Dr Gideon Polya: 100% renewable energy by 2020 for Australia

Dr Gideon Polya: 100% renewable energy by 2020 for Australia.

1. As analyzed by Professor Schellnhuber (see B1), Australia needs to get to 0% CO2 emissions by about 2020 but it is quite clear that there is bipartisan agreement for a policy of increasing Australia’s domestic plus Exported GHG pollution i.e. 5% off 2000 level by 2020 coupled with a huge increase in coal and LNG exports and in unaddressed agricultural GHG pollution. Australia’s stationary energy production is responsible for about 30% of Australia’s total GHG pollution (however the exact proportion needs to be re-assessed because of recent re-assessments from the World Bank that global livestock production contributes over 51% of total annual global GHG pollution). It is clearly possible for Australia and other countries to achieve 100% renewable energy by 2020 - 2030 as set out below. [1, 2, 3].

2. Professor Mark Z. Jacobson (Stanford University) and Mark A. Delucchi have set out a plan for 100% renewable energy for the world by 2030 using renewables such as wind, concentrated solar thermal, wave, tidal and geothermal energy. [4].

3, Professor David McKay FRS (Physics Department, Cambridge University and energy adviser to the UK Government) has set out a plan for renewable energy for the UK. Unlike Australia, the UK has limited solar energy resources and would have to tighten its belt energy-wise or import solar energy form North Africa. [5].

4. A scheme for 100% renewable energy for Australia has been set out by top electrical engineer Professor Peter Seligman (a major player in development of the bionic ear. Professor Seligman’s scheme involves involving wind, solar thermal, other energy sources, hydrological energy storage (in dams on the Nullabor Plain in Southern Australia), a HV AC and HV DC electricity transmission grid and a cost over 20 years of $253 billion. [6].

5. An important group of science-informed climate activists is Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) that in mid-2010 released an important and much-acclaimed plan for 100% renewable stationary energy for Australia by 2020 (Zero Carbon Australia by 2020, ZCA 2020). The BZE ZCA2020 Plan involves 40% wind energy, 60% concentrated solar thermal (CST) with molten salts energy storage for 24/7 baseload power, biomass and hydroelectric backup (for days of no wind and low sunshine) and a HV DC and HC AC national power grid. The BZE scheme was costed at $370 billion over 10 years, with roughly half spent on CST, one quarter on wind and one quarter on the national electricity grid. [7].

6. Another variant that could notionally give huge renewable energy for Australia by 2020 equivalent to 80% of its predicted 2020 energy needs [8] would be 80% wind energy with hydrological (or other) energy storage and other energy for 24/7 operation, noting that wind power installation is about 3-fold cheaper than solar thermal power installation [9]. Thus ignoring cost-increasing energy storage and transmission grid costs and cost-decreasing economies of scale for a 2- to10-fold size increase, here are 2 similar cost estimates for installation of wind power for 80% of Australia’s projected 325,000 GWh of annual electrical energy by 2020: (1) 90,000 MW capacity, 260,000 GWh/year, $200 billion/10 years (10-fold scale-up from GL Garrad Hassan, [44]) and (2) 96,000 MW, 260,000 GWh/year, $144 billion (2-fold scale-up of BZE’s Wind Power proposal [7]).

7. All kinds of renewable energy mixes can be envisaged for 100% renewable energy by 2020 for Australia using existing commercial technologies coupled with major increases in energy efficiency and in particular renewable energy-based electrification of public and private transport and indeed substantial elimination of private transport [6, 7. 11]. Note that wave, tidal, geothermal and cheaper solar PV technologies are in development [46, 47]. Australia spends $12 billion yearly on Carbon Subsidies (see A5), $20 billion yearly on gambling and $40 billion per year on insurance as compared to the estimated cost of $14-20 billion per year for an 80% wind energy component of our projected energy needs by 2020 (see C6). [7].

8. Unfortunately, the major parties in Australia are committed to coal and gas exports and to the convenient falsehood that a coal burning to gas burning transition would be “cleaner” greenhouse gas-wise – this egregious falsehood is analyzed in the next section [14-17]. The Renewable Energy Target (RET) Bill passed by the Australian Parliament (August 2009) sets a target of “20% renewable energy by 2020” and measures this by allotting 1 Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) per 1 MWh (megawatt hour = million watt hour) of renewable electricity generated and put into the grid. However what can be regarded as renewable energy (clean energy) under the legislation includes a number of clearly non-renewable components, most notoriously “Phantom renewable energy” or “fake accountant’s renewable energy” (whereby 5 RECs are issued for every 1 MWh of solar or wind electricity put into the power grid) and natural gas (methane) e.g. Coal (C ) -, oil ( (CH2)n) - or gas (CH4) -based electricity for electric hot water (clearly non-renewable energy), gas (CH4) -based or other carbon (C)-based electricity for solar hot water (clearly non-renewable energy), methane gas (CH4) from coal seams (clearly non-renewable energy), and methane gas (CH4) from land-fill (clearly non-renewable energy). This is an absurd and indeed counterproductive way to tackle Australia’s world-leading annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution. [14, 15, 18]

[1]. Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE), Conclusion, Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan Synopsis, p17, July 2010: http://media.beyondzeroemissions.org/ZCA-Stationary_Energy_Synopsis_20June10.pdf .

2. Gideon Polya, “Australia’s “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” endangers Australia, Humanity and the Biosphere”, YVCAG: https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-5-off-2000-ghg-pollution-by-2020-endangers-australia-humanity-and-biosphere .

3. Robert Goodland and Jeff Anfang. “Livestock and climate change. What if the key actors in climate change are … cows, pigs and chickens?”, World Watch, November/December 2009: http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf .

4. Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi, “A path to sustainable energy by 2030”, Scientific American, November 2009, pp 58 – 65: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030 .

5. David McKay, “Sustainable energy without the hot air”, UIT, Cambridge, UK: http://www.withouthotair.com/ .

6.Peter Seligman, “Australian sustainable energy – by the numbers”, Melbourne Energy Institute, University of Melbourne , 2010: http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/ozsebtn/ .

7. Beyond Zero Emissions Zero (BZE), Zero Carbon Australia by 2020 Report (BZE ZCA2020 Report), 2010: http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/about/bze-brand .

8. ABARE: http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/energy/energy_06/nrg_projections06.pdf .

9. Infigen: http://infigenenergy.com/media/418279/australian%20energy%20summit%20_6%20aug%2010_final.pdf .

10. GL Garrad Hassan: https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/mediaObject/events/2010-conference/presentations/1600-Barber---White/original/CEC%202010%20conference%20-%20GLGH.pdf .

11. Martin Mahy, “Hydrogen minibuses” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics”, pp250-256, edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007.

12. Mark Diesendorf, “A sustainable energy future for Australia”, in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics”, pp242-249, edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007.

13. John Veevers, “The Innamincka hit fractured rocl project” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics”, pp236-241, edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007.

14. Gideon Polya, “Australia absurdly declares methane burning clean and renewable”, Countercurrents, 26 August 2009: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya160809.htm .

15. Gideon Polya, “Gas is dirty energy & may be dirtier than coal - Oz Labor’s "gas is clean energy" means Put Labor Last”, Bellaciao, 10 June 2010: http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article19894 .

16. “Gulf oil & gas disaster, lobbyists, Obama & huge threat of natural gas (methane) to Humanity & Biosphere”, Bellaciao, 19 June 2010: http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article19926 .

17. “Resource to stop gas-fired power plants, fossil fuel burning, GHG pollution & man-made climate change”, Bellaciao, 27 February 2011: http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article20592 .

18. Gideon Polya, “Carbon Price & Climate Change Action Fact Sheet for leading per capita greenhouse gas polluter Australia”, Bellaciao, 14 March 2011: http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article20628 .

Apeldoorn, Netherlands: 100% renewable energy by 2020

Apeldoorn (population just over 155,000) is located 70 kilometers from Amsterdam, Netherlands (see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeldoorn ).

Michael Boddeke, head of the city of Apeldoorn: “In 2020, all the energy consumed in Apeldoorn will be renewable, not fossil fuels, nuclear-free and produced in our own city”. [1].

[1]. "The city of Apeldoorn – 100% renewable energy by 2020", Science Hub, 30 May 2009: http://science-hub.com/2009/05/the-city-of-apeldoorn-100-renewable-energy-by-2020/ .

Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE): Zero Carbon Australia by 2020 (ZCA2020)

Beyond Zero Emissions is an Australian climate action group which wants “a decarbonised Australian economy by 2020” . BZE states: “Our goal is to facilitate the implementation of the social changes and technologies that will reduce the impacts of climate change and give our society and global ecosystems a chance of surviving into the future”. BZE has produced a detailed Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan involving 100% renewable electricity by 2020 (see: http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/ ).

1. BZE in the Conclusion, Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan Synopsis (July 2010): “The ZCA2020 [Zero Carbon Australia 2020] Stationary Energy Plan outlines a fully costed and detailed blueprint for transforming Australia’s energy sources to 100% renewable supply. This is achievable using technology [wind, concentrated solar thermal with molten salt energy storage, and HV DC and HV AC transmission] that is commercially available today, with no technical barriers to their deployment. Implementing the proposed infrastructure in ten year sis well within the capability of Australia’s existing industrial capacity. The required investment [$370 billion] is the equivalent of a stimulus to the [$1 trillion] economy of 3% of GDP.

100% renewable energy in ten years is achievable and necessary, ensuring Australia’s energy security, national security and economic prosperity for the future. Australia has some of the best renewable energy resources in the world, and should be positioning itself as a leader in the emerging renewable energy economy. What is required to make this happen is leadership from policymakers and society with firm decisions made quickly that will allow this transition to occur”. [1].

2.

Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) ZCA2020 Plan

100% Renewable Stationary Energy for Australia by 2020

BZE has 20 volunteer engineers plus numerous volunteer supporters (presenters, office, IT, design): “Our goal is to facilitate the implementation of the social changes and technologies that will reduce the impacts of climate change and give our society and global ecosystems a chance of surviving into the future.”

BZE launched the ZCA2020 Plan in 2010 in conjunction with the University of Melbourne Energy Institute. It has received wide scientific, academic and business support and some tripartisan commendation (Bob Carr, Malcolm Turnbull, Greens Senator Scott Ludlam).

Google BZE for free download of the ZCA2020 Report or the much shorter ZCA2020 Synopsis. You can buy hard copies of the ZCA2020 Report from the University of Melbourne Energy Institute.

BZE is currently working on further Reports in relation to Transport, Agriculture and Land Use, Buildings and Industry.

Key features of the ZCA2020 Plan

A. Why Australia must get to zero CO₂ emissions by 2020.

Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber CBE (Potsdam Institute, Germany) says that for a 67% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2 degree C temperature rise (EU policy), the world must cease carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions by 2050 (not good odds: would you board a plane that had a 33% chance of crashing?). If we accept that “all men are created equal” then we must have equal shares in polluting the atmosphere until 2050. This means that high annual per capita CO₂ polluters such as the US and Australia must cease by 2020 whereas India and Burkina Faso can actually increase CO₂ pollution before finally ceasing in 2050.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution largely involves CO₂ but also includes other GHGs such as methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O) and man-made chorofluorohydrocarbons (CFCs), the total GHG pollution being measured as CO₂-equivalent (CO₂-e). “Annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO₂-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO₂ pollution is included) (Google “Climate Genocide”).

B. ZCA2020 Plan: 60% Concentrated Solar Thermal with molten salts energy storage, 40% Wind plus HVAC/HVDC grid & biomass and hydroelectric backup.

1. BZE deliberately chose 2 established, commercial, renewable technologies, specifically Concentrated Solar Thermal (CST) with molten salts energy storage and Wind turbines (that are being widely applied commercially already) in order to establish a “proof of principle” i.e. we can achieve 100% renewable energy by 2020 for Australia using existing commercially-applied technologies.

2. CST with molten salts energy storage involves a Power Tower surrounded by a field of mirrors (heliostats) that concentrate the solar radiation at the top of the Power Tower where it heats molten salts (potassium and sodium nitrate, melting point 220C) from a “cold” tank (290C) to 565C, this heated solution being stored in a “hot” tank. The heat is used to generate steam which drives a turbine and thence generates electricity. Molten salts storage means that the system can operate 24/7. Such systems are already supplying commercial power in the US and Spain. Nineteen (19) 220MW (million watt) modules will form each of twelve (12) 3,500 MW solar regions (42,000 MW capacity in total; capacity factor 75%)

3. Wind turbines would be used in 23 regions for a total of 6,400 turbines (28,000 MW; capacity factor 30%).

4. High voltage direct current (HVDC) and high voltage alternating current (HVAC) links would make up an efficient national grid.

5. Extensive modeling based on real meteorological data shows that in this system solar energy would supplement available wind energy to achieve required power. Biomass and hydrolelectric backup would be available for those rare occasions of low wind and low sunshine.

6. $370 billion cost over 10 years. Australia has the steel, concrete and labor resources to enable implementation and there would be 40,000 ongoing new jobs in maintenance and operations of the system (peak construction labor force 75,000).

7. Increased energy efficiency (e.g. in transport, buildings, heating and cooling) is a key part of the scheme. Indeed the power capacity would increase by 40% (from 50,000 MW now to 70,000 MW under ZCA2020) to enable electrified transport.

NB. This is just the beginning. Top scientists say that we must urgently reduce atmospheric CO₂ concentration from the current 392 parts per million (ppm) to 300 ppm for a safe planet for all peoples and all species (e.g. by biochar production, re-afforestation and ceasing livestock GHG pollution) (Google 300.org).

3. 100% renewable energy by 2020 for Australia.

1. As analyzed by Professor Schellnhuber (see B1), Australia needs to get to 0% CO2 emissions by about 2020 but it is quite clear that there is bipartisan agreement for a policy of increasing Australia’s domestic plus Exported GHG pollution i.e. 5% off 2000 level by 2020 coupled with a huge increase in coal and LNG exports and in unaddressed agricultural GHG pollution. Australia’s stationary energy production is responsible for about 30% of Australia’s total GHG pollution (however the exact proportion needs to be re-assessed because of recent re-assessments from the World Bank that global livestock production contributes over 51% of total annual global GHG pollution). It is clearly possible for Australia and other countries to achieve 100% renewable energy by 2020 - 2030 as set out below. [2, 3].

