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/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
kenin says:
February 17, 2014 at 11:00 am
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Forget the fireplace or woodstove. The EPA is going to regulate them too!
“EPA Proposes Updates to Air Standards for Newly Manufactured Wood Stoves and Heaters. Go to www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters to learn more.
EPA standards that govern the manufacture and sale of wood stoves, and certain wood burning fireplace inserts, built after 1988.”
The future of their world will look like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Van-willem-vincent-gogh-die-kartoffelesser-03850.jpg
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and San Mateo County Transit District (California) Fuel Cell Transit Buses: Evaluation Results (http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/40615.pdf)
3 fuel-cell buses: $10.6 Million (compared to 5 diesel buses)
24 inches taller, 6,800 lbs heavier than diesel version bus from Gillig.
Result: 38 fewer passengers capacity (all standees)
3 new facilities: bus wash, maintenance and hydrogen dispensing station.
Cost $4.4 Million
Hydrogen losses (compressed hydrogen):
If the station utilization is not high enough to overcome the liquid hydrogen storage tank boil-off rate, the tank will vent this hydrogen. The size of the station caused the loss of approximately 50% of the hydrogen fuel during this demonstration. Air Products reports that if the station throughput had been greater, the hydrogen losses would have been significantly reduced.
CUTE (http://www.fuel-cell-bus-club.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=UpDownload&file=index&req=getit&lid=750) reported losses of 5% to 10% at best without the boil-off problem. Petroleum products generally have losses closer to 1% to 2%.
Fuel economy: 12% lower than diesel on an energy equivalent basis (not counting boil-off) (fuel cells can’t idle)
Maintenance costs: $3.55/mi vs $0.54/mi for diesel (does not include ca. $540,000 in warranty parts only for fuel cell buses)
15 fuel cell row replacements during project duration (17 mos.) = 42% (blockage/contamination issues – repairable)
Hydrogen purity requirements are very high, difficult to achieve (CUTE)
Propulsion costs: $2.37/mi vs. $0.20/mi for diesel
Roadcall: problem that required towing, replacement or otherwise causes significant delay in service.
Meant Time Between Roadcalls (MBRC): 898 mi total/918 mi propulsion vs. 8,189 mi total/10,838 mi propulsion for diesel
Range (distance between fillups): 140 mi. vs. 400 mi. for diesel
Summary
Challenges
The main challenges for this fuel cell bus demonstration at VTA were extremely high capital and operating costs, a need for standardized hydrogen building codes, hydrogen fuel cost, and reliability of the fuel cell buses.
Operating Costs
$6.46/mi vs. $1.06/mi for diesel
Fuel Economy
12% lower than diesel (not counting 50% hydrogen losses due primarily to venting) (CUTE: 5% to 10% losses)
Reliability (Diesel)
12 hrs/day, 7 days/wk, 4,000 mi/mo., 85% up time, 8,000 mi. between roadcalls
Reliability (Fuel Cell)
8 hrs/day, 5 days/wk, 800 mi/mo., 58% up time, 900 mi. between roadcalls
markstoval says:
February 17, 2014 at 10:20 am
Gail Combs says: 4. Took too long to write in the comment window.
I use a word processor (currently LibreOffice Writer, but it doesn’t matter). While writing I can correct many mistakes and do some formatting. I can check Ric Werme’s guide to WUWT, do searches, and review my own recent comments that I store by site and date. Over 5 ½ years that’s a few. I sometimes grab a good comment from someone else and store that with the URL. People link to great articles. I save some or maybe just a link to them. I also try not to use bad words or the name of the host person, and if a link I want to post is very long I often use the HTML code to hide it.
Using the window means you can’t do most of the above and if the computer burps you lose what you were working on.
Gail Combs: your
My suggestion is that California should lead the way by example. Close the borders and remove ALL trade and immigration with other states. No water or electric in or out. Let the Eco-Nuts lead by example.
Agreed, to a point. Let one area (state, country, county, whatever) lead the way, and go full renewables. But leave trade and immigration/emmigration open. The market will soon use its invisible hand. Exports will drop, as energy costs drive up the costs of export goods. Goods from outside will need to come in, driving up the balance of trade deficit. Taxes will have to increase to compensate. Companies will leave. Unemployment will increase, and as it does, emmigration will increase to non-renewable areas, leading to still less tax.
Basically, the direction that California is headed now.
http://thebusinessrelocationcoach.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-do-companies-leave-california-here.html
@Phil at 12:07 pm
Nice stats on the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus pilot project.
There were a couple of facts missing for me.
First, This was LIQUID hydrogen storage and delivery?
Where was the Air Products station located? Seems to me there is a serious transportation danger the test didn’t run long enough to explore.
What are the energy efficiency losses associated with hydrogen generation, liquefaction, and storage? The WWS program says we can use 30-40% less energy in part by not using fossil fuels and their inherent energy losses through combustion and heat-engine use.
It seems clear to me that the WWS energy storage system is pure hydrogen bank and fuel cell.
