There is no denying that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Fossil fuel is also toxic and causing our ecosystem to collapse away from an ideal that sustains life.
Much has been said to try and insist that there would be no way to replace everything we do with electric. That it is impossible to use solar in northern climes and that wind is too intermittent. But no studies have been done to assay the reality of such broad denials of alternatives.
New York State was known, before warming became the norm, to have harsh snow packed winters. It is also densely populated and full of industrial infrastructure. So it is an excellent place to show how wind, water, and solar (WWS) can be utilized in such a manner as to ensure total renewable energy utilization. To completely cut away the, expensive in all aspects, fossil fuel umbilical cord.
This study analyzes a plan to convert New York State’s (NYS’s) all-purpose (for electricity, transporta- tion, heating/cooling, and industry) energy infrastructure to one derived entirely from wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) generating electricity and electrolytic hydrogen. 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 (500,000 100-kW 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). The conversion would reduce NYS’s end-use power demand 37% and stabilize energy prices since fuel costs would be zero. It would create more jobs than lost because nearly all NYS energy would now be produced in-state. NYS air pollution mortality and its costs would decline by 4000 (1200–7600) deaths/yr, and $33 (10–76) billion/yr (3% of 2010 NYS GDP), respectively, alone repaying the 271 GW installed power needed within 17 years, before accounting for electricity sales. NYS’s own emission decreases would reduce 2050 U.S. climate costs by $3.2 billion/yr.
Like all infrastructure projects, from the railroads to the interstate highway system, initial investments are going to be high. But the cost of doing nothing is even higher.
The study concludes that while a WWS 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 New York's end-use power demand by about 37 percent and stabilize energy prices, since fuel costs would be zero, according to the study. It would also create a net gain in manufacturing, installation and technology jobs because nearly all the state's energy would be produced within the state.
According to the researchers' calculations, New York's 2030 power demand for all sectors (electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, industry) could be met by:
4,020 onshore 5-megawatt wind turbines
12,770 offshore 5-megawatt wind turbines
387 100-megawatt concentrated solar plants
828 50-megawatt photovoltaic power plants
5 million 5-kilowatt residential rooftop photovoltaic systems
500,000 100-kilowatt commercial/government rooftop photovoltaic systems
36 100-megawatt geothermal plants
1,910 0.75-megawatt wave devices
2,600 1-megawatt tidal turbines
7 1,300-megawatt hydroelectric power plants, of which most exist
According to the study, if New York switched to WWS, air pollution–related deaths would decline by about 4,000 annually and the state would save about $33 billion – 3 percent of the state's gross domestic product – in related health costs every year. That savings alone would pay for the new power infrastructure needed within about 17 years, or about 10 years if annual electricity sales are accounted for. The study also estimates that resultant emissions decreases would reduce 2050 U.S. climate change costs – such as coastal erosion and extreme weather damage – by about $3.2 billion per year.
We can continue to pretend that the cost of gasoline at the pump is the actual cost of fossil fuel to the average American. Or we can look at the real costs to
produce,
refine,
transport,
disposal,
exhaust of fossil fuel components. When we take an accurate assessment of the real costs of fossil fuels the investment into renewables is paltry by comparison.