Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumStanford scientist to unveil 50-state plan to transform US to renewable energy
Feb 15, 2014
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 will present 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...
http://phys.org/news/2014-02-stanford-scientist-unveil-state-renewable.html
The Solutions Project"
http://thesolutionsproject.org
4dsc
(5,787 posts)None of these so called alternatives will replace the energy we get from oil. Its nice to dream though.
Yes, I'm sure you're right; after all, you're the President of DUEWI* right? I mean, what could a bunch of highly qualified scientists possibly know?
Just because their work shows how we can do just what you say we can't do shouldn't sway us any more than the work of those clowns at the IPCC who say that we have a problem with climate and carbon.
*DU Energy and Woo Institute
4dsc
(5,787 posts)while they talk about climate change they don't talk about oil depletion and the effects it will have on future generations to produce those products that now rely upon oil.
And also please show me where they talk about how producing electricity, which is what these so called alternative produce, will replace oil. And I notice they didn't address the how they are going to replace oil in our society considering we are a oil based one.
Too many questions unanswered.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)All.
It's a simple concept.
4dsc
(5,787 posts)So unless you can show me how they are going to replace oil you don't have much room to talk.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)They care about the work that oil does.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)oil does more than just fuel transport. Plastics, nylon, polyester, vinyl, synthetic rubber, asphalt, pesticides, the list goes on and on. All products derived from oil. No oil? No modern industrial society and no life as we currently know it.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I think you might be trapped in a time warp where you are still arguing something you learned for Peak Oil.
And in point of fact, we have the ability to replace oil in all of the other applications also. Fossilized hydrocarbons are the least expensive feedstock, but they are hardly the only route available.
4dsc
(5,787 posts)Nice try though.
Did you check out these comments from article:
Unfortunately most of so-called renewable energy technologies just replaced the consumption of energy sources for consumption of energy during mining of raw sources. By this article, if the contribution from wind turbines and solar energy to global energy production is to rise from the current 400 TWh to 12,000 TWh in 2035 and 25,000 TWh in 2050, as projected by the World Wide Fund for Nature, about 3,200 million tonnes of steel, 310 million tonnes of aluminium and 40 million tonnes of copper will be required to build the latest generations of wind and solar facilities. This corresponds to a 5 to 18% annual increase in the global production of these metals for the next 40 years.
Feasible? Of course not. Practical? Nope.
So-called renewables all have to be renewed. Solar is not just the sunlight - it's the electrons in the panel, only guaranteed for 20 years, eventually needing replacement. Wind power is not just the wind, it's the windmill that needs constant service and eventual replacement. Calling them renewables is either a marketing hoax or a delusion.
And very true statement not address by this group.
caraher
(6,276 posts)The plan concerns replacing fossil fuels as the dominant energy source. Doing so doesn't mean losing all knowledge and ability to make plastics, etc.
If anything, not routinely burning petroleum products just for energy would extend the ability to use petroleum for all the uses mentioned much farther into the future.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)and just give the fossil fuel industries more tax breaks. It would be money better spent. Right?
4dsc
(5,787 posts)they don't.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I've made a detailed examination of how we use energy on an application by application basis - the whole pie, as you might say. Every slice looked at in detail and considered against the alternative energy sources and technologies to accomplish the same work.
And I'm not the only one; this has been done by many, many researchers, including the lead author of the studies in the OP.
It can be done. If you want to dispute that you'll need to bring some evidence to the table.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)He makes most of his papers available at that website, scroll down past the books he's written and it's the next section.
Here is a good sample.
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security
https://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf
cprise
(8,445 posts)... if they require desalination.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)See http://www.democraticunderground.com/112753111
And something I found and posted just before reading your post.
Seafloor carpet catches waves to generate energy
...Marcus Lehmann, a Ph.D. researcher on Alams team, added that one potential application for their system could be to lower the high cost of purifying seawater into drinkable water, helping states and countries weather periods of drought.
The dominant methods of turning seawater into fresh water involve distillation, which requires heat, and reverse osmosis desalination, in which water is pumped through filters. Both methods use a substantial amount of energy that thus far has prevented their wider adoption. A power-generating system that is based on ocean power could change that, at least in areas of the world adjacent to high wave energy activity, the UC Berkeley researchers said.
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2014/01/28/seafloor-carpet-catches-waves-to-harness-energy/
Not saying that's the solution, just posting it because of the timing.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Where there is a will, there is a way.
NickB79
(19,114 posts)No rush guys, take your time. It's not like we have any urgent to worry about in the meantime.....
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I'm surprised you think we have anything to worry about since we ran out of fossil fuels last year year.
I'm sure your belief that would happen is why you haven't yet worked out your plan for decarbonizing the US. But I'm also sure that when you get around to the writing, it will please every far-out fruitcake, armchair internet warrior that is apt to read your plan.
I'm particularly eager to see how you develop a framework of analysis that will reconcile those who scream "you can't do it that fast" with those who say "It's not like we have any (sic) urgent to worry about". I mean, choosing the pace of change is one of the most arbitrary parts of such an analysis so it is obviously the point we should all focus all of our attention on. I is certainly more important than the fact that the meat of the resource and technology analysis shows that we have the means on hand right now to effect the change if we can develop the political will to do so.
Thanks for your insight. I look forward to seeing your plan.