Renewables can fill 80 percent electricity demand in U.S. in 2050

Jun 20, 2012 by Nancy Owano report
Transformation of the Electric Sector

(Phys.org) -- In the United States, renewable energy sources could supply 80 percent of electricity demand in 2050 just by using technologies commercially available today. That is the word from a new report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Renewable Electricity Futures Study (RE Futures). The report offers a detailed focus on the extent to which U.S. electricity needs can be supplied by renewable energy sources, including biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, and wind.

The lineup of technologies is discussed from a national perspective. The study’s overall position is that a future U.S. electricity system largely powered by renewable sources is possible and that further work is warranted to investigate “this clean generation pathway.“

Reaching an 80 percent-renewables goal by 2050, says the study, will involve fifty percent of electricity coming from wind and photovoltaics. “The analysis treats a variety of scenarios with prescribed levels of renewable electricity generation in 2050, from 30% to 90%, with a focus on 80% (with nearly 50% from variable wind and solar photovoltaic generation).”

A diverse mix of resources, such as geothermal, solar, wind and wave energy, can support multiple combinations of renewable technologies. The results would be meaningful reductions in electric sector greenhouse gas emissions and water use. The study finds no geographical gaps in achieving the 2050 goal. "All regions of the could contribute substantial renewable electricity supply in 2050, consistent with their local renewable resource base."

Hydropower is the biggest renewable contributor, but hydropower plays less of a role over the next few decades. NREL suggests a growing role for offshore wind. NREL also says dedicated biomass power plants, as opposed to just feeding biomass to coal plants, are needed.

The study is significant as the most comprehensive analysis of high-penetration renewable electricity of the United States to date. IEEE Spectrum comments that the study may also impact debates over renewable and their future. “The fossil fuel supporters who claim coal and natural gas will always be required to provide baseload power are standing on shakier ground all the time.”

The study maintains that reaching the 80 percent goal is not insurmountable, but only if the right changes are made.

"While this analysis suggests such a high renewable generation future is possible, a transformation of the system would need to occur to make this future a reality. This transformation, involving every element of the grid, from system planning through operation, would need to ensure adequate planning and operating reserves, increased flexibility of the electric system, and expanded multi-state transmission infrastructure, and would likely rely on the development and adoption of technology advances, new operating procedures, evolved business models, and new market rules."

Explore further: The state of shale

More information: www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/

Related Stories

Renewable energy costs falling: agency

Jun 06, 2012

Power from renewable energy sources is getting cheaper every year, according to a study released Wednesday, challenging long-standing myths that clean energy technology is too expensive to adopt.

Screening Africa's renewable energies potential

Feb 08, 2012

The European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) has published today a study mapping the potential of renewable energy sources in Africa. The report analyses the current energy consumption in Africa and ...

Giving the electricity network more grunt

Jan 13, 2012

A new Queensland University of Technology (QUT) research project aims to overcome one of Australia's main hurdles to the increased use of wind and solar energy.

Climate change panel: renewable energy to be key

May 05, 2011

(AP) -- The world's top scientific body concluded that renewable energy in the coming decades will be widespread and could one day represent the dominant source for powering factories and lighting homes, ...

Recommended for you

The state of shale

14 hours ago

University of Pittsburgh researchers have shared their findings from three studies related to shale gas in a recent special issue of the journal Energy Technology, edited by Götz Veser, the Nickolas A. DeCecco Professor of Che ...

Website shines light on renewable energy resources

Dec 18, 2014

A team from the University of Arizona and eight southwestern electric utility companies have built a pioneering web portal that provides insight into renewable energy sources and how they contribute to the ...

Better software cuts computer energy use

Dec 18, 2014

An EU research project is developing tools to help software engineers create energy-efficient code, which could reduce electricity consumption at data centres by up to 50% and improve battery life in smart ...

Cook farm waste into energy

Dec 17, 2014

It takes some cooking, but turning farm waste into biofuels is now possible and makes economic sense, according to preliminary research from the University of Guelph.

User comments : 104

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Scottingham
4.3 / 5 (18) Jun 20, 2012
Total BS that nuclear is lumped with fossil fuels.

Also, how many more acres of land would be required to reach 80% with renewables versus nuclear?
xen_uno
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 20, 2012
Ya nature (which sustains life on the planet) loses out regardless as population sprawl and energy sprawl combine to make the world a desert.
Terriva
2.6 / 5 (20) Jun 20, 2012
Renewable will devastate the nature even more, that the fossil fuels.
illicited
3.6 / 5 (20) Jun 20, 2012
two of the biggest things left out... at what cost and at what measure of reliability
Economist
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 20, 2012
Perhaps you should download and read the report, illicited, instead of expecting the rest of us to do your homework.
Sean_W
3.1 / 5 (14) Jun 20, 2012
Perhaps you should download and read the report, illicited, instead of expecting the rest of us to do your homework.


Most people read articles assuming the reporter should do some of the research and ask basic questions. Since we have not enrolled in journalism school why should we be assigned homework.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (14) Jun 20, 2012
Perhaps you should download and read the report, illicited, instead of expecting the rest of us to do your homework.


Most people read articles assuming the reporter should do some of the research and ask basic questions. Since we have not enrolled in journalism school why should we be assigned homework.
Physorg provided you with a nice overview and links to more of the info should you choose to look. Or is clicking on a link too much of an effort for you?
MR166
2.3 / 5 (19) Jun 20, 2012
There is no doubt that this can be accomplished. Renewables will raise the price of electricity until industry moves out of the US and individuals cannot afford the rates anymore. The lessened demand will easily be met by this "Green Solution".
djr
5 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2012
"at what cost and at what measure of reliability" Tough questions - as the numbers are changing so fast. Here is a pretty good look at what is going on in Germany - which may give some insight into the future. http://www.techno...eriment/

The costs are falling fast - my money is on solar at this point. Here is a good article suggesting that integrating solar into the Texas grid would save money. http://cleantechn...y-finds/ You will hear strong arguments on all sides of the debate. Very solid predictions are that within a couple of years - manufacturing costs on solar will be around 30 cents a watt. This will make it the cheapest form of power available (failing some other technological advance) - and it will be game over. Smart grid and storage will take care if intermittancy issues - it is just a matter of time....
Telekinetic
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2012
Renewable will devastate the nature even more, that the fossil fuels.

I'm willing to entertain your ideas about aether foam, but your statement above is shockingly reactionary and surprisingly dumb for someone with your background.
Terriva
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 20, 2012
Renewables will raise the price of electricity until industry moves out of the US
As a general rule, if some solution costs more money, then it usually loads the nature more too. The opposite way is not always true (even cheap solutions may be quite harmful in wider perspectives) - but this rule works quite reliably in the opposite way. If we switch to wind plant energy for example, then the cost of fossil fuel will be just replaced with many distributed expenses, which are neglected during introductory phases: for example, you're required to invest into electricity storage, more robust grid and regulative mechanisms etc. From this reason, even without cold fusion the renewables will always represent only supplementary solution.
at what is going on in Germany
The Germans aren't stupid and they're utilizing the grid of their neighbors (the Poland and Czech Republic in particular) as a load balancer. It just transfers the above expenses into another countries.
Terriva
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2012
For example, Germany with its wind farms is burdening the Czech grid and there is even the danger of blackout. The cost of such blackout would be way larger, than the contribution of wind plant energy during whole year for Czech Republic economy.

On the other hand, we should realize, that the price of fossil fuel supplements can be never lower, than the price of fossil fuels (with exception of nuclear energy). When the fossil fuel will run out, it will definitely hurt the existing economy and it has no meaning to cover it. From this perspective the higher price of renewables would be acceptable - if we wouldn't have the cold fusion device in our basement.
Telekinetic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2012
two of the biggest things left out... at what cost and at what measure of reliability

When Tesla invented the alternating current that is in use today, there was no electrical infrastructure. Our present grid is in shambles, vulnerable to a whole host of disasters. It needs upgrading anyway, and when compared to Tesla's and Edison's day, a major alteration will be cheap in comparison.
Telekinetic
3.3 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2012
"The Germans aren't stupid and they're utilizing the grid of their neighbors (the Poland and Czech Republic in particular) as a load balancer. It just transfers the above expenses into another countries."- Terriva

So what. I'll bet the load balancing neighbors get lots of incentives to accept the excess power, like discounted prices passed on to the consumer. If not, then the utility companies are corrupt. And your cold fusion requires nickel and loads of it, which causes toxic runoffs in the vicinities where it's mined.
Pressure2
2.6 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2012
Coal and oil are the horse and buggies of the 21st century. Renewables will keep making gains just like the auto eventually did away with the horse and buggies. This article is pretty much on target.
sirchick
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2012
Perhaps you should download and read the report, illicited, instead of expecting the rest of us to do your homework.


Most people read articles assuming the reporter should do some of the research and ask basic questions. Since we have not enrolled in journalism school why should we be assigned homework.


You're clearly not a scientist at heart if you want others to do the work for you and have no curiosity to get off your fat ass and research it yourself. Not that you have to get off your ass to research on the net.

Researching is fun in my view I learn more that way it is also the core thing you are taught at higher education, to be in libraries reading books by yourself. Professors who teach you don't just give you the answer.
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (10) Jun 20, 2012
Also, there are some huge benefits to going renewable. First and primary is renewables have no re-occurring fuel costs and there for are much more stable in predicting energy costs. Second; costs are lower so energy provided to the consumer is cheaper. Third, one the plant is built, the overhead consists of just maintenance. In many cases the source of fuel is local, so there is a reduced need for infrastructure to transport fuel. Fourth, the science is well know and engineering problems are workable. Fifth, it helps reduce CO2 emissions and creates a sustainable energy source.

Bottom line is renewable energy is good for the bottom line and can be huge profit makers when compared long term to fossil fuel electricity.


NotParker
2.3 / 5 (18) Jun 20, 2012
It is quite common for all of the UK wind turbines to produce less than .5% of the power needed. To ensure power availability the UK would have to spend another 20 trillion pounds. And even then the wind might not blow.

PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (7) Jun 21, 2012
Two things that seem to be ignored in the AGW and renewables discussions are salaries and jobs. Coal miners, oil well workers, and all others employed in the fossil fuel industries will most likely lose their jobs and, if they can't find another job in a different field, they'll go on the dole or go hungry. Windmills, after they're built, need only maintenance and upkeep, and most wildcatters wouldn't know how to fix a turbine or windmill propeller or blade. What these folks will have to do to make a living after their jobs are gone is anyone's guess. There will still be a demand for oil for plastics, so some will still be employed, but not that many.
Howhot...have you got any ideas?
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 21, 2012
Howhot...have you got any ideas?

Yes I do.

Lets start by making less babies.
88HUX88
5 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2012
that's fewer
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (10) Jun 21, 2012
Since going to a nuclear powered economy would require the construction of close to 200,000 nuclear reactors world wide, I fail to see the source of your concern for renewable energy.

"Also, how many more acres of land would be required to reach 80% with renewables versus nuclear?" - Scottingham
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (10) Jun 21, 2012
Pussycat is concerned that coal miners will lose their jobs.

I sympathize, but wonder why it is interested in maintaining low skilled jobs in the worlds most dangerous industry rather than supporting higher skilled and safer jobs?

I also have to question the sanity of worrying about jobs when the issue is escaping the extinction of humanity that will result should CO2 emissions not be driven down to environmentally sustainable levels.

"Two things that seem to be ignored in the AGW and renewables discussions are salaries and jobs" - PussyCatLies

PussyCatLies should ask her gelatinous Martian Alien friends for their take on the issue.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (12) Jun 21, 2012
And according to the report that is the basis of the article you are responding to, it is quite possible for renewable energy to supply 80% of current requirements by 2050.

"It is quite common for all of the UK wind turbines to produce less than .5% of the power needed." - ParkerTard

Poor ParkerTard. He never seems to have the ability to stay on topic.

His mental disease prevents it.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 21, 2012
Because by not doing so you will continue to argue out of ignorance.

"Since we have not enrolled in journalism school why should we be assigned homework." - SeanW

To the non-ignorant the explanation is self evident.

What is your excuse?
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2012
If you are concerned, then I suggest you start reducing your consumption.

"Renewable will devastate the nature even more, that the fossil fuels." - Terriva

Because the transition to environmentally sustainable energy is unstoppable.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (9) Jun 21, 2012
"The Germans aren't stupid and they're utilizing the grid of their neighbors (the Poland and Czech Republic in particular) as a load balancer. It just transfers the above expenses into another countries."

This is not new. We live in a european grid. EVERYBODY uses everybody else's grid for load balancing. It's all effectively one grid. They get energy from us in the winter and we get energy from them in the summer (and sometimes vice versa)

Two things that seem to be ignored in the AGW and renewables discussions are salaries and jobs.

Keeping unneeded jobs alive is not a valid arguemnt. By your argument we should have never started using computers, robots, farming machines, weaving machines, ...
Every change in technology brings a change in what is needed on the job market. Keeping jobs artificially alive is stupid. And coal miners can do other jobs (e.g. installing solar power panels)
NotParker
3 / 5 (10) Jun 21, 2012
[It's all effectively one grid. They get energy from us in the winter and we get energy from them in the summer (and sometimes vice versa)


Not for long ...

"Czech power utility EZ chief executive Martin Roman told a parliament hearing on Wednesday that the European power sector is coming under huge pressure due to the increasing reliance on renewables energy and the phasing out of nuclear energy in Germany; as a result, he expects power prices to continue to rise.

According to the brokerage Wood & Co., Roman also told MPs he continued to see nuclear as the most environmentally-friendly source of energy, and that Germanys use of neighboring countries grids (such as the Czech Republic and Poland) for the north-south electricity flow was de facto illegal and Germany should pay K 7 billion to make use of the networks."

http://www.ceskap...-illegal
rubberman
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2012
"A diverse mix of renewable energy resources, such as geothermal, solar, wind and wave energy, can support multiple combinations of renewable technologies. The results would be meaningful reductions in electric sector greenhouse gas emissions and water use. The study finds no geographical gaps in achieving the 2050 goal. "All regions of the United States could contribute substantial renewable electricity supply in 2050, consistent with their local renewable resource base."

Diversification = redundancy
By having multiple sources of energy you have back up in case one stops contributing, multiple renewable sources...even better

All regions contributing is good for job creation and allows for more control of product sourcing (in Ontario you are eligable for incentives on a solar install provided you meet domestic content criteria)
Reduced emissions and water use are a must for the US, the southwest and south central have been feeling the water crunch for a few years now.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 21, 2012
as a result, he expects power prices to continue to rise.

Duh. Power prices will rise anyhow. ESPECIALLY if we consider keeping on using fossil fuels and nuclear. (Renewables do, at least, give us a chance to eventually have a level energy cost).

European power sector is coming under huge pressure

The grid will have to be expanded. That is also not news. Expansion has already begun. The tough patr wil be to keep it in step with bringnig more alternative power on line 8and the big power companies are going to try to be as slooooow about it as possible). The building of north/south lines through germany are already a done deal. But until the big energy providers aren't being forced, by law, to build them they are trying everything not to.

As usual they want to have their cake and eat it, too (cas (cow) flow from their old powerplants, subsidies for their new powerplants, and subsidies for the power lines)
NotParker
2.5 / 5 (11) Jun 21, 2012
"A diverse mix of renewable energy resources, such as geothermal, solar, wind and wave energy, can support multiple combinations of renewable technologies. The results would be meaningful reductions in electric sector greenhouse gas emissions and water use. The study finds no geographical gaps in achieving the 2050 goal. "All regions of the United States could contribute substantial renewable electricity supply in 2050, consistent with their local renewable resource base."

Diversification = redundancy
By having multiple sources of energy you have back up in case one stops contributing, multiple renewable sources...even better


Wind stops blowing at night in a drought. System collapses.

During periods of winter in the UK, the wind was calm for days on end.

In the UK, you get about 8% insolation in December compared to July.

So you would need to build 12x the solar for winter that you need in the summer.

But it always gets dark. So no solar at night. Doom.
Going
4.8 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2012
The strategic advantage of not being dependant on a global energy market or foreign imports for energy should also be mentioned. The value of wars not fought is immense.
Going
5 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2012
Grid energy storage is the big missing element of renewable energy sources. This is solvable.
SteveL
4 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2012
Because by not doing so you will continue to argue out of ignorance.

"Since we have not enrolled in journalism school why should we be assigned homework." - SeanW


To the non-ignorant the explanation is self evident.

What is your excuse?

Damn! I actually agree with Vendicar.

If you can't expend at least a little effort to understand, cognitive or otherwise, what possible value can your words have?
NotParker
3 / 5 (8) Jun 21, 2012
Grid energy storage is the big missing element of renewable energy sources. This is solvable.


No.

"lead-acid batteries are the cheapest way to store electricity today. Theyre bulky, sloshy, and very heavy, which makes them unsuitable for electric cars or laptop computers. But theyre very efficient, commonly achieving 85% or better energy efficiency in a charge cycle. "

"Putting the pieces together, our national battery occupies a volume of 4.4 billion cubic meters, equivalent to a cube 1.6 km (one mile) on a side. The size in itself is not a problem: wed naturally break up the battery and distribute it around the country. This battery would demand 5 trillion kg (5 billion tons) of lead.

A USGS report from 2011 reports 80 million tons (Mt) of lead in known reserves worldwide, with 7 Mt in the U.S"

http://physics.uc...battery/
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2012
Keeping unneeded jobs alive is not a valid arguemnt. By your argument we should have never started using computers, robots, farming machines, weaving machines
I dont know. I think it is a shame that they figured out how to mass-produce coo coo clocks.
rubberman
2 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2012

"Wind stops blowing at night in a drought. System collapses.

During periods of winter in the UK, the wind was calm for days on end.

In the UK, you get about 8% insolation in December compared to July.

So you would need to build 12x the solar for winter that you need in the summer.

But it always gets dark. So no solar at night."

Wow...these are rediculously feeble problems to address in comparison to the ones presented by oil and coal.

Given the true nature of the storage issue vs. the scenario you have chosen to go with, yes...it most certainly is solvable. Your stats. are for 1 battery to store the entire US power requirements for a week using a technology that was invented 150 years ago.

Battery tech. is a rapidly advancing industry with Graphene, sodium metal based, AGM (which is a modern, more efficient version of sealed lead) or this:
http://web.mit.ed...606.html

Cheaper isn't better.....
djr
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2012
Grid energy storage is the big missing element of renewable energy sources. This is solvable.

No.

You claim that the energy storage piece is not solvable - and then go into a stupid discussion of lead acid batteries. There are many storage techniques being investigated today. Pumped hydro is doing a lot of storage around the world. Catalytic splitting of water to create hydrogen is interesting. Take a look at this interesting project using liquid air. http://www.electr...e_system

As the cost of solar/wind/geothermal etc. continues to fall - we WILL hit a point where generation and storage are as cheap as current day fossil fuels. Spread disinformation all you wish - you can't stop this train from rollin.....
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2012
It will truly be a crisis if I have to wait a day or two longer to get my new vacuum cleaner that is designed to fail.

"Wind stops blowing at night in a drought. System collapses." - ParkerTrad

ParkerTard seems to be very concerned about a lack of production in a system of production that is 80 to 90 percent wasted effort.

Imagine if there was an unscheduled holiday. the world would come to an end surely.

Leisure is the ultimate Liberty.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2012
Absolutely. Night is when the Vampires and werewolves come out to eat people.

"But it always gets dark. So no solar at night. Doom." - Parkertard

"Oh my.. The sun has gone down. The Sky is falling.. The sky is falling.." - ChickenParkerTard
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2012
Grid energy storage is the big missing element of renewable energy sources. This is solvable.

No.

You claim that the energy storage piece is not solvable - and then go into a stupid discussion of lead acid batteries. There are many storage techniques being investigated today. Pumped hydro is doing a lot of storage around the world.


No it isn't.

And to make matters worse and prove that you are ignorant.

"We would need to pump water in all lakes about 408m high to have 7 day worth of reserves for USA."

Totally impossible.

And the materials for other battery technology are way more rare than lead.
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 21, 2012

Wow...these are rediculously feeble problems to address in comparison to the ones presented by oil and coal.


Oil and coal produce enough electricity at a reasonable price to allow the global economy to function.

80% renewables is insane.
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2012
Absolutely. Night is when the Vampires and werewolves come out to eat people.

"But it always gets dark. So no solar at night. Doom." - Parkertard

"Oh my.. The sun has gone down. The Sky is falling.. The sky is falling.." - ChickenParkerTard


Still off his meds.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2012
You will find that becoming more and more common as you become smarter.

?Damn! I actually agree with Vendicar." - SteveL

It is inevitable.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2012
Get back on your meds. Tard Boy.

"Still off his meds." - ChickenParkerTard

The Doctors want to keep your mental disease under control.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2012
Reality = insanity to the mentally diseased.

"80% renewables is insane." - ChickenParkerTard
NotParker
1 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2012
80% renewables is insane


The good news about renewables: You won't have to worry when the wind stops blowing because you won't be able to afford electricity anyway.

http://wattsupwit...ifornia/

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2012
In the United States, renewable energy sources could supply 80 percent of electricity demand in 2050 just by using technologies commercially available today. That is the word from a new report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Renewable Electricity Futures Study (RE Futures). The report offers a detailed focus on the extent to which U.S. electricity needs can be supplied by renewable energy sources, including biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, and wind.

ParkerTard provides a link to the blog run by a washed up radio weather announcer who whines about his Electricity bill.

ParkerTard is mentally diseased. Get back on your meds Tard Boy.

By the way Tard Boy. When is Whatts going to accept the results "BEST" temperature analysis like he claimed he would - even if the analysis showed him to be a fool and a liar.

Well it showed him to be a fool and a liar. So whatts up with that?

bhiestand
4 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2012
Total BS that nuclear is lumped with fossil fuels.

