Oh Lord, there be idiots at Stanford

solutions_projectFrom Stanford University , along with actor/activist Mark Ruffalo, and “Gasland” movie fabricator Josh Fox. I’m amazed the university would allow themselves to get used by these clowns. The website they are pushing actually doesn’t offer any solutions, but asks you to “Join the Movement”

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 presented 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.

“Global warming, air pollution and energy insecurity are three of the most significant problems facing the world today, said Jacobson, a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and Precourt Institute for Energy. “Unfortunately, scientific results are often glossed over. The Solutions Project was born with the vision of combining science with business, policy, and public outreach through social media and cultural leaders – often artists and entertainers who can get the information out – to study and simultaneously address these global challenges.”

###

Jacobson delivered his AAAS talk on Saturday, Feb. 15, at 1:30 p.m. CT, at the Hyatt Regency Chicago, Columbus Hall CD, as part of a symposium entitled, “Is it possible to reduce 80% of greenhouse gas emissions from energy by 2050?”

Relevant URLs:

Jacobson Lab

https://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/

The Solutions Project

http://thesolutionsproject.org/

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
M Courtney

The Incredible Hulk goes Green?
For some reason I’m feeling angry.

knr

Lets see Stanford lead the way to this ‘glorious future ‘ by committing its self to use no power that has not come from renewable sources , true in the short term that may mean some drastic shortages of power , but I think its a price worth paying for ‘saving the planet ‘
The fact it will stop them pushing such idiots ideas in the first place , is of course just a side benefit.

DirkH

““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.”
WHAT! They failed to mention the
“Partial share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize as a research contributor to and reviewer of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 3rd and 4th Assessment Reports, cited for “efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.””
from his CV!

DirkH

He’s got more citations than Gengis Khan had kills!

Rhys Jaggar

Well, I guess a road map is fine and dandy – where’s the economics??
I’m open on this one – if the economics stacks up, fine.
If not, it should be exposed as premature at best……….

Old England

Without large scale energy storage, which green energy enthusiasts constantly ignore, they are either stupid or their true intent is to disrupt economies and living standards through intermittent energy supply. They claim not to be stupid so the latter must be their true goal.

Kit Blanke

The IQ of Silicon Valley just decreased significantly. I’ve mentored some bright students at Stanford, but these,,,,, take the cake.

Dear Anthony,
On the South side of the Big Island of Hawaii is the first series of wind energy fans. Now, there are just towers with very few wind blades attached. They had the money to put them there, but none to maintain them.
For every mile of highway there has to be a mile of maintenance budget. No matter what they think or get a budget in place to build it there won’t be the budget to keep it going. The states mentioned are broke.
Anyway, there are problems with green energy, if it is food, someone goes hungry. If it is wind energy, birds are killed and cold disrupt there action. If it is solar China is already shutting down its solar panel production to a few companies because of the lack of US INTEREST.
Poor blokes.
Paul Pierett
REPLY: Yes, I’ve visited the Kamoa wind farm, and we have a story about it here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/19/the-reality-of-wind-turbines-in-california-video/
-Anthony

4 eyes

“Global warming, air pollution and energy insecurity are three of the most significant problems facing the world today,…”
There doesn’t seem to be much global warming, air pollution in western countries is dramatically less than 40 years ago and the most insecure forms of energy (that is, real baseload energy that keeps our world working effectively) are solar and wind. And the world is much bigger than the fifty states of the USA.
And get rid of those horrible CO2 producing liquid fuels. Of course, that will mean no car racing for “Leilani Munter, a professional racecar driver”. Or is car racing exempt?
“a scientist, an actor, a banker and a filmmaker were sitting around a table talking about their opposition to extreme energy extraction”. Extreme energy extraction – what are these people talking about? And no mention of a mechanical or electrical engineer who are the ones our society trains to work out practical economic solutions to these sorts of big problems.
And I’d like to see the specs for a windmill that will be kept spinning during a hurricane.
The more I read the web page the more nauseous I felt.

When science, which is about what we measure, and politics, which is about what we want: e.g. “the roadmap” there will be serious trouble ahead for science.

Lawrie Ayres

knr is on the right track. With such a simple plan, so easy to implement and all we need are a few singers and actors to tell the good folk of California. What better way to advertise the benefits than to have the university cut it’s connection to the grid and go 100% green. Tomorrow if possible.

