20% renewable energy by 2020

the problem is even if we have enough energy to power all the buildings in the world, small energy consumptive items like cars would still have to use fossil or bio fuels. hydrogen power is inefficient, bio fuels can lead to further environmental degradation, and the multitude of battery patents held by GM, Exxon, and energy companies have crippled the future of the electric car.

This really helped me in my science project

Did you honestly say we don't stand a chance? We've just been giving you guys a headstart haha

using petroleum or oil must go.. after 100 years or so its old school

as we stopped using coal that power our steam engine trains its time to move on!

As much renewables as possible, the rest Nuclear. That's always been my opinion on energy.

Oil and coal are far too usefull to waste on Energy.

did you hear that?

The European Union is the LEADER!

The US doesn't stand a chance

GO! TEAM EUROPA!

Getting 20% of estimated 2020 energy need from renewable (even excluding hydro) is ambitious, and will require massive investissement (and some clash with NIMBY's) but I think it can be done.
What could be much more challenging is to get the rest, 80% from fossil fuel. That I think is almost unpossible, unless we send troops around the world to secure oil.

The question is simple, the answer depends on individual and colective conflict of interest resolution. Thanks for this documentary and for the constant effort to reach a global policy to limit climate change. We are all responsible! by DEQVF dilige et quod vis fac

You are the perfect case of the stupid arrogant American.

It does thank you.

Its a shame Germany will be closing their nuclear plants in favour of…. well I assume buying electricity off of the French.

100% within 10 years.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAH

so is this a current proposal or did it pass?

This is an amazing step forward. Need to see more of these worldwide. However, I have seen SO many plans to incorporate green energy but NONE that includes actually trying to REDUCE energy USAGE. WHY OH WHY??????

From a UK view interesting after BERR has been caught red handed trying to scupper renewables by changing words to make the legislation meaningless. The nuclear old boy network and the big energy oligarchies and BERR are in cahoots. Renewables means competition & lower energy prices. As far as energy Gordon Brown is brown (as in coal). If he is green, it's luminous!! (nuclear). He hasn't got a clue about wind, solar, tidal & biomass.

If you really wanna know: Most of them are physicists, electric engineers and chemists. As an engineer you can focus on power generation and then focus again in renewables. Most research is done in universities and research centers.

what type of scientists research renewable energy sources?

20% is not even good. Here in America, we have every reason to switch to 100% within 10 years. We have enough wind and solar energy everyday, along with advanced technology, to run the entire nation on renewable energy. We have every economic, environmental, political reason to do so, but our government is still currently run by former oil executives who were put into office by oil tycoons.

It is a big effort, but this should have been done 30 years ago. Earth will continue heating up for the next 1,000 years, the North Pole will be gone around 2013 and we are more and more. I do beleive that Earth has passed the no return point.

Solar technology is steadily becoming cheaper and cheaper. Somewhat soon (maybe a decade or so) it will no longer (at least in the U.S.) require government subsidies to survive and we can start to build solar power plants and put solar panels on our roofs at a price that is cost-competitive with coal-powered electricity.

As an American I really admire Europe's efforts in becoming less dependent on oil. 20% is a HUGE number. We have free energy everywhere, and we're just now figuring out how to use it efficiently. Soon we'll be charging our electric hybrids on a grid of electricity supplied by solar/wind. Whatever liquid fuels we need will be supplied by cellulosic ethanol or biogasoline. Good stuff.

I'm not sure the 10% biofuel substitution objective is a very good idea.

They are different types of biofuel. The one you mention is derived from plant sugars and uses corn kernel, soybeans, etc. Then there is biofuels derived from cellulose and uses the corn stover and inedible material, but still needs some more research to become economically feasible. Already most countries are investing in biofuels derived from cellulose. Do not confuse the 2

If you look at the stats on renewables in EU, you can see the EU is ahead of its 2020 plan currently. Some nations like Spain and Germany are far ahead of the game plan. So while 95% probably is too optimistic, I could see 40% too 50% by 2020 myself (realistically).

No, the EU does not classify nuclear as renewable for purposes of the EU 2020 program (or stat taking), but they do take note of nuclear's non-carbon emissions and longer life span. As such the EU considers it in a middle category, between Solar/Wind/Hydro on one hand and Coal/Oil/Gas on the other.

Hope this helps.