From 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/
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.
I work in power generation and I have a question: how many people are a) leaving California or b) dying for this to be true? If you get down to just a few thousand residents then sure, these goals are attainable. At the current population or above? Nope. It will not happen
wws says: @ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 7:16 am
… they completely left out the 40% portion of future energy supplies that will need to come from the harvesting of Unicorn farts….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
DANG, I need to up my Unicorn breeding program.
Gail Combs says: 4. Took too long to write in the comment window.
Hmmmm. I often re-read my comment several times and do some editing in the window. I guess I do take my time composing a comment — after all, I usually intend to only make one comment on a thread. You may have nailed it.
Our host said earlier that it could even be my writing style. I don’t think I am all that unique, but I would like to be! 🙂
~ Mark
@BruceC at 6:09 am
climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction…..John Kerry, Feb. 16, 2014, Jakarta
You know, Kerry is right. “Climate Change”, i.e. the political movement known as Climate Change, is a most fearsome weapon of mass destruction. It’s socio-political architects like Mark Jacobson are the weapon designers.
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 Abandonment of Science (AAAS) in Chicago.
There – fixed it for you
Kit Carruthers says:
February 17, 2014 at 9:02 am
“… the author himself “…promote[s] the idea of energy savings and alternate energy generation” in his About page, so this article seems at odds with his ideals. Odd, don’t you think?…”
—-l
The author seems to be in favour of the intelligent implementation of alternative energy sources as and when applicable. The academia at Stanford appear to be overly idealistic (or corrupt).
@ur momisugly Gail Combs
You are right on the freakin ball baby. Truly the best on this blog.
Bernie Hutchins says:
February 17, 2014 at 9:10 am
Harold Ambler said in part February 17, 2014 at 4:42 am
“…..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.”
Wow! Harold – do you have any idea how Jacobson did his calculations? My “back of the envelope” suggests that an offshore wind farm, even on the scale he envisions, running at full nameplate capacity, might extract 0.3% of the kinetic energy of the winds of a respectable hurricane (assuming the turbines were not quickly sent to the depths). That would hardly have a calming effect – but can someone else run a few numbers. I must be missing something?”
*************
It is in the same ballpark as the increase in wind speed that is estimated to occur (using Emanuel’s Carnot model for hurricanes) in response to a 1 C increase in ocean surface temperatures.
So, in principle, the wind farm can completely compensate for the alleged CO2 induced wind speed increase in hurricanes!
With no windfarm, the wind speed increase due to CO2-induced warming is not measurable.
With the windfarm, the unmeasurable CO2 induced wind speed increase is reduced by the same amount.
🙂
David L. at 9:47 am
But to be fair, they only stipulate clean and renewable and make no mention of cost.
That is not true. They do talk costs. It is not believable, but they do put up the fiction.
For instance: Texas: http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#tx
“Future Energy Costs 2020-2030
US Average Fossil Fuel Energy Costs: $ 0.140 / kwh
(Health and climate externality costs of fossil fuels are another $0.057 / kwh)
State Average WWS Energy Costs: $ 0.057 / kwh
Under WWS, Texas will use 35.1% less energy (it is not stated how much of that is the loss saved from fossil fuel heat engine inefficiencies and how much is from reducing travel)
The Energy Mix (highest to lowest)
50% Onshore Wind
15% Offshore Wind (Ever hear of hurricanes?)
14% CSP plants (Concentrated Solar Plants)
13.3% Solar PV farms
3% Commercial, Government Rooftop solar
3% Residential Rooftop solar
0.5% Wave Devices
0.5% Geothermal
0.5% Tidal Turbines
0.2% Hydroelectric — Where Texas isn’t flat, it is dry.
As mentioned above, none of these solutions have an average cost of Energy as low as $0.06 / kwh according to the EIA, much less can this deliver an average $0.06 / kwh.
Just how do you bring in the crops, how do you put food on the shelves with this idiocy?
Forget Iran’s Nuclear Program.
Stanford’s WWS Program is weapon of mass destruction program the free world must disarm.
Their data for each state isn’t even remotely accurate. I live in the state of Washington. We already get 65% to 70% of our electricity from hydroelectric dams. They are suggesting that we reduce that to 26%? This is really poorly researched work for each state.
Speed says: @ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 8:17 am
Re: Storage….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The HUGE Mammoth in the room is not storage but rthe energy returned on energy invested (EROEI or ERoEI.)
This is where the CAGW Scammers really do a lot of fancy foot work. However like the 151 taxes on a loaf of bread if you actually add up ALL the energy costs Biofuel, Wind and Solar are a net energy sink. They are in no way “Sustainable” (snicker)
The real use for Wind and Solar is to transfer money stolen from all tax payers to the politicians cronies while mortally crippling western civilization so the Fabian dream of a Global Government can be implemented.
Banks and Corporations want to get rid of borders. They want ‘Harmonized Laws’ If you want to see the blue print for the New Improved World. Look at The European Union:
Global Governance: Lessons from Europe: …the European construction is the most ambitious experiment to date in supranational governance. It is the story of a desired, defined and organized interdependence between its member states.
Lamy Calls for European-Inspired Global Governance
Pascal Lamy was the director-general of the World Trade Organization from 2005 to 2013.
hunter says: @ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 8:29 am
Stanford has allowed Ehrlich and his gang to fester there for nearly 50 years, spewing untruths, fear, and failed predeictions.