DirkH

The problem is that this is rolling out the designs of Holdren’s Ecoscience; and if the USA does it, the colonies must follow (or else). The trick is that the richer colonies, like Germany, CAN AFFORD IT, the poorer ones will perish, and that is the goal. One billion people is Holdren’s goal.

Bill Illis

There is just a lack of sensible rational thought with these people.
It’s just sunshine lollipops and rainbows in their world interspersed with the occasional window smashing riot.

Rhys Jaggar says:
February 17, 2014 at 1:29 am
—————————————
There is no hope for their plan to succeed. Solar and wind can not take over for the fuels that we use today. Plus, to push a plan like that in such a short time span, they will have to steal money from everyone. The extra cost of the utilities to the ratepayers will make everyone poor, except for those who are wealthy enough to not have to worry about such matters.

Jimbo

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.

What do you do when the sky is generally overcast for a week with weak winds? In 2050 Mark Z. Jacobson will not be in his present position so he won’t give a damn.

Nature – 2010
Why winds are slowing
Afforestation and climate change are blamed for stilling surface winds in the Northern Hemisphere.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101017/full/news.2010.543.html

Jimbo

Rhys Jaggar says:
February 17, 2014 at 1:29 am

If the economics stacked up it would have been adopted a looooooong time ago. Entrepreneurs would have seen the obvious and easy opportunities and piled in their capital. Big business would not need eco-nuts to tell them that the economics stacked up, the economics does not stack up that’s why government intervention is needed.

4 eyes (February 17, 2014 at 1:38 am) “And no mention of a mechanical or electrical engineer who are the ones our society trains to work out practical economic solutions to these sorts of big problems.”
That’s a huge problem on their side. Not just for the unsolved engineering problems like Tide Power. They run a few numbers that presume that this energy will magically store itself or transport itself to where it is needed. “Smart” meters will not just erase the peaks which can’t be met by their lame solution but will shift the demand to match supply. For example your washing machine will automatically turn on when the sun comes out, then turn off when clouds go by, and maybe you’ll get the laundry out on the line by Friday.

Manfred

Amazing to see how US oligarchs are on their way to transform the country into a central planning system after they ruined and marginalised the middle class.

Robber

Now wait just a cotton-picking minute. So when the sun goes down in California they stop driving, shut down everything and go to bed? Quick – invest in candles now!! Or are they too polluting? Better to turn the lights out in California now, permanently, if that’s the best their brightest have to offer. Let them live just blowing in the wind.

H.R.

“[…] 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. […]”
… and 100% unreliable. Cost? Not an issue if you’re saving the planet and are pretty good at that hunter/gatherer thingy.
BTW, the missing one percent wouldn’t happen to be unicorn power would it?

cnxtim

Ahh actors and celebrities as engineers – what a concept!
“Energy Instability” – what a crock, if you want something – negotiate and pay for it – don’t try to steal it with the lives of young Americans you stupid, stupid people.
Only in the land of nuts and fruits…
2050 plan? Go ahead, give China another reason to laugh their heads off….

“… a clean technology portfolio that is 55 percent solar, 35 percent wind (on- and offshore), 5 percent geothermal and 4 percent hydroelectric. …”
We now know that large scale development of solar farms and turbine fields can be certified wildlife killers. Are these people wanting to kill massive amounts of birds nationwide? Chop up those bald eagles!
We know that these “clean” methods don’t work at the very time you really need them to work such as at night or when it is too cold or if the wind is too calm. (or too high as was mentioned up above)
We know that anthropogenic CO2 released by mankind is a drop in the bucket of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and it does not warm the atmosphere as evidenced by the last 17+ years of flat or declining temps (even “adjusted” up by the frauds keeping the data sets) even as CO2 skyrocketed upwards.
We also know that mankind has experienced much warmer times that the present and flourished during those times. I read Dr. Lamb back when he was in style.
Look at just moving south on the map. My family in Wisconsin lives in an average temperature range far colder than I do in central Florida. They have an average February high of about 30F and I have an average February high of about 75F. (looking at Weather Channel charts) That is about 45F and not just a few tenths of a degree that started all this “CO2 is the devil” whining.
But more importantly, every single prediction out of the CAGW crowd has been wrong. Why should anyone believe that this proposal would even work and not freeze half the people in the country?

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

Your problem is not that you have some very sick individuals, that is people with pathological personality profiles. Your problem is that so many of them occupy seats of influence.

