While the planet warms from fossil fuel emissions, deployment of clean energy has been slow in the United States. That is not to say there has not been progress as wind and solar dominate new generation capacity in recent years. However, renewable energy targets for individual states remain at 30% or less by 2025. We are racing a clean energy tortoise against a carbon pollution Ferrari.
A team of researchers lead by Mark Jacobson of Stanford University examined the feasibility of replacing all fossil energy in the state of New York with wind, water, and sun by 2030. In other words, is it possible to achieve a 100% renewable energy portfolio in less that 20 years using existing technology? The answer is yes.
"Converting to wind, water and sunlight is feasible, will stabilize costs of energy and will produce jobs while reducing health and climate damage."
Mark Jacobson, Stanford professor of civil and environmental engineering
Here is what it would take to kick coal, gas, and oil to the curb:
Under the plan,NYS’s 2030 all-purpose end-use power would be provided by 10% onshore wind (4020 5-MW turbines), 40% offshore wind (12,700 5-MW turbines), 10% concentrated solar (387 100-MW plants), 10% solar-PV plants (828 50-MW plants), 6% residential rooftop PV (5 million 5-kW systems), 12% commercial/government rooftop PV (500,000 100kW systems), 5% geothermal (36 100-MW plants), 0.5% wave (1910 0.75-MW devices), 1% tidal (2600 1-MW turbines), and 5.5% hydroelectric (6.6 1300-MW plants, of which 89% exist).
Jacobson,M.Z., et al., Examining the feasibility of converting New York State’s all-purpose energy infrastructure to one using wind, water, and sunlight. Energy Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/...
That is a tall order, particularly the offshore wind component, but everything in the plan is already within reach using mature technology. Even without the offshore wind component, you are still left with a 60% renewable energy portfolio, double the most ambitious target of any state in the nation.
Here are some of the benefits of the 100% conversion besides shrinking the carbon footprint of the state down to petite:
-- A 37% reduction of end-use power demand.
-- Long-term energy price stability since fuel costs will be zero.
-- Drastic reduction in air pollution health costs, including 4000 deaths per year and $33 billion in health care expenditures per year (approximately 3% of 2010 New York GDP). These health care cost savings alone will offset the cost of 271 GW of installed power in 17 years.
Most people seem to forget that oil, gas, and coal costs are going to skyrocket in the near future. Global production cannot keep up with global demand. Natural gas is only cheap right now in the United States right now because the infrastructure does not exist to export it. A similar rush is on to export coal. The more domestic coal and gas sold on the global market, the higher domestic prices will go. Add a carbon tax and people who get much of their energy from fossil fuels will be paying through the teeth in the future.
Burning fossil fuels not only creates greenhouse gas emissions, but it fills the air and water with a bevy of toxins. The state of New York could pay for the transition in what it saves by reducing the health care costs from emissions.
For those interested in a serious debunking of the idea that natural gas is an ideal "bridge fuel" in the transition to clean energy, please check out section 2.1 in the article. The discussion of biofuels (sections 2.2 and 2.3) is also worth reading. The cost-benefit ratios for fuels designed to prolong the life of outdated technology requires serious reconsideration.
The potential offshore wind generation capacity near Manhattan is excellent. The question is whether the footprint of the farm to generate 40% of the state's electricity nearby would be acceptable to the penthouse crowd. Then again, you could probably generate 5 MW from the wind that comes out of Donald Trump's blowhole.
Here is why the switch to wind, water, and sunlight is feasible now.
Table 3 indicates that the 2005–2012 costs of onshore wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal plants are the same or less than those of typical new conventional technologies (such as new coal-fired or natural gas power plants) when externality costs of the technologies are ignored. Solar costs are higher. When externality costs are included, WWS technologies cost less than conventional technologies.
Jacobson,M.Z., et al., Examining the feasibility of converting New York State’s all-purpose energy infrastructure to one using wind, water, and sunlight. Energy Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/...
The large scale production of wind and solar generation equipment has brought down costs to a price-point competitive with fossil fuels. That is cause for celebration. If we make the carbon combustion clean up the mess they create, it is game over and then some. The
only reason fossil fuels are still in the game is because our political leaders lack the courage and integrity to enforce clean air and water regulations. We subsidize fossil fuels by allowing them to fill our lungs with soot, heavy metals, and volatile organic compounds.
Perhaps the largest obstacle to the plan is for state policymakers to revamp the tax code to compensate for lost revenue from taxes generated from fossil fuels, particularly in the transportation sector. Property tax revenues are likely to rise with increased efficiency and stable energy costs.
The rate-limiting step to a 100% clean energy portfolio in New York is not any practical constraint. Rather, it is leadership. The same is true across the country. We can have a clean energy future within several decades if our leaders made it a priority. Instead, they are far more willing to accept large contributions from the fossil energy companies to maintain business as usual.
One thing the researchers do not mention is the impact that an ambitious program in New York can have across the nation. For example, ramping up electric vehicle use in a state as large as New York will likely encourage automakers to increase options, particularly in low- to mid-range price levels. Similar manufacturing scale impacts are likely with solar power, particularly rooftop installations.
The article touches on an issue that will further spur the clean energy revolution, namely grid level storage. The standard talking point used to denigrate wind and solar power is that they are intermittent sources. If you can store the energy generated by wind and solar power for use on demand, concerns over base and peak load capacity disappear. Grid level storage systems are now starting to mature with 56 GW of storage capacity likely within 10 years.
A recent study found two grid level storage systems have the efficiency for implementation - geologic pumped hydroelectric storage (PHS) and compressed air energy storage (CAES). PHS pumps water uphill to a reservoir when energy is generated and then releases the water to run downhill to generate power on demand. Geography and land availability are constrains on PHS. However, CAES has a smaller footprint and much more attractive. It uses compressed air in underground chambers such as the salt domes and wells proposed for carbon sequestration.
New York was the site of a DoE test site for CAES. Unfortunately, New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) announced in October that it decided not to bring the project online despite promising results. The primary reason given was the low cost of natural gas.
Upon completion of comprehensive engineering and financial evaluations, NYSEG determined that a number of site-specific issues, including the cost of site development, and energy market conditions, including the effects of inexpensive natural gas-fired generation on market prices, make the project at the Town of Reading site uneconomical.
It is rather short-sighted to assume natural gas prices will remain low. Then again, NYSEG has
not stood up to scrutiny after being bought out by Iberdrola. Utility companies like NSYEG are an obstacle to progress.
The future of clean energy is now. What is holding us back is not technology, but weak political leadership and fossil energy obstructionism.
I urge everyone with an interest in the clean energy revolution to take the time to read the preprint of Jacobson's article. We need more of these analyses to advance the discussion of what is possible with clean energy.
|
Help Us Spread the Word About Climate Change
For those of you on Facebook and Twitter: Please help to spread the word by hitting the FB and Tweet links at the top of this diary and if you have time, join the discussion with comments. Share such postings with friends, family, co-workers, and acquaintances.
Thanks, as all of this helps build the Climate Change movement as well as introducing critically important ideas about renewable sources of energy.
|