Usted no se lo cree

Artículo de referencia: A propósito de la suficiencia energética ‘todo renovables’

1. Antonio García-Olivares et al (2011) – A global renewable mix with proven technologies and common materials – Energy Policy doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.018 – Published online: 26/11/2011 – Instituto de Ciencias del Mar, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas – 4 autores – Peer reviewed
   “A global alternative mix to fossil fuels is proposed, based on proven renewable energy technologies that do not use scarce materials. The mix consists of a combination of onshore and offshore wind turbines, concentrating solar power stations, hydroelectricity and wave power devices attached to the offshore turbines. Solar photovoltaic power could contribute to the mix if its dependence on scarce materials is solved. The most adequate deployment areas for the power stations are studied, as well as the required space. Material requirements are studied for the generation, power transport and for some future transport systems. The order of magnitude of copper, aluminium, neodymium, lithium, nickel, zinc and platinum that may be required for the proposed solution is obtained and compared with available reserves. Overall, the proposed global alternative to fossil fuels seems technically feasible. However, lithium, nickel and platinum could become limiting materials for future vehicles fleet if no global recycling systems were implemented and rechargeable zinc–air batteries would not be developed; 60% of the current copper reserves would have to be employed in the implementation of the proposed solution. Altogether, they may become a long-term physical constraint, preventing the continuation of the usual exponential growth of energy consumption.”
2. Richard Heinberg (2009) – Searching for a Miracle: Net Energy Limits & the Fate of Industrial Society – Forum on Globalisation & The Post Carbon Institute – September 2009 – Post-carbon Institute – http://www.postcarbon.org/new-site-files/Reports/Searching_for_a_Miracle_web10nov09.pdf
   “The scale of denial is breathtaking. For as Heinberg’s analysis makes depressingly clear, there will be NO combination of alternative energy solutions that might enable the long term continuation of economic growth, or of industrial societies in their present form and scale. Ultimately the solutions we desperately seek will not come from ever-greater technical genius and innovation. Far better and potentially more successful pathways can only come from a sharp turn to goals, values, and practices that emphasize conservation of material and energy resources, localization of most economic frameworks, and gradual population reduction to stay within the carrying capacities of the planet.”
3. Benjamin K. Sovacool and Charmaine Watts (2009) – Going completely renewable: is it possible (let alone desirable)? – The Electricity Journal 22:95–111 doi:/10.1016/j.tej.2009.03.01 – Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore; Renewable energy consultant and the CEO of the Sustainable Electricity Association New Zealand (SEANZ) – Peer reviewed
   “With the right mix of leadership and policy, a completely renewable electricity sector for New Zealand and the United States is feasible, achievable, and desirable.”
4. Mark A. Delucchi and Mark Z. Jacobson (2010) – Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials  – Energy Policy doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.040  – Published online: 30/12/2010 – Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California; Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University – Peer reviewed
   ”Climate change, pollution, and energy insecurity are among the greatest problems of our time. Addressing them requires major changes in our energy infrastructure. Here, we analyze the feasibility of providing worldwide energy for all purposes (electric power, transportation, heating/cooling, etc.) from wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) … Such a WWS infrastructure reduces world power demand by 30% and requires only not, vert, similar0.41% and not, vert, similar0.59% more of the world’s land for footprint and spacing, respectively. We suggest producing all new energy with WWS by 2030 and replacing the pre-existing energy by 2050. Barriers to the plan are primarily social and political, not technological or economic. The energy cost in a WWS world should be similar to that today.”
5. Mark A. Delucchi and Mark Z. Jacobson (2010) – Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II: Reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies  – Energy Policy doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.045 – Published online: 31/12/2010 – Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California; Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University – Peer reviewed
   “Here, we discuss methods of addressing the variability of WWS energy to ensure that power supply reliably matches demand (including interconnecting geographically dispersed resources, using hydroelectricity, using demand-response management, storing electric power on site, over-sizing peak generation capacity and producing hydrogen with the excess, storing electric power in vehicle batteries, and forecasting weather to project energy supplies), the economics of WWS generation and transmission, the economics of WWS use in transportation, and policy measures needed to enhance the viability of a WWS system. We find that the cost of energy in a 100% WWS will be similar to the cost today. We conclude that barriers to a 100% conversion to WWS power worldwide are primarily social and political, not technological or even economic.”
6. Ted Trainer (2011) – A critique of Jacobson and Delucchi’s proposals for a world renewable energy supply – Energy Policy doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.037 – Published online: 22/10/2011 – Social Sciences and International Studies, University of New South Wales – Peer reviewed
   “Jacobson and Delucchi have recently put forward a detailed case in support of the claim that renewable energy sources can meet total world energy demand. The following argument is that this proposal is unsatisfactory, primarily because it does not deal effectively with the problems set by the variability of renewable energy sources, and also because its analysis of investment costs is inadequate.”