Also, how many more acres of land would be required to reach 80% with renewables versus nuclear?

1) Nuclear isn't renewable, we just have quite a lot of fuel. Given the fuel requirements, mining, waste concerns, and environmental impacts, nuclear is a lot closer to coal than wind.

2) This often gets glossed over, but the difference in land use is that nuclear land can't be used for anything else afterwards.

You can tear down a solar plant or wind farm and build a farm on the land after. Or you can let cattle graze between the windmills while it's in operation.

If you want to compare land use, you need to do it in megawatts per acre year. And include the land lost in accidents like Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, Santa Susana Field Lab, Fukushima, etc.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2012
You can have a working farm under a wind farm while the wind farm is operating.

"You can tear down a solar plant or wind farm and build a farm on the land after" - bhiestand
djr
3 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2012
"The good news about renewables: You won't have to worry when the wind stops blowing because you won't be able to afford electricity anyway."

This just proves that you can defend what ever position you choose to take by browsing the web. Here is an article that references a study that shows Texans would have saved money in 2011 if they had more solar integrated into their grid. http://domesticfu...y-bills/

If you have a good understanding of the energy environment - you know that the cost of renewables is coming down fast, at grid parity in many markets already, and set to be the dominant power source as we move forward - unless some game changing technology such as cold fusion emerges (I am hopeful). People like Parker can cherry pick - and spam the internet - it does not change facts.....
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2012
"Pumped hydro is doing a lot of storage around the world.
No it isn't."

Shit - could you make it any easier to show how you know nothing - but want to advertise to the world that you think you know something. Here is a list of pumped storage power stations around the world that are over 1 GW in capacity.... http://en.wikiped...stations

Give it up Parker - it is like taking candy from a baby....
UleeUggams
5 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2012
Alas I confess ....most of the time the comments are more interesting than the articles and I skim the articles to get to the comments... but of course I am not a scientist merely "Curious" and not thirsting for knowledge so keep ripping at each other it keeps me entertained ..Thank you
TkClick
1 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2012
Why large birds don't see the wind turbines well. Piantelli's Nichenergy company would be in a position to talk about commercialization in a couple months. Hagelstein's LENR device at MIT achieved energy yield thousand-times higher, than the chemical reactions can achieve.
TkClick
1 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2012
Traditional Italian scientists are jealous and they're calling for complete end of cold fusion research. Some of them (Alberto Carpinteri, who is the President of the National Research with 500+ publications) are even blaming Rossis E-Cat for the recent Italian earthquakes. This is how the contemporary mainstream science is working - a blind, jealous, sectarian community, similar to official astronomers supported with Holy Church of Galileo era. At any case, the cold fusion research didn't got any governmental support from the Italian government. Which is somewhat ironical, because the Italy is 2nd from the European countries, which are most dependent on the import of oil and it suffers with one of largest debit in the Europe (the first one is Greece, which has fallen into financial crisis already).
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2012
The largest turbines would (should) be situated off shore - where the "bird problem" is minimal.

Wind stops blowing at night in a drought. System collapses.

Strawman. Every renewable energy study (including this one) stresses the need for some eneryg storage capacity. The larger your grid the smaller (as a percentage of what is being used) is required. In germany we are currently starting a test where an old coal mine will be used for hydro storage. Norway could just seal off a fjord and create MASSIVE hydrostorage with very little cost.
rubberman
5 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2012
"Pumped hydro is doing a lot of storage around the world.
No it isn't."

Shit - could you make it any easier to show how you know nothing - but want to advertise to the world that you think you know something. Here is a list of pumped storage power stations around the world that are over 1 GW in capacity.... http://en.wikiped...stations

Give it up Parker - it is like taking candy from a baby....


I have always likened it to a game of cyber whack-a-mole. He pops up with his cherry picking lunacy, you bash it with the hammer of knowledge, usually happens about 10 times per string. I think Vendi holds the record for most direct hits....somewhere around 35.
NotParker
1 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2012
"Pumped hydro is doing a lot of storage around the world.
No it isn't."

Shit - could you make it any easier to show how you know nothing - but want to advertise to the world that you think you know something. Here is a list of pumped storage power stations around the world that are over 1 GW in capacity.... http://en.wikiped...stations


Grotesquely expensive

" A pumped storage station costs in excess of US$1000/kW and the overall losses are about 25%. Most pumped storage stations store sufficient water for 6-10 hours of operation."

http://www.wind-w...storage/

The Bath County one was built in 1985 for 1.6 billion and is primarily used to keep coal plants running at peak efficiency.

http://en.wikiped..._Station

All of the US ones were built in the 60s/70s/80s. They would not be allowed by greenies now.
NotParker
1 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2012
"The good news about renewables: You won't have to worry when the wind stops blowing because you won't be able to afford electricity anyway."

This just proves that you can defend what ever position you choose to take by browsing the web. Here is an article that references a study that shows Texans would have saved money in 2011 if they had more solar integrated into their grid. http://domesticfu...y-bills/


" A direct comparison would have to take into consideration that (1) summer benefits are likely to be higher than winter benefits, and (2) short-term benefits related to lower wholesale prices are likely to be higher than long-term benefits"

Translation: In an unusual summer you might have saved some money, but in the long term there are better options.
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2012
Translation: In an unusual summer you might have saved some money, but in the long term there are better options.

Translation - I don't like the facts in this article - so I will say something really stupid to pretend that the facts are not the facts. The facts are that the cost on solar is falling fast - we are at grid parity in many markets already - projections are that within 5 or 6 years solar will be the hands down cheapest form of energy - smart grid and storage will take care of the intermittency issue.
djr
3 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2012
Grotesquely expensive .

