In prior installment of our posts introducing the graphics from our book Climate Gamble: is Anti-Nuclear Activism Endangering Our Future?, we showed how the IPCC special report on renewable energy potential actually shows that most scenarios fall far short from supplying the world with enough low-carbon energy in 2050. This picture expands upon the SRREN results by showing IPCC’s latest estimates of world energy demand up to 2050.
IPCC estimates that even if powerful climate mitigation policies are adopted around the world, the world energy demand will most likely be at least 450 exajoules per year (EJ/a), and may be as much as 800 EJ/a. If climate policies are neglected as they are now, the final energy use may be much higher. Since even the highest single outlier in IPCC’s SRREN report forecasts renewable energy potential to be at most 428 EJ/a, we have a major problem.
In short, the non-nuclear energy scenarios rely on two things: that renewables will at the very least succeed as well as the most optimistic of 164 IPCC SRREN energy scenarios suggests; and that energy saving measures will succeed at the very least as well as the most optimistic of IPCC’s energy demand scenarios suggests. (The next week’s installment will explain in more detail what these scenarios demand in practice.) If either one fails to deliver as planned yet alternatives cannot be deployed, we are in deep trouble. Your mileage may vary, but we feel that such optimism amounts to a reckless gamble, as we do not have a planet or plan B to fall back on.
This series of posts introduces graphics from our book Climate Gamble: Is Anti-Nuclear Activism Endangering Our Future? The book is now available on Amazon.com in Kindle and paperback formats; see also our crowdfunding initiative which aims to deliver a copy of the book to COP21 climate delegates in Paris this December.
Climate Gamble 
[…] of renewables side by side with the IPCC scenarios for world energy demand in a featured weekly graph shared from the book on their […]
LikeLike
Hello!
Is it okay if I feature this graph in a post of mine where I talk about energy solutions for climate mitigation? I link both to the blog here and the Amazon site for your book. I hope it’s alright, but wanted to make sure in any case.
Thanks,
Iida
LikeLike
Umm, forgot to include the link to the post: http://thoughtscapism.com/2015/03/06/energy-solutions-in-a-changing-climate/ 🙂
LikeLike
Sure, go ahead!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course! Information wants to be free! Great work. Thanks!
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] if the IPCC median forecasts of world energy use and renewable potential are closer to the […]
LikeLike
[…] propose coal as an alternative to nuclear power) despite clear and mounting evidence that they were inadequate for the challenges of the […]
LikeLike
[…] Read more in World Nuclear News, or in the report directly, available here at MIT. Note, not only may a near zero-carbon grid be dramatically more expensive, it’s likely to be nigh impossible to achieve without nuclear in the first place. On energy demand vs renewable potential, see the excellent graph about the IPCC estimates here at Climate Gamble: […]
LikeLike
[…] Read more in World Nuclear News, or in the report directly, available here at MIT. Note, not only may a near zero-carbon grid be dramatically more expensive, it’s likely to be nigh impossible to achieve without nuclear in the first place. On energy demand vs renewable potential, see the excellent graph about the IPCC estimates here at Climate Gamble: […]
LikeLike