IEA Believes 20% Energy Savings Possible by 2035

Status
Not open for further replies.

A Bad Day

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2011
2,256
0
19,790
2
Seems a bit optimistic. When there were news that US Congress was toying with the idea of restricting the sales of "energy-inefficient" bulbs (aka incandescent bulbs), there was a massive increase in sales of the bulbs because people were hoarding them in fears of the sale of the bulbs being banned.
 

A Bad Day

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2011
2,256
0
19,790
2
EDIT: If you also check the comment sections of the online news article, you'll notice an usually large amount of anti-LED/Fluorescent light bulbs.

Also, when my dad purchased a house, the contractor used only incandescent bulbs to save construction costs. Then when a few of the bulbs burnt out, my dad bought more incandescent bulbs because the fluorescent and LED bulbs were "too expensive".
 

A Bad Day

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2011
2,256
0
19,790
2
[citation][nom]Cazalan[/nom]And no mention of geothermal which is nearly limitless supply, but costly.[/citation]

We humans are quite susceptible to "false economy". Look up Chainsaw Al; that's the nickname of a former CEO of Sunbeam who initially boosted profits of the struggling company in the late 1990's, then drove it into the ground.
 
G

Guest

Guest
And yet they don't mention Canada since were starting tons of new Energy things. Oh well sometimes I forget we don't exist.
 

mikenygmail

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2009
362
0
18,780
0
"15 percent of the world's available water is tied up in energy production; by 2035 that amount will increase by 85 percent due to the usage in greater power production and biofuels"

85 + 15 = 100% of the world's available water will be tied up in energy production?
Exactly what is meant by "world's available water?"
 

mikenygmail

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2009
362
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]goodman854[/nom]And yet they don't mention Canada since were starting tons of new Energy things. Oh well sometimes I forget we don't exist.[/citation]

Well your typing is already fading away, so be careful what you wish for...
 

A Bad Day

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2011
2,256
0
19,790
2
[citation][nom]CKKwan[/nom]Where is the fusion technology (ITER) that promissed in 2025?[/citation]

Unless if it benefits the fossil fuel corporations, it's probably going to get starved of government funding.
 

twisted politiks

Distinguished
Dec 3, 2008
209
0
18,690
1
[citation][nom]mikenygmail[/nom]"15 percent of the world's available water is tied up in energy production; by 2035 that amount will increase by 85 percent due to the usage in greater power production and biofuels"85 + 15 = 100% of the world's available water will be tied up in energy production?Exactly what is meant by "world's available water?"[/citation]

They are talking about an 85% increase of the already 15% being used. As a simplification, if we were using 15% of 100 gallons, that would be 15 gallons. This means in 2035 they would be using 15 *.85 = 12.75. Adding 15 gallons with the new 12.75 gallons would mean we would be using 27.75 gallons per day, up from 15 gallons per day.
 

Fulgurant

Distinguished
Nov 29, 2012
584
0
19,065
31
[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]Seems a bit optimistic. When there were news that US Congress was toying with the idea of restricting the sales of "energy-inefficient" bulbs (aka incandescent bulbs), there was a massive increase in sales of the bulbs because people were hoarding them in fears of the sale of the bulbs being banned.[/citation]

Yeah. I like how on the one hand she talks about a 20% savings for the consumer, and on the other hand the report (as quoted by the Tom's piece) cites $4.8 trillion in subsidies for renewable energies. Color me skeptical that any over-arching increase in energy efficiency will translate into a commensurate cost savings to the consumer.

I'm also interested in the prediction that renewables will be the second-largest source of energy in the world by 2015, which is just around the corner. Seems like a pointless observation; if you're comparing a whole litany of energy sources and grouping them together arbitrarily under a vague umbrella term (renewables), then is it really fair or accurate to compare them other, singular energy sources?
 