I wonder why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Look at my comment at February 17, 2014 at 6:25 am
And Dr.Ball’s Essay Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming
As for me personally:
All this energy is over-rated. Seriously… all I need is a small well built , well insulated home with a fireplace.
I’m so sick and tired of all this bull, because I know in the end its really all an attack on personal freedom all under the guise of conservation, sustainability, energy….whatever, its all an act.
Rhys Jaggar says:
February 17, 2014 at 1:29 am
————————————–
I just had a bit of inspired thought as I woke up this morning. These global warming fanatics are similar to those who thought that they could build a tower to the heavens, a Tower of Babel. I do not believe that I can dream up a more appropriate analogy to describe those who would ascribe their thoughts to be the pinnacle of climate wisdom.
and I have absolutely no idea how “Rhys Jaggar says” was added into my fresh comment.
more soylent green! says: @ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 9:35 am
…Everybody should be clamoring for real tax reform — corporate and personal. Just give a low, flat tax to corporations — with clean rules and regulations on what is deductible — and you’ll see the Laffer curve effect on taxes collected. Better yet, since corporations don’t pay taxes, they collect them, eliminate the corporate income tax altogether.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually you put the system back the way it was with tariffs and corporate taxes ONLY. Leave the rest of the population alone. The more individuals buy the more tax they will pay so there is no reason for the elaborate and costly tax code we now have except that the tax burden has moved FROM corporations TO the individual.
No sales tax, no ‘value added tax” or any of the rest of the dancing around. Just a straight tax on corporate profits and a tariff on goods imported so you can not avoid the tax by manufacturing in a low tax, regulation free, polluting, slave labor country and making huge profits by slightly under-cutting domestic corporations.
Part 2.
They ask for donations.
Thanks Anthony for the link. Paul
R. de Haan says: @ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 9:38 am
The combination of arrogance and ignorance in science and in politics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
It is worse than that. As that CIA report from 1974 showed, a decision seems to have been made in the 1970s to follow Holdren’s advice to devise an economic plan for a low environmental impact, low population, low technology civilization and then it was gradually implemented over the last 45 years. This would explain why the laws in the USA have become increasingly bizarre over that time period.
This was done WITHOUT the input or consent of the people who will be most affected, the citizens of the USA, Australia, Canada and in the EU. It was done by trashing our education system, feeding us propaganda via the MSM and universities and transferring the wealth of citizens to their ‘Betters’ while strangling our entrepreneurs with red tape.
I love these guys. They think that an entire infrastructure valued at trillions can be replaced in a mere 40 years with another investment valued at trillions with the opportunity cost probably immeasurable.
If such a project was undertaken it would devalue almost immediately all new or planned investment in existing energy infrastructure and this is where the danger lies. If new investment is not made today then the potential shortages will be very large tomorrow if the planned utopia does not arrive and the price of energy will rise dramatically. But remember that energy markets are made of three things, price, reliability and convenience. Alternatives to fossil fuels must compete in all three areas. None have demonstrated an ability to compete.
By the way,
there is no clean energy from water. To dam a beautiful free flowing river is one of the most destructive things you can do. Is anybody familiar with what the de-facto government of Quebec has done to their rivers.. huh
Re-routing rivers under the Canadian shield, creating artificial lakes so big its enough to register seismic activity from all the added weight of water, flooding out 100’s of square kms of virgin boreal, new roads, billions of tonnes of concrete and hundreds of kilometers of hydro-lines.
What about the mercury released onto the environment?
For what? profit and control.
Or is it simply because people have become so stupid and pathetic.
DirkH says:
February 17, 2014 at 9:45 am
….Moore-type Laws only work in information technologies….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doesn’t keep the eco-nuts from trying to use it. I have certainly seen it used probably in comments at the Grauniad or Huff’nPuff.
Obviously we can’t trust anything that comes from Stanford, as they are receipents of 225 million from big oil and big auto.
Exxon has contributed more to just ONE global warming organization, than all non-AGW groups combined. To date, its about 100 million to GCEP.
“”Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP), established in 2002, has four sponsors, who together will spend $225 million over a decade or so: Exxon Mobil, the energy company; General Electric, builder of power-generation technology; Schlumberger, an oilfield services technology company; and Toyota, the auto manufacturer. ”
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/february25/exxon-022509.html
Gail Combs says:
February 17, 2014 at 6:25 am ——-
As usual Gail Combs hits the nail on the head.
Climate Change has never been about Science. It is about POLITICS.
The only way to stop it is to vote out of office those who call for bigger government. A smaller more financially restrained is the only hope.
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
― Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome
Abstract: During the first three years of the Obama Administration, 106 new major federal regulations added more than $46 billion per year in new costs for Americans. This is almost four times the number—and more than five times the cost—of the major regulations issued by George W. Bush during his first three years.Major Regulations Under Obama. More and Costlier than Under Bush.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/red-tape-rising-obama-era-regulation-at-the-three-year-mark
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty.”
― Tacitus
But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
Nancy Pelosi
Well, I went to the website, and they asked me to join the movement, so I did. My first act as a member was to send them the following:
I’ll report back …
w.