I wonder how they’ll manage to put 25,000 offshore wind turbines in place after seeing the long battle (back to 2001 for the first permit) to get Cape Wind in Massachusetts approved with enviros switching sides to protect viewsheds, and it still isn’t built. I can’t see California’s sensitive coastline to go any easier, and never mind the other projects they propose, which will have their own challenges. The biggest failure of the plan seems to be lack of backup power for when the wind doesn’t blow, the sun doesn’t shine, and the tides are lower than usual. – Anthony
Stanford study shows how to power California with wind, water and sun (press release via Eurekalert)
New Stanford research outlines the path to a possible future for California in which renewable energy creates a healthier environment, generates jobs and stabilizes energy prices.
By Rob Jordan
A Stanford study outlines how power from facilities such as the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in California’s Mojave Desert can be part of the state’s renewable energy future. (Courtesy of BrightSource Energy)
Imagine a smog-free Los Angeles, where electric cars ply silent freeways, solar panels blanket rooftops and power plants run on heat from beneath the earth, from howling winds and from the blazing desert sun.
A new Stanford study finds that it is technically and economically feasible to convert California’s all-purpose energy infrastructure to one powered by clean, renewable energy. Published in Energy, the plan shows the way to a sustainable, inexpensive and reliable energy supply in California that could create tens of thousands of jobs and save billions of dollars in pollution-related health costs.
“If implemented, this plan will eliminate air pollution mortality and global warming emissions from California, stabilize prices and create jobs – there is little downside,” said Mark Z. Jacobson, the study’s lead author and a Stanford professor of civil and environmental engineering. He is also the director of Stanford’s Atmosphere/Energy Program and a senior fellow with the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and the Precourt Institute for Energy.
Jacobson’s study outlines a plan to fulfill all of the Golden State’s transportation, electric power, industry, and heating and cooling energy needs with renewable energy by 2050. It calculates the number of new devices and jobs created, land and ocean areas required, and policies needed for infrastructure changes. It also provides new estimates of air pollution mortality and morbidity impacts and costs based on multiple years of air quality data. The plan is analogous to one that Jacobson and other researchers developed for New York state.
The study concludes that, while a wind, water and sunlight conversion may result in initial capital cost increases, such as the cost of building renewable energy power plants, these costs would be more than made up for over time by the elimination of fuel costs. The overall switch would reduce California’s end-use power demand by about 44 percent and stabilize energy prices, since fuel costs would be zero, according to the study.
It would also create a net gain, after fossil-fuel and nuclear energy job losses are accounted for, of about 220,000 manufacturing, installation and technology construction and operation jobs. On top of that, the state would reap net earnings from these jobs of about $12 billion annually.
According to the researchers’ calculations, one scenario suggests that all of California’s 2050 power demands could be met with a mix of sources, including:
- 25,000 onshore 5-megawatt wind turbines
- 1,200 100-megawatt concentrated solar plants
- 15 million 5-kilowatt residential rooftop photovoltaic systems
- 72 100-megawatt geothermal plants
- 5,000 0.75-megawatt wave devices
- 3,400 1-megawatt tidal turbines
The study states that if California switched to wind, water and sunlight for renewable energy, air pollution-related deaths would decline by about 12,500 annually and the state would save about $103 billion, or about 4.9 percent of the state’s 2012 gross domestic product, in related health costs every year. The study also estimates that resultant emissions decreases would reduce global climate change costs in 2050 – such as coastal erosion and extreme weather damage – by about $48 billion per year.
“I think the most interesting finding is that the plan will reduce social costs related to air pollution and climate change by about $150 billion per year in 2050, and that these savings will pay for all new energy generation in only seven years,” said study co-author Mark Delucchi of the University of California, Davis.
“The technologies needed for a quick transition to an across-the-board, renewables-based statewide energy system are available today,” said Anthony Ingraffea, a Cornell University engineering professor and study co-author. “Like New York, California has a clear choice to make: Double down on 20th-century fossil fuels or accelerate toward a clean, green energy future.”
Currently, most of California’s energy comes from oil, natural gas, nuclear power and small amounts of coal. Under the plan that Jacobson and his fellow researchers advance, 55.5 percent of the state’s energy for all purposes would come from solar, 35 percent from wind and the remainder from a combination of hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal and wave energy.
All vehicles would run on battery-electric power and/or hydrogen fuel cells. Electricity-powered air- and ground-source heat pumps, geothermal heat, heat exchangers and backup electric resistance heaters would replace natural gas and oil for home heating and air-conditioning. Air- and ground-source heat pump water heaters powered by electricity and solar hot water preheaters would provide hot water for homes. High temperatures for industrial processes would be obtained with electricity and hydrogen combustion.
To ensure grid reliability, the plan outlines several methods to match renewable energy supply with demand and to smooth out the variability of wind, water and sunlight resources. These include a grid management system to shift times of demand to better match with timing of power supply; and “over-sizing” peak generation capacity to minimize times when available power is less than demand. The study refers to a previously published analysis that demonstrated that California could provide a reliable grid with nearly 100 percent clean, renewable energy.
The footprint on the ground for the new energy infrastructure would be about 0.9 percent of California’s land area, mostly for solar power plants. The spacing area between wind turbines, which could be used for multiple purposes, including agriculture and rangeland, is another 2.77 percent.
“I believe that with these plans, the people and political leaders of California and New York can chart a new way forward for our country and for the world,” said study co-author Robert Howarth, a Cornell University professor of ecology and environmental biology.
The study’s authors are developing similar plans for all U.S. states. They took no funding from any interest group, company or government agency for this study.
Rob Jordan is the communications writer for the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.
-30-
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This can be partially funded by selling dead birds to cat food companies.
just an ole hillbilly here but it seems to me using thousand year old technology is not “advancing”?
i can solve the energy problem today….allow the NEW designs of nuclear power plants to be built all over the nation = cheaper cleaner SAFER electricity for all of us.
Why are the experts always several steps removed from the tech expertise needed? A civil engineer (oh I know he has other titles but that’s what he is). No wonder Lew, a psychology professor, is now a climate scientist and the whole show was started by an astronomer and a preacher who became VP of the US.
Was this from the Onion? It reads like a parody.
— Barry says:
July 24, 2014 at 2:06 pm
So does anyone know how frequently the three events would concur: wind not blowing, sun not shining, —
Every day at night the sun doesn’t shine and calm nights are common.
Living in region near LA, we have had a modest amount wind over last few days, and that is somewhat unusual, but it also been during the day.
–and tides lower than usual (forgot rivers not flowing and reservoirs being empty)? —
Getting energy from tides is generally not good way to get energy. And stored sea water can smell unpleasantly. In terms of tidal height more poleward than Californian generally has more difference in tidal height [and more towards equator as compared to California has less than California]. Or as example Santa Monica with range of about 6 feet:
http://www.elcamino.edu/faculty/tnoyes/readings/07ar.pdf
and Seattle, more than 10 feet:
http://www.dairiki.org/tides/
Or simply, hydrodams generally have difference of about 100 feet or more, and a dam with only 10 foot difference would be fairly useless [or beavers can manage to make a dam which could have a 10 foot difference- as in, make a pond deeper than 10 feet deep] . So even 10 foot tide difference is not something to be excited about.
–Also there are such technologies as batteries and pumped storage, you know. —
And the such things as using a windmill to pump water. Or windmill doesn;t generate electrical power but instead uses the mechanical energy of wind, to use this mechanical energy to pump water.
And this is more efficient to pump water than using a windmill to generate electrical power, which then would power a electrical water pump. And this is not a new thing.
“More than made up”????
Famous last words. Anyone want to bet that Californians just got the shaft?
“Also if there is a major move to electric vehicles the batteries in those vehecles are a form of distributed back up storage.”
You do realize that people charge up their electric cars so they can… you know… drive places?
Because I really look forward to coming back to my car to drive somewhere and finding that the power company has drained my battery because there’s no wind or sun. That would be a great way to run a 21st century economy.
I bet I can make a massive contribution to renewable energy in the US with a simple paragraph that includes hydro-electric power in the renewable mix. Stroke of a pen, goals met.
The old native american stories about the LA basin include the brown smog. Unless they are going to put the windmills in reverse to break the natural perma inversion, they will still have smog.
Ask an in-the-know German how Energiewende is going TODAY. They have traveled the furthest down this road… and it isn’t pretty.
