Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] a 50 state plan for renewable energy by 2050



The bottom line in all the simulations my classes have done over the years is that the ability to transition from the fossil fuels to renewables depends primarily on available land and available money. The money part depends somewhat on how quickly you want to make the transition. While the U.S. has enough land, the cost of the transition is approximately half a trillion a year if spread over 100 years, and of course higher for quicker transitions. This is actually possible since this is 'only' about 5% of GDP. However, looking at a world transition, many areas run into major problems with either or both conditions. Think Japan for land and just about anywhere other than Western Europe for money.

rwt

On 12/17/2015 2:20 PM, James Mackey wrote:
I checked out the Stanford link and looked at the interactive map linked on
the site. I do not know the details of how the breakdowns for eacxh state
were derived, but looking at Arkansas (since I am a resident) saw that a
projected Wind power of 43%. I find that to be a ridiculous result.
Arkansas does not have enough suitable locations to produce 10% of that
number. If the number arises from transmission of power from other states
then the problem of cost looms high. Current breakdown in Arkansas (2014) :
Coal 39 % and decreasing, Natural Gas 28% and growing, Nuclear 23% and
stable, Hydroelectric 7% and slightly diminishing, Other Renewable 2%. The
percentages are approximate. Now consider transitioning to 43% wind energy
in 34 years. Unless one is thinking of billions of taxpayer dollars I see
no way for that to occur. Remember the Federal Govt. doesn't make money, it
absorbs money it from taxpayers. My 35 cents worth ( 2 cents dowesn't work
any more - depreciation of the value of the dollar).
James Mackey
Professor of Physics retired
Harding University
Searcy, AR

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:22 PM, David Marx <marx@phy.ilstu.edu> wrote:


There is nothing on the group's site that shows how their numbers are
determined, nor what their plan is for providing energy for transportation.
It seems to rely 100 % on electricity, except where significant geothermal
resources are available. What assumptions are made about utility-scale
storage, etc.

It seems like just an effort in public relations.




Ciao, everybody


Before we commit ourselves to nuclear power or a continued investment in
fossil fuels, let's take a serious look at Mark Jacobson's plans.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/fifty-states-renewables-022414.html
When we burn a hydrocarbon, each Joule of combustion is associated with
enough CO2 to add 10 kJ of radiative heating over CO2's lifetime, and
twice
as much when we burn coal or coal products. To continue to add such a
burden to the atmosphere is insanity.

Ciao,
Jim
--
Jsmes J. Diamond
Professor of Chemistry
Linfield College

P.S. I am not a nuclear skeptic, but my parents lived downwind from
Three
Mile Island and I was about as impressed with that power company's
management as I am with TEPCO.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@www.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@www.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@www.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


--
Richard Tarara
Professor Emeritus
Saint Mary's College

free Physics educational software
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
NEW: Energy management simulators now available.