The question on the table: How big must a Hydrogen + Fuel Cell bank be to hold 7 GW-days of electrical generation? And what would it cost? (That is the equivalent of one coal fired power-plant of power supplying the needs of a stormy winter week of little sun, freezing rain, and non-operable winds.)
“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.”
Who do you think pays corporation tax?
Hint: it’s not corporations.
Either they raise prices, so you pay more for what you buy, or they cut wages, so you have less money to spend, or they cut dividends, so your pension fund is worth less. The only time corporate tax really works is when most of the corporation’s customers are in other countries, so they’re effectively taxing foreigners. Otherwise, it’s just another stealth tax.
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.
This word “can” has many meanings. It might be theoretically possible, but can an actual construction program be funded and carried out?
My advice to the rest of the US is to wait and see how well the Californians carry out the implementation of AB32, in actual fact, before taking advice from energy theoreticians in California. This is a state that, in response to warnings of possible droughts, has redirected its investment away from water harvesting and irrigation toward expensive energy generation, including at least 1 massive solar power plant that can’t operate when water supplies are low.
Californians already voted not to repeal AB32, so the law looks solid to stay in place, at least for a long time. I think solar power is fine for niche applications, especially when the use is in daytime, as for powering irrigation and schools; but the idea of giant solar farms replacing fossil fueled and nuclear fueled power plants will prove to be so costly that the State of California will make itself much poorer.
So the Stanford Linear Accelerator which can draw over 50 MW (46,000 homes in Greenspeak) will now be run on sunbeams and breezes? SLAC director Wolfgang Panofsky negotiated ultra cheap “socialist power” for the first 4 decades.
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/tip/2005/may20/power.htm
As this power is supplied by (“dirty” in California Greenspeak) “Big Hydro”, I expect the torch burning brigades to be out picketing to save the planet by snuffing out particle physics research.
Just don’t set fire to the Stanford foothills while you are at it.
Steven Hales says: @ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 11:36 am
I love these guys….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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Too late.
Obummer and the EPA have already gutted the US energy infrastructure. ~ 40% of our energy is from coal, 19% from Nuclear and ~8% from Hydro.
1. The Eco-nuts are having dams removed and the USA recently has amended the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act that pretty much kills any new hydro. 65 Dams Removed to Restore Rivers in 2012 “American Rivers announced the annual dam removal list today, bring the total for U.S. dam removals up to nearly 1,100.”
Hydro has been reduced to ~7% recently.
Nuclear:
Thats a possible loss of ~ 6% of our stable base load power supply.
COAL
Out of 318 gigawatts of coal generated power at least 34 gigawatts is already slated to be retired. ~ 4% of our stable base load power supply.
So by the end of 2015 we may have as much as 10% or more of our base load electric shutdown permanently and another 10% or more shutdown for 18 months for a total of 20%. Meanwhile that capacity is ‘supposed’ to be replaced by wildly fluctuating wind and solar power.
I do not envy the power system engineers and would not be surprise if they retire or quit en masse
.
Meanwhile make sure to invest in decent wood stove for heat and cooking and a diesel generator to keep your frig and well and what ever running….
For investors this is the time to invest in wood stove. generator and natural gas companies.
Ken Coffman says:
February 17, 2014 at 6:00 am
Thanks for the link. Great quote from the paper:
The decline of grid frequency stability in the United States further motivates the implementation of APC (active power control) on wind turbines. This service could be beneficial even in areas without high penetration levels, as previous research suggests, grid frequency robustness can be enhanced by even a small number of wind turbines providing frequency regulation services. ongoing research investigates the possibility of implementing an ancillary market for these regulation capabilities, as this type of market could potentially increase the economic viability of wind energy resources.
Translation: windmills cause problems with the grid frequency. We can use other windmills to correct this problem. We can charge for this service at a premium and the extra income will make windmills look more economic.
The economics of the madhouse.
Les Johnson says: @ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 12:14 pm
….Agreed, to a point. Let one area (state, country, county, whatever) lead the way, and go full renewables. But leave trade and immigration/emmigration open….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NO!!!!!
I lived in NH. After the eco-nuts and big government lovers passed their idiotic laws in MA making the state ‘unlivable’ they moaned about the taxes and moved to NH and preceded to do the SAME THING TO NH.
It is know as containment. Texas is already finding out what happens as it gets Californicated.
Texas Total Energy Consumption 2011 = 12,207. TBTU
from http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.cfm?incfile=/state/seds/sep_sum/html/rank_use.html&sid=US
BTU per kwh = 3,412. btu/kwh
Texas Total Consumption = 3,577,401. GWHr/yr
% of total Texas energy by Wind = 50%
Texas Energy by Wind = 1,788,700,664. MWh/yr
Wind Turbine Nameplate = 1.5 MW/turbine
Hr/year = 8760. hr/yr
Wind Utilization factor = 25%
Energy / yr / Turbine = 3285. MWhr/yr/turbine
WWS cost per kwh = 0.057 $/kwh
WWS Revenue / yr / Turbine = 187,245. $/yr/turbine
Texas 1.5 MW Wind Turbines Needed per WWS: = 544,506 Wind Turbines
Total installed wind capacity in the U.S. at the end of 2012: 60,007 MW (nameplate)
= about 45,000 turbines.
