[Loki]

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.

Interesting link. I looked up Oregon. This caught my eye: “Using WWS electricity for everything, instead of burning fuel, and improving energy efficiency means you need much less energy.”

They estimate a 39.8% decline of total energy consumption in Oregon by 2050. I agree that we'll be using a lot less energy per person by 2050, renewables or not. But it won't be because of “energy efficiency.”

Here's their graphic for Oregon, about two-thirds wind and solar, 25% hydro by 2050:

[AndyA]

I laughed at this

Giant offshore wind farms could do more than provide electricity for major cities. They could suck the life and the power out of hurricanes barreling toward those cities, too, according to Stanford University research presented Monday at the American Geophysical Union fall meeting.

and this

In June of 2011, a scientist, an actor, a banker and a filmmaker were sitting around a table talking about their opposition to extreme energy extraction.

Too bad none of these people have ever had to do much in the real world. I can tell you for a fact that what works on paper is not how things work in the real world. There are a gazillion plans just like this, we don't need moar plans, a little bit of action though would go a long way.

[Plantagenet]

we don't need moar plans, a little bit of action though would go a long way.

Its a waste of time to have action without a good plan. If you don't have a good plan yet then the best advice until you get a good plan is:

"Don't just do something, sit there."

The people at Stanford are among the best and brightest scientists, economists and planners in the world. Their plan is a good plan.


The Stanford plan for a 50-state RE program is a good plan

[AndyA]

So is this the only good plan? The one you have been waiting for? I don't understand, there seem to be big holes in this plan.

[ROCKMAN]

P - Sorry but I'm going to have to roll with Andy on this one. I agree with you: there has to be plan. But it has to be a plan developed by the folk who will finance the plan and put it into action. Simplistic I know but no different then me designing a good eating plan for an obese person. It's worthless if it's my plan and not his. Also: "They could suck the life and the power out of hurricanes barreling toward those cities, too, according to Stanford University research". Sorry but while these folks may be very clever in their own fields they need to keep quiet when it comes to engineering. Or do they account for the minimal damage caused by Katrina thanks to all those platforms and drilling rigs that reduced the force of the storm by falling over. Maybe they could just build a tall canvas wall along the coast to keep the hurricane from coming ashore. LOL.

So yes...seen many good plans here and at TOD. But I'm still waiting for the economic and political model that will bring any of these plans into action. Yes...it's harsh but a plan without a viable method of implementation isn't a plan but a daydream.

[Synapsid]

I'd rather see ROCKMAN's "plan made by the people who will finance it and put it into action" combined with a regional approach, not a state one. Resources such as rivers that can be utilized as energy sources don't follow political boundaries. Geothermal potential spread along the Cascades and Sierra and across the Great Basin suggests to me that that region ought to be the basis for planning to develop it, if planning is to occur.

Plan on the scale of the availability of the resource--I like that approach.

[ROCKMAN]

Syn - Me too. Unfortunately we bastards just won't do it on our own. I am a TBC (Texan BY Choice) and thus despise the idea of the gov't getting involved in the free market. But we all understand the free market is nearly incapable of planning too many years out. Sometimes not more than quarter to quarter. We all know we need long term solutions. But that requires long term investment strategies. Which is exactly why such fantasy "plans" as presented in this piece are almost certainly doomed...no investment mechanism to make it a reality. Even though some companies say they have a 10 year plan , or some similar foolishness, they are still looking at the profit margins quarterly and will change the plan in a heartbeat if they see the need.

I wish I had my own fantasy plan to pull the private sector investors together with the gov't to develop a long term response. But I just can't force myself to accept certain scenarios required to bring it about given the current political climate.

[Synapsid]

ROCKMAN,

The roaring success story that is the Colorado River Compact supports your view, of course; the Bonneville Power Administration works better but leaves much to be desired too.

I don't see how anything like I referred to would be possible without the Gummint involved, just because of the scale. But my point was, at least get the scale right to begin with.

I agree that anything of the sort is not likely. Living with that knowledge--well, that's where chocolate comes in.

[Graeme]

Can New York State Power its Way to a Sustainable Future?

A common view among state and federal lawmakers is that economic growth and clean energy innovation are mutually exclusive. Their error stems as much from their un-confessed self-interest as it does from the ad campaigns portraying fossil fuel exploration as a celebrated American tradition, attracting rugged, patriotic men and women.

The glistening offshore oil platforms and the early morning roll calls at natural gas plants convey a clean-cut, straight-talking, collaborative atmosphere that appeals to American sensibilities. What these ads intentionally fail to address is that the American workers they feature could instead be building the clean, non-polluting renewable power infrastructure America so desperately needs.


How to Pay for It

Krapels's group discussed the financial commitment such a large project would require. Jacobson calculated that a total investment of $600 billion would be needed to change the electricity infrastructure, but that by calculating and applying to the project the environmental costs arising from fossil fuel extraction, distribution, combustion and impact on human health, the project's price could be significantly reduced.

According to Jacobson's study, 4,000 premature deaths occur in New York each year due to poor air quality. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Levy et al. (2010) calculated that the financial losses relating to each premature death costs New York $8 million for a total annual cost to the state of $32 billion (based on 2000 GDP). As Jacobson's paper reports on page 31, "The value of life is determined by economists based on what people are willing to pay to avoid heath risks as determined by how much employers pay their workers to take additional risks," (Roman et al., 2012). Given that the social costs of dirty air can offset the cost of the project, Jacobson described to the team an American landscape where growing towns and cities are powered by clean electricity that effectively pays for itself in less than 17 years even before electricity is sold, and in as few as 10 years when renewable electricity is sold back to the grid.

Krapels drew an important comparison. He explained that "taxpayers have already spent 600 billion dollars over 60 years on power that is increasingly expensive... and all we have to show for it is a less stable grid, dirtier power sources, and an increasingly expensive energy supply."


Think That This Can't Happen in New York? Think Again

Some may say Jacobson's plan is too ambitious. Others will argue that it's too idealistic. But, Michael C. Finnegan, appointed January 1, 1995 as Counsel to former New York Gov. George E. Pataki (R), believes that Jacobson's proposal is doable. "Working together to make progress should be the organizing principle for social and economic success in our country," Finnegan began from his Hudson Valley home.


And what better place to initiate a Manhattan-style project than the Empire State, where uncommon hurricanes are now the "new normal" in weather reporting. "Students are voting for divestment in fossil fuels at colleges here and abroad," Hawken noted. "Bill McKibben's 350.org Do the Math Tour has alerted them to the fact that fossil fuel companies are ruining their lives and their future... President Obama has a narrow opportunity to shape a lasting legacy by issuing an executive order to begin building the green energy infrastructure that he promised and that young voters want."

What we need is national enthusiasm for an idea whose time has come.

huffingtonpost

[Plantagenet]

I'd rather see ... a regional approach, not a state one. Resources such as rivers that can be utilized as energy sources don't follow political boundaries.

States are the existing political entities we are stuck with. It nice to imagine the creation of entirely new regional governing entities that deal with things on a regional basis, but for the moment that is pure fantasy. Its just simpler, quicker and more realistic to work through the existing governmental structures.

There is nothing in the Stanford Plan to prevent states from joining together in inter-state compacts to manage regional resources, in addition to implementing state-by-state efforts to bring in RE. Concerns about new dams on US rivers are probably a moot point anyway since almost all the major rivers in the lower 48 that can be dammed are already dammed anyway, except for the site plunk in the middle of the Grand Canyon that was blocked in the 1960s.


Don't dam me, bro!

[ralfy]

Sustainability is ultimately based on keeping resource and energy consumption low in light of localization.

[Synapsid]

Plantagenet,

You and I picked the same example, the Colorado. The Colorado River Compact is just such an inter-state cooperation as you mention. It has certainly had great impact on the river, but not been very successful for a whole slew of reasons beginning with the original survey of average precipitation in the watershed, during a range of years that were wetter than normal.

There also seems to have been significant underestimation of the sediment load carried by the Green and upper Colorado rivers. I won't see it, but I expect Glen Canyon Dam to become a waterfall this century.

We could learn, from what we've done to the Colorado, a great deal about how not to frame such a cooperative project.

[Pops]

I think the plan is solid, but it isn't anything new. As the graphic Loki posted shows, 38% of the energy transformation plan, is simply having less energy.

That's been my plan for years. LOL

[green_achers]

Except that, even if the greatest miracle of all time happened, and 50 states adopted this plan, along with the federal oversight needed to make it happen, we would not actually use 38% less energy. We would fill in the gap with the same dirty fossil fuels and go on living the same lives we do right now. Probably even grow it at least some.

