{"id":9418,"date":"2017-06-23T20:28:27","date_gmt":"2017-06-23T20:28:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=9418"},"modified":"2017-07-04T09:58:23","modified_gmt":"2017-07-04T09:58:23","slug":"energy-wonks-have-a-meltdown-over-the-us-going-100-percent-renewable-why","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/energy-wonks-have-a-meltdown-over-the-us-going-100-percent-renewable-why\/","title":{"rendered":"Energy wonks have a meltdown over the US going 100 percent renewable. Why?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Joshua D. Rhodes<\/a>, University of Texas at Austin<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Science is messy, but it doesn\u2019t have to be dirty.<\/p>\n

On June 19, a group of respected energy researchers released a paper in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences<\/a> (PNAS) that critiqued a widely cited study<\/a> on how to power the U.S. using only renewable energy sources. This new paper, authored by former NOAA researcher Christopher Clack<\/a> and a small army of academics, said that the initial 2015 study had \u201cerrors, inappropriate methods and implausible assumptions,\u201d about using only the sun, wind and water to fuel the U.S.<\/p>\n

What followed was a storm of debate as energy wonks of all stripes weighed in on the merits of the PNAS analysis. Mark Z. Jacobson, a Stanford University professor who was the lead author of the 2015 study, shot back with detailed<\/a> rebuttals<\/a>, in one calling his fellow researchers \u201cfossil fuel and nuclear supporters.\u201d<\/p>\n

Why the big kerfuffle? As an energy researcher who studies the technologies and policies for modernizing our energy system<\/a>, I will try to explain.<\/p>\n

In general, getting to a clean energy system \u2013 even if it\u2019s 80 percent renewable \u2013 is a well agreed-upon goal and one that can be achieved; it\u2019s that last 20 percent \u2013 and how to get there \u2013 that forms the main point of contention here.<\/p>\n

\u2018Energy Twitter\u2019 on fire<\/h2>\n

Jacobson\u2019s seminal paper<\/a>, which was also published in PNAS, tied together a significant amount of work of his own and others showing that all energy used for all purposes in the U.S. could come from with wind, water and solar (WWS) by 2050.<\/p>\n

What about when the sun doesn\u2019t shine, the wind doesn\u2019t blow or water is unavailable? His findings postulated that significant amounts of energy storage would be needed, mostly in the form of heat and hydrogen, to meet energy demand when there isn\u2019t enough renewable energy and to store it when there\u2019s too much. They also concluded this scenario would be cheaper than a world that relies on other technologies such as nuclear, carbon capture<\/a> and other methods of reducing carbon emissions.<\/p>\n

The Clack rebuttal was blunt and cut deep at the assumptions that underlie the work of Jacobson and colleagues. The same PNAS issue also included a counter-rebuttal<\/a> to Clack from Jacobson.<\/p>\n

Energy Twitter \u2013 that is, energy wonks like me on Twitter \u2013 exploded<\/a>.<\/p>\n