[Graeme]

There are quite a few places around the world that have already achieved 100% renewables starting with Greensburg, U.S. and Linköping, Sweden. Click on pages at bottom of this link to see more.

[PeakOiler]

According to Wiki, Georgetown is the 60th largest city in Texas. Here's a link to a list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Texas_by_population

The top ten:

Rank Place name 2013 Estimate 2010 Census Change
1 Houston[2] 2,195,914 2,100,263 4.55%
2 San Antonio 1,409,019 1,327,407 6.15%
3 Dallas 1,257,676 1,197,816 5.00%
4 Austin 885,400 790,390 12.02%
5 Fort Worth 792,727 741,206 6.95%
6 El Paso 674,433 649,121 3.90%
7 Arlington 379,577 365,438 3.87%
8 Corpus Christi 316,381 305,215 3.66%
9 Plano 274,409 259,841 5.61%
10 Laredo 248,142 236,091 5.10%

The corridor of urbanization along I-35 north from Austin including Round Rock and Georgetown is over a million now. Yikes! Even the slightest accident along I-35 causes some of the worst traffic jams for over 30 miles. Comparable to LA. The traffic sucks.

Perhaps they will build and operate a silicon manufacturing facility for more PV from the wind-generated power. ?

[StarvingLion]

Texas is bankrupt like every other state. The crooks of finance bet the farm on solid state physics and got rid of "old-style industrialism" based on coal consumption 40 years ago. So what does the PV aspect of solid state physics power? Oh about 6% of electricity needs. What does Moores Law power? Oh a completely useless corrupt financial sector that outsources everything + an equally useless service sector that doesn't do anything important at all.

There you go. A money losing local oil "industry" doesn't change the fact that getting rid of that dirty old manufacturing so Wall Street could suck up every dime was suicide.

[ROCKMAN]

Lion - You appear to have a big bone to pick with someone. Have at it but leave Texas out of it less you destroy your credibility. I won't waste space and show how Texas is far from bankrupt. Folks can research that on the own.

[ROCKMAN]

Peaky - Yes...#60 in pop. But in the top 10 for highest growth rate in 2014. And BTW Austin ranks 3rd fastest growing in the nation. As far as Silicon Valley working the wind Google was at it about 18 months ago:

Google announced another big renewable energy deal on Wednesday, purchasing a $200 million stake in a wind farm in west Texas. The 161 megawatt Spinning Spur Wind Project in Oldham County, Texas, generates enough energy to power more than 60,000 homes, the search giant said. Its 70 turbines are located in a particularly windy section of the Texas Panhandle and began spinning full-time in the last few weeks of 2012. "We look for projects like Spinning Spur because, in addition to creating more renewable energy and strengthening the local economy, they also make for smart investments".

And I'll make the point again: Texas is doing great when it comes to alt energy but it has little to do with helping the environment. It's been done on basic business principles. And this from a state that pulls in a very significant part of its income from the fossil fuel industry. You have to wonder why other states aren't moving faster given how much of their monies are being sent to all the fossil fuel producers...including Texas.

[ralfy]

Cash saved is re-invested elsewhere, and ultimately more oil and material resources will be needed to get returns on investment.

[ROCKMAN]

ralfy - That's the point I keep hitting: Texas isn't using its wind power to replace coal. It's being done to supplement our growing electricity demand. In fact, that second largest source of GHG in the country that will have its CO2 injected in an old oil field (thus increasing oil production) by the largest sequestration project of the planet will ultimate burn more of our 100+ year supply of lignite. Half the burners run on NG and the other half on lignite. Eventually NG will rise and by that point the plant could be running 100% coal. The project is being done to offset the feds push to reduce GHG production. Fortunately the feds are contributing at least $200 million to their effort to reduce coal consumption in the US. Somewhat similar to the POTUS arguing against domestic coal consumption while overseeing the largest expansion of US coal exports in our history.

As you point out the savings (and thus the motivation for Texas "going green") will be used to support the anticipated continued expansion of the state's economy. Our "greenest" is based up a political edict of growth. In a way Texas is the local equivalent of China in that aspect. Whatever China does to reduce its GHG it won't be to "save the planet" IMHO. It will be based upon sound business principals.

You would think the environment advocates would recognize the benefit of pitching their cause towards a pro-growth angle as opposed to spending money to "save the planet". But that just wouldn't fit the anti-business attitude many of them carry.