Unmentionable

Old England says:
February 17, 2014 at 1:31 am
Without large scale energy storage, which green energy enthusiasts constantly ignore, they are either stupid or their true intent is to disrupt economies and living standards through intermittent energy supply. They claim not to be stupid so the latter must be their true goal.
>>
And just watch how the media, which also claims to be smart and fully informed, or nearly so, totally fails to question that aspect as well, and instead pretends its a serious and viable option, not to mention economically affordable. Given Obama, credulous chap that he is, has no problem with any of this alternate-reality, then I do not expect a stellar moment from the media either. And I never expect stellar moments from the intelligentsia on any topic. So it looks like a terrific scam to get in, on the ground floor, then pump it and dump it … before it tanks and bleeds out.
The western world has become the joke of our times, a Mad-Hatter’s tea party, where game-play consistency is firmly discouraged in favor of the cheerleaders and scoreboards. Welcome to the ‘Smart-Grid’. “Hey, you can’t blame us! No one else saw it coming either!” An E3 pulse would be a mercy killing.

Liz

I liked the part where the race driver will talk about the plan at Daytona. I wonder what powers her car?

Old England says:
February 17, 2014 at 1:31 am
Without large scale energy storage, which green energy enthusiasts constantly ignore, they are either stupid or their true intent is to disrupt economies and living standards through intermittent energy supply. They claim not to be stupid so the latter must be their true goal.
==============================
I’d say you’ve pretty much cracked the code…

Mr Green Genes

Leilani Munter.
That is a very unfortunate name.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=munter

Sera

@ H.R. says:
The other one percent comes from rubbing balloons on their heads.

We used to think James Hansen was the gold standard for climate lunatic, but even he is demanding a nuclear future these days – Hansen thinks a 100% renewable future is not plausible.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/

Billy Liar

Presumably California will still allow fossil fuel guzzling planes into their utopia; otherwise how will all the actors and crackpot environmental engineering professors be able to fly around the world to conferences to tell other people what a success their plan has been?

Ian W

Lawrie Ayres says:
February 17, 2014 at 1:54 am
knr is on the right track. With such a simple plan, so easy to implement and all we need are a few singers and actors to tell the good folk of California. What better way to advertise the benefits than to have the university cut it’s connection to the grid and go 100% green. Tomorrow if possible.

With smart meters this is now possible without much effort. I would extend the requirement that all the personal residences and vehicles are also only powered by ‘100% green renewables’. And of course they would not be allowed any byproducts of the ‘fossil fuel industry’ such as plastics, nylon and polyesters and those things made from them like cell phones. Lead from the front. I am certain the power companies in California would be happy to set restrictions on the power supplies of all those supporting ‘green power’. It could become a political rallying point for all those ‘green’ democrat politicians – go on show the populace it is possible.

ROM

Quite an interesting trend seems to be developing through out the western university system.
Increasingly reference is being made to the home university of the more imbecilic promoters of various versions of the chimera of science that passes as climate science as it is practiced today.
The various universities and their academic self appointed elites having been immune and protected for generations to critiscm by the respect from the public that has been accorded to them over the generations as seats of learning.
They consequently and arrogantly now believe that they are safe within their ivory towers and are above the maddening host of low type peons far below.
They are probably only now becoming dimly aware that their reputations are being systematically trashed by allowing the promoters of the the most imbecilic, far out climate catastrophe whack jobs to use the universities as a base and a haven and the universities reputation as shield to hide behind when they are taken to the cleaners by the more rational members of both science and the public for their stupidly irrational beliefs and the vicarious promotions of disasters to happen for which they have not nor have ever and arguably never will have any proof to back those climate catastrophic assertions.
There is only one way for the universities to go in the evolving public opinion if they continue allowing themselves to be used by these so called climate catastrophe, hate promoting climate scientists and that is down, down.
Down it will be and already is in public opinion for the universities and will continue to be until they finally come to their senses and divorce and throw out all those whose speciality is academic irrationalism and the promotion of sheer hate against those skeptics who dare disagree with them, something which is so often expressed from under the elitist guise of their superior status as scientists and academics.
The universities have yet to realize that the world they thought they knew and could deal with from the great heights of their status as untouchable seats of learning has changed and will continue changing and it won’t be changing in favour of an arrogant, self important, contemptuous of those of lower status, elitist academia in it’s closeted ivory towers.
A very good quote for university vice chancellors to remember is;
“He who has the gold makes the rules”
Universities don’t own the gold!
Governments and the public do .

