4 ms·

Princeton did a study, and found to get to net zero by 2050, the US could do it with only renewables (the "E+ RE+" scenario). To accomplish that: > Cumulative

Princeton did a study, and found to get to net zero by 2050, the US could do it with only renewables (the "E+ RE+" scenario). To accomplish that: > Cumulative total wind and solar farm area in E+ RE+ by 2050 is ~1 million km^2, or roughly an area the size of AK, IA, KS, MO, NE, OK, and WV combined (with an additional 64,000 km^2 of offshore wind); directly impacted lands total 70,000 km^2, an area larger than WV. * PDF: https://environmenthalfcentury.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf331/files/2020-12/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf https://environmenthalfcentury.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/t... * https://environmenthalfcentury.princeton.edu https://environmenthalfcentury.princeton.edu Most of it taken up by wind farms (94%) Transmission lines would have to expanded as well: in 2020, there is ~320,000 GW-km of capacity, and so by 2050 ~1,702,000 GW-km (5.3x) would be needed. They estimated it would cost US$ 3,710B (3.7T), though amortized over the next thirty years. E+RE+ assumes that renewables can be constructed/grow at a rate of 10%/year. They have a E+RE- scenario which growth is limited to what was achieved already, and that scenario needs some nuclear to get to net zero. Of course net zero may be "too much", and we can achieve good climate goals with modest releases of carbon/GHGs.

rpiguyshy 6y ago
i dont want to be contrarian, but this is wrong. you get 150-100 w per square meter. what am i missing?
- throw0101a 6y ago
  Talk to the PhDs at Princeton and their collaborators: * https://environmenthalfcentury.princeton.edu/experts https://environmenthalfcentury.princeton.edu/experts I'm just copying and pasting the December 2020 report. Off the top of my head, renewables (in the US) only produce electricity about 30% of the time, so you have to 'over build': * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor They have energy storage experts, so I'm sure batteries and such are taken into account.
  - rpiguyshy 6y ago
    total power requirement of the united states / amount of average power including weather and TOD produced by a square meter of land + amount of land to store necessary batteries = a corner notched out of nevada. not multiple states. i dont think you need a phd to see this, and elon musk also agrees with this and i think he is knowledgeable enough about solar and batteries. plus, there are lots of efficiency gains still in the pipes that will reduce our power consumption. when all houses are properly insulated, heated with a heat pump, have efficient appliances, thermal loops and have solar on their roofs then all of this becomes even more feasible. and thats not even including wind, hydro or thermal.
abernard1 6y ago
I do not know if this is pro or anti-, but I thank you for your statistic. The land required for this is absolutely insane. Insane. I challenge anyone with a straight face to argue that utilizing 6 huge to medium size states out of the 50 is an efficient use of land or physical resources. We can't recycle ordinary trash correctly without throwing it to developing countries, who are rejecting it. We don't recycle wind turbines at all. But we're supposed to be able to routinely recycle six whole states worth of panels and turbines? It's madness.
fulafel 6y ago
This study starts with existing laissez-faire energy demand projections. Hopefully another large part of the emissions reduction will come from people adopting less wasteful living, transport, eating etc behaviours and preferences.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Hopefully another large part of the reduction will come from people adopting less wasteful living, transport, eating etc behaviours and preferences Zero chance. This would require reductions in quality of life. Even minor fuel tax increases have spawned capital-freezing protests from the Arab world to Paris.
  - fulafel 6y ago
    There's a lot of low hanging fruit, eg electricity consumption per household is ~3x in the US vs the EU. I feel it's quite likely that the coming voter and decisionmaker generations have increasingly developed consciences about these things. Regarding fuel tax protests, I think your anecdotes are actually pretty unrepresentative. In the EU the fuel tax increases have been going on for a long time. And there haven't been any Arab world spanning protests recently from my memory.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    Buildings are responsible for 40% of the total amount of energy needed (US, EU). Mandating better air tightness (<1 ACH@50) and raising insulation levels would go a long way to reducing that. Residentially, you can built a 5000 square foot (500 sq. m) home that needs only 1500W (1.5 kW)—basically a hair dyer—to heat/cool: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vul4vMFdkA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vul4vMFdkA Using an HRV/ERV with an air filter per ASHRAE 62.1 and 62.2 gives you very good air quality.
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    In large parts of the US, this isn't necessarily true. Our cities and suburbs are designed around individual auto use. Re-designing these areas to be more pedestrian and mass-transit oriented would likely be a quality-of-life increase for most people.
pfdietz 6y ago
> Most of it taken up by wind farms (94%) Wind farms do not exclude the land involved from also being used for other purposes, like agriculture.

