The International Energy Agency (IEA) just released a new report which has stated that the world will need to invest $45 trillion to cut greenhouse gases in half by 2050.

$45 Trillion!!!

Last month, environment ministers from the G8 backed this 50 percent target, and they'll call for it to be officially endorsed next month.

Now listen, I'm all for cutting greenhouse gases.  Especially since any major cuts will require heavy investment in renewable energy resources.

Unfortunately, the IEA's report came off as a bit questionable when it analyzed what needs to be done to make this happen.

Let's go nuclear!!!

The IEA study has stated that the world will need to build roughly 1,400 nuclear power plants in order to meet its 50 percent reduction target.

The only problem is, they don't make any recommendations on how to pull this off.

How do they expect to build 1,400 new nuclear power plants when we barely have enough uranium for what we have in operation now?

During a June, 2007 press conference, the CEO of Cameco Corporation, the largest uranium producer in the United States, indicated that he expects demand to grow at 3 percent annually (this was before the IEA's announcement today), for the next decade, but doesn't see uranium mining being able to keep pace with demand.  As it stands today, he believes the demand for uranium will exceed supply for the next eight or nine years.

Additionally, a 2006 study by the Energy Watch Group indicated that even under the best-case estimates of uranium resources, production will peak before 2050, assuming today's rate of use.  And now they suggest we drastically increase our nuclear infrastructure?

And how quickly do they expect this to happen?

These things don't go up like shopping malls!

The last reactor built in the U.S. took 30 years to approve and build.

You think folks don't want a wind turbine in their backyard?  Try to convince them that a nuclear power plant, complete with a mandatory evacuation plan, is a good idea.

Let's go clean coal!!!

The IEA's second scenario calls for an acceleration of carbon capture and storage technology for coal-fired power plants.

This begs the question, "Do these guys even consider the fundamentals of supply and demand?"

You've heard me go on and on in these pages before about how our so-called 250-year supply of coal is vastly overstated because the numbers don't take into account the energy content of our reserves.

Bottom line: when you look at the energy content of our coal, instead of just the numbers (because there are different types of coal, each with different energy contents), you'll find that we may have already passed the peak of the good stuff. 

And globally, we could be looking at a peak of coal production by around 2020.

For the specifics on this analysis, I strongly recommend you read Chris Nelder's piece: The Dirt on Coal.  It will truly open your eyes!

Perhaps if the folks making our energy decisions these days were to look at these numbers, we'd be spending less time talking about coal, and more time talking about renewables.

The IEA was quick to push nuclear and coal in the report, while only giving a slight mention to wind.  Which, by the way, is only one part of the overall renewable energy mix.

I'm not saying we can transition to 100% renewable in the near term.  But focusing so much attention on just our last few bits of non-renewable energy resources is doing nothing but wasting precious time.

And while the IEA's study will certainly get posted in every pro-nuclear and pro-coal website, we maintain that no matter how you slice it, nothing will change the fact that fossil fuel depletion will ALWAYS be the issue that enables the long-term success of a strong, renewable energy market.

With some decisive leadership, and some much-needed infrastructure upgrades and transmission development (which is necessary with or without renewables), this can be done safely, economically and sustainably.

According to the DoE...

·                   Enough electric power for the entire United States could be generated by covering about 9 percent of Nevada with parabolic trough systems.  This is a plot of land roughly 100 miles on each side.

·                   There are about 14 million quads of recoverable geothermal energy beneath U.S. soil.  That's about 140,000 times our current energy consumption.

·                   There's enough potential offshore wind energy off the coast of the United States to cover nearly all the current installed U.S. electrical capacity.

Yes, it's true that all of these solutions require large upfront capital costs.  But wind, solar and geothermal resources, no matter what part of the world you're in, will always remain infinite and carbon-free.

And that's why, despite how much they continue to push the pipe dreams of nuclear and clean coal, renewable energy maintains a level of long-term value that no conventional energy source can touch.

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...

Jeff

Get the inside track on the most lucrative stock plays in today's scorching-hot alternative and renewable energy markets.

Sign up for the FREE Green Chip Review daily e-Letter from alternative energy expert Jeff Siegel.

Jeff,

You mention a "plot" of land 100 miles on each side. That's 10,000 square miles! Hardly a "plot" by any stretch of the imagination. More like the 51st state.

Clean coal is an oxymoron, but uranium is far more abundant than you state in this article. Also, thorium and other elements can be used un nuclear reactors.

Thank you for your optimistic view of renewable resources. I was just reading that article when your e-mail popped up. Needless to say I was very upset until I read your article. I only wish there was some way to break through the ice and teach the cavemen of the new way, the right way!