Have you heard the bull**** claim that "renewables are great but they aren't enough"?

[kristopher]

This is a common bit of misinformation that swirls around the public consciousness perverting the ability of the public to make informed choices on how we proceed to address our energy security and climate change needs. This is a detailed analysis matching real world demand and the known operational profile of renewable energy sources. It clearly shows that claims such as "renewabes can't do it" or "renewables aren't enough" are nothing but balderdash and poppycock.

These false beliefs that are being nurtured by political and economic forces that stand to lose power and money if we focus our efforts on the renewable, sustainable solution to our energy issues.

Equally important is the fact that not only CAN renewables do the job, but they can do it for less money, more reliably, with far fewer external costs, and much much lower risks than the only other non-carbon contenders - coal with carbon capture/sequestration and nuclear power.

The claim is NOT being made that this would be an easy task. Nor is the claim made that the modeling in the paper is perfect representation of all geographic areas and the specific resources that would be available to meet demands in those areas; for example, there will be areas where wave/current/tidal or biomass are more important than solar, or where storage options like pumped hydro and compressed air storage are more appropriate than standard hydro.

What the paper does demonstrate is the fallacy of the idea that renewable energy resources are not up to the task. We have a wide range of technologies sitting on the shelf available to meet demand and it is good to be aware of their potential.

Matching Hourly and Peak Demand by Combining Different Renewable Energy Sources

A case study for California in 2020


Graeme R.G. Hoste
Michael J. Dvorak
Mark Z. Jacobson

Stanford University
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Atmosphere/Energy Program


Abstract
In 2002 the California legislature passed Senate Bill 1078, establishing the Renewables Portfolio
Standard requiring 20 percent of the state’s electricity to come from renewable resources by
2010, with the additional goal of 33% by 2020 (California Senate, 2002; California Energy
Commission , 2004). More recently, some legislative proposals have called for eliminating
80% of all carbon from energy to limit climate change to an ‘acceptable level’. At the passing of
the 2002 California bill, qualifying renewables provided less than 10% of California’s energy
supply (CEC, 2007). Several barriers slow the development of renewables; these include
technological barriers, access to renewable resources, public perceptions, political pressure from
interest groups, and cost, to name a few. This paper considers only one technological barrier to
renewables: integration into the grid.

Many renewable resources are intermittent or variable by nature—producing power
inconsistently and somewhat unpredictably—while on the other end of the transmission line,
consumers demand power variably but predictably throughout the day. The Independent System
Operator (ISO) monitors this demand, turning on or off additional generation when necessary.
As such, predictability of energy supply and demand is essential for grid management. For
natural gas or hydroelectricity, supplies can be throttled relatively easily. But with a wind farm,
power output cannot be ramped up on demand. In some cases, a single wind farm that is
providing power steadily may see a drop in or complete loss of wind for a period. For this
reason, grid operators generally pay less for energy provided from wind or solar power than from
a conventional, predictable resource.

Although wind, solar, tidal, and wave resources will always be intermittent when they are
considered in isolation and at one location, several methods exist to reduce intermittency of
delivered power. These include combining geographically disperse intermittent resources of the
same type, using storage, and combining different renewables with complementary
intermittencies (e.g., Kahn, 1979; Archer and Jacobson, 2003, 2007). This paper discusses the
last method: integration of several independent resources. In the pages that follow, we
demonstrate that the complementary intermittencies of wind and solar power in California, along
with the flexibility of hydro, make it possible for a true portfolio of renewables to meet a
significant portion of California’s electricity demand. In particular, we estimate mixes of
renewable capacities required to supply 80% and 100% of California’s electricity and 2020 and
show the feasibility of load-matching over the year with these resources. Additionally, we
outline the tradeoffs between different renewable portfolios (i.e., wind-heavy or solar-heavy
mixes). We conclude that combining at least four renewables, wind, solar, geothermal, and
hydroelectric power in optimal proportions would allow California to meet up to 100% of its
future hourly electric power demand assuming an expanded and improved transmission grid.


To download entire report click on Report on matching hourly and peak demand by combining different renewables (pdf) at
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/susenergy2030.html

You may also enjoy some of the other papers at that link. They are all open source documents free to download. Particularly recommended is E&ES article on ranking energy solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security.

[joeybee12]

1. It;s from Stanford, what do you expect...a right-wing nutjob university

that gave us Condo-liar Rice, has a HOOVER foundation, and,worst of all, unleashed Ty Willingham into college football.

[kristopher]

2. No, the "rightwing nutjobs", not Stanford, are pushing the lie about renewables.

[joeybee12]

5. I se the link has stanford.edu...why? n/t

[kristopher]

6. nt

[Gravel Democrat]

3. Great post!

Imagine if there was a nuclear bomb type program
A Manhattan project for Energy independence.

It could happen. But soon?




Here's a great site for large scale Solar projects
that work now. They don't get a lot of press though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert

[Blue_Tires]

4. k+r

that 'renewables aren't enough' talking point has grown legs the past couple of weeks...

[Cleobulus]

7. When it comes to electricity production from stationary sources, diversification...

of renewables make it possible.

When it comes to transportation, its a little more problematic, you hit certain limits that are difficult to overcome. Portability and energy density, in addition to energy economics comes into play. For example, to switch over to electric cars would involve not just building an infrastructure necessary to make it possible but also you will have to increase our electricity production by a significant amount to match the amount of cars on the road today. This means a lot of power plants, hopefully using renewable sources of energy, will have to be built just for keep our cars charged.

Same thing with most other ways to power land vehicles, regardless of source, quite a bit of energy that would be used to power homes will have to be used to manufacture alternative fuels of some sort or another.

This may not be sustainable in the long term, the best bet would be to build a transportation infrastructure that isn't reliant on the automobile, but there seems not to be a will to do that.

[kristopher]

8. Go to this page

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


And click on the (pdf) option for this paper:
Jacobson, M. Z., Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security (published online version) (pdf) (Supplemental Info)

Meeting the needs of the transportation sector with noncarbon technolgy is the specific area being examined.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security.

Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[Cleobulus]

9. Is there anything in that report that contradicts what I said?

No, there isn't, it stated that to replace all road vehicles from 2007 would require 73,000-144,000 5MW wind turbines. What it doesn't say is that you will have to build a lot of batteries for those vehicles, which in itself is a dirty process, and the vehicles themselves will not have the range of current gasoline powered vehicles, not with current technology.

From a carbon footprint standpoint, alone, this is good, but is it practical to implement? That is the question.

[kristopher]

12. Your assumptions regarding transportation are wrong

Just as the initial post's assertions were false, so too are the assertions regarding batteries building batteries being a "dirty process" (lithium isn't a toxin and it is not only efficiently recyclable but economically *and* efficiently recyclable).
As to the range, that is a process of improvement where new battery technology already developed and built can deliver as much as 800 miles per charge. Those batteries (and there are a couple of different flavors) are in the production design phase right now.

Given that the demand from India and China are expected to push the price of petroleum to $200/barrel by 2020, I'd say they are practical to deploy.

As to restructuring the geography of our social infrastructure so that mass transit becomes more practical - that is a far, far more expensive alternative than deploying the infrastructure to meet ALL of our energy requirements (including transportation) from renewables.

An important facet of the plug-in hybrid technology is that near term it gets around the range limitation while dramatically reducing petroleum consumption. That is enhanced by the fact that plug-in electric vehicles are an important source of potential storage for renewable energy generation. We don't need to increase storage capacity to help renewables for at least a decade, and by then the number of electric vehicles equipped with Vehicle to Grid capability will be a very important part of making a renewable grid function at peak potential.

[stray cat]

10. Does that mean will all boycott coal, oil and nuclear power energy and anything made with energy?

After all, if it alternative sources are readily available it won't even require much sacrifice.....

[kristopher]

13. The owners of coal and coal plants might disagree about the idea of sacrifice...

The public won't lose, but the owners of current polluting technologies will. There are trillions of dollars worth of assets that will become increasingly worthless the more we devote our focus to deploying renewables; so the owners and investors in those assets are fighting this process with everything they have.

[Subdivisions]

11. Cool. So, are all of these renewable energy sources up and running yet? n/t

[alfredo]

14. No, but with some help from us/government we can

speed up adoption. We also need to push for decentralization of power. It would be nice if we could become our own "grid." Each home with its own power plant.

[kristopher]

15. For the most part, yes.

There are some areas such was wave/current/tidal that we are just starting to explore, but the technologies involved are not new. They are largely instances where we take existing solutions that have been engineered to address other problems and put them together another need. For example, wind turbine technology has become very advanced, and with our experience with operating in the marine environment we have all the components for tapping into water currents such as the outflow of rivers in NYC or the straight between Florida and the Bahamas where the Gulf Stream is channeled.

[Subdivisions]

16. Did you not understand my question? n/t

[kristopher]

17. Yes, and I answered it.

If you'd care to expand or elaborate, please feel free.

[Subdivisions]

18. No you didn't. I asked you, are these renewable sources up and running?

You answered yes. Perhaps I should ask the question differently: Are renewable sources of energy the primary means of generating electricity?

[kristopher]

19. Coal is. The discussion is about the way we replace fossil fuels.

[Subdivisions]

22. Coal is NOT a renewable resource. And your OP was a bunch of

technopian/cornucopian balderdash and poppycock based on the familiar old (and worn out) refrain that Big Energy is holding back technologies that could supposedly reduce our need for fossil fuels. To say that these technologies would cut into Big Energy's profits without considering that, if they are so great, they would possess an inherent profit potential all their own, is flawed thinking. BP has recognized some of that potential with their BP Solar division. So claiming that renewables are held back by a conspiratorial agenda to protect fossil fuel profits is just plain bullshit.

Anyway, the fact is, renewables cannot replace any time soon, and at scale, our need for fossil fuels, though they can make a substantial contribution over the long term. That is unless of course we are willing to reduce our standard of living to something along the level of the 19th Century. And that's not going to happen voluntarily.

[kristopher]

23. Is there any rationality lurking in your cranium?

I didn't say coal was renewable, I said coal is what we are replacing.

There is not "cornucopian" thinking involved, the claims in the OP represent one of many many similar professional analysis by professionals and academics alike. It has been an accepted part of our knowledge base since at least 1992. The fact that you are rejecting the findings of literally hundreds of researchers speaks only to your fragile state of understanding, not to the validity of the research.

You are also misusing the word "cornucopian" if you are applying it to me. I'm not only well aware of the problems that go with our consumptive lufestyle, but I also advocate use of renewable, *sustainable* energy. Neither of which is part of the "cornucopian" school of thought. The thinking of a cornucopian is part of the climate denier/environmental skeptic belief system.

Hope you learned something.

[Subdivisions]

26. You're the one that called bullshit on the 'renewables are not enough' meme, when

in fact they currently are not enough to replace fossil fuels for generating electricity. The papers you linked to are interesting and I fully support all efforts to increase the share of renewables providing electricity to the grids.

My use of the term "cornucopian", http://www.google.com/search?q=energy+cornucopian&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLR_en">when the topic is energy, applies to those who believe that there will always be plenty of energy to fuel sustained economic growth and activity. Though you zeal for renewables is admirable, you come across like someone who thinks this way. (I admit I may be reading you wrong on this as I've been suffering a bout of insomnia.} But what most energy cornucopians fail to take into account is the depletion of our primary fossil fuel, crude oil. As crude oil production continues its decline, the ability to fuel the change to primary renewable sources becomes less viable. For instance, it takes oil to mine the raw materials for solar panels and wind turbines. It takes oil to move those materials to the market. It takes oil to build the infrastructure to bring the materials to an assembly point. It take oil to bring the workers to work to build solar panels and wind turbines. It takes oil to then transport the finished products to their final location. And it takes oil to maintain a solar or wind farm. So, as oil production continues to decline, it becomes LESS LIKELY that renewables will ever reach a point where they can replace fossil fuels, though the effort must still be made.

[kristopher]

32. Peak oil predictions like that are based on a fundamental lack of understanding

...of some basic economic action/reaction scenarios. There is also a decidely circular aspect to your reasoning. I will come back to that at the end of this post.