You lie - stating that pumped hydro is not doing a lot of storage around the world - when your lie is pointed out - you just move the bar - now it is the cost you have issue with. You don't get it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2012
Lets start by making less babies.
that's fewer
2.1 babies per family is optimal.
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2012
Grotesquely expensive .

You lie - stating that pumped hydro is not doing a lot of storage around the world - when your lie is pointed out - you just move the bar - now it is the cost you have issue with. You don't get it.


I pointed out how expensive it is. If it was a reasonable cost they would be building them in the USA.

Lets see how recently they were built:

1969 - 73
Early 70s to 1984
1966
1985
25 years old
1991
1973
1970-78
1977 to 1995 (ouch)
1964 to 1972 ( Old!)
1968

Yup. This is an old uneconomical technology nobody builds anymore in the USA.
Pressure2
3 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2012
NotParker: Most new product are very expensive when they are first put on the market. And many of these new companies will fail. There use to be 40 or 50 auto companies in the US alone, many failed. I would think you still use a horse and buggy but you seem to be a "paid" spokesman for the oil and coal industry so that is probably out of the question.

Clean coal, now that is an oxymoron, the only truth in that is the later half of the word.
djr
3 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2012
"I pointed out how expensive it is" and as usual - you continue to evade the point at hand. I stated that there is a lot of pumped storage in the world. You disputed that (which is a lie). I demonstrated that there is a lot of pumped storage in the world - you ignored the point - moved the bar - and started talking about cost. This is your pattern. It seems your goal is just to cause controversy. Never acknowledging your lies - just move on to the next post.....
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2012
provides a link to the blog run by a washed up radio weather announcer who whines about his Electricity bill.

I've investigated some of the Mr. Noparks (he hates parks btw) site just to see if there was any "meat" to all of the skepticism. For 90% of it, all I find are screwed up facts that leave stuff out or cherry picking, or a push of some political agenda (always against a liberal point of view). The other 10% are these fascinating forums of like minded boners that all claiming hot is cold, or Al Gore created it. They show you just enough that it kind-of sounds truthful, but it's all blowing smoke in your eyes. Pure crap is the bottome line.

For some good info look at;

http://www.metoff...e-events

Anyway, ignoring the DENIERS (buffoons who can't resist articles like this one to push their junk science); Wind last forever and doesn't pollute. Solar last for ever and doesn't pollute.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2012
"I pointed out how expensive it is" and as usual - you continue to evade the point at hand. I stated that there is a lot of pumped storage in the world. You disputed that (which is a lie). I demonstrated that there is a lot of pumped storage in the world


Quantify a lot. What percentage of the US electricity supply can be generated by pumped storage and for how long?

How much did that miniscule amount of storage cost?

How much would it cost to scale up for 80% renewables.

Why hasn't anyone built one for decades in the USA?

Simple questions for simpletons like you.

djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2012
Quantify a lot. I gave you a link to about 65 plants that are all over 1 GW, some of them as high as 3 GW. That link also referenced a list of other plants that are of the sub GW size. That qualifies as a lot of power - enough to prove that the concept is viable. Why would you call me a simpleton - when I have clearly shown that you do not know what you are talking about - and continually embarrass yourself by posting nonsense that is ideological - and often easily refuted?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2012
ParkerTard or sunshinehours1 as he calls himself elsewhere, is a paid Oil and Coal industry Shill.
Howhot
5 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2012
Why hasn't anyone built one for decades in the USA?


Because morons like you say we can't!
runrig
5 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2012

I've investigated some of the Mr. Noparks (he hates parks btw) site just to see if there was any "meat" to all of the skepticism. For 90% of it, all I find are screwed up facts that leave stuff out or cherry picking, or a push of some political agenda (always against a liberal point of view). The other 10% are these fascinating forums of like minded boners that all claiming hot is cold, or Al Gore created it. ...


His most famous stance is that GW is not happening.
Here a quote from a UK climate skeptics org.....

"David Whitehouse, science adviser to The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a London-based think tank that has former British finance minister Nigel Lawson for chairman. "Everybody agrees that the temperature has warmed. The people who disagree about temperatures are the BARKING MAD end of the spectrum."

Taken from .... http://www.newsci...med.html
Roderick
4.3 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2012
Vendicar,

Neither solar nor wind power are reliable. I have looked at the UK wind production data. Not a good match for UK energy needs.

If you do an impartial review of reliable energy source that emit little or no CO2, you have only two candidates: nuclear power and hydro. In fact, countries relying on these technologies beat the pants off countries like Germany and Denmark that have invested heavily in wind and solar power. Both Germany and Denmark emit 10 tons of CO2 per person per year. France, Switzerland, and Sweden produce 6 tons or less per capita per year. France is 80% nuclear and 10% hydro. Both Sweden and Sweden are 50/50 (roughly).

You can whine all you want about nuclear waste, but you can't find a better solution.

And no country has had much success going beyond 30% renewables because renewables are only useful for peak demand..
Roderick
5 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2012
Dir,

We can't push a button and make it is windy or sunny when we need the power. It is that simple.

As for costs coming down, no one has been able to integrate solar and wind power into the grid without subsidies. Those subsides take the form of above market power tariffs and/or tax benefits.

In fact, the subsidies are huge. The European tariffs are 200% to 400% higher than nonrenewables.

Certainly some subsidy can be justified on the basis of the CO2 emissions savings, but it is highly unlikely you can justify tariffs of those magnitudes.

