new, clean and efficient energy system that will replace an old, polluted and inefficient system.
Political correctness
From our analysis it appears that wind, water and solar will probably be able to compete in the future with conventional sources in terms of cost. But in the interim some types of electricity produced from these sources will cost much more than electricity produced using fossil fuels, and some combination of subsidies and carbon taxes will be needed for some time. A program of feed-in tariffs (FIT) that will make up the difference between the cost of production and the wholesale prices of electricity can contribute greatly to the strengthening of new technologies. A combination of feed-in tariffs and fading clock auctions, where the lowest bidders get the right to sell power to the grid, provides a continued incentive to drive down prices for renewables developers. When this stage is reached, it will be possible to gradually eliminate the feed-in tariffs. Feed-in tariffs have been implemented in many European countries and in several countries in the USA [as well as in Israel - the editors], and have had considerable success in stimulating solar energy systems in Germany.
Another logical step would be to tax fossil fuel or its use to reflect its environmental damage. If this is not possible, it is appropriate to at least cancel existing subsidies for mineral fuel, such as tax benefits for exploration and production, to ensure fair competition. The mispromotion of less desirable alternatives to wind, water and solar technologies, such as subsidizing biofuel farms and their production, must be stopped because it inhibits the establishment of cleaner systems. The legislator for his part must think of a sophisticated policy to resist the lobby of the established energy industries.
And a final step - each nation must show a willingness to invest in a long-range transmission system that will be stable enough to carry large amounts of energy produced from wind, water and used from the remote areas where it is usually most abundant - such as, for example, wind energy from the Great Plains in the USA and energy Solar from the American southwest desert - to the centers of consumption, which are usually cities. Also for the purpose of reducing consumer demand during peak hours we will need a smart grid that gives producers and consumers greater control over the use of electricity every hour.
A large-scale system of wind, water and solar energies can reliably satisfy the world's needs, thus making an important contribution to climate, water quality, ecology and energy security. As we have shown, the obstacles are primarily political and not technical. A combination of feed-in tariffs and encouraging suppliers to lower prices, canceling subsidies for mineral fuel and building an expanded and smart network - all these together are enough to ensure a quick establishment. It is understood that the real world transportation and energy industries will have to overcome the lost money invested in the existing infrastructure. But with the help of a wise policy, the nations can set themselves the goal of producing 25% of the new energy they provide through wind, water and solar sources within 10 to 15 years, and almost 100% within 20 or 30 years. With the help of a very aggressive policy, it will be possible to eliminate all the existing mineral fuel capacity and replace it in the same period of time, but with the adoption of a more modest and acceptable policy, perhaps 40 to 50 years will be required for a complete replacement. In any case, there will be a need for clear leadership, because otherwise nations will continue to try technologies promoted by industry rather than technologies tested by scientists.
Ten years ago it was not clear that wind, water and solar systems would be possible from a technical or economic point of view. We have shown that this is possible, and therefore we hope that world leaders will find a way to make the renewable energy system possible from a political point of view as well. For starters, they can commit to meaningful climate and renewable energy goals now.
22 תגובות
There are many sources that require energy. Among other things, also batteries for forklifts. Most of us know batteries mainly from the field of our private vehicles. However, there are other complex electrical and mechanical systems, especially those intended for industrial uses that require other types of batteries that provide a response to more complex and higher needs.
I read about it on an excellent site I found in the field of solar energy
https://bit.ly/2T1atxZ
Olgahahaha ♥♥
There is a lot of hope that Japan will be destroyed for the sake of our way of life on the face of the earth - that we will be saved both with the help of prayer and repentance and with the help of new companies that are located like all kinds of replacements of the electric company. now.
There are many big and small companies today, big like the solar electric company in the desert and small like the "queen of solar solutions" that market mini systems for the home. Those who want can find it sustainable! Responsibility of our generation in our abilities.
And if we are realistic, the solution to the energy problem is nuclear fission energy with fissile material that has been treated to prevent the possibility of creating atomic bombs from it (there is such a thing and it is being developed in tachyon) and in 20 years maybe also nuclear fusion which is humanity's wet dream.
Or a war that will reduce the amount of energy needed...
A point I didn't hear here:
Articles have recently been published regarding the use of different energies - solar/wind/hydro (sea waves) and their effects on the environment. For example: using solar energy prevents the sun's rays from reaching the earth or being returned to space, using turbines can change the climate in a certain area (hot/cold air does not flow in its fixed paths, the change in kinetic energy, etc...). Thoughts?
