Could wind, solar slash carbon emissions affordably?

Scientists thought solar and wind power were prohibitively expensive options to cut carbon emissions. But new research suggests these green technologies might be an affordable solution if employed on a national scale in a 'superhighway of electrons'.

|
Matt Young/AP/File
A wind turbine farm owned by PacifiCorp stands near Glenrock, Wyo., Monday, May 6, 2013.

Green technology is often thought of as prohibitively expensive. Solar and wind power, for example, were once estimated to double or triple electricity costs. 

But that might not be the case anymore. New research suggests it might actually be feasible to use solar and wind power across the United States. In fact, researchers propose a new model that could cut emissions by up to 80 percent by 2030 from 1990 levels, without developing new technologies or raising prices.

How would it work? Power from solar, wind, and other existing technologies would all contribute to a grid across the continental United States to share the burden of power production. That combination would make it economically feasible to cut carbon emissions significantly in the electricity sector, according to a study published Monday in the journal Nature

"The model results show us that there is a possible way to do it without destroying any economies if we just think about the problem slightly differently," study co-lead author Christopher Clack tells The Christian Science Monitor in an interview.

Policymakers have long viewed wind and solar power as being costly, niche technologies. Furthermore, the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, so even if the technologies were affordable, how could the entire country rely on these renewable energy sources? 

The trick, according to this model, is to use multiple power sources together on the national scale. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, scientists built this model based on the weather system. Some regions, like the southwest, might be particularly sunny. Others, like the Dakotas, might have just the right wind conditions. 

"If you can trade power over the whole US at the same time, then there'll always be someplace that's generating power like crazy," study co-lead author Alexander MacDonald tells the Monitor. 

In this scenario, electricity would be generated mostly from sunlight and wind, with fossil fuels filling in the gaps.

One factor driving up the costs of solar and wind power has been the need to store the electricity somewhere for a rainy or calm day. Such batteries are expensive. A national network would spread out excess power in real time and help smooth over weak times.

If employed, the new electricity system would be "a sort of superhighway for electrons," explains Dr. MacDonald. The current grid wouldn't be able to accommodate such rapid, large-scale transmission. So, like the Eisenhower interstate highway system, he says, high voltage direct current lines would have to be constructed, crisscrossing the country. These lines would "move the energy around where you need it, when you need it," he says.

The year 2030 is fast approaching, so will this actually happen?

"I'm just a lowly scientist," Dr. Clack says. "I only know what the science says."

MacDonald adds that it will be up to policymakers and the people. "Our job is to show that there is a system that is possible with existing technology, technology available right now."

It could all hinge on that political will, Jeff Deyette, assistant director of energy research at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who was not involved in the study, tells the Monitor. He explains that creating a national scale power system would "require a major shift in how we transmit and distribute power across the country." Currently, the electricity sector is largely controlled by regional transmission organizations. To employ the system proposed by the NOAA researchers, discussion would have to happen on the federal level too. "I think it comes down to the political will to make it happen," Mr. Deyette says.

The electricity sector contributes about 40 percent of US carbon emissions, James Mandel, a principal at Rocky Mountain Institute who was not involved in the study, tells the Monitor. So power is a good place to to work for a "win" against climate change, he says. 

So could reworking the electric grid save us from climate change? 

Although power production emissions would be slashed dramatically in this new model, it is just the electric sector, Mandel points out. Transportation, heating and industrial endeavors, among others, are still feeding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Mandel adds that this model also only focuses on the US, when climate change is a global issue. 

But "weather is big worldwide," MacDonald says. A similar power network could be set up elsewhere across the globe.

Still, it's going to be an uphill battle. "We already have a certain amount of climate change, global warming baked into the atmosphere from the emissions we've already put up there," Deyette says. And those emissions are going to be up there for a while.

With new systems like these, all hope is not lost. "Technological advances can take us a long way toward solving the climate crisis," Deyette says. This new model "is certainly a very strong positive step in the right direction."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Could wind, solar slash carbon emissions affordably?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0129/Could-wind-solar-slash-carbon-emissions-affordably
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe