GCC: How much would 100% renewable energy really cost?

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1123865_how-much-would-100-percent-renewable-energy-really-cost

Democratic presidential candidates talked hardly at all in the debates late last month about the Green New Deal, a proposal in Congress, to, among other things convert America's electric power completely to renewable sources. Americans have shown broad support for such a transition.

What's been left unaddressed—and which many candidates weren't prepared to discuss—is the cost.

Estimates vary by trillions of dollars, but now a respected consulting firm—one that has consulted with the oil industry for decades, yet predicts a rapid rise for electric cars—has compiled an estimate of the cost of converting to 100 percent renewable power in the U.S.: $4.5 trillion, or about a quarter of U.S. GDP for 2018.

“The mass deployment of wind and solar generation will require substantial investments in utility-scale storage to ensure grid resilience is maintained," said Dan Shreve, Wood Mackenzie's head of global wind energy research said in a statement.

The firm reports that transitioning the U.S. to 100 percent renewable electricity would require building 1,600 gigawatts of new wind and solar capacity to replace the fossil fuel generation in the U.S., along with 900 gigawatts of energy storage, which could include some combination of batteries, pumped hydro, and other types of storage to buffer the intermittent power from wind and solar. . . .

Wood Mackenzie doesn't make light of the transition, saying it will pose massive social and economic challenges, even if the money is spent over the next decade or two. The firm reports that the U.S. currently has about 130 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity, and says that to transition to 100 percent renewable energy would require as much new capacity every year for the next 11 years as has been installed in the past 20 years. . . .

It has a few suggestions that could make the transition easier. The first is to stretch the timeline to 2040 or 2050, when solar and storage technology have matured and become more affordable. California has passed a law requiring the state to transition to 100 percent electric power by 2045.

The other is to keep a certain amount of natural-gas power generation, which is relatively clean and affordable. Keeping 20 percent if existing natural gas power would reduce the cost of new renewable energy installations by 20 percent, but more importantly would reduce the need for new storage by 60 percent, because those plants could be used as peaker and base load plants to provide energy when renewables aren't.

Beyond that, a transition to 100 percent renewable power would require new financial systems to trade energy. "The challenges of achieving 100 percent renewable energy go far beyond the capital costs of new generating assets," says Dan Shreve, Wood Mackenzie's head of global wind energy research said in a statement. "Most notably, it will need a substantial redesign of electricity markets, migrating away from traditional energy-only constructs and more towards a capacity market. . . ."
 
GRA said:
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1123865_how-much-would-100-percent-renewable-energy-really-cost

the U.S. currently has about 130 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity[/b], and says that to transition to 100 percent renewable energy would require as much new capacity every year for the next 11 years as has been installed in the past 20 years. . . .
. . ."
That proves it can not happen in 12 years or whatever the doomsday cult is saying it needs to happen by.

They say "900 gigawatts of batrery". Is that 900 for a day, just 900gw for an hour, Gw minutes, seconds? Its only half the equation.
That's like saying "I need a 10kw battery" to go off grid. What I actually need is a 50 to 100 kwh battery that can hold a 10kw load.

Plus they said "power" not energy.
I think only around 1/3 of the United States energy is consumed as electricity.
Still going to have all those diesel tractor trailers running around delivering things, natural gas furnaces and water heaters in homes, propane grills, gasoline powered SUVs all over the place. Then to build all those renewables the coal fired steel blast furnaces, natural gas fired cement plants, diesel powered mining machines will be running over time. You know for mining the metals for building all those wind turbines, solar panels and batteries.

I say going away from coal fired power and natural gas fired power to cover the base load is good. Then we can have cheap coal smelted steel, cheap natural gas fired cement and natural gas fired power plants for emergencies or to protect the power grid against unusual events pretty much forever.
 
Code:
That proves it can not happen in 12 years or whatever the doomsday cult is saying it needs to happen by.

That may well be true, in which case runaway global warming is probably inevitable.

Now explain your apparent glee at that prospect to your children and grandchildren.
 
I like climate change. The old ranchers here called this area "la duna". Well it's green a good portion of the year now.
Like politics, all climate change is local.

Even if the United states miracled to 100% clean energy in 12 years; china will still be belching out CO2 like there is no tomorrow and the world still ends up in the same place. It just delays the inevitable by a few years.
Better work on climate modification.
Climate modification renders the effects of man made climate change null.

Also the spammer is back.
 
Oilpan4 said:
I like climate change.
A small enough climate change is as likely to be good locally as bad locally. And none of the effects are likely to be very bad.

As the change gets larger, the odds get worse.

With enough change, see the PT. The great forests die and are replaced with moss. The cockroaches will survive, but humans?

Oilpan4 said:
Like politics, all climate change is local.
Climate change is global. The solutions to climate change need to be global as well.


Oilpan4 said:
Even if the United states miracled to 100% clean energy in 12 years; china will still be belching out CO2 like there is no tomorrow and the world still ends up in the same place. It just delays the inevitable by a few years.
Yes, nice to see you agree that climate change is a global issue, not a local issue.

China is not the big problem. Russia is. Russia will gain from moderate climate change, and Russia is very good at pumping out propaganda. Which you recite. Are you Russian?

Oilpan4 said:
Better work on climate modification.
Climate modification renders the effects of man made climate change null.
HO HO, what a can of worms. That's what we are doing with CO2 is modifying the climate.
 
Oilpan4 said:
That proves it can not happen in 12 years or whatever the doomsday cult is saying it needs to happen by.
How would you compare the ability of the USA to install clean energy compared to say ... India ? If it helps your guess any, the average per capita gross domestic product in India is ~ $2,000 a year.

The 'doomsday cult' you mention are just about every climate scientist on the planet.
 
Well all we know fore sure is there is no way the US is going to transition to clean electric in less than 20 years.
A **** hole state like NM may be able to since we have vast uninhabited tracks of cheap land, are about the 6th lowest population density out of 50 states and DC, have almost unlimited wind and sun. The main problem is NM has the 5th lowest average income of 50 states, DC and the territories.

A DoE report I saw puts the number of all plug in type vehicles on the road at about 3% by 2030. It's happening, just gradually. No sign of a rapid transition here.
 
Oilpan4 said:
Well all we know fore sure is there is no way the US is going to transition to clean electric in less than 20 years.
A **** hole state like NM may be able to since we have vast uninhabited tracks of cheap land, are about the 6th lowest population density out of 50 states and DC, have almost unlimited wind and sun. The main problem is NM has the 5th lowest average income of 50 states, DC and the territories.

A DoE report I saw puts the number of all plug in type vehicles on the road at about 3% by 2030. It's happening, just gradually. No sign of a rapid transition here.
Ah yes, don't trust the government unless you agree with the government. So how good has solar power projections been?

mit.png
 
Back
Top