It’s a MYTH that We Need Fossil Fuel Or Nuclear
The big oil, gas, coal and nuclear companies
claim that we need those energy sources in order to power America.
Good
news: it’s a myth.
Mark
Diesendorf – Associate Professor and Deputy Director, Institute of
Environmental Studies, UNSW at the University of New South Wales
– notes:
The deniers
and scoffers repeatedly utter the simplistic
myth that renewable energy is intermittent and therefore cannot
generate base-load (that is, 24-hour) power.
Detailed
computer simulations, backed up with actual experience with wind
power overseas, show that the scoffers are wrong.
Several countries, including Australia with its huge renewable energy
resources, could make the necessary transition to an electricity
generation system comprising 100
per cent renewable energy over
a few decades.
***
Feasibility
has been established by computer simulations of electricity
generation systems by several research groups around the world,
including my own …
Diesendorf
gave an update earlier
this month:
Ben Elliston, Iain MacGill and I have performed
thousands of computer simulations of 100% renewable electricity in
the National Electricity Market(NEM), using actual hourly data on
electricity demand, wind and solar power for 2010.
Our latest
research, available here and
reported here,
finds that generating systems comprising a mix of different
commercially available renewable energy technologies, located on
geographically dispersed sites, do
not need base load power stations to achieve the same reliability as
fossil-fuelled systems.
The
old myth was based on the incorrect assumption that base load demand
can only be supplied by base load power stations;
for example, coal in Australia and nuclear in France. However, the
mix of renewable energy technologies in our computer model, which has
no base load power stations, easily supplies base load demand.
Similarly, Dr. Mark Jacobson – the head of
Stanford University’s Atmosphere and Energy Program, who has
written numerous books and hundreds of scientific papers on climate
and energy, and testified before Congress numerous times on those
issues – has run a series of computer simulations based on actual
historical energy usage data.
Jacobson
found that the U.S. can meet all
of its energy needs with a mix
of wind, solar and hydropower.
The
difference between a failed alternative energy pipe dream and a
viable alternative energy strategy is in having the right mix …
and that takes sophisticated computer simulations using historical
data. Jacobson’s study started several years ago by matching
California’s historical power demand with available wind, solar and
other renewable energy sources:
Jacobson
has now developed specific plans for each of
the 50 states on how to do it. Click
on a state to
see the specific energy mix which Dr. Jacobson’s team has found
would provide 100% sustainable energy.
Watch this must-see 25-minute talk by Jacobson:
Jacobson
also shows that the wind-water-sun combination would actually reduce
electrical consumption (because it is more efficient than fossil fuels
or nuclear):
And
he shows that the wind-water-solar combination is superior to nuclear,
“clean” coal, natural gas and biofuels. As one example, Jacobson notes
that it takes at least 11 years to permit and build a nuclear plant,
whereas it takes less than half that time to fire up a wind or solar
farm. Between the application for a nuclear plant and flipping the
switch, power is provided by conventional energy sources … currently
55-65% coal. Nuclear also puts out much more pollution (including much
more CO2) than windpower, and 1.5% of all the nuclear plants built have
melted down. More information here, here and here.A banker for one of the world’s biggest banks also notes that switching to alternative energy providescertainty in energy pricing … and is usually a less expensive source of energy when long-term costs are factored in.So why haven’t we switched? As David Letterman noted when
interviewing Jacobson, the main hurdle to switching from fossil fuels
and nuclear is simply that the big fossil fuel and nuclear companies
would lose a lot of money, so they’re fighting tooth and nail to keep
the status quo.Read our recent interview with Dr. Jacobson on a related topic.And note that decentralizing power supplies is arguably key to protecting against terrorism, fascism and destruction of our health, environment and economy.
And
he shows that the wind-water-solar combination is superior to nuclear,
“clean” coal, natural gas and biofuels. As one example, Jacobson notes
that it takes at least 11 years to permit and build a nuclear plant,
whereas it takes less than half that time to fire up a wind or solar
farm. Between the application for a nuclear plant and flipping the
switch, power is provided by conventional energy sources … currently
55-65% coal. Nuclear also puts out much more pollution (including much
more CO2) than windpower, and 1.5% of all the nuclear plants built have
melted down. More information here, here and here.A banker for one of the world’s biggest banks also notes that switching to alternative energy providescertainty in energy pricing … and is usually a less expensive source of energy when long-term costs are factored in.So why haven’t we switched? As David Letterman noted when
interviewing Jacobson, the main hurdle to switching from fossil fuels
and nuclear is simply that the big fossil fuel and nuclear companies
would lose a lot of money, so they’re fighting tooth and nail to keep
the status quo.Read our recent interview with Dr. Jacobson on a related topic.And note that decentralizing power supplies is arguably key to protecting against terrorism, fascism and destruction of our health, environment and economy.
Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/we-could-power-all-50-states-with-wind-solar-and-hydro/#uirMWRFSpfbD1Tgs.99
No comments:
Post a Comment