In 2015, Mark Z. Jacobson released a report claiming via modeling that 100% of the energy – not just the electricity – needed by the U.S. could be reliably provided at a reasonably low cost by a mixture of wind, water and solar energy. Jacobson’s paper, Low-Cost Solution to the Grid Reliability Problem with 100% Penetration of Intermittent Wind, Water, and Solar for All Purposes, was recently challenged when the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a paper titled Evaluation of A Proposal for Reliable Low-Cost Grid Power with 100% Wind, Water, and Solar. The new paper, developed by Christopher Clack and a team of 20 co-authors, discovered “errors, inappropriate methods, and implausible assumptions” in the modeling and findings of the Jacobson paper, contradicting the conclusions of the “100% renewables” paper.
One example of the implausible assumptions from Jacobson’s model is the claim that their hypothetical system does not require any new reservoir or dam construction for hydropower. Clack and his co-authors found that there are times in which Jacobson’s modeled system shows a total hydroelectric contribution of 1,300 GW. According to the Energy Information Administration, the total hydroelectric capacity in the U.S. is 80 GW.
Jacobson’s proposal also opposes any contributions by nuclear energy, even that which is already being cleanly produced by existing facilities. Nuclear energy remains the only emission free power source that has proven it can power a country and other energy-intensive, off-grid loads. Clack confirmed that it would not be “theoretically possible” to build a reliable energy system without nuclear energy.
Though Jacobson’s work has received numerous challenges, he has defended his findings, pointing to the fact that his work was published in a “peer-reviewed journal” while that of many challengers has not always been subjected to that process. Without a formal, peer-reviewed challenge from a source with equivalent credentials, Jacobson’s work has been allowed to stand as a reasonably valid alternative approach to addressing future energy supply needs. That is why it is newsworthy to note that there is now a difficult-to-dismiss evaluation of Jacobson’s work showing that his “100% renewables” solution isn’t credible. It cannot be claimed as an achievable goal, no matter how much “will” there is to accomplish it.
The debate for or against 100% renewables needs to end. Regardless of whether it is possible to power the US (or another country) with 100% renewable power, which it will… Read more »
@Greg Gershuny Sounds like you come down firmly on the side of not eliminating options. That is the point of those who have taken the time to dig into Jacobson’s… Read more »
All these papers proposing “solutions” are fantasy land exercises. In the real world, we do not have a “renewable energy czar” who can order corporations, states and consumers to match… Read more »
@Steve Isser My question is similar to yours, if renewable energy sources are so capable, why do their advocates spend so much time emphasizing the importance of energy efficiency and conservation?… Read more »
Don’t confuse efficiency with conservation. Efficiency simply means generating the same outputs with less inputs, LEDs are a good example, not only do they produce light with less energy per… Read more »
Renewable energy and technology are constantly changing. The application of renewables needs to be integrated with current utility infrastructure. We are slowly ramping up this integration and one day will… Read more »
Mike: How do you define “renewables?” Why is your goal “100% renewables” instead of 100% clean energy that is abundant, reliable and affordable? Sure, technology changes and improves. The rate… Read more »
Well, the most useful comment was that the current battle in the science journals is “solving for the wrong problem.” And for policy makers, on an almost pointless time scale.… Read more »
Economies are much more like swimming or track meets than football or soccer games. There are far more than two sides, there are a variety of different events in progress… Read more »
That should have been “scale of of renewables” not “scale up of nuclear.” Now sure how to edit it even as the author.
Carl: In partial answer to your question, I see a “click to edit” link right next to a “delete” link at the bottom of each post that I have submitted.… Read more »
I agree with Greg Gershuny. Our most important goal is to limit the releases of GHG, preferably at a cost most people can afford. I would add a few more… Read more »
I agree that the real question is how do we eliminate fossil fuel emissions ASAP, not how do we move to 100% renewables. But showing that we can move to… Read more »
Dan: I’m a strong supporter of the Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) and its carbon fee and dividend approach. It is essentially the same concept as one that Dr. Jame Hansen… Read more »
Rod: Fee and Dividend is not only supported by CCL and Jim Hansen, but recently Republican statesmen like Howard Baker and companies like Exxon(!) have also gotten on board (though… Read more »
Dan: Thank you for the additional information about support for carbon fee and dividend. Perhaps using fossil fuels has been a bit like spending money on a credit card, but… Read more »
Rod: Perhaps a credit card is not the right analogy. The use of fossil fuels may well lead to the collapse of civilization in the coming century, so while fossil… Read more »
Dan – (This is actually to you, but it looks like there is a limit on the depth of replies tracked by OurEnergyPolicy.org system.) You and I have a fundamental… Read more »
Rod: We certainly may have a different opinion on human’s place in the world, but that is not relevant to our discussion. You proffered a counterfactual world. There is no… Read more »
Just a comment on your statement that “A world without fossil fuels certainly had fewer people, but it also had far more famine related starvation…” According to the UN, there… Read more »
@Dan Miller You are correct; on the basis of the total number of people suffering from hunger to the point of dying from it, there are more in the modern… Read more »
Rod: We can’t change the past but we can impact the future. Since we agree that famine and injustice are bad things that should be avoided, then it is clear… Read more »
On a quite related topic, James Hansen, et al, has published a paper titled Young people’s burden: requirement of negative CO2 emissions Summary: http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2017/20170718_BurdenCommunication.pdf Paper: https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/577/2017/esd-8-577-2017.pdf The bottom line is… Read more »
Research on energy policy is plagued by deficiencies in the design and management of the studies leading to creation at great expense of models that leave a regulatory agency without the information that is required for… Read more »
Getting back to the topic of the original post, I’d just like to mention that an excellent paper that examined a host of 100% renewables scenarios is available here. A… Read more »
There will be very little social justice in a +4ºC world. There is no reason that developing countries could not progress using distributed renewables just like they progressed with cell… Read more »
Tom Blees’s comment is excellent. A few insights about energy storage. I agree that there are very few opportunities to use pumped storage. Compressed air, if it is limited to using… Read more »
@Hershel Specter I’m a former cost accountant. I become highly skeptical when anyone begins discussing costs of systems that do not exist on anything like the scale under discussion. I’m… Read more »
Rod Adams asks how should lawmakers consider the results of each of the studies when setting future energy policy and determining what approach to take to renewable energy polices. The… Read more »