The Plan To Power The US With 100 Percent Clean Energy Is Almost All Wind

by Fruzsina Eordogh February 19, 2014 Motherboard

If the United States wanted to get 100 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2050, there's an actual, feasible plan it could follow. Last Saturday, at the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting in Chicago, Stanford University scientist Mark Z Jacobson put forth a detailed proposal on how to achieve to this renewable energy future. In short, the plan is full of wind. And water. And sun. But mostly wind. Clean coal, nuclear power, natural gas and anything utilizing food products like corn and soy are conspicuously absent from the plan. These alternative energy sources are just not clean enough and/or require giant swaths of land to produce enough energy to make it a feasible power generator. Wind, solar or power generated by water means are not only clean, but dont require as large of a geographic footprint, hence, the focus of his plan. Besides the obvious benefits of reducing pollution, Jacobsons proposal is actually thrifty too. Not only will his plan save the lives of an estimated 59,000 Americans a year, who currently die from air pollution and related health problems from current energy production methods, but the estimated costs each person will save on healthcare a year averages at $3,100. (Theres a reason people who live next to current dirty energy plants have higher rates of asthma.) In addition to less medical bills, each person would save $3,400 on energy costs because cleaner energy is more efficient and that means youd have to generate less energy to meet current energy demands. (There is less energy going to waste.)

Jacobsons team has uploaded an interactive infographic on thesolutionsproject.org, detailing, among other things, how each state would generate their energy. For example, if Mississippi was all wind, water and solar energy, the state would need to generate 37.6% less energy than it does now. Other fun factoids display the amount of jobs that would be generated in each state should they adopt Jacobsons plan, like 171,600 construction jobs and 81,300 operation jobs would be created in Illinois if it was implemented in the state. Under Jacobsons plan, Florida would get 53% of its energy through solar plants, andMontana and Idaho would rely on energy from hydroelectric means (30%), but most states would be reliant on wind power. Illinois would generate 60% or more of its power through wind plants as would

Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma, North and South Dakota, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas. In fact, practically every state in the US would use wind power under this proposal. Sure, the cost of implementing Jacobsons plan would have some immediate financial costs (namely, the building of all these wind and solar plants), but these are offput by the future benefits, namely, healthier people with more money in their pockets. Oh, and lets not forget about that whole cleaner planet aspect. One of the most common arguments against the mass adoption of clean energy is the cost. Opponents claim it's more expensive than, for instance, coal. This is just not true. Today, onshore wind, geothermal, and hydro are already cost competitive or less expensive than conventional fuels, particularly when health and climate costs of conventional fuels are accounted for, Jacobson wrote. He continued: The reason is that WWS [Wind, Water, Solar] stabilizes prices because they have zero fuel costs, whereas fossil fuels have continuous and rising fuel costs over time. This is why the cost of electricity in the 10 states in the U.S. with the highest fraction of electricity from wind has gone up only 3 cents/kWh from 2003-2013, whereas it went up 4 cents/kWh in all other states and 17 cents/kWh in Hawaii, which had only a small percent of WWS in its portfolio during that period. Okay, so this plan saves lives and money are there any drawbacks at all? Well, wind turbines and related power plants do kill birds and bats. Bats seem especially affected by wind turbines, with anywhere from 600,000 to 900,000 bats killed a yearby the giant turbines. The low air pressure created by the rotating wind turbine blades causes the lungs of the bats flying nearby to explode, leading to fatal internal bleeding, a condition called barotrauma. But bats get killed by air pollution too, noted Jacobson in an email, and in fact, wind turbines kill 1/10th the number of birds and bats per kilowatt hour compared with natural gas and coalso, the installation of wind turbines will reduce bat mortality rates by a factor of up to 10 if wind replaces coal or natural gas. In short, fewer bats would die in the future if we switched to cleaner energy. To combat this problem of dead flying animals, both the government and wind turbine manufacturers have been testing different methods involving radar and ultrasonic acoustic equipment that would reduce bat and bird deaths. So far the results have been encouraging. Why so much emphasis on wind power, though? Cant we just do more solar panels, like on every household and office building roof? Not really. Jacobson explained that we have saturated roofs significantly by state, so there is not a lot more that could be added, except for canopies over parking lots. It is necessary to have both wind and solar because there are lots of days when solar is low, particularly as one goes further north." No, the biggest obstacles to implementing a plan like this are purely politicalgetting thousands of wind turbines on the ground would require heavy investment, either from government or industry. And right now, entrenched utility companies, the fossil fuel industry, and the politicians who back them have little

interest in a clean energy renaissance. Which is too badas Jacobsen shows, a healthier, cleanerpowered nation is possible.

Response:
This article deals with clean energy which is a major part of environmental science. renewable resources- any natural resource (as wood or solar energy) that can be replenished naturally with the passage of time air pollution- pollution of the atmosphere wind turbines- a turbine having a large vaned wheel rotated by the wind to generate electricity

The article discusses how our nation could switch to completely renewable energy sources such as wind, sun, and water powered. People and the government would end up saving money due to the low costs of renewable energy as compared to fossil fuels and nuclear. It would also create jobs that would stimulate the economy. Switching to mainly wind powered energy would result in the deaths of many birds and bats because of the wind mills, but scientist are working to develop methods of deterring the birds and bats from flying near the wind mills such as radar and ultrasonic acoustic equipment. Politics is largely a role against the clean energy movement due to heavy investment needed. Jabobsen assures that it is entirely possible to have a much cleaner energy country. The research in the article is important because if we could attain cleaner energy, then as a country we must act to reduce the rate at which we pollute the atmosphere. The scientific findings make me ask why our government can't get behind something like this if it has eventual financial return and even greater ecological return. This article connects to what I'm learning in this course by describing how clean energy, mainly wind powered, can generate a healthier future. This idea is feasible by 2050 but needs investment by our government and industry though.