This paper proposes converting California's power generation over to wind and solar, with electric vehicles and electrically generated hydrogen vehicles replacing all others. All use of fossil fuels and nuclear power is to be phased out. Notably, it suggests that hydroelectric power should be used to balance loads. i.e. It proposes that California's power grid be stabilized with only hydroelectric power as an on-demand source of generation.<p>Firstly, in 2013 California imported 32.7% of it's electricity. California has little control over how this is generated. Of the power used by California, 40.8% is from Natural Gas, 8.1% is hydroelectric, 6.0% is Nuclear, 4.3% is from wind power, 4.2% is geothermal, 2.1% is from biomass, and 1.4% is solar[1].<p>Natural Gas and Nuclear power are both excellent on-demand sources of power, and currently meet 46.8% of California's electricity requirements. If these power sources are to be phased out, they must be replaced with energy sources that are on-demand. Wind and solar do not fit this description. Hydro does, but quintupling California's hydroelectric capacity will have a huge impact on the environment. This paper greatly underestimates how much on-demand power generation capacity a power grid needs in order to be stable.<p>Side note: California currently derives little of it's electricity from wind or solar power. Electric vehicle batteries carry a high environmental cost to produce, so it is imperative that the energy they are charged with be of renewable origin for any net environmental benefits to be reaped. Given that 40.8% of California's electricity currently comes from natural gas, it's clear that anyone plugging their EV's into California's grid is doing the environment no favors.<p>[1]<a href="http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/electricity_gen_1983-2013.xls" rel="nofollow">http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/electricity_gen_1983...</a>
I'm seeing a lot of misinformation on this thread, and I think it would be useful to point hacker news at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), which is a cited source in this paper. They are an engineering-based, independent, non-profit research company. And their headquarters is in the "heart" of Silicon Valley next to Xerox...<p><a href="http://www.epri.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.epri.com/</a><p>Full disclosure: I am not an EPRI employee, but I've read a lot of their papers and presentations. Their research is original and unbaised. Their engineering is pragmatic and chocked full of raw 100% reality. I wish some of the websites people are citing here were talking to places like EPRI first, but instead write sensationalist headlines that hide details and misinform, making sane, coordinated discussion difficult.<p>I suggest hacker news check them out and maybe send some emails to get better information about this proposal and learn more how the grid truly functions politically, economically, and technically.
David MacKay's "Without Hot Air" is an excellent investigation of what needs to be done to power the UK.
<a href="http://www.withouthotair.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.withouthotair.com/</a>
The California state plan proposal has been getting discussed recently: "How to power California with wind, water and sun (Jacobson and Delucchi)" (<a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/RenewableTech/comments/2btow7/how_to_power_california_with_wind_water_and_sun/" rel="nofollow">http://www.reddit.com/r/RenewableTech/comments/2btow7/how_to...</a>).<p>J&D's proposal for a US national wind, water, and sun energy system:
(<a href="http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/sad1109Jaco5p.indd.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/sad11...</a>)
is one of the more complete such prosals around. See more links on their website:<p><a href="http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/susenergy2030.html" rel="nofollow">http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/susen...</a><p>Recently they've been providing proposals for each of the 50 states:<p><a href="http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-50-USState-plans.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-5...</a>.<p>David McKay's <i>Without the Hot Air</i> (<a href="http://www.withouthotair.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.withouthotair.com/</a>) is one of the few comparable efforts I'm aware of, though RMI/Amory Lovins <i>Reinventing Fire</i> (<a href="http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9781603585385-0" rel="nofollow">http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9781603585385-0</a>) probably belongs in the mix.<p>Also being discussed on reddit: <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/RenewableTech/comments/2d8ptl/a_roadmap_for_repowering_california_for_all/" rel="nofollow">http://www.reddit.com/r/RenewableTech/comments/2d8ptl/a_road...</a><p>(Disclaimer: I'm a moderator of that sub).
I'd like to take a moment to point out another really great "renewable" technology that is a clever arbitrage hack using power prices: Compressed Air Energy Storage. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAES" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAES</a>)<p>To me, this is "Grid 2.0" technology. You are moving energy from times where you have cheap excess and placing it on the grid in times of expensive need. If we are going to move to a grid with a lot of renewables, technologies like CAES and pumped hydro (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit...</a>) are two necessary ingredients.<p>The primary difference between CAES and pumped hydro is that CAES is cost effective for both medium (50+MW) and large (500+MW) installations, while pumped hydro is cost effective only at large scale (500MW+) installations.
You still need a base power plant and few others for controlling the amount of energy in the system. Using only renewable is kind o hard. If we can figure out a way to store energy the way we can access it very quickly with arbitrary output, we could move on to renewables exclusively.