rpiguyshy 6y ago

i dont want to be contrarian, but this is wrong. you get 150-100 w per square meter. what am i missing?

throw0101a 6y ago
Talk to the PhDs at Princeton and their collaborators: * https://environmenthalfcentury.princeton.edu/experts https://environmenthalfcentury.princeton.edu/experts I'm just copying and pasting the December 2020 report. Off the top of my head, renewables (in the US) only produce electricity about 30% of the time, so you have to 'over build': * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor They have energy storage experts, so I'm sure batteries and such are taken into account.
- rpiguyshy 6y ago
  total power requirement of the united states / amount of average power including weather and TOD produced by a square meter of land + amount of land to store necessary batteries = a corner notched out of nevada. not multiple states. i dont think you need a phd to see this, and elon musk also agrees with this and i think he is knowledgeable enough about solar and batteries. plus, there are lots of efficiency gains still in the pipes that will reduce our power consumption. when all houses are properly insulated, heated with a heat pump, have efficient appliances, thermal loops and have solar on their roofs then all of this becomes even more feasible. and thats not even including wind, hydro or thermal.

abernard1 6y ago

I do not know if this is pro or anti-, but I thank you for your statistic. The land required for this is absolutely insane. Insane. I challenge anyone with a straight face to argue that utilizing 6 huge to medium size states out of the 50 is an efficient use of land or physical resources. We can't recycle ordinary trash correctly without throwing it to developing countries, who are rejecting it. We don't recycle wind turbines at all. But we're supposed to be able to routinely recycle six whole states worth of panels and turbines? It's madness.

fulafel 6y ago

This study starts with existing laissez-faire energy demand projections. Hopefully another large part of the emissions reduction will come from people adopting less wasteful living, transport, eating etc behaviours and preferences.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> Hopefully another large part of the reduction will come from people adopting less wasteful living, transport, eating etc behaviours and preferences Zero chance. This would require reductions in quality of life. Even minor fuel tax increases have spawned capital-freezing protests from the Arab world to Paris.
- fulafel 6y ago
  There's a lot of low hanging fruit, eg electricity consumption per household is ~3x in the US vs the EU. I feel it's quite likely that the coming voter and decisionmaker generations have increasingly developed consciences about these things. Regarding fuel tax protests, I think your anecdotes are actually pretty unrepresentative. In the EU the fuel tax increases have been going on for a long time. And there haven't been any Arab world spanning protests recently from my memory.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  Buildings are responsible for 40% of the total amount of energy needed (US, EU). Mandating better air tightness (<1 ACH@50) and raising insulation levels would go a long way to reducing that. Residentially, you can built a 5000 square foot (500 sq. m) home that needs only 1500W (1.5 kW)—basically a hair dyer—to heat/cool: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vul4vMFdkA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vul4vMFdkA Using an HRV/ERV with an air filter per ASHRAE 62.1 and 62.2 gives you very good air quality.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  In large parts of the US, this isn't necessarily true. Our cities and suburbs are designed around individual auto use. Re-designing these areas to be more pedestrian and mass-transit oriented would likely be a quality-of-life increase for most people.

pfdietz 6y ago

> Most of it taken up by wind farms (94%) Wind farms do not exclude the land involved from also being used for other purposes, like agriculture.