The real problem is the hoarding
If it were possible to store large amounts of energy, this whole channel is much more practical
That's why I suggest creating huge pools that will be energy accumulators
Maybe the Dead Sea can be turned into a huge battery
Eric:
Things are not exactly related.
We use many materials on Earth to create various tools and objects and no one sees this as a problem.
The reason for this is also that such use consumes much, much, much less and that if and when there is a shortage - it can be recycled (by the way - plastic is already recycled to a certain extent).
If they turn oil into a product whose consumption is similar to the consumption of other materials - we will discuss it for a very long time.
Besides - as you said - replacements will also be an option.
In the end it will all come to an end - you have to remember that the sun will also eventually wear out (whether we use the energy it emits or not)
In terms of energy - it is possible to switch to non-oil-based energy.
But take a second look left and right in the room where you are sitting, and try to count the amount of objects that were not created from the various products of oil. Couldn't find any? We live in a petroleum civilization, and not only because of the energy we extract from it, but because of all the materials we create from it.
True, it is likely that it is possible to produce all those materials also from biodegradable and non-oil-based materials - but at the moment this technology does not exist, or is in very preliminary stages of development. And as long as they mine oil for these materials, they will continue to produce energy.
You understand the name my friend, Capricorn, you understand the name...
It is clear (and the examples given by the authors of the article prove) that when you want to
It is possible, the question is how many really want; do you really understand
The leaders of the countries and their citizens the urgency of the matter - just as they understood
In the second MLA, the urgency of creating airplanes in car factories?
"The former vice president of the United States, Al Gore, threw down a gauntlet in 2008: within ten years America's electricity production must be based on XNUMX percent carbon-free fuel"
According to the rest of the article, I conclude that this is a mistake and you meant to say "within 20 years..."
They are talking about wind farms that are 150 to 300 km away from each other.
It sounds a little different.
This of course does not belong to the backup between sun and wind and waves.
Very small countries need cooperation with their neighbors anyway and I am sure that even we can achieve cooperation on these issues with Jordan and Egypt.
I don't know what will happen in the end, but it seems to me not only possible but - in the long run - necessary.
This is not an optimistic scenario, but the only scenario that will allow the human race to exist for a long time.
A balance between different sources is good and well, but as also stated in the article, establishing production units that will back each other up requires space (in the article, it is suggested to establish torivan farms at a distance of 300 km from each other). Space in certain countries is an expensive commodity or simply non-existent. In the situation Such is quite easy to imagine situations that would require very large reserves of penny energy to continue driving the electricity sector, reserves whose infrastructure and maintenance costs would be much greater than the infrastructure and maintenance of oil or coal reserves.
Needless to say, Ami Bachar's proposal regarding small production units also falls into the same trap.
Regarding "Micho's" comment, while there are many countries in the world that export oil, gas and coal and allow each country the opportunity to choose and replace its suppliers. After all, in an energy economy based on renewable sources, the country will be limited to its neighbors to which its electricity grid will be connected. Something that will greatly limit its maneuverability.
Therefore, I repeat my claim that the use of renewable energy sources will be limited to the amount that the country itself can produce, when the difference with will exist, it will continue to make up with non-renewable energy, which is much easier and simpler to import.
And I completely agree with Ami Bachar regarding the fact that the authors of the article present a very optimistic tone that does not match the geopolitical reality of today.
falcon
In fact, already today the electricity system of most countries is backed up by the neighboring countries. Only countries whose neighbors are all their enemies (eg Israel) cannot back up the system, and this is indeed a well-known problem of the Israeli electricity economy.
Besides, as far as I know, many methods are being worked on today in which they try to store electrical energy, with varying success, in any case it is not impossible that one day they will also succeed in artificially storing the same amount of energy that is stored in chemical fuels.
This article gave some numbers on the scope of investment required, but at the level of technological capability, much of it seems up in the air. In the circles that deal with the matter in Israel, it is said that even if solar panels were placed on all the roofs of Israel, it would contribute to the total economy the amount of electricity that constitutes the annual growth in electricity consumption, which is very little.
In response to my people including:
1. The world will probably gradually switch to renewable sources. It is possible that the vision of cold fusion will arrive before clean sources are cheap enough. Even 15 years ago, they thought that solar cells would be cheap, but they did not consider the electronics industry.
2. Already today the Arab countries are rich to an unbelievable level and they understand the future and are preparing for it. Countries that will suffer from this will mainly be countries like Venezuela, which use oil as political leverage.
The summary in the article is not bad but does not address the important issue of oil in too much detail.
I agree with the writers that a combination is the right thing. It will always be true to phase and it is an invention of nature. In nature and the evolution of life, successful systems are coupled systems. So above and below a wind station you can place solar cells and the like.
The second thing that is mentioned at the end of the article is the transportation and in my opinion there is a wrong thinking here that is related to old thinking about mineral energy sources: wind turbines can be placed on any building. Even if not the same huge white turbines we know (from Germany for example). Small turbines surrounded by solar collectors and buildings covered with solar panels in strategic directions. Or then there is no need for transportation and loss of energy. As we all know, no machine is very efficient and with every shift there is loss. Only in the actual storage is there a loss. Therefore, instead of thinking about energies that come from some desert (where, of course, the efficiency of energy harvesting must be maximized) it is better to try and evaluate a distributed system that is built from small units. I look at all the ugly buildings and skyscrapers of Tel Aviv and ask myself, if there was a wind turbine on each of them (how many such buildings are there already? 100?) wouldn't they provide the city's energy and even more?
The last problem I mentioned in the first line is the most important in my opinion, and that is the oil. Today the situation is that there is oil to burn. That oil is there and it doesn't look like it's going to run out. What we are asked to do is to say that we are no longer thinking about business but about ecology and therefore we will leave the minerals to rest there and go and invest a lot of energy in other things. It is not easy and I find it hard to believe that in our cold business world today it is possible. By the way, when the technology arrives and the consumption of mineral fuel drops significantly, the world will be faced with a big question when entire countries (for example, certain Arab countries) will suddenly face a reality in which a main industry and a main source of income have disappeared as if they were not there. It can destroy societies and start world wars.
Therefore, I think that although the article is important and interesting and enlightening in the context of the business programming of renewable energy, it is simplistic and does not take into account the important things. The article comes to present a positive side of a vision without considering other important parameters.
In conclusion and on a personal note, I will be happy when the world switches to alternative energy. It's healthier for all of us. The technology is already here and the only reason they don't do it is political. Don't be fooled by nonsense like money. There is money in heaps and investments in the energy sector pay off hugely. As with water, also with energy - everything is political.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
point:
Who asks them?
Alex:
Yes of course!
falcon.:
They actually paid attention to the problem and presented a solution that does not require a connection and balance between countries.
Instead of this type of connection (which will certainly help in places where it is possible, even though its efficiency is less than one might hope because of the costs of transmitting electricity over large distances and the huge voltage losses caused in this process) they talk about a balance between different sources at different times and storage that will become more and more possible as the storage means are perfected.
The illogical combination of technologies is wasteful in money and space. And with us, despite the age of the potential for geothermal energy in the south of the Golan Heights, we do nothing about it because it is of no interest to anyone and everyone prefers to be small-minded. Regarding solar energy, I think there is a way to build solar panels from organic material, if I remember correctly it is the same material as the OLED screens (those are 3 mm thick) and it is cheaper than the solar cells on the market that contain zinc and precious metals, the only problem is the low efficiency but when it goes up So it will pay off to buy such solar panels.
L. B. Z.
I would not happen to the situation today, where everyone relies on the oil production of a limited number of "energy autonomy" countries. Actually wind and sun is something that more or less everyone has (except Brits, maybe - they mostly have rain... P-:).
The biggest political problem that is not mentioned in the article is related to the fact that in order to sustain the energy economy that the authors are talking about, there is a need for the existence of a global energy economy where the countries (or large groups of them) must be connected to a single electricity grid and trade it among themselves due to the volatile nature of the aforementioned energy sources .
A country like Israel (other small countries) cannot establish within its borders enough energy production units to back each other up when output drops, and since electrical energy cannot be imported in tankers from South America, they will have to rely on their neighbors. I doubt many countries will give up or reduce their "energy autonomy", especially in the geopolitical situation of today (and the foreseeable future). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that each country will only rely on the amount of renewable energy it can produce on its own, while the remaining percentages will be supplemented by a mix of sources (fossil fuels, nuclear energy or electricity imports from neighboring countries) depending on its situation.
Words, words... The question is if anyone in Israel is thinking of doing something with this information...
Why would the oil companies agree to such a move?