A Bad Day

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2011
2,256
0
19,790
2
[citation][nom]IndignantSkeptic[/nom]What?! so we still won't be using solar power instead by then?[/citation]

Remember the solar company that crashed and burned, with the huge federal aid? That one mismanaged company screwed over the entire solar industry.
 

merikafyeah

Honorable
Jun 20, 2012
264
0
10,790
2
Molten-salt thorium reactors are the closest thing to a cost-efficient end-all solution we have.
The US has one of the largest rare-earth deposits in the world, but we don't utilize it because some idiots don't realize what to do with the byproduct of refining rare-earth minerals. Turns out that "byproduct" can be used as fuel for thorium reactors. Rare-earth industry + thorium reactors will indisputably solve our energy problem and most of our economic problems as well since more jobs will be created on two separate industries, and we'll also be able to export a valuable resource for once instead of importing all the oil from southwest Asia ("middle east" for the euro-centric).

1. Cheap, clean energy, and more of it than we've ever had before.
2. HUGE untapped rare-earth industry in the US greatly boosts economy, and neutralizes China's rare-earth monopoly "overnight".
3. More jobs, bringing U.S. back into export and manufacturing.
4. NO RISK OF DEVASTATING MELTDOWN, like Fukushima/Chernobyl.

There is literally no downside to this. So why haven't we done this? Where are all the thorium reactors?
We had one for several years but shut it down even though it worked perfectly. The military wants nuclear solutions that produces weapons-grade material as a byproduct, but the byproduct of thorium reactors CANNOT be used to make nuclear weapons, and so the idea was pushed to the wayside. That's the only reason the U.S. is spiraling the drain, downing millions of barrels of foreign oil. Ignorance and stupidity.

Please support the thorium future, and the future of humanity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyqYP6f66Mw
(Title is misleading. It's really the thorium SOLUTION, not problem. The only "problem" is that it's not being used enough.)

Also short version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

And for the few remaining naysayers and fence-sitters, a short documentary to bring it all home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ9Ll5EX1jc

People seem to believe that the universe is forever keeping clean energy just beyond our reach,
when the only thing holding us back is ourselves.

If you're in the U.S. the easiest way to help is to spread the word, and sign this petition:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-destruction-our-u-233-more-nasa-space-exploration-new-cancer-treatments-thorium-energy/vYMLG81W

We need 23,658 more signatures by Feb 12, 2013 to reach the goal of 25,000, so don't wait, act now and tell all your friends.
Extra urgency notice: This petition was created before the Jan 15 threshold increase went into effect. If this petition doesn't go through, any subsequent petition about thorium will require at least 100,000 signatures to receive a response!!!
 

balev

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2009
46
0
18,530
0
- Iraq will be surpassing Russia as the world's second largest oil exporter in 2035, and account for 45 percent of the growth in global oil production
And what was the reason the US "went to war" with Iraq again?
 

obiown77

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2009
142
0
18,690
1
This is bullsh1t, there are more than a couple "near free energy technologies" already in existence, but the energy tycoons surpress it.
 

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
2,019
0
19,780
0
"growth in global oil production"

We need to stop talking about 'production'.
We do not produce oil, we just pump what is there out of the ground.

Calling it 'production' gives subconsciously the false idea to people that we can simply make more at will forever.
 

toadhammer

Distinguished
Nov 2, 2012
112
2
18,685
0
As far as oil goes, I don't believe the US will ever be "energy independent" the way people hope. If/when we can pump enough, it will be in the better interest of the oil companies to sell it abroad at higher prices, driving up the cost here as we end up competing to buy local oil. Not very different from now, competing to buy foreign oil.
 

robochump

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2010
968
0
18,980
0
Dont matter, energy companies will always find ways to make us pay pricey utility bills. They are the same now then they were years and years ago and supposedly we are using much less electricity...lol.
 

balev

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2009
46
0
18,530
0
[citation][nom]JAYDEEJOHN[/nom]To supply the rest of the world with free, non corrupt by political means oil.We wont be using this[/citation]
Surely you're joking... Either that or I didn't understand you properly...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY