[Serial_Worrier]

Wow - not a single mentioning of how to provide baseload electricity, not a serious article at all.

[kublikhan]

Wow - not a single mentioning of how to provide baseload electricity, not a serious article at all.

The article mentions it:

The main WWS challenge is that the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine in a given location. Intermittency problems can be mitigated by a smart balance of sources, such as generating a base supply from steady geothermal or tidal power, relying on wind at night when it is often plentiful, using solar by day and turning to a reliable source such as hydroelectric that can be turned on and off quickly to smooth out supply or meet peak demand. For example, interconnecting wind farms that are only 100 to 200 miles apart can compensate for hours of zero power at any one farm should the wind not be blowing there. Also helpful is interconnecting geographically dispersed sources so they can back up one another, installing smart electric meters in homes that automatically recharge electric vehicles when demand is low and building facilities that store power for later use.

Because the wind often blows during stormy conditions when the sun does not shine and the sun often shines on calm days with little wind, combining wind and solar can go a long way toward meeting demand, especially when geothermal provides a steady base and hydroelectric can be called on to fill in the gaps.

Geothermal and tidal are better suited to baseload applications. I also bolded the section above I felt could help with intermittency issues:
1. interconnecting geographically dispersed sources so they can back up one another - This seems like one of the easiest and cheapest solitions to this problem. This is a big country. The wind is not going to suddenly stop blowing across the entire country all at once. So you build a little more wind power spread around the country to compensate for times when certain regions of the country have low/no wind. Then when wind is low in one area of the country, you just import more power from another area of the country where the wind is still blowing.
2. installing smart electric meters in homes - This one makes alot of sense too. Have applications that suck up alot of juice turn off during times of peak demand and turn on during times of low demand. For example: charging EVs, staggering AC usage, aluminum manufacturing, etc.

I think the above 2 points make alot more sense than trying to build a giant national battery to store the energy of sunlight at night or building backup natural gas power plants for each and every wind/solar pv farm.

This is a good option as well that the article mentions:

The same analysis estimates that concentrated solar power systems with enough thermal storage to generate electricity 24 hours a day in spring, summer and fall could deliver electricity at 10¢/kWh or less.

A 20 MW plant is already operating in Spain: Gemasolar Thermosolar Plant
Another 110 MW facility is being built about 200 miles from Vegas: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Quinny]

How many MW to power Vegas - or Spain??

[kublikhan]

How many centuries did it take to build up our current infrastructure? You can't expect that to be replaced overnight.

[cephalotus]

Wow - not a single mentioning of how to provide baseload electricity, not a serious article at all.

You need storage capacity and some flexibility, for example from biogas. You can also produce hydrogen or synthetic methane from solar and wind energy and use it to power gas fired power plants.

http://www.kombikraftwerk.de/fileadmin/ ... erk_EN.pdf

https://www.enertrag.com/en/project-dev ... plant.html

[Laurentius]

I really enjoyed reading this interesting post.

[Rhyunbear]

To put this very simply, natural energy sources require nothing on our part to make. Coal, oil (crude), natural gas etc form naturally due to organic materials expiring and being compressed and transformed. The sun costs us nothing for it to shine as does the wind. What is always lost in these discussions is that it takes energy of some type to harness and exploit ANY type of energy source into a viable and workable product. The cost of energy spent versus the amount of energy gained should be the discussion. The finite energy mindset is turned on its ear with every technological turn that increases the amount of any type of material we can recover, and with the plates in the planet shifting as well as volcanoes and such rare earth materials will still be formed whether we like it or not. Finite thinking is only helpful for those that wish to have a deadline to argue for or against. Reality is that the "deadline" constantly shifts froward destroying the myth. Costs of energy typically have governmental and political reasons, not supply reasons. Public perception is just that. It is formed by what the public is told, not necessarily reality.

[JohnRM]

The answer is yes but preferably in a society where economic and population growth is zero.

