Mark Jacobson’s Post

On the first day of September, California, the world's 5th-largest economy, experienced its 105th day of the year during which Wind-Water-Solar supply exceeded 100% of main-grid demand for part of the day.

Many said it couldn't be done, but a U.S. state has supplied, over 100% of its annual-average electricity demand (July 1 '23-June 30, '24) with Wind-Water-Solar (mostly wind). S. Dakota 100.6% WWS Fossils produced additional electricity->SD is a net exporter. New U.S. Energy Information Administration data: South Dakota produced the equivalent of 100.6% of its electricity demand from Wind (74.8%), Water (24.7%), Solar (1.13%) Jul 1, '23-Jun 30, '24 Just to break it down by season: Sum 23-75.4% WWS Aut 23-108% WWS Win 24-109% WWS Spr 24-132% WWS Just adding more solar + batteries will get SD to >100% WindWaterSolar every season and 24/7/365 ...which means there is no need for any more fossil fuel electricity production in South Dakota. Plus, SD had the 9th-lowest electricity price in the U.S. in March of 2024. In fact, of the 12 states with the highest percent of their electricity demand met by wind-water-solar, 10 were among the 20 lowest-cost states and 6 were among the 10 lowest-cost states. State %WWS Price rank (1=lowest price among 50 states + DC) SD 100.6% - 9 MT 79.9% - 8 IA 78.6% - 12 WA 72.4% - 6 KS 67.5% - 17 OR 63.0% - 19 NM 60.0% - 20 ME 57.4% - 43 WY 56.0% - 5 OK 55.9% - 7 ND 52.9% - 1 CA 47.3% - 50 US 23.2%

This is not only the largest wind turbine in the world (20 MW, 292-m rotor), but is built to withstand a Category 5 hurricane (up to 79.8 m/s). It is now operating https://lnkd.in/gv3HSYzj A large field of them could dissipate a hurricane: https://lnkd.in/gc2zZEVb Interesting that Mingyang states that all its offshore wind turbines (fixed & floating) can withstand Category 5 hurricanes (70 m/s or faster) Survival wind speed: Fixed 8-10 MW-70 m/s 11-12 MW-78.82 14-16 MW-79.8 18-20+ MW-79.8 Floating 5.5 MW-70.1 7.25 MW-84 16 MW-79.8 https://lnkd.in/gryzvzC6

My letter in the The Wall Street Journal on August 28, 2024, responding to JD Vance op-ed "Vance’s push for more coal, gas & nuclear will drive up electricity prices for everyone" For Lower Electricity Prices, Invest More in Renewables https://lnkd.in/g54EKhAS In “Harris Wages War on U.S. Energy" (op-ed, Aug. 20), Sen. JD Vance states, “The net-zero project is already stifling investment in the coal, natural gas, and nuclear plant that Americans rely on for reliable, affordable ‘base load’ electricity.” South Dakota, Montana, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and North Dakota missed that problem. They are, aside from Montana, powered primarily by wind and are among the 12 states with the highest percentage of their electricity demand produced by clean, renewable sources. Of those 12 highly-renewable states, 10 are among the 19 states with the lowest electricity prices and 7 are among the 10 with the lowest prices. South Dakota, with renewable supplying 95% of demand, has the 9th-lowest electricity price. North Dakota (52% renewables) has the lowest. More renewables mean lower prices. Only California and Maine have high renewables and prices. Why? California routinely has the 3rd-highest price of natural gas for electricity backup. Plus, utilities have passed to customers costs of wildfires from transmission-line sparks, undergrounding transmission lines, the San Bruno and Aliso Canyon gas disasters, retrofitting gas pipes following San Bruno, and keeping Diablo Canyon nuclear open. However, more California renewables and batteries in 2024 than 2023 increased grid reliability, as evidenced by 52% lower spot electricity prices March-June 2024 versus 2023, slowing retail electricity price rises. In sum, many Republican-leaning states already know more renewables mean lower energy prices. Mr. Vance’s push for more coal, gas, and nuclear will only drive electricity prices up for everyone. Here are the clean renewable penetrations and price data for the U.S. states (2nd table) https://lnkd.in/gAmwCSnC This study calculates the full system levelized cost upon a full transition of every state to 100% WWS, accounting for variations in WWS resources every 30 seconds for two years, find the costs far lower than business-as-usual: https://lnkd.in/gwkd6CpT Stanford University Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University Stanford University School of Engineering Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment Stanford Alumni Association Stanford Energy

Time to stop all synthetic (non-natural) carbon capture and all subsidies to it Carbon capture = more CO2 = more air pollution = more fossil mining = more fossil infrastructure Big Oil Is the Winner From Dutch Carbon Capture Subsidies https://lnkd.in/gwWR24wV Michael Barnard DeSmog Also applies to Direct Air Capture, even in the best case. For example, Iceland DAC requires 5000-6000 kWh to remove 1 tonne-CO2 https://lnkd.in/gwsUmaRQ -> DAC removes 167-200 g-CO2/kWh Coal for heat in Iceland emits ~660 g-CO2e/kWh over 20y (accounting for both combustion and mining, but not its shipping to Iceland) -> using geothermal for DAC instead of replacing coal results in 3.3-4x the CO2 emissions compared with what is reduced. Same applies to fossil gas for heat. Using renewable electricity for DAC instead of using it to replace fossil gas for heat increase CO2 by a factor of 3.3-4x Using renewable electricity for DAC instead of using it to replace coal for electricity increases CO2 by a factor of 7-8x In sum, DAC ALWAYS increases CO2 so long as fossil gas and coal sources exist to be replaced.

Skeptics claim countries can't run on mostly solar+wind, let alone 100% Wind-Water-Solar However, Tokelau ran on 94% solar+wind in 2022 7 countries ran on 100% WWS 12 on 98.4-100% WWS 18 on 90-100% 24 on 83-100% 39 on 70-100% 49 on 60-100% 64 on 50-100% In other words, almost one-third of all nations in the world, with 15.9% of the world population, ran on 50-100% WWS for their electricity generation in 2022. Can't wait to see the data for 2023 and 2024. https://lnkd.in/gAmwCSnC International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) International Energy Agency (IEA)

New Infographics providing Science Plans for each of 149 countries and 29 world regions to transition to 100% Wind-Water-Solar for all energy purposes through electrification, reducing annual energy costs 60% https://lnkd.in/gwSegNF Individual PDFs of plans https://lnkd.in/gWkGN2Y8 Andreas Mühlbauer

Today is the 4th day in August (and 104th of the year) that California's main-grid Wind-Water-Solar supply exceeded 100% of demand for part of the day. Yesterday was the 3rd day in August with >100% WWS (and for 5 h). Note how the 4-h batteries are concatenated to provide night electricity over 8 h. Long-duration storage should be re-named low-discharge storage, because that is all it is. Duration (h) = Storage capacity (kWh) / Peak-discharge rate (kW) Lower peak discharge -> longer duration Can get long duration & high discharge by concatenating short-duration (high-discharge) storage. This is what we should focus on, because grids need both high discharge rates for short periods and low discharge rates for long periods and everything in-between.