Wind and solar make warm-and-fuzzy infographics, but the practical answer for alternative energy has been known for decades: nuclear.<p>Currently, there just isn't an economic need to switch off fossil fuels. The US has an <i>enormous</i> supply of coal. Combine that with fracking oil, and it'll be a long time before we <i>really</i> need other energy sources. (I'm of course sidelining environmental concerns. It's economics that drive energy.)<p>...But once fossil fuels do finally run out in years and years and we have to finally get serious, we'll choose the obvious solution: one that's compact, location/weather independent, and sufficiently plentiful.
This is the California page: <a href="http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#ca" rel="nofollow">http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#ca</a> what is missing, there is <i>zero</i> baseline energy generation. That's right, all wind and solar. The closest that comes to baseband is hydroelectric, which during drought years like now, would mean powering the state at the detriment of all sorts of ecosystems.<p>I get that we can improve our energy options, but you need that base load covered, and that is either nuclear or fossil fuels at the moment.
Sooo, the title says that The <i>world</i> can transition and then the web page presents a map of the US to click on. Nice.<p>This reminds me of being on a tour in an old salt mill in Italy and at one point the guide asking some people where they are from. The answers were: Spain, France and then "Boston". The guide asked again and then he said, because obviously that clarifies it: "Boston, Mass".
Geez, I thought they'd be offering an engineering solution. Nope, just a "Kony 2012" website. "Give us money and /feel/ proud that you're helping!"
Nice graphic, but not very accurate.<p>1. Most of the mentioned energy sources are not provide stable baseline (e.g. solar, wind). We will need significant amount of storage which is omitted.<p>2. Some sources doesn't exist yet at any significant scale (wave devices, tidal turbine). It may be just more economical to have more solar or wind thanks to scale effect.
If the US absolutely had to do this, it could. It would mean building a lot of pumped storage plants, wind farms, solar panel installations, and EHV transmission lines. But it could be done.<p>The biggest pumped storage plant in the world is in the US, and it can generate 3GW at peak. Peak demand for the California ISO is about 40GW. California would need maybe ten plants of that size. A pumped storage plant requires two reservoirs with a big height difference, and California has lots of unused mountains. It doesn't use much water once filled up; the same water is pumped up and down.
> The world can transition to 100% clean, renewable energy<p>Yes, at 5-10% of its present population and with a sudden, overwhelming and universal attack of wisdom about the problems caused by uncontrolled population growth. Otherwise, this is more eco-fantasy that ignores the obstacle produced by ... too many people.