Advertisements

Key Reason to Support Renewable Energy? The Future Looks Like Hell Without it.

We’ve often talked about the link between renewable energy denial and climate change denial on this site. But in our most recent article and video blog, we’re going to highlight the link in bright colors for all to see. In simple terms, those who attack renewable energy are leading us down a path toward worst-case climate change.

(What does the future look like without a transition to renewable energy? As bad as bad can be.)

In other words, we can’t address worst case climate change without a rather swift transition to renewable energy over the coming decades. The faster we transition, the better off the world will be. The slower we transition, the more pain we will see from climate change on a global scale.

But aside from avoiding climate change, transitioning to renewables produces numerous benefits including increased grid stability and lower electricity costs. For example, a recent Department of Energy study found that:

…renewables will be able to provide 80 percent of the nation’s electricity mix by 2050, while maintaining reliability. Wind and solar already provide many essential reliability services as well or better than inflexible coal and nuclear plants.

This in addition to reducing particulate pollution, greatly reducing air pollution deaths, and removing the source of mercury poisoning in seafood (coal burning).

But despite these and many other obvious benefits, the fossil fuel supporters of the world (call them mass harm and destruction supporters, because that’s what they are) continue to cast a cloud of fear and doubt over renewable energy. A primary false claim being that ‘renewables cause blackouts’ (This one penned by David Mercer).

(Worst case climate change scenarios involve continued fossil fuel burning with very little energy system replacement by renewables. Best case climate change scenarios involve a rapid transition to clean energy. Which future do you want to live in? Image source: Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways.)

In truth, what renewables do, especially when integrated with a moderate proportion of the increasingly available and swiftly dispatchable battery storage systems, is provide a more reliable and sustainable grid over the long term while also reducing pollution and tamping down the degree of global pain inflicted by human-caused climate change.

Moreover renewable energy deniers:

…fail to acknowledge that extreme heat and drought, sea-level rise, and other climate change impacts worsened by fossil fuels should be addressed as they likely pose a greater and growing threat to grid reliability and resilience, increasing the possibility of blackouts. It also completely ignores the large public health and environmental impacts of burning fossil fuels that are not included in electricity prices and huge subsidies coal, natural gas and nuclear power have received for decades. Putting a price on carbon or removing all energy subsidies—ideas mentioned in an earlier draft of the study and currently proposed in Congress—could go a long way in creating a level playing field for energy sources and addressing the growing climate crisis, exacerbated by President Trump’s decision to pull out the Paris Agreement.

So the next time someone tells you that solar and wind cause blackouts, don’t listen to the nonsense and mind-fogging. If we keep burning fossil fuels, the blackouts will be coming, and they’ll be much worse without decentralized, renewable grids.

Advertisements
Leave a comment

11 Comments

  1. No matter how it goes with the Global Warming / Climate Change “debate”, we should transition to Renewable Energy in any case.
    Read more about some of the benefits of renewable energy, and what we as individuals could be doing, here . ( https://wp.me/p72ZfM-4Z )

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  2. socalledbob

     /  May 21, 2018

    DAILY NEWS 14 May 2018 Worst-case climate change scenario is even worse than we thought https://www.newscientist.com/article/2168847-worst-case-climate-change-scenario-is-even-worse-than-we-thought/
    “Our estimates indicate that, due to higher than assumed economic growth rates, there is a greater than 35 per cent probability that year 2100 emissions concentrations will exceed those given by RCP8.5,” says Peter Christensen of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    • Whether they do or not will depend entirely on how rapidly the world transitions to renewable energy — thus decoupling carbon emissions from growth.

      Like

      Reply
    • rhymeswithgoalie

       /  May 21, 2018

      I may be whistling in the dark, here, but I’m hoping the VW turns around from its shameful (and criminal) diesel emissions fraud and embraces EVs much faster than it otherwise would have.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  3. Jeremy in Wales

     /  May 22, 2018

    As if there were not enough good reasons to get away from coal the following should convince everyone

    https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/aje/kwy110/4996680?redirectedFrom=fulltext

    Abstract

    Coal and oil power plant retirements reduce air pollution nearby, but few studies have leveraged these natural experiments for public health research. We used California Department of Public Health birth records and Energy Information Administration data from 2001-2011 to evaluate the relationship between 8 coal and oil power plant retirements and nearby preterm births ( < 37 weeks gestational age). We conducted a difference-in-differences analysis using adjusted linear mixed models that included 57,005 births–6.5% of which were preterm–to compare the probability of preterm birth before and after power plant retirement among mothers residing within 0-5 km and 5-10 km of the 8 power plants. We found that power plant retirements were associated with a decrease in the proportion of preterm birth within 5 km (-0.019, 95% CI: -0.031, -0.008) and 5-10 km (-0.015, 95% CI: -0.024, -0.007) controlling for secular trends with mothers living 10-20 km away. For the 0-5 km area, this corresponds to a reduction in preterm birth from 7.0% to 5.1%. Subgroup analyses indicated a potentially larger association among non-Hispanic Black and Asian mothers compared to non-Hispanic White and Hispanic mothers and no differences in educational attainment. Future coal and oil power plant retirements may reduce preterm birth among nearby populations.

    Good reason to ban diesels as quickly as possible too as living by busy road most likely has similar affects?

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: