Thanks for providing a summary. Did anyone mention geothermal power?

http://www.soultz.net/fr_what_eng/main_what.htm

* 1 km³ of rock (cooling 20°C)
=15'000 GWh thermal
= 1'275'000 tons of oil
= more than 10 MWe base load at >200°C for 20 years

* Available resource
= 125'000 km² in W.Europe with >200°C at ~5000 m depth (Shell study)

* 12'500 km² (x 1 km thickness) of prime resource
= 900 TWh/year
= European nuclear energy output (1995)

One way or another, Keynesian economics would make a comeback. If the multinationals were to grow enough and essentially subsume everything in their path, we couldn't tell the difference between a corporation and a country. To them, Keynesian stimuli could just as easily been invoked by taking off from their reserve and stock-holders to promote growth. Now that many of these corporations have financial problems, the nations are themselves becoming competitive and taking the role of a capitalist system. Is Aramco really distinct from S.A.? What does Keynes mean there or in the case of OPEC? Keynesian stimuli is the rule anytime enough people in a society want to keep their lifestyle status quo. It's why people routinely say company when they mean country, and vice versa. In the limit, there is no difference and Keynes always applies. It's all a big incestuous circle with no beginning or end. Would economists ever want to admit this?

It would be good if the US under Obama took over Europe's default status as the climate leader. The EU seems to cling to wrong ideas and ignore good ones. For example I thought the UK was supposed be installing one offshore wind turbine a week. That's going to take some catching up to keep their word. France has cheap electricity and low per capita emissions but other EU countries seem to have their blinkers on and won't acknowledge it. Germany spends a huge amount on solar feed-in tariffs when the country doesn't really suit solar. Coal is making a comeback in several EU countries. They persist with CDM offsets which some believe are largely illusory. Poland and Czech Republic won't play ball with auctioned carbon permits.

Over to you Obama to show how it's done.

No media was authorised at the meeting,...

Hm, and how did you get there, Jerome? Don't they consider bloggers as media? Or did you pretend to manage the sound equipment ;-)?

Thanks for an excellent article, which seems to show that some progress is being made even if not as speedily as we would like.

I would be interested in hearing some discussion on the effects of lower growth on renewables and nuclear build.

The most notable aspect of these is that the capital cost is upfront, and traditional accounting heavily discounts future income and costs.
This has the effect that although the build in France of nuclear may not have been 'economic' in the strict sense of the word in the 70's and 80's due to the low cost of fossil fuel competition, the current fleet provides some of the lowest cost power in Europe as most of the costs are amortised.

In a world where the central assumption is for 2-3% growth, both 'free' future energy production and decommissioning costs are heavily discounted.

When interest rates go up, as for instance at present with high LIBOR rates, then the economics of either renewables or nuclear become much more difficult.

At some stage the bad debts and investments which led to the high LIBOR rates should have worked their way through the system, so interest rates should fall.

The world is likely to look very different though, with a central assumption of zero or negative growth, at least in the West.

The potential for very low interest rates would therefore seem to be present, which would favour both renewables and nuclear power, nuclear more so due to the long lead times.

However, falling materials costs help renewables more than nuclear, as they are more materials intensive.

Decommissioning costs would also be far less discounted on a nuclear build.

I'd be interested in thoughts on how this may play out.

In a low or negative growth world, will it be easier and cheaper to build nuclear and renewables, or more difficult than at present?

with respect to security of supply, non-OECD countries matter more and more, and thus focusing only on ourselves (the rich countries) is not good enough.

How about a coherent viable plan to replace entirely 83% of all European, MidEast and North African consumption of all energy including transportation, plus local de-salination provided water to European standards per capita for all N African and MidEast populations?

Clean Power from Deserts - The DESERTEC Concept for Energy, Water and Climate Security - Club of Rome - http://www.terrawatts.com/trec-white-paper.pdf

"In comparison to mankind’s energy flux density of about 0.03 Wm-2 the sun’s offers at the surface is by a factor of more than 5000 higher. [Edit: to clarify, that amounts to a solar flux average of 150 Wm-2] Hence, the motto of the 21st century could become: Learn to harvest one five-thousandth of the sun’s offer! All other renewable energy sources are comparably small parts of the sun’s offer. For example the kinetic energy contained in the ceaseless winds amounts to a global mean energy flux density of about 3 Wm-2, often concentrated on the sea or along coastlines. Next comes the energy flux of the sun stored in biomass; on global mean only 0.1 Wm-2 are available reaching peak values of about 1.0 Wm-2 if humid climates support strong plant growth on fertilized soils. Equivalent in the global mean with 0.1 Wm-2 is the geothermal energy flux from the Earth’s interior, sustained mainly by radioactive decay. All other renewable energy sources are much smaller, including hydropower, but can be important regionally in mountainous areas or tidal channels. However, the energy supply system of mankind cannot be build on them."

Professor Dr. Hartmut Grassl Former Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany Former Director of the World Climate Research Programme, World Meteorological Organization, UNO

This group places solar thermal + long distance HVDC as the rational solution as well. Price estimates slightly higher than NREL Sargent & Lundy consultant estimates (I think, though who knows what Euro conversion rate should be used) at 14 euro cents / kwh at 500 MW total installed (present) to 4 euro cents / kwh at 400,000 MW installed. They propose to replace most fossil and nuclear energy in Europe, Mid East and North Africa, plus suplement water supplied where required with desalination, by 2050 with little or no cost above BAU.

On price, viability, water planning. It withstands every inspection. Solar thermal is viable NOW and we should be getting VERY busy NOW.

IMHO, what's missing in the 5 points is a price on GhG emissions and pollutants. It would help those other 5 points a lot.

Forget carbon trading, another volatile market is exactly what we don't need in the times ahead. Start with a small carbon tax in 2010. Increases a little every month, guaranteed up to, say 2020. Revenue gets recycled back into the economy via reduction in payroll taxes ('tax and dividend'). Guarantees a favorable investment climate and level playing field for low carbon energy and energy efficiency. Promotes efficient use and conservation of fossil resources, while not increasing the total tax burden on the economy. The same can be done for heavy metal emissions, soot, etc. etc. These markets are only slowly coming off the ground, and often only very limited.

I think this is more important than any grand plan for a green economy I've read so far. Without an explicit price on pollution and GhGs the market is too distorted to make the right choices.