WTI Crude

Loading...

Brent Crude

Loading...

Natural Gas

Loading...

Gasoline

Loading...

Heating Oil

Loading...

Rotate device for more commodity prices

Alt Text

Besides Shale, Argentina Doubles Down On Renewables

Argentina’s first big renewable energy…

Alt Text

Clean Energy Gets A Boost With California Regulations

New regulations to boost accuracy…

Why Sunny States are not the Best for Wind and Solar Plants

Wind and solar plants do the most good where they can reduce pollution and carbon dioxide emissions, so the best place to build them might not be where you think.

New research shows it’s not the Southwest and California where plants should be built. Ohio, West Virginia, and western Pennsylvania are a much better bet, because wind and solar power in those locations replace electricity generated by coal plants.

Related article: Scientists Produce Cheap Hydrogen from Rust and Sunlight

“A wind turbine in West Virginia displaces twice as much carbon dioxide and seven times as much health damage as the same turbine in California,” says Kyle Siler-Evans, a researcher in the department of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. “The benefits of solar plants are greatest in the cloudy East as opposed to the sunny Southwest.”

Federal subsidies for wind and power plants are the same across the country. But Ines Lima Azevedo, an assistant professor of engineering and public policy and executive director of the Center for Climate and Energy Decision Making, argues “that while there is of course some uncertainty about the magnitude of the health and environmental damages avoided, if we are going to justify the added cost of wind and solar on the basis of the health and climate benefits that they bring, it is time to think about a subsidy program that encourages operators to build plants in places where they will yield the most health and climate benefits.”

The power generated by wind and solar is highly variable and intermittent.

Related article: New Engineless Planes could Fly on Ionic Winds

“There are significant costs associated with deploying and integrating wind and solar plants into the grid, so it would be best to do it in places where we can get the greatest health and climate benefits,” says Jay Apt, director of the Electricity Industry Center.

The research was supported by Center for Climate and Energy Decision Making, through a cooperative agreement between the National Science Foundation and Carnegie Mellon, and by the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center.

By. Chriss Swaney




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • Jack on July 11 2013 said:
    The abominable intermittency of large wind and large solar make them unworkable for any expansive industrial grid. No amount of wishful thinking or structured ignorance will change that fact.

    It is a tossup as to which are the least informed of the workings of the real world: journalists or academics. Politicians stagger in a weak third place.
  • ChuckD3 on July 12 2013 said:
    If solar/wind generation is placed where it's most efficient (rather than where it's most needed), maybe some suitable users will locate around them (such as data centers). Hmmm... Is Utah a good place for solar and/or wind? As for the intermittency, can a data-center modulate its demand in response to supply conditions? All that web-crawling and indexing the Google does, for example, could be done when the power is plentiful.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News