2. Professor Mark Z. Jacobson (Stanford University) and Mark A. Delucchi have set out a plan for 100% renewable energy for the world by 2030 using renewables such as wind, concentrated solar thermal, wave, tidal and geothermal energy. [4].

3, Professor David McKay FRS (Physics Department, Cambridge University and energy adviser to the UK Government) has set out a plan for renewable energy for the UK. Unlike Australia, the UK has limited solar energy resources and would have to tighten its belt energy-wise or import solar energy form North Africa. [5].

4. A scheme for 100% renewable energy for Australia has been set out by top electrical engineer Professor Peter Seligman (a major player in development of the bionic ear. Professor Seligman’s scheme involves involving wind, solar thermal, other energy sources, hydrological energy storage (in dams on the Nullabor Plain in Southern Australia), a HV AC and HV DC electricity transmission grid and a cost over 20 years of $253 billion. [6].

5. An important group of science-informed climate activists is Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) that in mid-2010 released an important and much-acclaimed plan for 100% renewable stationary energy for Australia by 2020 (Zero Carbon Australia by 2020, ZCA 2020). The BZE ZCA2020 Plan involves 40% wind energy, 60% concentrated solar thermal (CST) with molten salts energy storage for 24/7 baseload power, biomass and hydroelectric backup (for days of no wind and low sunshine) and a HV DC and HC AC national power grid. The BZE scheme was costed at $370 billion over 10 years, with roughly half spent on CST, one quarter on wind and one quarter on the national electricity grid. [7].

6. Another variant that could notionally give huge renewable energy for Australia by 2020 equivalent to 80% of its predicted 2020 energy needs [8] would be 80% wind energy with hydrological (or other) energy storage and other energy for 24/7 operation, noting that wind power installation is about 3-fold cheaper than solar thermal power installation [9]. Thus ignoring cost-increasing energy storage and transmission grid costs and cost-decreasing economies of scale for a 2- to10-fold size increase, here are 2 similar cost estimates for installation of wind power for 80% of Australia’s projected 325,000 GWh of annual electrical energy by 2020: (1) 90,000 MW capacity, 260,000 GWh/year, $200 billion/10 years (10-fold scale-up from GL Garrad Hassan, [44]) and (2) 96,000 MW, 260,000 GWh/year, $144 billion (2-fold scale-up of BZE’s Wind Power proposal [7]).

7. All kinds of renewable energy mixes can be envisaged for 100% renewable energy by 2020 for Australia using existing commercial technologies coupled with major increases in energy efficiency and in particular renewable energy-based electrification of public and private transport and indeed substantial elimination of private transport [6, 7. 11]. Note that wave, tidal, geothermal and cheaper solar PV technologies are in development [46, 47]. Australia spends $12 billion yearly on Carbon Subsidies (see A5), $20 billion yearly on gambling and $40 billion per year on insurance as compared to the estimated cost of $14-20 billion per year for an 80% wind energy component of our projected energy needs by 2020 (see C6). [7].

8. Unfortunately, the major parties in Australia are committed to coal and gas exports and to the convenient falsehood that a coal burning to gas burning transition would be “cleaner” greenhouse gas-wise – this egregious falsehood is analyzed in the next section [14-17]. The Renewable Energy Target (RET) Bill passed by the Australian Parliament (August 2009) sets a target of “20% renewable energy by 2020” and measures this by allotting 1 Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) per 1 MWh (megawatt hour = million watt hour) of renewable electricity generated and put into the grid. However what can be regarded as renewable energy (clean energy) under the legislation includes a number of clearly non-renewable components, most notoriously “Phantom renewable energy” or “fake accountant’s renewable energy” (whereby 5 RECs are issued for every 1 MWh of solar or wind electricity put into the power grid) and natural gas (methane) e.g. Coal (C ) -, oil ( (CH2)n) - or gas (CH4) -based electricity for electric hot water (clearly non-renewable energy), gas (CH4) -based or other carbon (C)-based electricity for solar hot water (clearly non-renewable energy), methane gas (CH4) from coal seams (clearly non-renewable energy), and methane gas (CH4) from land-fill (clearly non-renewable energy). This is an absurd and indeed counterproductive way to tackle Australia’s world-leading annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution. [14, 15, 18]

[1]. Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE), Conclusion, Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan Synopsis, p17, July 2010: http://media.beyondzeroemissions.org/ZCA-Stationary_Energy_Synopsis_20June10.pdf .

2. Gideon Polya, “Australia’s “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” endangers Australia, Humanity and the Biosphere”, YVCAG: https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-5-off-2000-ghg-pollution-by-2020-endangers-australia-humanity-and-biosphere .

3. Robert Goodland and Jeff Anfang. “Livestock and climate change. What if the key actors in climate change are … cows, pigs and chickens?”, World Watch, November/December 2009: http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf .

4. Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi, “A path to sustainable energy by 2030”, Scientific American, November 2009, pp 58 – 65: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030 .

5. David McKay, “Sustainable energy without the hot air”, UIT, Cambridge, UK: http://www.withouthotair.com/ .

6.Peter Seligman, “Australian sustainable energy – by the numbers”, Melbourne Energy Institute, University of Melbourne , 2010: http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/ozsebtn/ .

7. Beyond Zero Emissions Zero (BZE), Zero Carbon Australia by 2020 Report (BZE ZCA2020 Report), 2010: http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/about/bze-brand .

8. ABARE: http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/energy/energy_06/nrg_projections06.pdf .

9. Infigen: http://infigenenergy.com/media/418279/australian%20energy%20summit%20_6%20aug%2010_final.pdf .

10. GL Garrad Hassan: https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/mediaObject/events/2010-conference/presentations/1600-Barber---White/original/CEC%202010%20conference%20-%20GLGH.pdf .

11. Martin Mahy, “Hydrogen minibuses” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics”, pp250-256, edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007.

12. Mark Diesendorf, “A sustainable energy future for Australia”, in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics”, pp242-249, edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007.

13. John Veevers, “The Innamincka hit fractured rocl project” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics”, pp236-241, edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007.

14. Gideon Polya, “Australia absurdly declares methane burning clean and renewable”, Countercurrents, 26 August 2009: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya160809.htm .

15. Gideon Polya, “Gas is dirty energy & may be dirtier than coal - Oz Labor’s "gas is clean energy" means Put Labor Last”, Bellaciao, 10 June 2010: http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article19894 .

16. “Gulf oil & gas disaster, lobbyists, Obama & huge threat of natural gas (methane) to Humanity & Biosphere”, Bellaciao, 19 June 2010: http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article19926 .

17. “Resource to stop gas-fired power plants, fossil fuel burning, GHG pollution & man-made climate change”, Bellaciao, 27 February 2011: http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article20592 .

18. Gideon Polya, “Carbon Price & Climate Change Action Fact Sheet for leading per capita greenhouse gas polluter Australia”, Bellaciao, 14 March 2011: http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article20628 .

Lester Brown, President of Earth Policy Institute: 100% renewable energy by 2020

Lester Russel Brown (born March 28, 1934 in Bridgeton, New Jersey) is a US environmentalist, founder of the Worldwatch Institute, founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute, a nonprofit research organization based in Washington DC and the author or co-author of over 50 books on global environmental issues and his works have been translated into more than forty languages. His most recent book is Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_R._Brown ).

Lester Brown, President of Earth Policy Institute, author of Plan B 4.0, and sponsor of a 2,500 mile trans-US “trike” ride for “100% renewable energy by 2020” for the US (2010): "During World War II, America mobilized its resources at a stunning pace, leading the Allied Forces to victory in three-and-a-half short years. "We need a similar, American-led green energy mobilization today to save civilization." [1]

[1]. “Environmental, business leaders support call for 100% U.S. Green Grid by 2020. 2,500-Mile "Ride for Renewables" Launched to Champion Green Energy "Moon Shot"”, PR Newswire, 13 September 2010: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/environmental-business-leaders-support-call-for-100-us-green-grid-by-2020-102762769.html .

Climate Action Summit, Canberra, Australia, 2009: 100% renewable energy by 2020

The Climate Action Summit, 31 January- 3 February 2009, Canberra, ACT, Australia, involved 500 people from over 140 climate action groups (see: http://www.climatesummit.org.au/ ).

The Climate Action Summit, Canberra, Australia, 2009, overwhelmingly resolved ”1. To prevent the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) from becoming law. 2. Build community-wide action to demand green jobs, a just transition and 100% renewable energy by 2020. 3. To build community support for a goal of stabilisation at 300ppm CO2 and strong international agreement in line with what science and global justice demands. To communicate this position to Copenhagen Conference of Parties, and advocate for the Australian government to adopt that position.” [1].

[1]. Climate Action Summit, “Our 2009 Campaign objectives”, 2009: http://www.climatesummit.org.au/campaign-strategy-development-stream-outcomes .

Climate Emergency Network (CEN): 100% renewable energy by 2020

The Climate Emergency Network (CEN) is a not-for-profit, non-politically-aligned network of community organisations who are campaigning for urgent action on the climate emergency (see: http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/ ). Members of the CEN are individuals, groups and organisations who agree with and support the CEN Charter (see:

http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59&Itemid=57 ): "The Danger We Face. We have examined the latest science (1) and symptoms of global heating. The imminent disintegration of the Arctic ice is an alarming indicator of rapid climate change. Our Earth is already too hot. Dangerous climate change is happening now, and accelerating. We are extremely concerned that the current targets in relation to reducing greenhouse gas emissions are dangerously inadequate and will expose our world to unacceptable levels of risk. The window of opportunity for effective action is rapidly closing. We need to act at a pace far beyond business and politics as usual. Our Core Values. We have no right to bargain away the lives of others. Our goal is a safe climate future for all people, all species, and all generations. What The Global Community Must Do. The Global Community must concurrently halt man made greenhouse gas emissions, remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and actively cool the Earth.Climate Emergency Network Objectives. 1 - All levels of all governments across the globe must recognise and work together to fulfill their responsibility to secure a safe climate; it is their moral and legal duty-of-care to their citizens. 2 - Underpinned by legislation, governments must lead a large-scale transformation to a post-carbon economy. 3 - Given the extreme urgency and enormous scale of transformation required, governments must acknowledge the climate and sustainability emergency, and implement a rapid response plan to urgently and effectively address it, whilst respecting basic human rights and freedoms. 4 - The community must be engaged in recognising and supporting the climate emergency. Therefore, we will work to engage citizens in taking responsibility for recognising and responding to the climate emergency.

The Climate Emergency Network supports the resolution of The Australian Climate Action Summit in Canberra, Australia, 31 January – 2 February 2009, involving over 140 community Climate Action Groups (CAGs), to campaign nationally for 100% renewable energy by 2020, for a goal of 300ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and against the pro-coal Australian Government carbon Trading ETS that will increase Australia’s huge Domestic and Exported carbon pollution (while being called a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, or CPRS) (see Greenlivingpedia: http://greenlivingpedia.org/Australian_climate_action_summit_2009 ).

According to Greenlivingpedia, 2009: “The united Community Climate Action Groups will campaign for outcomes on these objectives: Prevent the CPRS [Australia’s proposed pro-coal Carbon Trading Emissions Trading Scheme] from becoming law as it will fail to make emission cuts necessary to stop the climate emergency. Build community-wide action to demand green jobs, a just transition for industry workers and 100% renewable energy by 2020. Aim for stabilisation at 300ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and strong international agreement in line with what science and global justice demands.” [1].

[1]. Greenlivingpedia, “Australian Climate Action Summit 2009”: http://greenlivingpedia.org/Australian_climate_action_summit_2009 .

Earth Policy Institute, Washington, DC: reduce CO2 emissions 80 percent by 2020

The Earth Policy Institute is an environmental organization founded in 2001by Lester R. Brown, based in Washington, D.C., U.S.A., and dedicated to building a sustainable future and informing the public about climate change, population expansion, mass species extinction and other threats impacting upon Humanity (see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Policy_Institute and Earth Policy Institute: http://www.earth-policy.org/ ).

Lester R. Brown and colleagues, “Time for Plan B. Cutting emissions 80 percent by 2020”: “When political leaders look at the need to cut carbon dioxide emissions to curb global warming, they ask the question: How much of a cut is politically feasible? At the Earth Policy Institute we ask a different question: How much of a cut is necessary to avoid the most dangerous effects of climate change? … Cutting CO2 emissions 80 percent by 2020 will take a worldwide mobilization at wartime speed. First, investing in energy efficiency will allow us to keep energy demand from increasing. Then we can cut carbon emissions by one third by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources for electricity and heat production. A further 14 percent drop comes from restructuring our transportation systems and reducing coal and oil use in industry. Ending net deforestation worldwide can cut CO₂ emissions another 16 percent. Last, planting trees and managing soils to sequester carbon [biochar] can absorb 17 percent of our current emissions. None of these initiatives depends on new technologies. We know what needs to be done to reduce CO2 emissions 80 percent by 2020. All that is needed now is leadership. “. [1].

[1]. Lester R. Brown, Janet Larsen, Jonathan G. Dorn, and Frances C. Moore, “Time for Plan B. Cutting emissions 80 percent by 2020”, Earth Policy Institute: http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/80by2020notes.pdf .

Fiji, Tuvalu and Tonga plan for 100% renewable energy by 2013

Partners in a scheme for 100%renewable energy, including transportation, for Island Nations by 2013 include Governments of Fiji (Office for Promotion of Renewable Energy Technologies (OPRET)), Government of Tonga (Department of Energy) and Government of Tuvalu (Ministry of Works and Energy); the UN Systems include Small Island Developing States (SIDS) at United Nations Division for Sustainable Development (DSD) (United States of America); the major groups involved are Forum for Renewable Energy Islands (FREI) (Denmark) Folkcenter for Renewable Energy (Denmark) ISEP - Institute for Strategic Energy Planning (Japan) Arrakis (Netherlands) and Climate Institute (United States of America); plus SOPAC - South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (Fiji). [1]

[1]. “!00% renewable energy islands”, Partnerships for Sustainable Development, 2004: http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/public/partnerships/158.html .

Global Compliance Research Project: 278 ppm CO2 by at least 2050

The Global Compliance Research Project was co-founded by Canadian peace and environment activist Dr Joan Russow. Joan Elizabeth Russow (born Ottawa, November 1, 1938) is a Canadian peace activist, a former national leader of the Green Party of Canada from 1997 to 2001 and a co-founder of the Ecological Rights Association and the Global Compliance Research Project (see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Russow )

Global Compliance Research, “Submission to the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change: Time to be bold” (16 November 2009): “Overview. The time for procrastination about climate change has long since passed; the world is in a state of emergency and further inaction is gross negligence. The actual and anticipated impacts of climate change as well as the unintended consequences of climate change, and the short-term and long-term effects that are known and yet to be known have all contributed to the state of emergency. Any denial of the state of emergency is eclipsed by the moral imperative, and legal imperative. to abide by the precautionary principle… As stated in the precautionary principle in the United Nations Framework on Climate Change [UNFCCC], the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing methods to address the threat… Because of the global urgency, there must be the political will to strive to contain the rise in temperature to less than 1^oC above the pre-industrial levels and strict time frames must be imposed , so that overall global emissions will begin to be reversed as of 2010. There must be a global target of 30% below 1990 by 2015, 50% below by 2020, 75% by 2030, 85% by 2040 and 100% below by 2050, while adhering to the precautionary principle, the differentiated responsibility principle, and the fair and just transition principle. Under the Framework Convention, every state signatory incurred the responsibility to conserve carbon sinks; thus the destruction of sinks, including deforestation and the elimination of bogs must end. Most scientific work today has become tied to the failing negotiations and is based in keeping the risk of a rise in temperature above 2^oC at about 5-40%. The proposal submitted here by the Global Compliance Research Project is based on trying to avoid a temperature above 1^oC and returning atmosphere CO2 back to 278 ppm in line with the obligations outlined in the UNFCCC [UN Framework Convention on Climate Change] by 2050 and bringing risk down to a minimum. If the dangerous level is to be avoided, emissions pathways to eliminate CO2 must arrive at the pre-industrial level of 278 ppm at least by 2050. [Currently under consideration as a target. To succeed in being below the dangerous 1^oC, member states of the United Nations must commit to remove between 1105 GT CO2 and 1842 GT CO2 from the atmosphere (Table 1) …]. [1].

[1]. Global Compliance Research, “Submission to the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change: Time to be bold”, (16 November 2009): http://76.12.226.248/ccc/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/climate-change-statement-November-26-2009.pdf .

Al Gore: 100% renewable energy for electricity by 2018

Al Gore was formerly Vice President of the US under Clinton (1993-2001), was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for Peace with the IPCC (2007) and is a leading environmental activist (see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore ).

Al Gore, 17 July 2008: “Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years. This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans - in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen. A few years ago, it would not have been possible to issue such a challenge. But here's what's changed: the sharp cost reductions now beginning to take place in solar, wind, and geothermal power - coupled with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal - have radically changed the economics of energy… We are on the eve of a presidential election. We are in the midst of an international climate treaty process that will conclude its work before the end of the first year of the new president's term. It is a great error to say that the United States must wait for others to join us in this matter. In fact, we must move first, because that is the key to getting others to follow; and because moving first is in our own national interest. So I ask you to join with me to call on every candidate, at every level, to accept this challenge - for America to be running on 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 10 years. It's time for us to move beyond empty rhetoric. We need to act now.” [1].

[1]. Al Gore, “Green energy by 2018”, 17 July 2008 speech; reported in “Al Gore: A generational challenge to repower America”, We can solve the climate crisis: http://www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_repower_america/ ; see also Bobbie Johnson, “Gore urges US to try for 100% renewable energy within a decade”, UK, Guardian, November 2008: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/10/renewable-energy-alternative-energy .

Richard Heinberg and David Fridley: peak coal => 100% RE by 2020

Peak oil may have occurred in 2008 (see Dr Michael Lardelli from the University of Adelaide, “The peak oil production has passed”, Ockham’s Razor, ABC Radio National, 2 May 2010: http://www.blogotariat.com/node/205789 ). Peak coal may be only 10 years away and may provide a major attendant market-based carbon price stimulus for rapid implementation of renewable energy according to a very important paper that has just been published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature, specifcally Richard Heinberg & David Fridley, “The end of cheap coal”, Nature 468, 367-369 (18 November 2010), online 17 November 2010: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7322/full/468367a.html .

The Nature summary says that “New forecasts suggest that coal reserves will run out faster than many believe. Energy policies relying on cheap coal have no future, say Richard Heinberg and David Fridley. World energy policy is gripped by a fallacy — the idea that coal is destined to stay cheap for decades to come. This assumption supports investment in 'clean-coal' technology and trumps serious efforts to increase energy conservation and develop alternative energy sources.” Key figures from the paper on coal production and consumption (Figure 1) and global coal reserves (Figure 2 ) can be seen here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7322/fig_tab/468367a_ft.html .

The key point is that readily extracted, good quality (and hence cheap) coal may peak by 2020 with attendant steep price rises. The Nature paper concludes thus (see: http://www.blogotariat.com/node/205789 ) : “At the very least, the USGS should urgently complete a new national coal survey. And it is essential for the security of energy supplies globally that Chinese domestic coal production and the timing of its likely decline is better understood.

We believe that it is unlikely that world energy supplies can continue to meet projected demand beyond 2020. Therefore, new limits on energy consumption will be essential in all sectors of society — including agriculture, transportation and manufacturing — and will be imposed by energy prices and shortages if they are not achieved through planning and policy.

Supply limits also have implications for the development of clean-coal technology. Also known as carbon capture and storage (CCS), clean coal is one proposal for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions while growing energy supplies. Because maintaining economic growth while cutting coal out of the energy equation globally will be difficult, and because nearly everyone assumes that coal will remain cheap far into the foreseeable future, the idea is to keep the carbon dioxide produced by burning coal from going into the atmosphere.

There are two hitches: the difficulty of scaling up such an enterprise, and its effect on electricity prices. As many analysts have noted, the scale and cost of clean-coal infrastructure will be vast¹³. Energy analysts agree that this will boost the price of electricity, but the scheme could work if coal prices remain low. If they don’t, building new coal plants — conventional or clean — makes little economic sense, except to replace ageing inefficient infrastructure.

Nations should immediately begin to plan for higher fossil-fuel prices and to make maximum possible investments in energy efficiency and renewable-energy infrastructure. Even then the world will have to accept a slowdown in economic growth.”

For how Australia can implement 100% renewable energy for $370 billion by 2020 (40% wind, 60% Concentrated Solar Thermal with molten salts energy storage for 24/7 operation) see the much-acclaimed Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) Zero Carbon Australia 2020 (ZCA2020) Report: (Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan): http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/about/bze-brand . For an extensive compendia of useful advances in this area see other articles on this “100% renewable energy by 2020” website: https://sites.google.com/site/100renewableenergyby2020/ .

Nature Conservation Council of NSW: 100% RE by 2020

The Nature Conservation Council of NSW (New South Wales), Australia (founded1955) states “The Nature Conservation Council works to conserve nature and protect the water we drink, the air we breathe and the places we love. We are a non-profit, non-government organisation representing 120 community environment groups across NSW. Our aim is to protect our precious natural environment.” (see: http://nccnsw.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=123 ).

The Nature Conservation Council of NSW states: “Join the call for 100% renewable energy by 2020! The devastating impacts of extreme weather conditions have taken a tragic toll around the country, particularly in Victoria. Climate change will increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. We have no time to lose in cutting our greenhouse gas emissions for the chance of a safer climate future.The burning of fossil fuels is the leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions. Australia has the resources and capability to make the transition to 100% renewable energy, in a way that supports affected coal-based communities and which creates thousands of green jobs.” [1].

[1]. The Nature Conservation Council of NSW, “Join the call for 100% renewable energy by 2020”, 2009: http://nccnsw.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2689&Itemid=646 .

New Zealand 100% RE by 2020 would cost $17.5 billion

New Zealand (population 4.2 million) already has major hydro electricity resources but methane from NZ sheep is a major GHG contributor. As of 2008, "annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution" in units of "tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year" (2005-2008 data) is 2.2 (India), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 19 (New Zealand) 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia's huge Exported CO2 pollution is included (see Wikipedia, "List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita and “Australia’s “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” endangers Australia, Humanity and the Biosphere”: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-5-off-2000-ghg-pollution-by-2020-endangers-australia-humanity-and-biosphere ).

A US$11.8 billion investment for NZ (population 4.2 million) is equivalent to US$843 billion for the US (population 300 million) and $59 billion for climate criminal Australia (population 21 million).

Dr Nick Smith, NZ Climate Change Minister, 2009: “[100% renewable electricity by 2020] would first require writing off $4.5 billion of thermal generation assets It would also require $11 billion for the replacement capacity of 2500 MW and an additional $2 billion for additional renewable peaking stations to ensure security of supply in a dry year. This amounts to a total capital cost of $17.5 billion, excluding the additional transmission investment that would be required, and would lead to a 30% power price increase for all consumers.” [1].

[1]. Press release, New Zealand Government, Dr Nick Smith, Minister for Climate Change Issues, 4 August 2009; Scoop, “Bold 2020 target comes at a high price”: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0908/S00043.htm .

Peak coal by 2020 means 100% renewable energy ASAP

Peak oil may have occurred in 2008 (see Dr Michael Lardelli from the University of Adelaide, “The peak oil production has passed”, Ockham’s Razor, ABC Radio National, 2 May 2010: http://www.blogotariat.com/node/205789 ). Peak coal may be only 10 years away and may provide a major attendant market-based carbon price stimulus for rapid implementation of renewable energy according to a very important paper that has just been published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature, specifcally Richard Heinberg & David Fridley, “The end of cheap coal”, Nature 468, 367-369 (18 November 2010), online 17 November 2010: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7322/full/468367a.html .

The Nature summary says that “New forecasts suggest that coal reserves will run out faster than many believe. Energy policies relying on cheap coal have no future, say Richard Heinberg and David Fridley. World energy policy is gripped by a fallacy — the idea that coal is destined to stay cheap for decades to come. This assumption supports investment in 'clean-coal' technology and trumps serious efforts to increase energy conservation and develop alternative energy sources.” Key figures from the paper on coal production and consumption (Figure 1) and global coal reserves (Figure 2 ) can be seen here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7322/fig_tab/468367a_ft.html .

The key point is that readily extracted, good quality (and hence cheap) coal may peak by 2020 with attendant steep price rises. The Nature paper concludes thus (see: http://www.blogotariat.com/node/205789 ) : “At the very least, the USGS should urgently complete a new national coal survey. And it is essential for the security of energy supplies globally that Chinese domestic coal production and the timing of its likely decline is better understood.

We believe that it is unlikely that world energy supplies can continue to meet projected demand beyond 2020. Therefore, new limits on energy consumption will be essential in all sectors of society — including agriculture, transportation and manufacturing — and will be imposed by energy prices and shortages if they are not achieved through planning and policy.

Supply limits also have implications for the development of clean-coal technology. Also known as carbon capture and storage (CCS), clean coal is one proposal for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions while growing energy supplies. Because maintaining economic growth while cutting coal out of the energy equation globally will be difficult, and because nearly everyone assumes that coal will remain cheap far into the foreseeable future, the idea is to keep the carbon dioxide produced by burning coal from going into the atmosphere.

There are two hitches: the difficulty of scaling up such an enterprise, and its effect on electricity prices. As many analysts have noted, the scale and cost of clean-coal infrastructure will be vast¹³. Energy analysts agree that this will boost the price of electricity, but the scheme could work if coal prices remain low. If they don’t, building new coal plants — conventional or clean — makes little economic sense, except to replace ageing inefficient infrastructure.

Nations should immediately begin to plan for higher fossil-fuel prices and to make maximum possible investments in energy efficiency and renewable-energy infrastructure. Even then the world will have to accept a slowdown in economic growth.”

For how Australia can implement 100% renewable energy for $370 billion by 2020 (40% wind, 60% Concentrated Solar Thermal with molten salts energy storage for 24/7 operation) see the much-acclaimed Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) Zero Carbon Australia 2020 (ZCA2020) Report: (Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan): http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/about/bze-brand . For an extensive compendia of useful advances in this area also see other articles on this “100% renewable energy by 2020” website: https://sites.google.com/site/100renewableenergyby2020/ .

Dr Joan Elizabeth Russow (Canada): 278 ppm CO2 by 2050

Canadian peace and environment activist Dr Joan Elizabeth Russow (born Ottawa, November 1, 1938) is a peace activist, a former national leader of the Green Party of Canada from 1997 to 2001 and a co-founder of the Ecological Rights Association and the Global Compliance Research Project (see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Russow )

Dr Joan Russow with Richard Levicki, Global Compliance Research, “Submission to the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change: Time to be bold” …16 November 2009: “Overview. The time for procrastination about climate change has long since passed; the world is in a state of emergency and further inaction is gross negligence. The actual and anticipated impacts of climate change as well as the unintended consequences of climate change, and the short-term and long-term effects that are known and yet to be known have all contributed to the state of emergency. Any denial of the state of emergency is eclipsed by the moral imperative, and legal imperative. to abide by the precautionary principle… As stated in the precautionary principle in the United Nations Framework on Climate Change [UNFCCC], the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing methods to address the threat… Because of the global urgency, there must be the political will to strive to contain the rise in temperature to less than 1^oC above the pre-industrial levels and strict time frames must be imposed , so that overall global emissions will begin to be reversed as of 2010. There must be a global target of 30% below 1990 by 2015, 50% below by 2020, 75% by 2030, 85% by 2040 and 100% below by 2050, while adhering to the precautionary principle, the differentiated responsibility principle, and the fair and just transition principle. Under the Framework Convention, every state signatory incurred the responsibility to conserve carbon sinks; thus the destruction of sinks, including deforestation and the elimination of bogs must end. Most scientific work today has become tied to the failing negotiations and is based in keeping the risk of a rise in temperature above 2^oC at about 5-40%. The proposal submitted here by the Global Compliance Research Project is based on trying to avoid a temperature above 1^oC and returning atmosphere CO2 back to 278 ppm in line with the obligations outlined in the UNFCCC [UN Framework Convention on Climate Change] by 2050 and bringing risk down to a minimum. If the dangerous level is to be avoided, emissions pathways to eliminate CO2 must arrive at the pre-industrial level of 278 ppm at least by 2050. [Currently under consideration as a target. To succeed in being below the dangerous 1^oC, member states of the United Nations must commit to remove between 1105 GT CO2 and 1842 GT CO2 from the atmosphere (Table 1) …]. [1].