I thought I would see how far into the press release I could get before hitting a fact-free misstatement – Bam! – I hit one in the 2nd sentence:
“Imagine a smog-free Los Angeles, where electric cars ply silent freeways…”
Since car noise on the freeways is overwhelmingly tire noise, electric cars would make the same noise on freeways – unless they are running much slower than today’s fossil-fueled cars.
I also notice the article does not mention electric semi-tractors. The author must be aware electric semis are not feasible.
So, to have electric cars plying silent freeways, semi’s would have to be relegated to surface streets, leaving the freeways to the slow moving or stalled electric cars.
Look at what you get when an anti-nuclear guy tries to design a low emission system.
25,000 windmills – those poor California birds and bats. They won’t stand a chance.
MarkG says:
July 24, 2014 at 5:19 pm
“You do realize that people charge up their electric cars so they can… you know… drive places?
Because I really look forward to coming back to my car to drive somewhere and finding that the power company has drained my battery because there’s no wind or sun. That would be a great way to run a 21st century economy.”
You absolutely hit the nail on its head.
In addition, there is no way a network operator could have any clue how many electric vehicles would be available, on what phase of the line the vehicles will be on, what is the state of charge is the vehicles which are available or would be, how long the vehicles will be available and how reliable is the comms network. From my perspective, absolute no way to ensure network stability if this system were to be depended on. There many technical challenges to be overcome and benefits don’t seem all that apparent. Hell, the best forecast accuracy I could get in LV networks was with 10% – 15% error.
I am one in a team of researches writing control system and running simulations in this area. Most of us don’t think the tech would be economically viable.
Barry says:
July 24, 2014 at 2:06 pm
So does anyone know how frequently the three events would concur: wind not blowing, sun not shining, and tides lower than usual (forgot rivers not flowing and reservoirs being empty)? Also there are such technologies as batteries and pumped storage, you know. So, let’s just mock a forward looking energy strategy (with no independent analysis to back the critique), deny health impacts of pollution, and maintain our 19th century business as usual. Another good one, Anthony and followers!
I have found that it often gets dark at night; California is currently experiencing a drought so hydroelectric power will be limited; windmills produce way less than plated power, and when the wind is calm or too strong they produce little or no power. I would think that there are several occasions a month when brown out or blackouts could occur. There would certainly be many times when stable dispatchable power was not available when users with requirements for stable power such as hospitals, will need to switch to their own backup generation systems which will no doubt be diesel generators. Users like computer companies and iheavy industry will leave the state to get consistent stable power.
The whole life costs of this system will be extreme, and it will have insufficient funding for long term maintenance and insufficient power generation to make more windmills so California would continue to parasitize on energy from nearby states with more sensible energy policies,.
Since, to my knowledge, no one errects 5MW wind turbines anywhere except offshore, I assume the “onshore” is a typo and should be “offshore.” Typical onshore are 1.5 and 2.0 MW turbines.
Or ask the former Spanish renewable energy honcho, a disillusioned greenie:
http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/05/01/Solar-Dreams/
===============
California has already cut its pollution by 75% (say) from what it used to be. That should have reduced health care costs by 75% (or more, actually, if “the dose makes the poison”). If those saving haven’t materialized–and I doubt that they have–then why should savings materialize from further reductions?
You know what will happen if they actually push this to the point the electrical supply is unreliable (either through grid failure or, more likely, through smart meter control over your usage times and amounts)? Most folks will buy whole house generators – which of course are less efficient than the big gas or coal based plants the environmentalists are trying to eliminate – and ultimately result in more CO2..
Two words come to mind “snake oil salesman” OK, three words. This energy solution creates thousands of jobs, ends AGW, extends lives, saves billions in health care costs, and will end your embarrassing halitosis. But …. Will it cure toenail fungus?
Converting a typical home to use a 12 or 24V DC lighting system could see about a 14% cut in electricity usage (and current gen LED lights ARE a lot better than CFLs…and are regularly improving)…and if it caught on, things like 24V TVs/entertainment systems and computers could up that to about a 25% reduction.
Also, someone mentioned this above in relation to windmills, but using mechanical energy for things like pumping water is a much saner use of windpower than converting it to electricity
first.
And something that may seem counter-intuitve, but itsn’t…
The current distribution system can be rather inefficient, especially with the trend of making larger, more distant from ‘end use’ locations generation plants. Transmission losses increase as function of distance, so a large power plant at a long distance needs to generate MORE electricity than several closer small plants (but the typical ‘not in my backyard’ syndrome is going to make that idea very unlikely) .
“Electricity-powered air- and ground-source heat pumps, geothermal heat, heat exchangers and backup electric resistance heaters would replace natural gas and oil for home heating and air- conditioning.”
If homes now heated by NG burning furnaces were converted to heat pumps, their heat energy demand would fall upon the electric grid. Likewise, if all fossil fuel burning cars were replaced by electric cars, all energy currently provided by burning fossil fuels in those cars would instead have to be provided by the electric grid.
Coating the roof of your house with solar panels will not even come close to meeting your house’s heating needs, never mind providing the energy to power your car. (Note that solar panels on your home cannot charge your car’s batteries at night while the car is home – the sun shone on your panels while you were at work. You would need a rack of batteries in your garage.)
Did this study allow for these extra demands placed on the electric grid? I am pretending that solar heated water will work for January baths, or that people will go back to getting just a spring bath. If that isn’t OK, then we have to add water heating energy to the additional load placed on the electric grid once home owners can’t use NG.
SR
I am at a loss how they can come up with any numbers without specifying what type of energy storage they are assuming. Clearly, geothermal, tidal, and wave will provide for no more that about 20% of the demand. That means an 80% reliance on wind and solar. Without storage capability, then wind alone must carry the full 80% for greater than 12 hours a day, on average. There would be a massive black-out on every calm night, so storage of excess power during the day is critical. My assumption would be batteries. Lots and lots of batteries. Is this even in the realm of feasibility? I cannot fathom powering 80% of CA by battery on an unusually calm night (or extremely windy nights when wind turbines must be locked down).
That still leaves a problem when nature doesn’t allow for high solar output. Would the surplus solar power in South and Central California be enough to keep the lights on in northern CA when its solar panels are under a blanket of snow? Just how much stored power would you need to allow for all combinations of bad weather and calm winds, and for how long would you plan for the situation to continue?
Those questions must be answered by minds greater than mine. I have enough difficulty trying to grasp the impact of much more basic problems, like keeping 15 million rooftop solar panels free of snow, ice, dust, leaves, pollen, bird droppings, etc. if you go to Google Images and do a search using the key words ‘snow’ and ‘solar panels’ you will see what my concern is. How much will I have to pay someone to get on the roof of my house to maintain those panels? I’m sure not going to do it.
As some who worked on wave power, I will state right out the box that 0.75 MW wave energy devices are probably not cost effective. You need devices that are at least 2.5 MW, and that have minimal O&M requirements. This of course doesn’t take into account the regulatory hurdles – and they are legion. This is not to say that it can’t be done, but the state of California needs to give the technology some leeway if it is ever to advance.
I’m surprised and disappointed that Stanford would publish such a study without examining authoritative studies from groups who have actually worked on the problem.
Power is instantaneous. Energy is an average of power. You can have enough energy and still not have enough power. Like no wind for a few days.
Watched a film called Damnation last night. Bit of a greenie thing but its a democracy and a lot of the people interviewed are quite ordinary folk. Mainly about a lot of 100 year old dams being pulled down but also about a lot of other dams constructed in the US as some sort of pathway to economic nirvana and never mind the environmental impact, waste of capital and cost of having to pull some of the bloody things down ( not all of them, just the ones that produce no net economic benefit).
So now someone is spruiking the deal of the 21st century and it will require ONLY 0.9% of California’s land area and a FREE SET OF STEAK KNIVES (or TOFU KNIVES for our vegan friends) FOR EVERYONE. (Ring now for our kool ade marinade recipe).
That is equivalent to a 3 km wide belt or the equivalent of 50 or 60 ( yes FIFTY or SIXTY) 8 lane freeways side by side for the full length of the state. Will anyone notice?
These people are completely off their heads.
I have run across people who believe wind can replace gas, nuke, oil, just by the concept that the wind is blowing somewhere. Facts and the limits of reality don’t impress them.