The fact is that there ARE alternatives to fossil fuels - for ALL uses. That is what the OP is focused on and to reiterate, the answer is yes, we have alternatives for ALL fossil fuels. You may not see the way it all works out, but I have been systematically studying (in an academic environment) the issue of noncarbon solutions to energy for a number of years and I can assure you that the paper in the OP has it right.

The NEXT set of questions includes the one you are making in your latest post: "Can we deploy them?"
That involves the areas of political will and economics. You said earlier that the failure of renewable's is because they can't do the job and that anyone who disagrees must be placing faith in a conspiracy theory.

Well, that's like saying that the idea that there are climate deniers is a conspiracy theory because the two issues are perfectly aligned. Those who are responsible for generating the lies about climate research being a hoax are exactly the same group that has been dedicated to obstructing renewable energy deployment. In fact, they have no problem with climate change per se, it is the fact that the best answer to climate change is renewables that has motivated them to act to obstruct policy action that will 1) address climate change by 2) deploying renewables.

There are various built-in structural impediments that have evolved as we developed a system of delivering power via petroleum and centralized, large scale thermal generation of electricity. The alternative of a distributed grid based on renewables is built around a set of energy generating characteristics that are not valued by the current system. So all that was required for the "conspiracy" to be effective was to appeal to the "least cost" option as judged by a very restricted economic analysis.

With climate change and the foreign policy costs of our energy system coming to the forefront of public awareness, however, the need for change is becoming unarguable. So we are now seeing action on changing the nature of the grid itself. We are developing an integrated approach that seeks to eliminate the gross inefficiencies associated with burning fuels in as many areas as possible, including transportaion. We are developing a more reliable grid built around distributed sources of renewable generation and dispatchable storage technologies that will reduce the primary energy consumption dramatically.

Now, about your beliefs regarding the role of petroleum. Far from slowing or stalling the transition to renewables, as petroleum supply declines relative to demand the price will rise. The basic economic principles I spoke of tell us unequivocally that there is no possibility that we are going to have a collapse as you fear, instead as the price rises the alternatives (that do exist) will become more attractive and the rate of deploying them will accelerate. You cannot ignore those two realities as if they don't exist - we have viable alternatives to ALL fossil fuels and deployment of those alternatives will accelerate as fossil fuel energy prices increase.

That is why they want to tax (includes cap and trade) fossil fuels.

[MilesColtrane]

20. I didn't know that they had perfected the solar powered tank and the hydrogen cell F-117.

As long as the military runs on oil, renewables will not be enough.

Not the way I'd have things, but there you are.

[kristopher]

21. Biofuels are viable for heavy equipment and heavy shipping.

[MilesColtrane]

24. At the least, the Air Force will need oil for the next 20- 30 years.

The F-35, the F-22, as well as the new aerial refueling tanker KC-X run on oil. They will remain in service at least until 2030...probably until 2040.

[kristopher]

25. You can make oil from biomass.

Testing in various aircraft is already underway.

ETA: That said, unless some miracle of political will suddenly materializes, it will take decades to eliminate all fossil fuels. The development of advanced biofuels for heavy lifting is expected to be one of the final steps in the process. The agricultural sector also figures into the issue both as a part of the problem and part of the solution.

[Subdivisions]

28. Agreed. The necessary political will would require a miracle. n/t

[kristopher]

33. IT will still happen just because of basic economics

Renewable energy offers a lot of advantages, and with climate change pushing deployment and with that push for deployment attracting new manufacturing investments, the price of all renewables is on a steady downward trajectory. We can accelerate the process by charging for the external costs of fossil fuels (carbon tax) but even without that the supply side part of the picture is tilted heavily in favor of a transition to renewable energy sources where there are no fuel costs.

It isn't a matter of if, it is just a matter of when...


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06diamond.html

[tigereye]

27. no, but I certainly have seen a lot of "clean coal" propaganda the last few

years... :eyes:

[fascisthunter]

29. yes in fact I have from some here on DU

[librechik]

30. We can build an H-bomb, we can go to the moon, but can't heat our homes with solar? STILL??!?

total bullshit. Our leadership is OWNED by the Petroleum and coal industries.

[Greyhound]

31. Heard every day right here. n/t

:kick: & R