4 ms·

Unfortunately Jacobson's numbers are not nearly as solid as he claims. I learned this digging through years ago. He depends very heavily on implied cost savings

Unfortunately Jacobson's numbers are not nearly as solid as he claims. I learned this digging through years ago. He depends very heavily on implied cost savings of reduced fossil fuel that are based on thin if not nonexistent modeling, just assumptions, for his breakeven calculation. It doesn't take much digging to find similar week foundations across his work in general. I was disappointed when I learned this and confirmed it with a couple people who follow this stuff a lot more closely, one of them professionally as an environmental economist.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Jacobson gets nitpicked a lot, but his general models seem to have been vindicated as time has gone on. What exactly do you think he's getting wrong? And is it at a scale that matters even if you are correct?
- guerby 4y ago
  I for one also would like to see a real critique and not some vague comments again and again on "not being serious" without the slighest data. Each time I looked it turned out legit. Last check I did on two 100% RE studies with feedback from one author: https://twitter.com/lguerby/status/1562911969757106176 https://twitter.com/lguerby/status/1562911969757106176 comparing https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g... (2022) and http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/145Country/21-WWS-Australia.pdf http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/145Co... (table 4 for 2050) : wind 41GW vs 100, solar 58 vs 360. would be interesting to have both authors insights Indeed in your work total produced is 267 TWh/y uncurtailed, in @mzjacobson study table 9 is 3243 over 3 year so 1080 TWh/y. About a factor of four more. In nameplate factor of 6.2 for solar and 2.4 for wind so somewhat coherent Also a must read IMHO recent survey paper on the 100% RE field: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 On the History and Future of 100% Renewable Energy Systems Research
audunw 4y ago
You should be aware that there a lot of critism out there that is completely wrong, like ones based on misreading/misinterpreting statements from his studies. You should make sure to read response to criticism if you can find it. I haven't heard this specific criticism before though, so can't comment on that specifically. But you should also consider that his studies are ridiculously conservative, so there's a lot of room for error that technological improvements can compensate for. With the first versions of his studies I thought it odd that he didn't include much offshore wind. It was becoming clear that offshore wind was becoming very viable. But he used the current costs when writing the study, not projected future costs. Now I think his studies include off shore wind because the cost has come down far enough that it makes sense to include them in calculations. I think it's reasonable to assume that the costs of renewables will continue to come down, that solar efficiency will go up, and that we will have at least one or two breakthrough battery chemistry, and possibly a breakthrough in geothermal too, by 2040-2050.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Jacobson gets nitpicked a lot, but his general models seem to have been vindicated as time has gone on. What exactly do you think he's getting wrong? And is it at a scale that matters even if you are correct?

guerby 4y ago
I for one also would like to see a real critique and not some vague comments again and again on "not being serious" without the slighest data. Each time I looked it turned out legit. Last check I did on two 100% RE studies with feedback from one author: https://twitter.com/lguerby/status/1562911969757106176 https://twitter.com/lguerby/status/1562911969757106176 comparing https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g... (2022) and http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/145Country/21-WWS-Australia.pdf http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/145Co... (table 4 for 2050) : wind 41GW vs 100, solar 58 vs 360. would be interesting to have both authors insights Indeed in your work total produced is 267 TWh/y uncurtailed, in @mzjacobson study table 9 is 3243 over 3 year so 1080 TWh/y. About a factor of four more. In nameplate factor of 6.2 for solar and 2.4 for wind so somewhat coherent Also a must read IMHO recent survey paper on the 100% RE field: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 On the History and Future of 100% Renewable Energy Systems Research

audunw 4y ago

You should be aware that there a lot of critism out there that is completely wrong, like ones based on misreading/misinterpreting statements from his studies. You should make sure to read response to criticism if you can find it. I haven't heard this specific criticism before though, so can't comment on that specifically. But you should also consider that his studies are ridiculously conservative, so there's a lot of room for error that technological improvements can compensate for. With the first versions of his studies I thought it odd that he didn't include much offshore wind. It was becoming clear that offshore wind was becoming very viable. But he used the current costs when writing the study, not projected future costs. Now I think his studies include off shore wind because the cost has come down far enough that it makes sense to include them in calculations. I think it's reasonable to assume that the costs of renewables will continue to come down, that solar efficiency will go up, and that we will have at least one or two breakthrough battery chemistry, and possibly a breakthrough in geothermal too, by 2040-2050.