[Graeme]

Here's another small town in Minnesota that will be powered by 100% renewables.

100% Renewable Electricity For Minnesota Town’s Government Facilities

Cologne, Minnesota, is a town of about 1,500 near Minneapolis. It recently decided to power all of its facilities with renewable electricity from solar power — in fact, community solar. 2,700 solar panels in SunShare solar gardens will provide the electricity. They are being constructed under Excel Energy’s Solar Rewards Community program. The point of investing in solar power is to disconnect the city’s facilities from fossil fuels and their fluctuating prices.
“This decision creates a win-win for our community members and the City. By joining SunShare’s Solar project, the City is both doing the right thing environmentally and cutting down on our electricity costs, our taxpayer dollars can more efficiently be used for additional projects and infrastructure. Whatever we save can be put back toward the community,” explained City Administrator Jesse Dickson.

The facilities of a town with 1,500 residents might not sound like much, but there are hundreds of such towns in the state that could follow suit. With one setting an example of success, it might not take that long for others to go entirely solar, too. Such an example may also inspire residents to go solar. Some research has concluded that peer influence plays an important role when people are deciding to invest in energy conservation.

cleantechnica

[ROCKMAN]

“Here's another small town in Minnesota that will be powered by 100% renewables.” Not entirely correct: not the city but just the city govt (…for its City Hall, water pumps and other uses). But every little bit helps. From:

http://www.startribune.com/cologne-minn ... 306990771/

“The city of Cologne…signed a deal that would make it the first local government in the state to entirely offset its municipal electricity with solar power. Businesses and residents of Cologne won’t get any of the solar power…”

Unlike Georgetown, Texas, which is looking at putting the entire city (residents and businesses also) into wind power. And those Texans have another advantage: they don't burn fuel oil to stay warm. Cologne will still burn its share of the 1,340 trillion Btu's of fossil fuels (not counting transportation) the state consumes annually. But to be fair the state does get the bulk of that energy from NG and from only 15 million tons of coal annually.

But it's a start. A tiny start but a start none the less.

[Graeme]

How about the state of Vermont:

Vermont Governor Sets New Goal of 75% Renewable Energy by 2032

Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed into law a comprehensive energy bill that will create 1,000 new jobs, save Vermonters $390 million on energy costs, and help Vermont combat climate change by putting the state on track to achieve a quarter of its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. The legislation also creates an innovative new program under which Vermont utilities will help customers reduce fossil fuel use and save money on their energy bills.

1sun4all

[KaiserJeep]

Taking the U.S. to 100 Percent Renewable Energy State by State

A group of researchers at Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley, led by Stanford’s Mark Jacobson and Mark Delucchi, says that the United States can get 100 percent of its energy from renewable sources, using existing technologies, by 2050. And they lay out a state-by-state plan for doing so. Jacobson and Delucchi had previously calculated that the world could theoretically go 100-percent renewable by 2030; in this more practical plan, they focus on the United States and look forward to 2050.

They conclude that, in aggregate, the the United States’ energy mix could be: 30.9 percent onshore wind, 19.1 percent offshore wind, 30.7 percent utility-scale photovoltaics, 7.2 percent rooftop photovoltaics, 7.3 percent concentrated solar power with storage, 1.25 percent geothermal power, 0.37 percent wave power, 0.14 percent tidal power, and 3.01 percent hydroelectric power.

Every state, of course, will have a different mix. The report concludes that California can meet 54.5 percent of its energy needs with some type of solar power, with wind power accounting for 35 percent. Five percent will come from geothermal, with hydroelectric power, wave power, and tidal turbines making up smaller percentages of the mix. North Dakota, the study says, can look towards meeting its energy demands with 42 percent solar power and 55 percent wind power. And Maine will be able to draw 70 percent of its energy from the wind.

Becoming a renewables-only country will require a number of steps besides building new large scale solar plants, installing rooftop solar, creating wind farms, and rolling out wave-power generating systems, the report indicates. For one, ground transportation will have to be entirely electrified. To do this, the researchers envision: battery-electric vehicles with fast charging or battery swapping dominating long-distance, light-duty transportation; battery-electric/hydrogen fuel cell hybrids dominating heavy-duty transportation and long-distance shipping; and electrolytic cryogenic hydrogen fuel used to power aircraft flight, with batteries providing energy for idling, taxiing, and internal electrical systems.

