Squilliam wrote:This study presents roadmaps for each of the 50 United States to convert their all-purpose energy systems (for
electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, and industry) to ones powered entirely by wind, water, and sunlight
(WWS). The plans contemplate 80–85% of existing energy replaced by 2030 and 100% replaced by 2050. Conversion
would reduce each state’s end-use power demand by a mean of B39.3% with B82.4% of this due to
the efficiency of electrification and the rest due to end-use energy efficiency improvements. Year 2050 end-use
U.S. all-purpose load would be met with B30.9% onshore wind, B19.1% offshore wind, B30.7% utility-scale
photovoltaics (PV), B7.2% rooftop PV, B7.3% concentrated solar power (CSP) with storage, B1.25% geothermal
power, B0.37% wave power, B0.14% tidal power, and B3.01% hydroelectric power. Based on a parallel grid
integration study, an additional 4.4% and 7.2% of power beyond that needed for annual loads would be supplied
by CSP with storage and solar thermal for heat, respectively, for peaking and grid stability. Over all 50 states,
converting would provide B3.9 million 40-year construction jobs and B2.0 million 40-year operation jobs for
the energy facilities alone, the sum of which would outweigh the B3.9 million jobs lost in the conventional
energy sector. Converting would also eliminate B62 000 (19 000–115000) U.S. air pollution premature mortalities
per year today and B46 000 (12000–104 000) in 2050, avoiding B$600 ($85–$2400) bil. per year (2013
dollars) in 2050, equivalent to B3.6 (0.5–14.3) percent of the 2014 U.S. gross domestic product. Converting
would further eliminate B$3.3 (1.9–7.1) tril. per year in 2050 global warming costs to the world due to U.S.
emissions. These plans will result in each person in the U.S. in 2050 saving B$260 (190–320) per year in energy
costs ($2013 dollars) and U.S. health and global climate costs per person decreasing by B$1500 (210–6000) per
year and B$8300 (4700–17 600) per year, respectively. The new footprint over land required will be B0.42% of
U.S. land. The spacing area between wind turbines, which can be used for multiple purposes, will be B1.6% of
U.S. land. Thus, 100% conversions are technically and economically feasible with little downside. These roadmaps
may therefore reduce social and political barriers to implementing clean-energy policies
http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jaco ... tesWWS.pdfEminently doable. The point which needs to be stressed above all else is the fact that doing something in a bits and pieces way is fundamentally different compared to going 'all in'. Compromising with respect to dependencies lowers the value of the whole proposition significantly. In other words if you only move 1/4 of the way towards a new paradigm you get less than 1/4 of the benefit. In addition to this, if people are busy saying that for various reasons we must transition off of fossil fuels, but that the alternatives are no good then in essence you're effectively saying 'we can't stop the train, so we may as well enjoy the wind in our hair before it goes off the rails'.
I will put this as politely as I can. The authors of that propaganda piece are full of beans and the emissions that result from them. Do a life cycle cost analysis of putting enough wind turbines in and around Chicago and Detroit to deal with both icy cold winters and hot muggy summers. Compare that life cycle cost of putting two brand new nuclear reactors near each city. Notice that the nuclear power alternative provides all the energy needed 24/7/365 with about a tenth of the money and materials needed, and the number of employees to maintain and operate four nuclear power stations is also about a tenth of the number needed to maintain thousands of individual wind turbines and the grid storage necessary for those days when the wind just ain't blowing hard enough. Pick the solar PV option or heck add it in and you will discover we get this white fluffy stuff a lot in winter that covers up the panels and requires either heating to melt the snow or someone risking their neck to climb up on the roof and clear them. Solar also needs a LOT of grid storage for those long dark winter nights.
Like I said earlier, Renewables are a fine supplement to the grid for 15% to 20% of the power consumed. Beyond that you are way better off building a nuclear plant for your carbon free energy. Just an observation but Australia is mostly desert or tropical and both Australia and New Zealand have very small populations per square kilometer, which makes it a lot easier to put up enough renewable to satisfy demand. The state of Ohio (11,610,000) where I live has twice the population of the country of New Zealand (4,596,000) and we are not a particularly high population state. In fact you can also compare Australia (23,780,000) with the three states of Ohio (11,610,000), Indiana (6,620,000) and Illinois (12,860,000) and you get 31,090,000 just in the three states that lie north of the Ohio River and south of the state Michigan and the Great Lakes of Erie and Michigan. The major cities in the set are [Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Toledo,] Ohio, [Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Gary] Indiana, [Chicago, Aurora, Rockford] Illinois and at least a dozen more population centers with 100,000 plus population.
Rounding off Illinois is 58,000 square miles, Indiana is 36,000 and Ohio is 45,000 = 139,000 square miles combined 31,000,000/139,000=223 people per square mile population density.
Australia 23,780,000/2,970,000=8 people per square mile.
New Zealand 4,596,000/103,483=44.4 people per square mile.
New Zealand and Australia both have lots of coastlines where wind turbines do best because of the temperature coefficient of land vs water which causes wind fairly constantly. Australia also has a great deal of very sparsely populated desert where Solar PV and heck even Solar Thermal work just fine. Those same conditions do not apply to my region, we have a lot of cloudy rainy days in spring and fall and lots of snow in winter and we go from 16 hours of daylight per day in June to 8 hours of daylight in December. Solar and Wind are fine supplements, but they will never ever suffice for continuous grid power at a price we can afford to pay, especially when Nuclear is so much more cost efficient in materials and manpower and produces even less CO2 if you take into account all those concrete foundations needed by the renewable options.