Speed

In Ohio, the projected energy cost is six cents per kWh. But the cheapest power, according to the EIA in Willis post is seven cents per kWh for Natural Gas (dispatchable fossil fuel) and nine cents per kWh for wind and hydro (non-dispatchable non-fossil fuel).
Plan pays for itself in as little as 9 years from air pollution and climate cost savings alone
A large part of the project’s benefit comes from “avoided mortality and illness costs” of $21.6 billion PER YEAR and 2,370 air pollution deaths avoided PER YEAR. I have wondered about the science behind the number of US deaths and illnesses caused by fossil fuel — it seems to rely on a small number of papers done many years ago relying on epidemiology and statistics ripe for auditing.
Health and climate externality costs of fossil fuels are another 5.7 cents per kWh.
I think that the authors should test their plan by selling bonds backed only by the assets they will build and the revenues, the profits they will generate and the reduction in morbidity and mortality that will result. It would be a tough sell.

Stanford is Ground Zero for the redesign of American K-12 education to make believing in climate change a driver of future behavior, whatever the actual facts. Look up Linda Darling-Hammond or psychologist Albert Bandura (who writes with Ehrlich) who has created the theory of human agency to inspire alterations in behavior.
As I noted last week, Stanford is one of the named partners in redesigning the very nature of curricula http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/drawing-back-the-standards-curtain-to-discover-the-global-coordination-to-redesign-the-very-nature-of-curriculum/ to try to alter consciousness. That’s Stanford Prof Roy Pea in charge of that as well as the cyberlearning push. Where the gaming and virtual reality visuals will all have students convinced in a version of reality that’s actually not true.

Another recent article that clarifies just how much shaping consciousness is seen as the solution to climate skepticism, read this UK article from Friday. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/behavioural-insights/2014/feb/14/seven-dimensions-action-climate-change
Also notice Rowson’s view of science and the law. Science is the dispute ender. Closes off further discussion and the law is a means to mandate conformity with the so-called science. Rowson even goes so far as to suggest creating a crime of ecocide.

Speed

Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, PartI:
Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials
Mark Z. Jacobson, Mark A. Delucchi
Abstract:
Climate change, pollution, and energy insecurity are among the greatest problems of our time. Addressing them requires major changes in our energy infrastructure. Here, we analyze the feasibility of providing worldwide energy for all purposes (electric power, transportation, heating/cooling, etc.) from wind, water, and sunlight (WWS). In Part I, we discuss WWS energy system characteristics, current and future energy demand, availability of WWS resources, numbers of WWS devices, and area and material requirements. In Part II, we address variability, economics, and policy of WWS energy. We estimate that ~ 3,800,000 5 MW wind turbines, ~ 49,000 300 MW concentrated solar plants, ~ 40,000 300 MW solar PV power plants, – 1.7 billion 3 kW rooftop PV systems, ~ 5350 100 MW geothermal power plants, ~ 270 new 1300 MW hydroelectric power plants, ~ 720,000 0.75 MW wave devices, and ~ 490,000 1 MW tidal turbines can power a 2030 WWS world that uses electricity and electrolytic hydrogen for all purposes. Such a WWS infrastructure reduces world power demand by 30% and requires only ~ 0.41% and ~ 0.59% more of the world’s land for footprint and spacing, respectively. We suggest producing all new energy with WWS by 2030 and replacing the pre-existing energy by 2050. Barriers to the plan are primarily social and political, not technological or economic. The energy cost in a WWS world should be similar to that today.

From the body of the article …

Although we focus mainly on energy supply, we acknowledge and indeed emphasize the importance of demand-side energy conservation measures to reduce the requirements and impacts of energy supply. Demand-side energy conservation measures include improving the energy-out/energy- in efficiency of end uses (e.g., with more efficient vehicles, more efficient lighting, better insulation in homes, and the use of heat- exchange and filtration systems), directing demand to low-energy- use modes (e.g., using public transit or telecommuting instead of driving), large-scale planning to reduce energy demand without compromising economic activity or comfort (e.g., designing cities to facilitate greater use of non-motorized transport and to have better matching of origins and destinations, thereby reducing the need for travel), and designing buildings to use solar energy directly (e.g., with more daylighting, solar hot water heating, and improved passive solar heating in winter and cooling in summer).

Article history:
Received 3 September 2010
Accepted 22 November 2010
Available online 30 December 2010
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf

more soylent green!