[1]. Joan Russow and Richard Levicki, Global Compliance Research, “Submission to the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change: Time to be bold”, (16 November 2009): http://76.12.226.248/ccc/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/climate-change-statement-November-26-2009.pdf .

Dr Peter Seligman: 100% RE for Australia by 2030 for $253 billion

Dr Peter Seligman, is an outstanding electrical engineer who has been a major player in the development of the bionic year and who wrote “Australian Sustainable Energy – by the numbers” (2010). He studied electrical engineering at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, and subsequently completed a PhD in 1973 with a thesis entitled "Auditory Pattern transmission". According to the Bionic Ear Institute, Melbourne “Professor Peter Seligman designed the first portable speech processor for the University of Melbourne bionic ear device and was a key member of Professor Graeme Clark's team [Cochlear] that developed the Bionic Ear. Professor Seligman has joined The Bionic Ear Institute and will help guide staff in research, development and commercialisation.” (see: http://www.bionicear.org/news.html ). “Australian Sustainable Energy – by the numbers” by Professor Peter Seligman (University of Melbourne, Melbourne Energy Institute, 2010) sets out how Australia can rapidly install 100% renewable and geothermal electrical power for $253 billion. It can be obtained by free download from here: http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/ozsebtn/ .

Dr Peter Seligman in Chapter 5 “The Bill”, estimating that “Including the cost of the pipes and turbines, to convert our existing electrical power system to completely renewable sources, we will need: Power stations ( wind, solar and geothermal) $198 billion; High voltage power lines $20 billion; Turbines and pipes $33 billion; Storage pond (dam) $2 billion; Total $253 billion (Table 7. The renewable power bill) over say 25 years. That’s about $10 billion per year or about $500 per person per year or $1.40 per person per day.” [1].

[1]. Peter Seligman, “Australian Sustainable Energy – by the numbers”, University of Melbourne, Melbourne Energy Institute, 2010, Chapter 5, p45.

Socialist Alliance (SA) of Australia wants 100% RE by 2020

The Socialist Alliance (SA) of Australia is an electoral coalition of several Australian socialist groups (see:

http://www.socialist-alliance.org/ ) .

David White, SA national environment spokesperson and Dick Nichols is a national convener of SA, interviewed by Green Left Weekly, 24 January 2009: "David White: Firstly, it must recognise that the urgency of the climate crisis means we need to reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to 300-325 parts per million as quickly as possible. Secondly, it must guarantee and maintain employment, living standards and retraining for affected workers and communities. And lastly, it’s crucial that the economic burden of developing national sustainable energy infrastructure is shared equitably. Dick Nichols: It has to be a real policy, able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the sector by 8-10% a year. SA supports the Al Gore position of 100% renewables in 10 years. That means that the federal government’s Expanded National Renewable Energy Target of 20% by 2020, which is causing much angst in corporate Australia, is completely inadequate." [1].

[1]. Simon Butler interviews Socialist Alliance activists David White and Dick Nichols , “100% renewable energy - how do we get there?”, Green Left Weekly, 24 January, 2009: http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/780/40201 .

Tokelau leader: 100% renewable energy by 2020

Tokelau is a non-self governing Pacific island territory of New Zealand with an area of 10 square kilometres and a population of 1,400. It is highly susceptible to the consequences of man-made climate change, in particular from sea level rise and hurricanes (such as Cyclone Percy that devastated Tokelau islands in 2005) (see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokelau ).

Tokelau leader Foua Toloa, 2009: “I have been pushing the issue of one hundred per cent solar, so by February next year we’ll try to beat every nation in the world to become the first country to be energy renewable completely run by solar and a little bit of coconut nut oil.” [1].

[1]. Tokelau’s leader pushes for 100% per cent solar power”, Radio New Zealand International, 23 July 2009: http://www.rnzi.com/pages/news.php?op=read&id=47897 .

Tuvalu target: 100% renewable energy by 2020

Tuvalu is a tiny Pacific island nation (population 12,000, area 26 square kilometres) that is acutely threatened by man-made global warming (see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu ).

Tuvalu’s proposed “100% renewable energy by 2020” would mean “cut carbon emissions 80% by 2020” if coupled with energy efficiency, reforestation, return of carbon as biochar to the soil, renewable-based transport and cessation of deforestation (see Lester R. Brown, Janet Larsen, Jonathan G. Dorn, and Frances C. Moore, “Time for Plan B. Cutting emissions 80 percent by 2020”, Earth Policy Institute: http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/80by2020notes.pdf ).

According to a report in Treehugger, 2009: “To reach the nation's 100% renewable energy goal will require an estimated $20 million -- the first $800,000 of which will be spent on a 46 kilowatt solar power system on the Motufoua Secondary School in Vaitupu. The whole plan has been facilitated through the work of the e8 - a non-profit international organization made up of 10 leading electric companies from the G8 nations -- which donated and installed the first solar power array.” [1].

[1]. Matthew McDermott, Treehugger, 100% renewable energy by 2020: Tuvalu’s bold new green power goal”, 19 July 2009: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/07/100-percent-renewable-energy-by-2020-tuvalu.php .

Dr. James Walker, American Wind Energy Association: 100% RE by 2020

Dr James Walker is the past president of the American Wind Energy Association (see American Wind Energy Association: http://www.awea.org/ ).

Dr. James Walker, past president of the American Wind Energy Association, vice chair of enXco, Inc., and a sponsor of a 2,500 mile trans-US “trike” ride for “100% renewable energy by 2020” for the US citing wind power [industry's creation of 85,000 jobs in the last five years, as well as its cost competitiveness with coal] (2010): "The wind industry needs to support a crash program to responsibly deploy as much wind power as humanly possible between now and 2020."

[1]. “Environmental, business leaders support call for 100% U.S. Green Grid by 2020. 2,500-Mile "Ride for Renewables" Launched to Champion Green Energy "Moon Shot"”, PR Newswire, 13 September 2010: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/environmental-business-leaders-support-call-for-100-us-green-grid-by-2020-102762769.html .

Tom Weis, President of Climate Crisis Solutions: 100% renewable energy by 2020

Tom Weis, President of Climate Crisis Solutions, is a Green Energy advocate who is riding 2,500 miles from Colorado to Washington, DC on a human-powered, electric-assist "rocket trike," calling for a national goal of a 100% U.S. renewable electricity grid by 2020 (photos: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20100913/SF63407 and http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20100913/SF63407 ; see “Climate Crisis Solutions” : http://www.climatecrisissolutions.com/ ).

Tom Weis on the start of the 2,500 mile ride at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's wind technology center on the 48th anniversary of a historic speech by President Kennedy calling on the U.S. to land a man on the Moon within a decade (2010): "The urgency of our economic and planetary meltdown demands a modern-day green energy 'moon shot' for America. We need a call to action from our President today challenging America to once again do something great." [1].

[1]. “Environmental, business leaders support call for 100% U.S. Green Grid by 2020. 2,500-Mile "Ride for Renewables" Launched to Champion Green Energy "Moon Shot"”, PR Newswire, 13 September 2010: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/environmental-business-leaders-support-call-for-100-us-green-grid-by-2020-102762769.html .

Yarra Valley Climate Action Group wants 100% renewable energy by 2020

The Melbourne, Australia-based Yarra Valley Climate Action Group (YVCAG) is a Climate Action Group of concerned citizens based in the beautiful Yarra Valley in Melbourne, Australia. The Yarra Valley Climate Action Group (YVCAG) is composed of citizens from various walks of life who are deeply concerned about the threat to Humanity and the Biosphere in general from man-made global warming arising from greenhouse gas pollution.The YVCAG attempts through a variety of creative actions to INFORM others about the Climate Emergency and Sustainability Emergency facing the Planet and to suggest sensible, workable and timely SOLUTIONS to fellow citizens, including Government at the Local, State and Federal level. The YVCAG has linked itself with a national Australian umbrella association, the Climate Emergency Network (CEN), with which many other Australian Climate Action Groups are now associated (see: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/ ; for nmuerous carefully researched and documented review articles about the climate emergency and its solutions see:

http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/system/app/pages/sitemap/hierarchy ).

The Melbourne-based Yarra Valley Climate Action Group (YVCAG: see: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home ) supoported the The Australian Climate Action Summit in Canberra, Australia, 31 January – 2 February 2009, involving over 140 community Climate Action Groups (CAGs), which resolved to campaign nationally for 100% renewable energy by 2020, for a goal of 300ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and against the pro-coal Australian Government carbon Trading ETS that will increase Australia’s huge Domestic and Exported carbon pollution (while being called a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, or CPRS) (see Greenlivingpedia: http://greenlivingpedia.org/Australian_climate_action_summit_2009 ).

According to Greenlivingpedia, 2009: “The united Community Climate Action Groups will campaign for outcomes on these objectives: Prevent the CPRS [Australia’s proposed pro-coal Carbon Trading Emissions Trading Scheme] from becoming law as it will fail to make emission cuts necessary to stop the climate emergency. Build community-wide action to demand green jobs, a just transition for industry workers and 100% renewable energy by 2020. Aim for stabilisation at 300ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and strong international agreement in line with what science and global justice demands.” [1].

[1]. Greenlivingpedia, “Australian Climate Action Summit 2009”: http://greenlivingpedia.org/Australian_climate_action_summit_2009 .

100% renewable energy by 2020

Leading climate scientists and climate analysts say that for a safe and sustainable world with retention of Arctic sea ice and cessation of the current mass species extinctions requires a return of the atmospheric CO2 concentration from the present dangerous level of 394 parts per million (ppm) to 300 ppm (see:

http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm ).

300.org states that “There must be a safe and sustainable existence for all peoples and all species on our warming-threatened Planet and this requires a rapid reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to about 300 parts per million” (see "300.org":

http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/Home ).

The worsening climate disruption and climate emergency has lead leading climate scientists and analysts to state that we must now aim to urgently cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (notably carbon emissions e.g. carbon dioxide, CO2, and methane, CH4) by 80% by 2020 (see "Cut carbon emissions 80% by 2020":

http://sites.google.com/site/cutcarbonemissions80by2020/home ).

A detailed submission to the recent Senate Inquiry by Dr Andrew Glikson (Earth and paleoclimate scientist, Visiting Fellow, School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Research School of Earth Science and Institute of Planetary Science, Australian National University (ANU),Canberra, ACT, Australia ) was entitled “The threat to life posed by atmospheric CO2-e over 450 ppm”, noting that the current 394 ppm CO2 corresponds to about 450 CO2-equivalent (CO2-e, taking CH4 and N2O as well as CO2 contributions into account): http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/cprs_09/submissions/sub34_web.pdf (for other expert submissions to this Senate Inquiry see: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/cprs_09/submissions/sublist.htm .

Dr Andrew Glikson interviewed by ABC Radio Australia, 2009, in response to the question ”what has to be done?”: “extremely rapid reduction in emissions … I would say, 80 percent within the next ten years or so … people like me have been looking at the evidence about this on a day to day basis and we have been doing it for years, and to look in to the abyss at this length is a daunting task.” (see Dr Andrew Glikson interviewed by Linda Mottram, “Carbon emissions must be cut by 80% [by 2020] says scientist”, ABC Radio Australia, 23 July 2009: http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/200907/s2634156.htm ).

Lester R. Brown and colleagues of the Earth Policy Institute,Washington, DC, USA, in "Time for Plan B. Cutting emissions 80 percent by 2020” state: “When political leaders look at the need to cut carbon dioxide emissions to curb global warming, they ask the question: How much of a cut is politically feasible? At the Earth Policy Institute we ask a different question: How much of a cut is necessary to avoid the most dangerous effects of climate change? … Cutting CO2 emissions 80 percent by 2020 will take a worldwide mobilization at wartime speed. First, investing in energy efficiency will allow us to keep energy demand from increasing. Then we can cut carbon emissions by one third by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources for electricity and heat production. A further 14 percent drop comes from restructuring our transportation systems and reducing coal and oil use in industry. Ending net deforestation worldwide can cut CO₂ emissions another 16 percent. Last, planting trees and managing soils to sequester carbon [biochar] can absorb 17 percent of our current emissions. None of these initiatives depends on new technologies. We know what needs to be done to reduce CO2 emissions 80 percent by 2020. All that is needed now is leadership“ (see Lester R. Brown, Janet Larsen, Jonathan G. Dorn, and Frances C. Moore, “Time for Plan B. Cutting emissions 80 percent by 2020”, Earth Policy Institute: http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/80by2020notes.pdf .

This site is dedicated to informing the public about the views of expert climate scientists, paleoclimate scientists, climate change analysts, and community activists who say that rapid and radical cuts in carbon emissions are needed to avert catastrophic climate change and this requires, in addition to other key measures, 100% renewable energy by 2020.

Readers are also referred to the related very informative sites of the Melbourne-based Yarra Valley Climate Action Group (YVCAG: see: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home ), and the Victoria, Australia-based Climate Emergency Network umbrella organization (see: http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/ ), organizations which are both committed to 100% renewable energy by 2020.