The article mentions it:Serial_Worrier wrote:Wow - not a single mentioning of how to provide baseload electricity, not a serious article at all.
Geothermal and tidal are better suited to baseload applications. I also bolded the section above I felt could help with intermittency issues: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.
A 20 MW plant is already operating in Spain: Gemasolar Thermosolar PlantThe 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.
Serial_Worrier wrote:Wow - not a single mentioning of how to provide baseload electricity, not a serious article at all.
Graeme wrote:The answer is yes but preferably in a society where economic and population growth is zero.
JohnRM wrote:Graeme wrote: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.
kublikhan wrote:
Is it possible that renewables can supply 100% of our energy needs?
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.
Graeme wrote:Stanford scientist to unveil 50-state plan to transform US to renewable energy
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 94 guests