7. Mark A. Delucchi and Mark Z. Jacobson (2011) – Response to “A critique of Jacobson and Delucchi’s proposals for a world renewable energy supply” by Ted Trainer – Energy Policy doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.10.058 – Published online: 17/11/2011 – Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis; Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University – Peer reviewed
   “Makes two main points: (1)  that JD11 and DJ11 do “not deal effectively with the problems set by the variability of renewable energy sources,” and (2)  that the JD11/DJ11 “analysis of investment costs is inadequate.” Neither of these criticisms is valid. We show here that T11’s first main point is based on a misrepresentation of what is stated and referenced in DJ11, and that his second main point is based on mistakes and unreasonable assumptions. As a result, T11’s critique does not affect our original analyses or our conclusion that it is technically, economically, and environmentally feasible to provide all global energy with wind, water, and solar power.”
8. Carlos de Castro et al (2011) – Global wind power potential: Physical and technological limits – Energy Policy 39:6677-6682 doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.027 – Published online: 29/06/2011 – Applied Physics, Campus Miguel Delibes, University of Valladolid – Peer reviewed
   “The results give roughly 1 TW for the top limit of the future electrical potential of wind energy. This value is much lower than previous estimates and even lower than economic and realizable potentials published for the mid-century.”
9.  Referencia pendiente
10. Carlos de Castro – Comentario en «Un mix renovable a escala global con tecnologías probadas y materiales comunes» – Crash Oil – Published online: 16/01/2012 – Universidad de Valladolid – http://crashoil.blogspot.com/2012/01/un-mix-renovable-escala-global-con.html?showComment=1326711782429#c7478480983651599146
    “… no me creo que la TRE de la solar de concentración sea tan buena como señalan los autores de este artículo. Dada su baja densidad, su requerimiento de grandes superficies, su requerimiento de materiales y de mano de obra, su intermitencia y la necesidad de almacenar la energía, la TRE no puede ser muy alta, de hecho, el autoconsumo de las plantas de concentración suele ser de alrededor del 5% según los -no científicamente fiables- implicados en el negocio (por lo que la TRE < 20 solo con ese factor). “
11. Mark New et al (2010) – Four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature increase of four degrees and its implications – Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A 369:4-5 doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0304 – Published online: 29/11/2010 – School of Geography and Environment and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research – 4 autores – Peer reviewed
    “There is a need for accelerated and focused research that improves understanding of how the climate system might behave under a +4◦C warming, what the impacts of such changes might be and how best to adapt to what would be unprecedented changes in the world we live in.”
12. 12.   Gaia Vince (2009) – How to survive the coming century – New Scientist 2697 – Published online: 25/02/2009 – http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126971.700-how-to-survive-the-coming-century.html
    “A 4 ºC could easily occur. The 2007 report of the International Panel of Climate change, whose conclusions are generally accepted as conservative, predicted a rise of anywhere between 2 ºC and 6.4 ºC this century. And, in August 2008, Bob Watson, former chair of the IPCC, warned the world should work on mitigation and adaptation strategies to ‘prepare for a 4 ºC of warming’. A key factor in how well we deal in a warmer world is how much time we have to adapt. According to models, we could cook the planet by 4ºC by 2100. Some scientists fear that we may get there as soon as 2050. If this happens, the ramifications for life on Earth are so terrifying that some scientists contacted for this article preferred not to contemplate them.”
13. Ronald Prinn et al (2011) – Scenarios with MIT integrated global systems model: significant global warming regardless of different approaches – Climatic Change 104:515–537 DOI:10.1007/s10584-009-9792-y – Published online: 11/06/2010 – Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Massachusetts Institute of Technology – 6 autores – Peer reviewed
    “The global mean temperature increases by 1.8 to 7.0◦C relative to 2000. Such increases will require considerable adaptation of many human systems and will leave some aspects of the earth’s environment irreversibly changed. Thus, the remarkable aspect of these different approaches to scenario development is not the differences in detail and philosophy but rather the similar picture they paint of a world at risk from climate change even if there is substantial effort to reduce emissions.”
14. Kevin Anderson (2011) – Climate Change: Going Beyond Dangerous … brutal numbers & tenous hope or cognitive dissonance? – Slide Share – Published online: 01/07/2011 – Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research + University of Manchester – http://www.slideshare.net/DFID/professor-kevin-anderson-climate-change-going-beyond-dangerous