And there it is. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to say it.

Not only zero growth, but also far less than 7 billion people, I'm afraid. I would guess - and it is just a guess - that we will probably require a reduction to less than 3.5 billion, perhaps as low as 1 billion.

[Timo]

The answer is yes but preferably in a society where economic and population growth is zero.

And there it is. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to say it.

Not only zero growth, but also far less than 7 billion people, I'm afraid. I would guess - and it is just a guess - that we will probably require a reduction to less than 3.5 billion, perhaps as low as 1 billion.

I will also add that the answer is "yes," under the same conditions listed above, but also only in less intensive applications. Renewable energy for commercial jets? Probably not. At least not on the scale at present. Cars? Maybe, but only used for less intensive purposes, like much shorter, less frequent commutes, and not for happy motoring. Damn you Kunstler! Anyway.....agriculture? Only for processing; not for planting and harvesting, at least not at the scale of present demand. In short, humans gan get by pretty easily with renewable energies, but only under different circumstances. Sooner or later, we'll all be forced into an energy austerity mandate, just like Europe with money.

[Pops]

I've been carping that the big drop in PV prices that lately everyone has has been puffing is in no small part because of Chinese subsidies to their manufacturers and the resultant dumping in the US. I'm sure PV is getting cheaper with scale but not as fast as appears.


U.S. orders tariffs on Chinese solar panels

[paulinenehring]

Is it possible that renewables can supply 100% of our energy needs?

Yes It is possible, Paraguay and Iceland have already done it.

Paraguay relies 100% on hydroelectric energy, where as Iceland relies around 75 % on hydroelectric energy and the rest is from Geothermal Power (also renewable).
I think at least 100 countries can rely 100% on hydroelectric energy (quantifying this based on the average precipitation per year).
Sources: Hydroelectric Generation and Average Precipitation per year

My point being, not only there is solar and wind energy, there are other forms of usable renewable energy. So the answer is, yes definitely, we go 100% on renewable energy and we should

[EnergyUnlimited]

I only wonder, how they will make road asphalt or constructions of steel smelters out of renewable energy...
How they will refurbish crumbling city infrastructure base on renewable energy...
etc.

Finally how much will cost 1 kWhr of renewable electricity if *most/all* infrastructure needed to produce it is also to be constructed and maintained base on renewable electricity?
Would that be an affordable proposal for general use?

[Graeme]

Stanford scientist to unveil 50-state plan to transform US to renewable energy

Stanford Professor Mark Jacobson and his colleagues recently developed detailed plans to transform the energy infrastructure of New York, California and Washington states from fossil fuels to 100 percent renewable resources by 2050. On Feb. 15, Jacobson will present a new roadmap to renewable energy for all 50 states at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Chicago.

The online interactive roadmap is tailored to maximize the resource potential of each state. Hovering a cursor over California, for example, reveals that the Golden State can meet virtually all of its power demands (transportation, electricity, heating, etc.) in 2050 by switching to a clean technology portfolio that is 55 percent solar, 35 percent wind (on- and offshore), 5 percent geothermal and 4 percent hydroelectric.

"The new roadmap is designed to provide each state a first step toward a renewable future," said Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford. "It provides all of the basic information, such as how many wind turbines and solar panels would be needed to power each state, how much land area would be required, what would be the cost and cost savings, how many jobs would be created, how much pollution-related mortality and global-warming emissions would be avoided."

The 50-state roadmap will be launched this week on the website of The Solutions Project, a national outreach effort led by Jacobson, actor Mark Ruffalo (co-star of The Avengers), film director Josh Fox and others to raise public awareness about switching to clean energy produced entirely by wind, water and sunlight. Also on Feb. 15, Solutions Project member Leilani Munter, a professional racecar driver, will publicize the 50-state plan at a Daytona National Speedway racing event in Daytona, Fla., in which she will be participating.

phys.org

[Peak_Yeast]

When I see mining companies and similar energy intensive operations using ONLY renewable energy and machinery produced ONLY with renewable energy made from materials extracted with ONLY renewable energy - then perhaps I will start to think that there is something about it. But I dont see that happening AT ALL.

[Plantagenet]

Stanford scientist to unveil 50-state plan to transform US to renewable energy

This is a major positive development. By breaking down the transformation to RE into 50 state packages, for the first time it is possible for local activists to see the steps necessary to move their state to the RE future.

Hopefully these plans will be the start of 50 states starting down 50 separate paths to the RE future (with the benefit of some substantive federal help, of course).


The RE future is coming---time to start walking all the RE talk!

[Graeme]

Plant, Yes Fed help is vital. That is already occurring of course but the US needs more support for RE development and substantially less support by Fed for fossil fuels especially during the next decade if US and world has any chance if surviving global warming for rest of century.

Please scroll down and click on each US state on graphic of entire USA in Project Solutions website for more details of proportions of WWS. You'll see link to "Data from Stanford University – For more information, visit" near graphic including abstract for 100% RE for 50 states.

100% Wind, Water, Sunlight (WWS) All-Sector Energy Plans for the 50
United States

DRAFT – February 11, 2014

By Mark Z. Jacobson1, Guillaume Bazouin1, Zack Bauer1 et al. (TBA)

1
Atmosphere/Energy Program, Dept. of Civil and Env. Engineering, Stanford University

Abstract
This study presents roadmaps for each of the 50 United States to convert their all-purpose energy infrastructure (for electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, industry) to ones derived entirely from wind, water, and solar (WWS) power generating electricity and electrolytic hydrogen after energy efficiency measures are accounted for. The numbers of devices, footprint and spacing areas, energy costs, numbers of jobs, air pollution and climate benefits, and policies needed for the conversions are provided for each state. The plans contemplate all new energy powered with WWS by 2020, about 80-85% of existing energy replaced by 2030, and 100% replaced by 2050. Electrification plus modest efficiency measures would reduce each state’s end-use power demand by a mean of 37.3% with ~85-90% due to electrification, and stabilize energy prices since WWS fuel costs are zero. In all states, after energy efficiency measures are taking into account, remaining all-purpose 2050 end-use demand could be met with onshore and/or offshore wind; utility-scale, residential, and commercial/government photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), geothermal, wave, tidal, and/or hydroelectric power. These percentages will shift upon implementation. Regulations would govern facility siting. Over the U.S. as a whole, converting would require 5.1 million 40-year construction jobs and 2.6 million 40-year operation jobs for the energy facilities alone. It would also, decrease ~59,000 (18,000-109,000) air pollution premature mortalities/year, and avoid $534 (166-980) billion/year in health costs, or 3.3 (1-6.1) percent of the U.S. 2012 gross domestic product, along with $730 billion/year in global climate change costs. Because the fuel costs of fossil fuels rise over time, whereas the fuel costs of WWS energy resources are zero, WWS energy in 2050 will save the average U.S. consumer $3400/person/year compared with the 2050 energy cost of fossil fuels to perform the same work. Health and climate cost savings due to WWS will be another $3100/person/year, giving a total cost savings due to WWS of $6500/person/year. The new footprint over land required for converting the U.S. to WWS for all purposes is equivalent to 0.65% of the U.S. land area. The spacing area between wind turbines, which can be used for multiple purposes, including farmland, ranchland, grazing land, or open space, is equivalent to 1.8% of U.S. land area. Grid reliability can be maintained in multiple ways. The greatest barriers to a conversion are neither technical nor economic. They are social and political. Thus, effective polices are needed to ensure a rapid transition.

[pasttense]

What are the suggested methods of energy storage?

[ralfy]

In terms of costs, one may consider ecological footprint.

The U.S. footprint is four times greater than what is allowed given global bio-capacity.