And since Europe has cut these special tariffs, growth in renewables has become to falter.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2012
I have actually read the report. There is no mention of costs. They show that 80% is *technically* realistic, but with significant grid upgrades and big expansion in grid storage. How much will the 80% renewable electricity cost if you factor in these investments?

All those while you still need those pesky 20% from non-carbon baseload, so even by this report, completely phasing out nuclear energy is stupid, because then the 20% baseload alternative would have to be coal or natural gas.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2012
But what happens when the rain stops, the rivers stop flowing and the Uranium stops radioacting?

"If you do an impartial review of reliable energy source that emit little or no CO2, you have only two candidates: nuclear power and hydro." - Roderick

Does it make you want to cry?

Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2012
Can you tell us where a solution to nuclear waste has been demonstrated?

Nope!

"You can whine all you want about nuclear waste, but you can't find a better solution." - roderick

Can you tell us how you plan to guarantee that in a world populated by 200,000 nuclear reactors none of them are going to explode?

Perhaps you can tell us how you intend to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation in a world populated with 200,000 reactors?
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2012
Not at all relevant since the alternative is mass extinction.

"How much will the 80% renewable electricity cost if you factor in these investments?" - ShotManTard

How much would you pay to prevent the murder of you, your wife, your children and all of their decedents?
NotParker
1 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2012

His most famous stance is that GW is not happening.


"About 1/3 of temperature sites around the world reported global cooling over the past 70 years (including much of the United States and northern Europe)."

http://en.wikiped...perature

It does depend where you are.
NotParker
2 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2012
Why hasn't anyone built one for decades in the USA?


Because morons like you say we can't!


Greenies are against dams.

Pumped Storage = Dams.

Greenies hate Pumped Storage.

I'm not a Greenie.

Greenies are idiots.
NotParker
2 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2012
Quantify a lot. I gave you a link to about 65 plants that are all over 1 GW, some of them as high as 3 GW. That link also referenced a list of other plants that are of the sub GW size. That qualifies as a lot of power - enough to prove that the concept is viable. Why would you call me a simpleton - when I have clearly shown that you do not know what you are talking about - and continually embarrass yourself by posting nonsense that is ideological - and often easily refuted?


I didn't think you would answer.

They haven't built any in the USA for decades for reasons. Partially because Greenie Idiots hate dams.
hb_
3 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2012
Solar is not only depending on the weather, it is also highly seasonal. Wind power is intermittent. Wave power should be just as intermittent as wind power (after all, it is the wind that generates the waves) and biofuel power really expensive. Bio fuels, on top of being expensive, also has a questionable energy balance when using grown crops.

So, how have the authors come calculated how well the different energy sources cover for each other? Do they have wind data? How much of the energy do they take from bio fuels? What is the cost?

A good reporter would have tried to find an answer to these questions in the report. And, if he doesn't find answers to these questions, he should point this out: "..however, details of intermittance and cost remain unclear in the authors report...". See,not really difficult..
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2012
@Dweeb
A good reporter would have tried to find an answer to these questions in the report. And, if he doesn't find answers to these questions, he should point this out: "..however, details of intermittance and cost remain unclear in the authors report...". See,not really difficult..
Physorg provided you with a nice synopsis with a link at the end should you want to know more. Or is clicking on a link too much trouble for you? Who feeds you your dinner, your mum?
hb_
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2012
@Otto

No, physorg did not provide us with a nice synopsis. A nice synopsis must contain information if the report passed the simplest "garbage test" for reports on "green" energy sources: does it calculate the cost and the intermittency in a credible way?

Any report on "green" energy sources that fails to evaluate these two aspects, only exists to sell a political agenda.
hb_
not rated yet Jun 24, 2012
@Otto

I had a look at the report. About wind power, it referres to another study:

http://www.nrel.g...port.pdf

As far as I can tell, they do not provide data on the combined wind production of the east coast. They seem to have average the wind speed in one month time slots for the whole east coast (worthless information) and provide data on the short time variability for single sites.

Note, they still find vind speed variation that corresponds to power generation fluctuations 50 %..

Garbage in, garbage out..
Terriva
1 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2012
Renewable Energy Industry Fights to Survive Its Failure could Jeopardize LENR
From my perspective the "green fuels" lobby is as harmful, as the "fossil fuel" lobby, if not more. It just replaced the consumption of oil with elevated consumption of raw sources and exploitation of Nature.

"If Rossi and the people behind Defkalion were scam artists theyd be in Washington peddling solar panels to the Obama Administration. Thats where the real money is."
runrig
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2012

His most famous stance is that GW is not happening.


"About 1/3 of temperature sites around the world reported global cooling over the past 70 years (including much of the United States and northern Europe)."

http://en.wikiped...perature

It does depend where you are.



Look, for the nth time - the clue is in the word GLOBAL - as in the whole world's temperature data added up and divided by the number of stations. Theory suggests that there will be some regional cooling.

"Everybody agrees that the temperature has warmed. The people who disagree about temperatures are the BARKING MAD end of the spectrum."
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 24, 2012
ParkerTard dishonestly leaves out a sentence from the paragraph he quotes.

Here it is...

"But 2/3 of the sites show warming. Individual temperature histories reported from a single location are frequently noisy and/or unreliable, and it is always necessary to compare and combine many records to understand the true pattern of global warming."

ParkerTard dishonestly omits that sentence because it exposes his methods of dishonestly cherry picking data sets that show cooling rather than warming.

Lying and dishonest Misrepresentation is ParkerTard's stock and trade. And it is why he posts under so many false names. ParkerTard, UbVontard, Sunshinehours1, etc. Dishonesty is how he makes a significant part of his living.

