STUDY: Lots of local, green electricity possible for most of the U.S.
Posted Nov 3rd 2009 12:59PM by Sebastian Blanco
One of the reasons that a vehicle powered by something other than gasoline is such a popular idea in the U.S. is that it helps us become less reliant on other countries for our transportation needs. To this end, biofuels and electric vehicles offer great potential to use local sources of energy in our vehicles. To get a handle on how much green electricity – wind, geothermal, solar, etc. – is available in the U.S., the Insitute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) has conducted a study on renewable energy potential and came away with some amazing figures. The Energy Self-Reliant States study found that 31 states have the potential to produce more renewable energy in-state than they currently use and that another ten could make more than 75 of the amount. The state with the worst potential, Kentucky, could still meet 24 percent of its electricity needs using renewable energy.
The big problem with all of this potential is the cost of setting up the renewable energy production devices. Solar panels are not cheap, and wind farms have their own opponents. While no one expects Texas, for example, to make 533 percent more energy than it needs using renewable sources, ILSR shows that it's at least possible, and that should give hope to EV proponents (no more coal-powered grid!) and hydrogen vehicle fans (electrolyze water with green energy!) alike. Download the PDF of the study and see for yourself.
[Source: ISLR via Treehugger]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Boyprodigy1 1:30PM (11/03/2009)
This doesn't really surprise me but its still really cool to see.
Reply
gorr 2:32PM (11/03/2009)
They should try green algae farming feeding natural gas and coal power stations and the exhaust ( co2 ) is constantly recycled to feed algae growing. It will cost 10x less in fuel and stop completely air pollution and permits endless cheap electricity.
Reply
Glock23 2:33PM (11/03/2009)
"To get a handle on how much green electricity – wind, geothermal, solar, etc."
Washington D.C. should be 1,000,000% with all the wind coming from Obama, Pelosi, Frank, and the others....
Reply
Spence 5:50PM (11/03/2009)
That's a funny joke, Grandpa! Now eat your apple sauce.
BTW, I don't know where they are getting their figures from, but New Mexico could more then fill it's quota from solar alone. Check it out:
www.dreamingnewmexico.org
Glock23 8:12AM (11/04/2009)
I thought you left wing tree huggers would have a better disposition with all that fiber you get from eating granola.....
But then again, I don't expect much from AutoLib green.
Dave 6:00PM (11/03/2009)
Apparently, wind power is too expensive for Rhode Island
http://www.projo.com/news/content/DEEPWATER_WIND_SETBACK_10-17-09_7GG3S35_v48.3985f1e.html
I wonder if there are others (you listening t. boone pickens?) that could do it cheaper than Deepwater.
Reply
skierpage 6:48PM (11/03/2009)
The report's conclusions are even better than your bald summary. Obviously every state apart from tiny Washington DC can generate all the electricity it could ever possibly use from ground-based solar; and the report covers this, calculating that New Jersey would have to cover 2.28% of itself with solar, with most states requiring less than 1%.
But rather than get into land use issues, the report instead calculates the potential of solar PV on existing rooftops to provide electricity; it figures most states can get about a quarter of their electricity from this. The report acknowledges this "significantly understates the potential for solar self-sufficiency. For example, it does not include options such as parking lot canopies. The U.S. has as much as 949 square miles of parking lots, just counting non-residential, surface lots. If half of these are suitable for solar PV canopies, it could generate 6% of total U.S. electricity."
Since states can generate their electricity needs locally, the authors are against the current investment in billion dollar transmission infrastructure. "For example, currently much of the focus is on building more high voltage transmission lines to enable the export of renewable electricity from a handful of states. A better strategy – at least for the next decade – is to maximize efficiency and conservation, to follow with maximizing use of the existing transmission, subtransmission, and distribution lines with distributed renewable energy generation, and finally to examine the need for substantial investments in new lines."
If gasoline and coal cost more money, this would be happening through market forces. But they don't and they won't unless mankind has coincidentally hit a peak oil brick wall at the same time as this environmental crisis.
Reply
jfsacal 8:04PM (11/03/2009)
Solar is expensive and wind is poorly distributed with respect to transmission lines and population centers. Though hard to reconcile with our need for clean energy they do have a point in investing so much vs. current energy costs. We can however look at lowering those costs by incorporating solar even at only 15% efficiency, to create much more than our current energy needs by incorporating it's cost into replacing and simplifying our aging infrastructure. ( www.solarroadways.com )
Reply
bahumbug 10:21PM (11/03/2009)
that's all fine and dandy, but the problem with sun and wind is that you still have to maintain a secondary generation and transmission infrastruction capable of handling nearly 100% of the load. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine all the time...
Reply
Dolphyn 12:38AM (11/04/2009)
Storage is addressed in a little disclaimer buried at the end of the report:
"To achieve very high proportions of our electricity from variable renewable energy sources will require very significant amounts of storage and/or a restructuring of our electricity system to rely on more natural gas-fired distributed backup generators. The electricity storage sector has seen many technological and commercial developments. This report does not examine storage and its implications but in our analysis of variable renewable energy potential we assume sufficient storage is available."