And all of the dirty fossil fuels we left on the world market would go to China at a discount.

[AndyA]

I don't think many people realise that once you stop using nat gas for heating and cooking, peak electricity demand occurs during the coldest days of winter. Especially when you start talking about electric cars and farm machinery. Inclement weather takes the shine off of walking, biking and taking public transport. Farmers are still going to need to feed their animals. Good old Missouri with a proposed 30% of generation from the sun, and 60% from wind will be down to 70% on a cloudy day, (I know it never happens) then it wont take too much calm weather (another impossibility) to turn the state into a frozen hell hole. It's pretty depressing that this is the best that the supposedly smartest people on the planet can come up with. Which is why you have to be retarded to think we can carry on with the current energy intensive lifestyle we have, and think a solution can be created and implemented from an ivory tower.

[Graeme]

Groundbreaking analysis shows China's renewable energy future within reach

By embracing conservation measures and renewable energy, China can transition to an 80 percent renewable electric power system by 2050 at far less cost than continuing to rely on coal, according to a new report from WWF-US.

As a result, China’s carbon emissions from power generation could be 90 percent less than currently projected levels in 2050 without compromising the reliability of the electric grid or slowing economic growth.

The China’s Future Generation report was prepared by the Energy Transition Research Institute (Entri) for WWF and uses robust computer modeling to simulate four scenarios based on today’s proven technology: a Baseline, High Efficiency, High Renewables, and Low-Carbon Mix scenario. To develop its findings, Entri examines China’s electricity supply and demand on an hour-by-hour basis through 2050 using its advanced China Grid Model.

“By fully embracing energy conservation, efficiency and renewables, China has the potential to demonstrate to the world that economic growth is possible while sharply reducing the emissions that drive unhealthy air pollution and climate change,” said WWF’s China Climate and Energy Program Director Lunyan Lu. “This research shows that with strong political will, China can prosper while eliminating coal from its power mix within the next 30 years.”

wwf

[Keith_McClary]

Related:

"The Energy Trap"

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/201 ... ergy-trap/

Tom Murphy's way of "doing the math" is overly complicated and confusing. It's really very simple if you think about it:

If the energy payback time of renewables (wind/solar) is T and the growth rate of renewable installations is 1/T, then the net energy produced is zero. If the growth rate is greater than 1/T then the net energy production is negative. Net energy production becomes positive only when renewables meet demand and cease growing.

[Ulenspiegel]

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

The issue with your argument is, that base load power (constant generation with high FLHs) is only in the current energy generation structure a plus.

With 50%-100% RE you only need back-up for few hours a years, you need cheap guaranteed power like open gas turbines. Not very elegant, as long as the FLH is small you can ad 100% gas power plants as back-up, the fuel is the expensive part, capital costs of the power plant are low. Instead of a kw nuclear power that costs 4000 USD you build 2.5 kW wind and 1 kW gas turbines.

The transition to a high RE generation is not that expensive as many components of the current infrastructure have to be replaced anyway.

The best way is to connect uncorrelated production sites with sufficient transmission capacity, this reduces backup capacity, large hydro power capacity also helps.

[Graeme]

HOW YOUR STATE CAN GET TO 100% RENEWABLES

Mark Jacobson, the Stanford professor who specializes in designing scenarios for a massive transition to renewable energy, is at it again – in a more high-profile way than ever. After coming up with detailed proposals for how a few states could get to 100 percent renewables in the first half of the century, Jacobson is now promoting “The Solutions Project,” which includes an interactive website that points the way to an all-wind, water and sunlight 2050 for each and every state in the union.

Check it out and see what your state might do.


Last year, Carnegie Mellon’s Nathaniel Gilbraith and co-authors wrote that Jacobson’s plan to get New York to a 100 percent “wind, water and sunlight” (WWS) energy infrastructure ”substantially underestimates the costs and consequences of a transition to solely wind, water, and solar power by 2030 and in doing so provides a misleading assessment that is counterproductive for guiding sound, rational energy policy” [PDF].

Jacobson came back with a point-by-point rebuttal [PDF], but perhaps more interesting was how he went on the offensive, railing at Gilbraith’s endorsement of natural gas, a fuel that Jacobson derides as not simply a greenhouse-gas villain, but as a source of air pollution that has direct and dramatic ill health effects.

earthtechling