But change, the researchers indicated, will have to go beyond the way power is generated and used. The report contains a long list of other things that will need to be done—new building codes, improved data center design, surcharges on utility bills to fund the transition, easing the permitting process for electric car charging stations, improving bike routes, and much more.

Jacobsen and his colleagues insist that this is all quite feasible—and that the economics make sense. “When you account for health and climate costs—as well as the rising price of fossil fuels—wind, water, and solar are half the cost of conventional systems,” Jacobson said in a prepared statement. “A conversion of this scale would also create jobs, stabilize fuel prices, reduce pollution-related health problems, and eliminate emissions from the United States. There is very little downside to a conversion.”

The whole report: http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf

The 50-state interactive graphic: http://thesolutionsproject.org/

[KaiserJeep]

The hydrogen delivery infrastructure has to slide into place by gradually replacing the 690,000 fueling stations we already have for hydrocarbon fuels. You need to start getting hydrogen from water electrolysis versus natural gas, of course.

480VAC, three phase is the commonest form of primary power within buildings and also is used for light rail, 100% electric railroads, and diesel-electric conventional locomotives. By which I mean YES it has to be implemented, but the technology and the transformers and switchgear are all well understood.

Both problems only need heaps of money to solve. Too bad all of you are still working, unlike us retired folks. Taxes are gonna have to be raised so my lifestyle is maintained.

[yellowcanoe]

People who talk about health care savings due to less air pollution, reduced smoking, less exposure to cancer causing materials, etc. etc. rarely discuss the impact on pension funds. Reducing the number of premature deaths means that people will on average collect a pension longer. Eliminating the health costs associated with a premature death doesn't necessarily translate into an overall savings in health care as it is merely postponing a death that may involve just as much health care expenditures as would have been entailed by the premature death that was avoided.

[ennui2]

Public policy is more than a math formula, otherwise we'd be living in a THX-1138 dystopia where everyone's life is calculated in terms of net GDP. People being healthier should be its own reward. Having to make an economical argument for it just plays into the whole Adam Smith invisible-hand-of-the-market-is-everything paradigm.

[KaiserJeep]

People who talk about health care savings due to less air pollution, reduced smoking, less exposure to cancer causing materials, etc. etc. rarely discuss the impact on pension funds. Reducing the number of premature deaths means that people will on average collect a pension longer. Eliminating the health costs associated with a premature death doesn't necessarily translate into an overall savings in health care as it is merely postponing a death that may involve just as much health care expenditures as would have been entailed by the premature death that was avoided.

Well ....... yes, but please don't drag the thread off-topic. The biggest problem with many retirement programs including Social Security, and many healthcare insurance programs including Medicare, is that people are living longer and collecting benefits longer. Private plans have the same problem as the national plans.

Are you saying you consider this a downside to RE's?

[KaiserJeep]

-snip-
I am a bit confused here. Either every fueling station required to have a NG fuel delivery (of magnitude) or a solar PV electrolysis system? Which is it? How much?

I'm not aware of an existing design for a national hydrogen infrastructure - and I don't believe it's a fruitful discussion path, but you are correct, either you produce the hydrogen at distributed sites, or at large central sites followed by bulk distributions. Given the potential for hydrogen to become a bomb under the correct conditions, it's hard to choose the best alternative.

-snip-
The technology is the easy part. How much to intall 480 to my driveway?

Depends entirely upon how close you are to the high tension power lines, and how many customers would be served by 3-phase power. Today's residential infrastructure is mostly single phase, whereas most commercial buildings, manufacturing sites, etc are fed by 480-volt, 3-phase busbars.

-snip-
Why didn't you say so. Of course. Once we wave our magic wand (and reduce the defense budget by about $300 billion and return troops from 120 countries) and finally bioengineer that flying pig then it will be a go!

All infrastructure problems have the same problem, which is funding.

[KaiserJeep]

Public policy is more than a math formula, otherwise we'd be living in a THX-1138 dystopia where everyone's life is calculated in terms of net GDP. People being healthier should be its own reward. Having to make an economical argument for it just plays into the whole Adam Smith invisible-hand-of-the-market-is-everything paradigm.

Yes, exactly correct.

[Peak_Yeast]

Actually the pensions from all the old-timers is a pile of money that governments will have a really difficult time not stealing to use in projects...

They have done it in Denmark several times (via different kinds of taxation) on the public pensions and they are planning to do it again with all the private ones.

Woe to your purchasing power or pension Mr. old-timer.