Throwback 9:40AM (11/04/2009)
"This report does not examine storage and its implications but in our analysis of variable renewable energy potential we assume sufficient storage is available."
That is one heck of an assumption.
Boyprodigy1 4:51PM (11/04/2009)
I think people look at this issue all wrong.
I really wonder what i could do as far as making small wind generators and placing solar panels on my home. I bet i could produce enough electricity for my home most of the time. I would probably from there, start a battery stack in my garage, and make my own storage system ac inverter and all. If you think about doing it to your own home, it actually seems like a really good idea, and rather feasible at that.
Yes it is a high start up cost, but if i got an EV and i never had to pay a utility company or oil company again, I would probably be willing to do whatever it takes.
@ Throwback/Dolphyn
So yeah, if you look at it as utility companies making their own electricity storage, then it is going to be expensive. But if you look at it as your own job, then it really seems to make sense.
skierpage 6:04PM (11/04/2009)
@Boyprodigy1
"Yes it is a high start up cost, but if i got an EV and i never had to pay a utility company or oil company again, I would probably be willing to do whatever it takes."
Who cares what a boy might probably do when and if he has a spare $20,000 on top of the cost of his expensive EV?
In the real world few people have money lying around to make the renewable investment. $20k is three really nice holidays for the family, paying off the credit card debt many people live under, a year of college, etc. I only put up the money as part of an expensive home remodel. For lots of individuals to take the plunge, renewables either have to cost a lot less or electricity from fossil fuel a lot more, or people need incentives (rebates, low interest loans, etc.). Meanwhile everyone can and should act like they're living off the grid and only have 1 kW of electricity available - insulation, efficiency, turning off lights and appliances, all the boring cheaper stuff.
Boyprodigy1 10:03PM (11/04/2009)
@skierpage
20k is what a new battery for a high range EV would cost today. Using used car batteries it would be significantly cheaper. It would take up quite a bit of space but with a proper enclosure (probably custom built) you could keep it in your back yard.
As for my name, this is a screen name that i adopted when i was 12. I am as of present a 2nd year engineering student. In probably about 4 years time i will have that extra 20k laying around if i am smart, and i will be able to make an investment in self sufficiency, which by the way you'd have to be pretty stupid to tell me would be a bad idea.
And as for all of your recommendations, you missed the key entirely. The point would be to only use that 1kw of electricity, but do it on your own without the grid, and do it for free after some time.
skierpage 1:58AM (11/05/2009)
@boyprodigy1
I'm sorry for my tone -- I put "[Gently]" in front of "Who cares..." but autoblog's commenting software swallowed it :-o
Good for your future self that you think you'll spend the money. I'm an advocate of solar PV and heating but out of all the friends I've talked to about my systems, only one so far has followed me and taken the plunge. There's a big gap between the aspirational "I'd like to do solar some day" that many people have vs. actually writing large checks for an installation. Rebates help push more people into doing it, but they're very costly to get a large fraction of homeowners to take the plunge. Maybe some day solar will be so cost-effective that an independent electric company will knock on the doors of people with south-facing roofs and say "We'd like to use part of your roof to make some money..."
Boyprodigy1 3:56PM (11/05/2009)
@skierpage
It would seem that we have the same opinion on the matter just different amounts of faith in other people. I just see it happening that when people start producing their own electricity and have their own storage systems then the other people will see all of the problems with a grid. I see it spuring a revolution in the privatization of electrical generation. I really do see that as feasible. The only thing about it is that you are right about start up costs. But when 20 years from now i can say that i have spent this much on equipment, haven't payed an electric bill in 20 years, haven't had a blackout in 20 years, and am fully self reliant, it is going to turn some heads.
bahumbug 10:16PM (11/11/2009)
I for one am fine with turning the power down a bit when the sun isn't shining (or so I think anyways). At the same time though, I am imaging though that I have appliances that need to run, some that would be a real time killer if they didn't (ie. stove, iron, microwave), lights to get ready in the morning, air conditioning at night, etc. As I expand on the thought, I think not having unlimited (essentially) power on demand at all times would get to be a huge hassle. Anyways...
I don't think batteries are the answer really either. Questionable logic and bad math tell me that if conservation of energy is true, you'd be better off making the energy only once rather than using energy to make something to store energy relatively enefficiently for a short amount of time. I have no numbers to back me up on that. You also must consider that raw materials must be extracted, refined, transported, then you have manufacturing, short life span, and dipsoal...there's a reason batteries are expensive and it isn't entirely demand.
RSR 8:11AM (11/04/2009)
I dream of energy independence.... Really would like to see that happening sooner.
Reply
NeilBlanchard 9:31AM (11/04/2009)
Hi,
I wonder how it is that Germany is making a mix of solar PV, wind, biogas (from corn stalks!), and a hydro system with a reservoir work so well?
Sincerely, Neil
Reply
Dave 10:15AM (11/05/2009)
"In 2008 the gross electric power generation in Germany totalled 639 billion kWh. A major proportion of the electricity supply is based on lignite (23.5 %), nuclear energy (23.3 %) and hard coal (20.1 %). Natural gas has a share of 13 %. Renewables (wind, water, biomass) account for 15.1 %."
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/p/pow-gen-ger.htm