More on 100% Wind, Water and Sunlight and the Council of Canadians "100% Clean economy" by 2050 goal

I am going to be a wet blanket and explain, briefly, why Dr. Jacobson’s ideas, while visionary and incredibly appealing, are also simply not possible.Before I go much further I want to give a hat tip to physicist Dr. Jani-Petri Martikainen at the blog PassiiviIdentiteetti [I copy and pasted that name as I had no chance of spelling it correctly otherwise]. As readers of my blogs know I have already looked at Dr. Jacobson’s work in three previous blog postings:Deconstructing the 100% Fossil Fuel Free Wind, Water and Sunlight USA paper – Part I Why no nuclear power?,Deconstructing the 100% Fossil Fuel Free Wind, Water and Sunlight USA paper – Part II What about those pesky rare earth metals?, andDeconstructing the 100% Wind, Water and Sunlight scenarios – Part III Issues with energy storageIn those blog posts I looked at big picture features of the Jacobson model but I never dug down into the country-specific numbers. This week I was directed to a brilliant blog post by Dr. Martikainen Part 1: Why does Mark Jacobson hate Finland? that humorously skewered the work by looking at the assumptions for a single country (Finland) to show how many of the conclusions aren’t based on reasonable assumptions. This encouraged me to go to the supplementary information that came with the paper, in particular the spreadsheet used to do the calculations. Dr. Martikainen’s blog thus served as the inspiration for this blog post.

Source: More on 100% Wind, Water and Sunlight and the Council of Canadians "100% Clean economy" by 2050 goal

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hurting Michigan

Image
Parker Gallant has called for the Ontario government to "shutdown the intertie line with Michigan" - in an article that notes some of my work. I feel I should offer some support as Michigan is being a lousy neighbour and it would feel therapeutic, if nothing else, to respond. I'll try to stick to data. The system operator in Ontario (IESO) data indicates the Michigan intertie is the most lucrative for exports - but that's not saying much: exports at that intertie were bought in Ontario for an average of just 1.2 cents/kWh ($12/MWh) in 2020 - but were in such high demand another 0.9 cents/kWh of congestion rent was paid. Over the past 5 years congestion rents comprise 46% of the revenue on the Michigan intertie. The IESO's insiders' committees are considering how much of  this revenue to share with the exporters instead allowing it to solely benefit internal Ontario consumers. Action #1: hell no. Issue a ministerial directive that congestion rents will only b...
Read more

Ontario's electricity system has not yet passed gas

Image
Ontario’s electricity system includes generators fueled by natural gas. This is suddenly a hot topic as a campaign lobbying councils to say no to this type of generation moves through municipalities. The “no gas” lobbying appeals to a desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, exploiting predictions of increased use of natural gas in generating electricity in the province. This article will explore what entities have been the key drivers of emissions in Ontario’s electricity system, the credibility of the body being cited predicting increased generation fueled by natural gas and, if all goes well, convince the reader they are not willing to decrease global carbon emissions at any cost. Background on the IESO’s pretend market My previous post reconstructed a method to estimate losses on electricity exports out of Ontario. The measure does not indicate Ontario would be better off if it didn’t export its excess, but that Ontario would be better off with data discipline and consistent me...
Read more