He is mentally diseased.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2012
Another ParkerTard lie.

"Greenies are against dams." - ParkerTard

Another ParkerTard Lie

Greens are oppose to "Pumped Storage = Dams."

Another ParkerTard Lie

"Greenies hate Pumped Storage."

Greens may be opposed to individual damns, or artificial lakes, but they are not opposed to them as a concept.

ParkerTard is mentally diseased.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 24, 2012
The primary reason is that there are very few place for them.

"They haven't built any in the USA for decades for reasons. " - Parkertard

ParkerTard is mentally diseased.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2012
Yes, that would be ParkerTard, or UbVonTard, or sunshinehours1, whatever he is calling himself today.

He is mentally diseased, a liar to the core, and of course it is no coincidence that he is also a NeoConservative.

"Everybody agrees that the temperature has warmed. The people who disagree about temperatures are the BARKING MAD end of the spectrum." - runrig

I have never encountered a conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

ParkerTard provides a fine example.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2012
Awwwww... Then I guess you are just going to have to consume less.

Rather than whining, why don't you rub two brain cells together and figure out how?

Too difficult for you? Then die in ignorant agony. The world has no use for you.

"Solar is not only depending on the weather, it is also highly seasonal. Wind power is intermittent." - hb
NotParker
1 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2012

Look, for the nth time - the clue is in the word GLOBAL


But it isn't global.

Large stretches of the USA and Europe are cooling. Some have been cooling since the 1800s.

SteveL
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2012
I have never encountered a conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
I suppose this may be true if you actually meet few people IRL. Although I vote independently I consider myself a conservative and I have never lied to you, much less congenitally or perpetually. I was introduced to Physorg by my Ex. My eldest son reads my posts as do some of my co-workers. Search any of my posts anywhere. See if you have any evidence of any lie from me. You won't find any.

Canada is quite a ways from South Carolina, so there isn't much chance we could meet for dinner and have a chat. I think it's important for people to have differences and to be able to talk about their differences.

Awwwww... Then I guess you are just going to have to consume less.
And as I've said before; a good place to start is to stop supplementing reproduction via the tax code.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2012
Hmmm.. What have you identified? 4 states out of 50 that have a cooling trend in a country that represents less than 2 percent of the global surface area.

"Large stretches of the USA and Europe are cooling." - ParkerTard

The only large stretch here is your latest LIE.

Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2012
The day is young.

"Although I vote independently I consider myself a conservative and I have never lied to you" - SteveL

Why do you belong to a political party that is bent on the destruction of your own nation through incompetence and treason?
gblaze41
3 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2012
Pressure2 said, "Coal and oil are the horse and buggies of the 21st century. Renewables will keep making gains just like the auto eventually did away with the horse and buggies. This article is pretty much on target. "

Can you prove this unsupported claim?
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jun 25, 2012
Gblaze created an account just a few minutes ago just to make his unsupported assertion about a well founded claim.

In fact it is self evident that coal and oil are on their way out. THe evidence is all around you.

xen_uno
5 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2012
Dam ven .. u need to get out of your parent's basement more often, its not healthy being down there all the time and it's distorting your sense of reality. Quit pretending like you move in political circles and are able to fairly judge all conservatives. If you met Al Sharpton would you think all liberals are racists? Would you trust Bill Clinton alone with your daughter?
SteveL
5 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2012
The day is young.

"Although I vote independently I consider myself a conservative and I have never lied to you" - SteveL

Why do you belong to a political party that is bent on the destruction of your own nation through incompetence and treason?
Every political party I know of in the USA is full of traitors and incompetence, including my current President who by-passes the consitution at a whim. As far as I'm concerned in his own way he's no better than George W who came before him. Politics is full of self-serving idiots and morons. By the way, it's been a long time since Republicans as a party have been conservative - since before the era of that psychotic Mcarthy.

In the polling booth since I can't count on any of them from any party to work together or do anything right my main issue is: who will do the least damage to my country? This is why I vote independently.
NotParker
1 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2012
Hmmm.. What have you identified? 4 states out of 50 that have a cooling trend


21.
rubberman
not rated yet Jun 25, 2012
Hmmm.. What have you identified? 4 states out of 50 that have a cooling trend


21.


So....less than half then, well done....again.
NotParker
1 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2012
Hmmm.. What have you identified? 4 states out of 50 that have a cooling trend


21.


So....less than half then, well done....again.


21 from 1921.

35 from 2006.

42 from 1998.

http://sunshineho...-part-2/

However that data is only up to March as I did the post in April.
rubberman
not rated yet Jun 26, 2012
Hmmm.. What have you identified? 4 states out of 50 that have a cooling trend


21.


So....less than half then, well done....again.


21 from 1921.

35 from 2006.

42 from 1998.

http://sunshineho...-part-2/

However that data is only up to March as I did the post in April.


I will choose 1875 as my starting year.....Oh look, 100% of the globe has warmed up to yesterday....
NotParker
1 / 5 (1) Jun 26, 2012
Hmmm.. What have you identified? 4 states out of 50 that have a cooling trend


21.


So....less than half then, well done....again.


21 from 1921.

35 from 2006.

42 from 1998.

http://sunshineho...-part-2/

However that data is only up to March as I did the post in April.


I will choose 1875 as my starting year.....Oh look, 100% of the globe has warmed up to yesterday....


1878 was pretty warm. only .3C colder than 2011. It cooled from 1878 to 1909 or so, warmed for 30 years, cooled for another 30 years etc etc/

But seriously, cycles change. Warming turns to cooling (except in the AGW cult).

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.