The road to Utopia is paved with green.
The road to Utopia doesn’t have any trucks because nobody knows how to transport large amounts of goods overland without fossil fuels. It could be done of course, just at a tremendous price. The road to Utopia is also lined with endless fields of wind turbines as wind farms consistently produce roughly 1/6 of their rated capacity. That factor, along with the energy density of wind farms, means huge swaths of land must be used. Children of the future may only know birds in zoos or cages as wind farms kill of millions of birds a year and widespread installation will drive many species to extinction.
The road to Utopia will be built on fossil fuels, of course, as there is no green heavy construction equipment. Again, practical problems such as energy storage and energy density keep rearing their ugly head; when reality meets fantasy head on, reality always wins out.

Mike Borgelt

Didn’t Stanford used to be a good university?
Sounds like the Australian Beyond Zero Emissions plan.

For those who may not have seen it:
Jacobson will be publishing a paper shortly maintaining that vast offshore wind farms of the kind he blithely proposes for the entire East Coast will make hurricanes significantly less dangerous.
And Mark Ruffalo will believe him.
As for me, I’ve come to see Jacobson as dangerous.

“… how many jobs would be created, …”
That is code for inefficiency and resulting poverty.

Here’s my road map: invent renewables that work well, reliably, and affordably. That’s it. The rest will take care of itself.

It’s amazing how technologically (and economically) out of touch these people really are. They also are pushing the ignorant fraud that only renewable energy will last forever. Wrong, mutton-headed Stanfordians. Uranium to fuel our conventional reactors will never be exhusted (the oceans are full of it) and fast reactors can burn “nuclear wastes” (the energy contained in just our current nuclear wastes can produce enough extractable energy to provide all the electricity this country needs for the next 1000 years). And the sun will stop shining and the winds stop blowing long before we run out of uranium fuel. Those “renewable” (unreliable) energy source extractors will not last near as long as a 60 year plus Gen 3 nuclear reactor, such as those currently being built. Solar panels will need replacement at least 3 times (probably more) before the end of those reactors.
If those slow-witted folks at Standford weren’t so chauvinistic, they could learn a lot by looking at South Carolina, the only state that will likely exceed their 80% reduction goal, and it won’t take until 2050 to do so. The two Westinghouse Gen3+ reactors now being added to the 7 reactor fleet (which currently produces over 50% of South Carolina’s electricity) and which do not slice and dice our bird or bat populations, nor require hundreds of thousands of acres, nor despoil the scenery, nor bankrupt the state, nor require Federal subsidies, will go online within 30 months. At that point South Carolina will achieve over 80% emission-free , reliable, affordable, non-obtrusive, technologically advanced ,bird-safe power, roughly 35 years before this goofball plan from the loonies at Stanford. Two more reactors are likely in the near future, and that will increase the emission-free power in the state to over 95%. THAT’s how one intelligently reduces emissions. Are you folks at backwater Stanford University listening?

DirkH

It might be of interest in this regard that the oft-cited Mr. Jacobson has, in 2010, “proven” the life-shortening properties of the Urban CO2 Dome; which, by its local enhancement of the GHE effect, leads to a rise in temperatures (at least in his models), leading to a tiny, unquantified increase in mortality, but sufficient for the Stanford Press Release writers to make it sound important.
And no, this is not a joke.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/but-the-crops-have-less-nutrients-because-of-co2-the-devastating-effects-of-climate-change-and-co2-on-our-crops/#comment-125994

Claude Harvey

The Standford geniuses might want to study up on fundamental power system requirements. Four percent “spinning reserve” won’t come close to cutting it. I recommend they either crack a book on the concept of “power system dispatch” or keep their meddlesome hands off the life blood of our economic body.

SadButMadLad

The US is a car society. Cars run on gas. Are they seriously suggesting that everyone will buy a new electric car with no means to pay for it as their petrol car will be worthless. And where will all the extra energy to power the electric cars come from?

Bill_W

I wonder if his amazing system includes the cost of backup power supplies. Also, his solution to have each state engage in energy autarky is typical logic for progressive planner types. In the real world the grid includes many surrounding states so it is foolish to plan state by state. There needs to be enough reserve so that if parts of several states lose power the system can adjust.

“…idiots…” “…clowns…”
Indeed, but they’re not at Stanford.

Stephen Richards

They want some of Obummer’s $1billion drought grants.

Stephen Richards

Claude Harvey says:
February 17, 2014 at 4:51 am
The Standford geniuses might want to study up on fundamental power system requirements. Four percent “spinning reserve” won’t come close to cutting it
Exactly. The UK is nearly at 5% and they are beginning to panic. 4% spells disastre.

pochas

Now, if we could just unplug everybody’s brain….