Monday, March 18, 2013

Examining the feasibility of converting New York State’s all-purpose energy infrastructure to one using wind, water, and sunlight

This study analyzes a plan to convert New York State's (NYS's) all-purpose (for electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, and industry) energy infrastructure to one derived entirely from wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) generating electricity and electrolytic hydrogen. Under the plan, NYS's 2030 all-purpose end-use power would be provided by 10% onshore wind (4020 5-MW turbines), 40% offshore wind (12,700 5-MW turbines), 10% concentrated solar (387 100-MW plants), 10% solar-PV plants (828 50-MW plants), 6% residential rooftop PV (∼5 million 5-kW systems), 12% commercial/government rooftop PV (∼500,000 100-kW systems), 5% geothermal (36 100-MW plants), 0.5% wave (1910 0.75-MW devices), 1% tidal (2600 1-MW turbines), and 5.5% hydroelectric (6.6 1300-MW plants, of which 89% exist). The conversion would reduce NYS's end-use power demand ∼37% and stabilize energy prices since fuel costs would be zero. It would create more jobs than lost because nearly all NYS energy would now be produced in-state. NYS air pollution mortality and its costs would decline by ∼4000 (1200–7600) deaths/yr, and $33 (10–76) billion/yr (3% of 2010 NYS GDP), respectively, alone repaying the 271 GW installed power needed within ∼17 years, before accounting for electricity sales. NYS's own emission decreases would reduce 2050 U.S. climate costs by ∼$3.2 billion/yr.
► New York State's all-purpose energy can be derived from wind, water, and sunlight.
► The conversion reduces NYS end-use power demand by ∼37%.
► The plan creates more jobs than lost since most energy will be from in state.
► The plan creates long-term energy price stability since fuel costs will be zero.
► The plan decreases air pollution deaths 4000/yr ($33 billion/yr or 3% of NYS GDP).

Full-size image (37 K) 
Fig. 1. Spacing and footprint areas required to implement the plan proposed here for NYS, as derived in Table 2. Actual locations would differ. The dots are only representative areas. For wind, the small red dot in the middle is footprint on the ground and the blue is spacing. For the others, the footprint and spacing are similar to each other. In the case of rooftop PV, the dot represents the rooftop area to be used. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)Full-size image (43 K) 
Fig. 2. Capacity factors at 90-m hub height in NYS and offshore in Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, and the Eastern seaboard, as calculated with a 3-D computer model evaluated against data assuming 5-MW RE-Power wind turbines with rotor diameter D=126 m from simulations run in 26 and 27. Capacity factors of 30% or higher are the most cost-effective for wind energy development.
by Mark Z. Jacobsona, E-mail the corresponding author, Robert W. Howarthb, Mark A. Delucchic, Stan R. Scobied, Jannette M. Barthe, Michael J. Dvoraka, Megan Klevzea, Hind Katkhudaa, Brian Mirandaa, Navid A. Chowdhurya, Rick Jonesa, Larson Planoa, and Anthony R. Ingraffeaf    
a Atmosphere/Energy Program, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Tel.: +1 650 723 6836.   
b Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853, USA  
c Institute of Transportation Studies, U.C. Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA
d PSE Healthy Energy, NY, USA 
e Pepacton Institute LLC, USA 
f School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
The full paper is currently available free of charge at
Energy Policy via Elsevier Science Direct
Available online 13 March 2013; In Press, Corrected Proof
via/hat tip
Keywords: Renewable energy; Air pollution; Global warming

No comments:

Post a Comment