New Hampshire, USA-what it takes to a city, a State, a nation, to convert to 100 percent renewable energy sources? There are many countries with very ambitious targets for 100% powered by renewable energy, type (Islands seem to have a leg). But what about here in the United States, how can this be accomplished for this nation? And since all politics is local (and particularly applies to directives on renewable energy), how could that happen by individual States?
Back in the year 2011 Stanford professor Mark Jacobsen presented, which require that, and followed that with an analysis of how to achieve it in the State of New York. (Our coverage was by the way, is by far the most commented story in recent memory.) Now he extends his analysis in all 50 US States, laying out a resource roadmap, as each of them meet 100 percent of their energy needs (electricity, heating and transport) could through renewable sources of energy to 2050 - except nuclear, ethanol and other biofuels. Keep in mind that none of these calculations are aligned to optimize use of renewable energies for the least cost mix 100 percent. Levelized electricity costs of this mixture renewable energy by the year 2030 expected 11 cents/kWh (including local transfer), fossil energy with additional costs for health and climate will be compared with 20-25 cents / kWh.
Its latest results include two more deep dives for New York, show how they all new energy capacity powered by renewable energy (see the definition above) by 2020, 2030 converted 80-85% of the existing energy and could reach 100 percent by the year 2050. He takes California, percentage renewable energy footprint achieve a 100 with the following portfolio: 55 percent solar (distributed and large-scale, including many CSP), 35 percent wind (on - and offshore), geothermal energy, 5 percent and 4 percent hydroelectric power, a large contribution of energy efficiency. (Mixing with solar wind and combines that with hydro, CSP with storage, largely to smooth frequency issues, he concludes.) Ultimately, that is a net 178,000 permanent jobs avoid $131 billion in annual health-care costs and pay the 631 GW newly installed capacity within six years.
In the U.S. State of Washington, Jacobson et al. calculate how a 2050 fully renewable energy mix: 43 percent wind, 28 percent solar PV, 26 percent hydro, 2% geothermal and half a percent each wave and tidal. New capacity expansions by 137 GW $228 billion cost would be paid but in 13 years. Note that Washington has an abundance of hydroelectric power and has thus an advantage for integrated storage energy consumption match; No new Hydro are necessary (more on that later), but he assumes capacity of existing hydroelectric power stations is updated to improve efficiency.
Proposed change of the percentage distribution of California energy supply for all purposes (power, transport, heating and cooling, industrial) between the conventional fuels and WWS power in the course of time on the basis of the roadmap. Credit: Stanford/Jacobson
Overall, the methods were quite similar: "look at the footprints and areas and how many devices of any kind of that we need," Jacobson explained. Compared to his previous calculations, these new findings extend the time frame, until 2050, instead of only by 2030. Also more are energy buildout to account for installations, like for example an extensive wind since its 2011 study and updated the latest insight into job creation.
He is also posted by the addition of mortality on the basis of air quality data for each State look back calculations, the three years in each district and illustrate how air pollution and its direct connection to mortality reduce renewable energy. He goes into the health-care costs due to air pollution around three per cent of the GDP of the United States says (quick math: the U.S. GDP is about $17 trillion, so the $500 billion in health-care costs). Address could quantify at the subnational level with concrete figures such as renewable energy proves and reduce "a significant burden for the company."
The smoothest pathway, relatively speaking, to 100 percent renewable energy achieve what States have? The key, he says, knocking and improvement of existing large hydro, without coming to any new partner. "Each State with Hydro is inclined, this makes it easier", he says. United States Washington would lead this Pack because of the abundant hydropower resources - up to 30 percent of what they would - need plus a small but growing amount of wind and solar energy. He also finds that the State policy and leadership, "very supporting to change things." Other States, which could use the best Hydro include Idaho and New York. The growing influence of wind energy in some States (Iowa, South Dakota) also helps.
On the other hand it will be so easy a journey into the Southeastern States, to tap the less renewable energy and more about the interconnection. (Note that his estimates restrict non-States, receive renewable energies outside its borders, this brings things like Canadian Hydro in some Northern States.)
Perhaps the biggest takeaway Jacobson updates, is that roughly speaking none of this is new. "We have no new technology to invent it," he says. "We need to get more efficient from the perspective of costs."
View the original article here