International Energy Agency 'Blocking Global Switch to Renewables'
International Energy Agency accused of consistently underestimating potential of wind, solar and sea power while promoting oil, coal and nuclear as 'irreplaceable' technologies
The experts, from the Energy Watch group, say the International Energy Agency (IEA) publishes misleading data on renewables, and that it has consistently underestimated the amount of electricity generated by wind power in its advice to governments. They say the IEA shows "ignorance and contempt" towards wind energy, while promoting oil, coal and nuclear as "irreplaceable" technologies.
In a report to be published today, the Energy Watch experts say wind-power capacity has rocketed since the early 90s and that if current trends continue, wind and solar power-generation combined are on track to match conventional generation by 2025.
Rudolf Rechsteiner, a member of the Swiss parliament who sits on its energy and environment committee, and wrote today's report, said the IEA suffered from "institutional blindness" on renewable energy. He said: "They are delaying the change to a renewable world. They continue touting nuclear and carbon-capture-and-storage, classical central solutions, instead of a more neutral approach, which would favour new solutions."
Today's report compares past predictions about the growth of wind power, made by the IEA and others, with the capacity of wind turbines actually installed.
It says: "By comparing historic forecasts on wind power with reality, we find that all official forecasts were much too low."
In 1998, the IEA predicted that global wind electricity generation would total 47.4GW by 2020. This figure was reached in December 2004, the report says. In 2002, the IEA revised its estimate to 104GW wind by 2020 – a capacity that had been exceeded by last summer.
In 2007, net additions of wind power across the world were more than four-fold the average IEA estimate from its 1995-2004 predictions, the report says. "The IEA numbers were neither empirically nor theoretically based," it says.
The IEA's most recent forecast, in its 2008 World Energy Outlook, predicts a fivefold increase in wind energy from 2006-2015, but then assumes a rapid slowdown in deployment over the following decade. The Energy Watch report calls this a "virtual stagnation" and says "no arguments are given why the wind sector should suffer such a crisis by 2015 and after".
The report concludes: "The IEA outlook remains attached to oil, gas, coal and nuclear, and renewables seem to have no chance to reverse this trend. This organisation… has been deploying misleading data on renewables for many years [and is still doing so]."
It adds: "One has to ask if the ignorance and contempt of IEA toward wind power and renewables in general is done within a structure of intent."
Mr Rechsteiner, who says he has investments in a handful of wind turbines, said the IEA routinely drew senior staff from the fossil-fuel industry. "The oil business is very skilful in keeping its energy access exclusive," he says.
The IEA describes itself as an "intergovernmental organisation which acts as energy policy advisor to 28 member countries in their effort to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for their citizens". It refused to comment on today's report. The Energy Watch group is run by the Ludwig Bölkow Foundation in Germany.
John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley and a member of the Energy Watch group, said: "The IEA has been complacent, and part of the conventional wisdom that the solution is more oil and gas. The British government relies on the IEA. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king — but the IEA's one eye has a cataract."
Today's report says the number of wind turbines installed over the last decade has grown by 30% annually, and total windpower capacity is more than 90GW – the equivalent of 90 conventional coal or nuclear power stations. It adds that the boom in wind energy is "so far barely touched by any sign of recession or financial crisis".
If current trends continue, the report claims wind capacity could reach 7,500GW by 2025 – making half of all new power projects wind or solar. Conventional power stations could be phased out completely by 2037, it claims.
Werner Zittel of the Energy Watch group, said: "It is time to realise that the many detractors of wind energy have got it wrong. We have seen more than 10 years of unprecedented growth in this sector… This is not about morals or environment but the commercial reality that wind, coupled with hydro, solar, biomass and geothermal energy is not only a rapid and cost-effective alternative, but one that could deliver all our energy requirements within the first half of the century."
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
18 Comments so far
Show Allby closing construction on new nuclear plants in the 70’s , environmentalists brought reganomics to america, and now with their solar and similar theories will finish the job turning what’s left into bangladesh
Correction:
by closing construction on new solar panels in the 70’s , anti-environmentalists brought raygunomics to america, and now with their "clean" coal and "safe" nuclear shit and similar theories will finish the job turning what’s left into bangladesh.
unfortunately the law of physics isn’t cooperating with all the theories, no religion can produce god
Why should the IEA tell people how to conduct their own electricity. If you live in an HOA restricted home or for that matter renting an apartment, forget installing solar panels and wind mills and forget about clothes lines for saving water and energy. The IEA is just a waste of taxpayer money and deserves to be abolished.
I felt the tingling and just knew, as soon as I read that the IEA had refused to comment to this Guardian reporter on a report that they hadn't yet read, that the 24 nations who made up its membership were at best, a dastardly conspiracy. More likely a greedy, silent, smug, alien cancer consuming the earth for dessert.
Just as I already knew in my root chakra that the top scientists of Britain and the British Commonwealth who did their own research, and have no known input from the IEA, would soon get their kharmic comeuppance for reaching their own conclusion last year to back nuclear power. I'm talking about that goddamned, ridiculous cabal of 1400 independent members of the United Kingdom National Academy of Science otherwise known as the Royal Society. Deceived fools, one and all.
Then I came to the malicious, stupid, idiotic, report from The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change.
NUCLEAR POWER WILL SAVE THE WORLD, UN SCIENTISTS CLAIM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-451658/Nuclear-power-save-world-UN-scientists-claim.htm...
Naturally I was at first chagrined to find that the report was put out by the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) and that the role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC being a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is open to all member countries. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and independent reviewers. As part of the United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals. IPCC reports are neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They are universally recognized to be of the highest scientific and technical standards, and reflect a range of views, and expertise from the widest geographical coverage.
Admittedly, I don't know how the 2000 plus independent IPCC contributing scientific ignoramuses who unanimously weighed in for more nuclear power managed to conceal our planetary salvation arriving imminently on the wings of renewable energy sources. But needless to say the combined work of these democratic-minded, results oriented bastards is metaphysically unfounded. And, yes, I do know from channeling each and every one of their black souls that at least a super majority of the 2000 scientists who contributed to the pro-nuclear power report are spiritually ungrounded, lying, ignorant, crooked, conspiratorial whores wo've been bought off one by one, in a final act of desperation by the financially strapped maniacs who control all nuclear energy from Dick Cheney's bunker at the center of the earth. I can almost, but not quite, see the evidence manifesting before my eyes, so thank you mother Khali for directing me to this chat sight, where this vast conspiracy of scientists will finally be devoured. Thank you omnivisible Pleiades advisors, and thank you Brother YHWH and you too, Sister Spirit Teaser for aligning me with the Interplanetary Society of Perpetual Anti-nuclear Carnival Barkers whose high vibrational energy has already shut down the nukes forever in our parallel universe.
Why is an international group advising governments around the world? Monoculture is bad no matter what the product.
Just asking. Has anyone ever measured the wind potential of the NE coast of North Korea?
The Main Stream Media are not cowards when it comes to keeping America informed.
We know all there is to know about Gov Bob of Illinois.
We know all about Sarah Palin and her disdain for unfair media coverage.
We know all about the Israeli/Palistine occupation.
We know all about Iran.
We know nothing about Afghanistan War, Iraq Daily violence and infrastructure problems, banking bailout in detail, Securities and exchange failures, FBI's new nation wide Cointel pro warrant less surveillance programs.
Why would the MSM report on the importance of renewable energy's.
They are owned by the same traitors that are trying to destroy America. Their reporting would be critical in exposing the treason that is taking place.
They would have to collect evidence that would send their masters to jail.
BornFreeMen
Does anyone know where and when the next annual meeting of the International Energy Agency will be? They are headquartered in Paris. They could use a visit, ala Seattle 1999 and the World Trade Organization.
The MSM won't pay much (if any) attention to this revelation. The world needs to be alerted, and quickly, to the truth about renewables, and about who is getting in the way.
After the Bush administration (and both the Republican and Democratic parties) I think we all know what "The Big Lie" is. See your ENT doctor if you can't smell these things coming.
If I ever buy a car again it will run on methane, natural gas, and I can 'fill 'er up' at the
North end of any horse going South - or any Senator or Housemember for that matter.
There's enough Greed and Hot Air in the Senate and House to power any energy system.
Misinformation such as that propagated by the IEA is enabled primarily by liberal ideology which lends support to opinions over facts and more generally, to the private over the public, capitalism over socialism, and tribalism over universalism. When one embraces reason, and values general well-being over classist domination/exploitation, one seeks the truth, and the most relevant truths about energy today are: 1. elites seek control over energy as a means to control the people, 2. we only need 1% of our land area to harvest our energy directly from the sun or indirectly from the wind, and 3. stability/prosperity require the people's right to energy independence, i.e. a right to land/water to produce their own food/fuel/materials and access to the highest quality information. We can produce almost all of our food/fuel/materials on about one acre per three people, or about 6% of the Earth's total land area. We're looking at a great new approach to building societies: On a foundation of truth, reason, ethics, individual/local autonomy, self-sufficiency in everything, with free exchange of information among the world's independent small communities, and strict limits on power concentration.
Amen brother? sister? The IEA is just a waste of taxpayer money and deserves to be abolished.
Thanks CD editors for publishing this today, a day after Jesus Hussein ridiculed my assertion that renewables can replace fossil fuel and nuclear energy.
This Energy Watch group, including prominent politicians and scientists, asserts that renewables are already on track to SURPASS "conventional" power sources for electricity production in less than 20 years, even without any new concerted political effort to ramp up the transition.
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Homepage.14+M5d637b1e38d.0.html
I expect the price of wind power generation to drop a bit further in the next 5 years.
On top of this, demand for wind and solar will grow as soon as electric utilities (forced by sane government regulators for once) separate power storage costs from power generation costs. Then investors will build more pumped hydro, and the supply and demand curves will strive to approach each other better.
California has a good example of how to regulate electricity. Their electric usage has dropped a bit in the past 20 years, where the national average is up 50%.
So, what about all those brand new coal plants? Investing in nonrenewable power plants is a ticket to bankruptcy. What are you invested in?
I wonder if these tycoons work for OPEC in their down time?
Take that, nuke shills!
If the people behind renewable energy technology, and all who support it created an agency as big - or bigger than the International Energy Agency, and began to educate people on just how much damage has been and continues to be done to our own health and well-being, as well as the earth's health, by oil, coal, and nuclear energy, we might get somewhere.
Bush/Cheney and THE COAL INDUSTRY have bombed, blasted and bulldozed Appalachia right into Third World America. http://www.wisecountyissues.com we can't stand anymore of the progress and prosperity.