How Big Is The Clean Tech Market?

July 2, 2010

What is the annual market opportunity for renewable energy and efficiency measures, such as building controls, energy reconstruction and electric vehicles? Does $1 trillion sound like an enticing number?

One trillion dollars may sound gargantuan, but it is what the International Energy Agency suggested in a recommendation earlier this week. And it isn’t far from the scale of the global warming efforts called for in other top studies.

In its landmark 2007 report, for instance, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that mitigating atmospheric heat rise would cost the world 0.2 percent to 3 percent of annual GDP. Mitigation isn’t the same as market opportunity.

To obtain an economy where 50 percent of electricity come from renewable sources, the world will need to build the generation listed above

But it defines the magnitude of the effort – and perhaps the willingness of business to respond with innovation.

To put the IPCC’s projection in annual dollars, consider that the world’s gross domestic product is $61 billion. Three percent of that comes to $1.8 trillion a year. The IPCC’s report says the effort would hold temperature increases to between 2 degrees and 4 degrees Celsius.

The Paris-based IEA looks at impact from a different angle. The agency projects that the world will need to spend $46 trillion between now and 2050 to be sure half of all electricity comes from renewable sources. This includes improving energy efficiency.

Divide the number out and it comes to about $1.2 trillion a year. Most of this spending is to come from consumers buying more efficient, low-carbon equipment and, particularly, cars. Of course some of the money will be paid back through lower fuel use.

But achieving an economy where 50 percent of electricity comes from renewable generation requires an industrial investment as well beyond what might be anticipated to meet growing energy demand. That approach includes the annual construction or deployment of:

*More than 30 nuclear reactors;
*Thirty-five coal-fired plants with carbon capture technology;
*Two hundred biomass plants;
*Nearly 16,000 wind turbines;
*Forty-five geothermal plants;
*Three hundred and twenty-five million solar panels; and
*Fifty-five solar thermal plants.

Energy-efficiency improvements in developed countries also must continue at today’s almost 2 percent a year pace, a pace that is almost double from the 1990s.

The IAE points out that in 2008, the world invested about $110 billion in wind, solar and other renewable generation. Investment levels remained relatively stable in 2009, despite the downturn.

Still, they are one-tenth of where they need to be. It sounds like a monster of an opportunity.


Scientists Defend UN Climate Change Report From Right Wing Assault

February 23, 2010

Scalding critiques of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report run hotter than Ronald Reagan’s temper confronting a Vietnam War peace demonstration.

Mistakes, these right wing critics claim, undermine the entire U.N.-sponsored study.

Global warming disbelievers have attacked the UN's IPCC report. But rather trivial errors in the document don't undermine its findings.

It is shocking the force that several rather trivial errors have in seeming to undermine a massive three-volume report totaling more than 3,000 pages. Welcome to the crazy  the climate change debate.

It was the IPCC report that formally warned that  the burning of fossil fuels was warming the globe and called for action to be taken. The study was immediately assailed as over reaching. Now right-wingers and Republicans are feasting on several errors uncovered in the report to complain its conclusions should be ignored. Among the mistakes is an incorrect date for the melting of the Himalayan glaciers. The study claimed 2035, but it is more likely later this century.

Another incorrect statement describes the Netherlands as more than 50 percent under sea level. A final missed detail is the result of the IPCC relying on non-scientific source to claim that 40 percent of the Amazon rain forest will become to savanna if the warming trend from CO2 accumulation is not reversed.

None of these mistakes should have appeared in the scholarly work, people from both sides of the political aisle agree. But they are relatively minor points considering the scope of the work, according to climate scientists interviewed about the controversy.

“I’m not surprised that a report which involves three massive volumes (each over 1000 pages of smallish print), written by over 450 lead authors and 800 contributing authors (and reviewed by 2,500 expert experts who submitted 90,000 review comments on the draft document) (could) have a few errors in it,” says Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor and director of the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia.

“When you compare it to the gross errors of fact which are promulgated by people claiming that climate change is not occurring, these few errors in an otherwise very watertight document are relatively insignificant,” he says.

Preventing errors should be a major concern for the IPCC. But do they justify throwing out the rest of the wor?. “Of course not,” Hoegh-Guldberg wrote in an e-mail.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers