IEEE--Wind, Water, and Solar Power for the World

[Kolesar]

The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, you know, the industry group that represents the power industry.

We don’t need nuclear power, coal, or biofuels. We can get 100 percent of our energy from wind, water, and solar (WWS) power. And we can do it today—efficiently, reliably, safely, sustainably, and economically.

We can get to this WWS world by simply building a lot of new systems for the production, transmission, and use of energy. One scenario that Stanford engineering professor Mark Jacobson and I developed, projecting to 2030, includes:

3.8 million wind turbines, 5 MW each, supplying 50% of total global power demand
49 000 solar thermal power plants, 300 MW each, supplying 20 %
40 000 solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants supplying 14 %
1.7 billion rooftop PV systems, 3 kilowatts each, supplying 6 %
5350 geothermal power plants, 100 MW each, supplying 4 %
900 hydroelectric power plants, 1300 MW each, of which 70% are already in place, supplying 4%
720 000 ocean-wave devices, 0.75 MW each, supplying 1 %
490 000 tidal turbines, 1 MW each, supplying 1 %.
...
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power-for-the-world

A special refutation for the unhappy DUEErs complaining that wind and solar electricity wrecks the grid:

But, the naysayers will retort, what about reliability? Can these resources deliver power reliably? Indeed they can. While it is true that no single wind-power farm or solar-photovoltaic installation can reliably match total power demand in a region, it is also true—and often not recognized—that no individual coal or nuclear plant can either.
...
Dealing with this short-term variability can be challenging, but it is doable. Including hydropower—which is relatively easy to turn on and off as needed—in the generating package helps, as does managing demand (for example, by shifting flexible loads to times when more generating capacity is available) and forecasting weather more precisely; these have little or no additional cost. A WWS system also needs to interconnect resources over wide regions, creating a supergrid that can span continents. And it will probably need to have decentralized energy storage in residences, using batteries in electric vehicles. Finally, WWS generation capacity should significantly exceed the maximum amount of demand in order to minimize the times when available WWS power runs short. Most of the time, this excess generation capacity could be used to provide power to produce hydrogen for end uses not well served by direct electric power, such as some kinds of marine, rail, off-road, and heavy-duty truck transport.

[oldhippie]

1. I'm sorry, the IEEE is not an "Industry Group" ...

"The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, you know, the industry group that represents the power industry."

==========================================================

BS. the IEEE is not an industry group representing the power industry. It is a professional organization with interests in all areas of technology. I belonged to the IEEE for decades and it certainly does not represent the power industry. There are other groups for that.

"IEEE is the world’s largest professional association dedicated to advancing technological innovation and excellence for the benefit of humanity. IEEE and its members inspire a global community through IEEE's highly cited publications, conferences, technology standards, and professional and educational activities."

http://www.ieee.org/about/index.html

[Kolesar]

3. IEEE is a lobby group

...in addition to other responsibilities. Their editorial position has always advocated for the power industry, and that was largely the coal and nuclear industry until recent years.

[oldhippie]

5. I invite anyone to read the ieee.org site ......

.... and see for yourself if it looks like a lobbying group for anything other than the benefit of humanity.

[wtmusic]

7. Ah, this is the IEEE's "editorial position".

Dream on.

[wtmusic]

2. Mark Jacobson can continue to publish the same debunked scenario over and over -

and it doesn't make it any more realistic or achievable.

Are there power grid professionals who share his optimism? I haven't seen any.

[Kolesar]

4. ^Content deprived post...eom

[wtmusic]

9. Are there power grid professionals who share his optimism?

Still waiting for your content-rich reply.

[mzteris]

6. Hey, would you mind linking

To some the articles debunking this? Or at least give some names of the debunkers so they can be researched?

Also, are you saying a combination of wind, solar, etc... Won't work at all? In any combination or just this one.

[wtmusic]

8. Not at all.

"The November 2009 issue of Scientific American has a cover story by Mark Z. Jacobson (Professor, Stanford) and Mark A. Delucchi (researcher, UC Davis). It’s entitled “A path to sustainable energy by 2030” (p 58 – 65; they call it WWS: wind, water or sunlight). This popular article is supported by a technical analysis, which the authors will apparently submit to the peer-reviewed journal Energy Policy at some point (or may have already done so). Anyway, they have made both papers available for free public download here.

So what do they say? In a nutshell, their argument is that, by the year 2030:

Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world’s energy, eliminating all fossil fuels.

Big claim. Does it stack up? Short answer, no. Here I critique the 100% WWS plan (both articles)."

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/

Both wind and solar require a massive infrastructure to provide a small amount of variable power. Both work. Will they be able to sufficiently address our energy needs in time to make a difference with respect to global warming? Not a chance.

[Kolesar]

11. Barry Brook:Author of a popular book on sustainable nuclear energy,

http://bravenewclimate.com/about/ , Mr. Unhappy

[mzteris]

12. ooo - scathing critique

". . . The majority content of the twin papers is focused on making the banal point that there is a huge amount of energy embodied in ‘wind, water and sunlight’ (“Plenty of Supply”), and that a wide diversity of technologies have been developed to try and harness this into useable electrical power. No critic of large-scale renewable energy would argue any differently, and the size of these resources has been covered in detail by David Mackay. In that context, I wonder what they hope to add to the literature? There’s nothing wrong in this section, and well explained, but it’s just standard, rehashed fare.

. . . Curiously though, they never really explain (in either paper) how they came up with their scenario’s relative mix . . . They do provide a useful discussion of possible material component bottlenecks for different techs. . . and argue how they can be plausibly overcome via recycling and substitution with cheaper/more abundant alternatives. This bit is quite good.

. . . So what’s “The Ugly”? Well, it’s something utterly egregious and deceptive. "Nuclear power results in up to 25 times more carbon emissions than wind energy, when reactor construction and uranium refining and transport are considered." . . . nuclear fuel is vastly overblown, and is of course irrelevant for fast spectrum and molten salt thorium reactors. So…?

So, on to the grand renewables plan. The fulcrum upon which the whole WWS analysis pivots is the section entitled “Reliability”. Here’s where the steam and mirrors of their WWS dream (sorry, solar thermal pun) really starts to blow off into the atmosphere and shatter on the ground. . . . reliability . . . "Sorry, but I just don’t get this. " . . . Perhaps someone else can confirm or reject my interpretation of the statements on p19 of the tech paper. . . . I suppose the overall system reliability might get a little better as you spread your wind farm array over increasingly large geographical areas, but I suspect that this would be a case of rapidly diminishing returns. How can such a scheme be considered economic?

(He obviously knows little about the current state of windfarming...)

". . . Strangely though, they neglect to mention what happens during the many imperfect, less-than-average days, when it’s cloudy and/or calm for some or most of the day and night (or strings of days/nights), or how much extra capacity is needed in winter months. How is the gap filled if either or both of wind/solar is mostly unavailable? Do the residents of CA go without electricity on those days? Err, no. Apparently, in these instances, grid operators must ‘plan ahead for a backup energy supply’. Riiiight. "

(That's why it's called PLANNING.)

" . . . in other words, in the real world, what exactly does the above quoted statement mean? Nothing meaningful that I can see."

(That HE can see . . . the nuclear supporter par excellence)

So he objects to the timing and some of the numbers. (And he's clearly a nuclear power advocate so do you think that possibly colors his thinking/interpretations?)

What do you specifically object to?

[wtmusic]

14. How will "planning" solve fundamental distribution/economic/reliability problems?

That seems to be the renewable mantra - "it's just a matter of coordinating everything, of working out the details."

Working out the details is turning into a disaster for Germany:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11274791

Barry Brook (whose creds outstrip Jacobson many times over) is a nuclear power advocate because of his thinking, not the other way around. And it's not just Brook - there's a detailed analysis of what Jacobson's rosy scenario would cost by a contributor at the end:

"By profession I do transmission studies for wind and solar clients. My company name is TAC meaning Transmission Adequacy Consulting. I currently am doing studies all across the US. “A path to sustainable energy by 2030? omits the transmission system needed by 2030. Because the wind and solar and water and geothermal projects are not in the locations of the existing power plants, new lines will be needed....