Estimate is Just to generate the average energy over a year. This does not include spare capacity to recharge the hydrogen energy storage bank for periods of low wind or high demand.
It is also an average load, so it would be insufficient to supply peak afternoon demand.
@Gail Combs
Is that the EPA of the Corporate Democracy known as .the u.s government or the republic?
I think those internal to the EPA should look up the word “bylaw”
Just to clarify,
Bylaw: a local law; a law made by a city, company, club, corporation etc for the control of its own affairs.
There agenda 21 crap doesn’t scare me. Whats next, passing bylaws on forest fires created by lightning strikes.
anyways,
thanks for the info
“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
Listening to the local news it seems the three significant problems facing the world today are texting while walking (and bumping into things/falling down), being “trapped” at home for one day when it snows, and having to camp out for three days to be the first to buy the latest iPhone……./sarc
“Stanford scientist to unveil 50-state plan to transform US to renewable energy”
What about Puerto Rico and the US territories? They don’t get renewable energy?
Stephen Rasey says: @ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 12:30 pm….
You forgot the biggest question. How big is the hole if the hydrogen detonates?
Hydrogen is an incredibly small atom and leaks where natural gas would not. In a lab setting trying to keep the tanks from leaking was a never ending battle. No way would I want to be anywhere near stored hydrogen in inexperienced hands. Helium tanks left unchained in stores is bad enough.
H.R. says:
H.R. says:
February 17, 2014 at 2:31 am
“BTW, the missing one percent wouldn’t happen to be unicorn power would it?”
Actually I think the 1% is the fossil fuel energy the “elites” like Gore, George Soros and company plan to utilize because they have invested in “Carbon offsets” so it okay. You don’t really think they plan on relying on an expensive, intermittent and unreliable energy source do you?
Gail Combs says:
February 17, 2014 at 12:44 pm
Les Johnson says: @ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 12:14 pm
….Agreed, to a point. Let one area (state, country, county, whatever) lead the way, and go full renewables. But leave trade and immigration/emmigration open….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NO!!!!!
I lived in NH. After the eco-nuts and big government lovers passed their idiotic laws in MA making the state ‘unlivable’ they moaned about the taxes and moved to NH and preceded to do the SAME THING TO NH.
It is know as containment. Texas is already finding out what happens as it gets Californicated.
————————————–
You are correct. It’s the same effect near me that the Yuppies want a piece of country living, move out to the farmland for the “fresh country air” and then begin passing zoning laws banning the farms because they “smell bad”.
Stay in the damn city if you can’t take the fresh country air!!!!
MarkG says: @ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 12:31 pm
…Who do you think pays corporation tax?
Hint: it’s not corporations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am well aware of that.
However by shifting the paying of all tax to the corporations you decrease the admin. costs and headaches that individuals now have to deal with and a lot of the admin costs corporations have to deal with. Corporations already file and pay taxes. On top of that they also act as tax collectors for the government and have to pay for the extra accountants who deal with all the W-2s and such.
Dealing with the darn taxes for employees keeps a lot of small business people from hiring help. The tax laws change that made ordinary people responsible for collecting the tax for yard help, domestic help, the kid who weeded your garden, the retired lady who did laundry and ironing,… killed off countless employment opportunities. Another more recent change in tax law killed off the niche for individual contractors. Now Kelly Temps is paying those same people $10 -$30/hr and collecting $100/hr all because of that tax law change. The second-largest employer in America is Kelly Services. Half a decade ago those people would be collecting ALL the money from the people contracted with instead of a small portion.
My husband was a contractor for years BTW so I know what I am talking about.
David L. says: @ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 1:08 pm
Agreed. A friend lost a pig farm that had been in the family for over three hundred years because of the darn Boston Yuppies moving in next door and the developer organized the people he had sold to thereby getting the town to ‘Banning the pig farm. The developer then bought the farm and expanded his development.
“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.”
Had he presented it at the American Association for the Advancement of Engineering, he would have been thought the pre-dinner entertainment comedian. The jobs again! These would once again go to China. I suggest he call the President of Spain where they are still reeling under 30% unemployment after their green jobs adventure. Actually, engineers don’t get consulted – after all, if you are a scientist, how hard could it be?
Gail: OK, containment is not a bad policy.
But, in Alberta, we encourage the eastern liberals to move here, to fill the jobs. It only takes a few years, before they become a little more conservative in their outlook. Less tax, relatively less government, and more money will do that.
Apparently, when you have worked for your money, you are less inclined to share it. When you have less money, you are more inclined to want to share your wealthier neigbours money.
“Is it possible to reduce 80% of greenhouse gas emissions from energy by 2050?”
Even without technical obstacles to such, there isn’t enough savings world-wide for the required investment. The short answer is “no”.
I would gladly give them Washington, New York and California if tHey would leave the rest of us ALONE