In sum, I do not believe this is achievable at all. Therefore the concept envisioned in the SA article is not a workable plan because the transmission problems have not been addressed. The lines aren’t going to get built. The wind is not going to interconnect. The SA article plan is not even a desirable plan. The environmental impact and cost would be horrendous. Lets get realistic."

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/

[mzteris]

15. so what do you think the "cost"

will be to the environment to NOT make these changes in the LONG run?

RENEWABLE resources. Pollution. Environment. "Nuclear accidents" (I worked at a nuke plant under construction and so did my ex who did QA/QC at multiple plants. . . so let's not even go there.

Infrastructure. Planning. Innovation. Money spent on new technology not now being spent. Inventions.

Not to mention that the money that would be poured into the economy in terms of jobs, etc would be nearly incalculable.

[wtmusic]

16. To do nothing would be disastrous

but renewables are a false promise. An analogy might be automobiles powered by sails - it might work now and then, not very well - but no matter how much money you pour into sail materials and designs, how much planning and innovation you can conceivably perform - the juice will never be worth the squeeze.

If you read the article about Germany, you know that the "money poured into the economy in terms of jobs" has to come from somewhere. It comes from the German public in the form of higher rates and taxes. They're just beginning to get an idea what the cost will be, and it's off the charts.

Despite all of the media hype and fear-stoking about Fukushima, nuclear is the safest practical form of energy generated. There are 1400x less fatalities than coal, and it generates no CO2. "To not go there", at this stage of the game, would be as disastrous as doing nothing.

[mzteris]

17. I politely disagree with your statement

"renewables are a false promise." I think more R&D is required. Much more. Cheaper to make. Cheaper to use. Accessible to the public.

And while you may believe that "nuclear is the safest practical form of energy generated" - I think that is a provably FALSE statement as stated. If you're comparing it just to coal - I hate coal even more than nukes - well, then maybe. But it most certainly is not the "safest" - nor indeed the most "practical" unless you're using some kind of qualifiers.

One other comment on nuclear power: all it takes it once.

[XemaSab]

18. Here are a couple flamewars about reliability from 2010

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=239780&mesg_id=239780

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=239780&mesg_id=239872

[Yo_Mama]

10. LOL - we're not going to do all this cheaply!

Aside from that issue, I think this is a good effort that illustrates several currently held common myths about renewables.

They are not truly modular. There is an inherent control systems problem, because all serious efforts to design a new power system based on significant inputs from currently-available renewable techs are in fact much more interconnected over a much wider geographic region than any current grids.

This raises interesting questions. You basically go one of two ways. Either you put much more investment in energy storage locally (and it has to be long-term), or you become very vulnerable to natural and man-made disruptions.

The idea of using desert solar to produce electricity for Europe is probably workable if you don't mind the cost, but the cabling required would be extraordinarily expensive and vulnerable to hostile activity. Somali pirates might be smart enough to hold it hostage. International hostilities might be a factor.

[caraher]

13. Don't misrepresent the article

The OP leads with an ambiguous verb-free sentence, "The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, you know, the industry group that represents the power industry."

The article in the OP is a clearly-marked opinion piece published in IEEE Spectrum, a trade magazine published by IEEE. IEEE is a professional society much like American Association for the Advancement of Science or the American Chemical Society, and Spectrum is a magazine with articles deemed of interest to members, somewhat like Physics Today is for American Physical Society members. It represents its members, a tiny fraction of whom can be described as working in the "power industry."

In no way does its appearance a position statement on the part of IEEE; rather, it is clearly labeled as an opinion offered by one author, a colleague of Jacobson (who is completely transparent about that association). To what level is its appearance an endorsement by IEEE? Not much. It appears solely because the editors felt it was of interest to readers and had enough merit to warrant their consideration. Other articles labeled "Opinion" in IEEE Spectrum include "Engineering is Not Science" and "When Does Technical Brilliance Matter, and When Does It Not?", a piece questioning the prospects of the Chevy Volt with lines like, "Plainly, the bosses at GM were out to lunch."

It's a fine article, but there's no explicit or implied endorsement by IEEE, which in any case is a professional society for engineers in many industries, and not a power industry trade group.

[Kolesar]

19. Nobody said it was a "position statement" eom