Introduction to stochastic programming

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf

Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

/pdf/review-of-solutions-to-global-warming-air-pollution-and-3bnojfyctk.pdf

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution and energy security

Annual Energy Outlook

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/Offshore/DvorakRenewEn2010.pdf

California offshore wind energy potential

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/Others/16-Frew-Energy.pdf

Flexibility mechanisms and pathways to a highly renewable US electricity future

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NewYorkWWSEnPolicy.pdf

Examining the feasibility of converting New York State's all-purpose energy infrastructure to one using wind, water, and sunlight

The challenge of integrating offshore wind power in the U.S. electric grid. Part I: Wind forecast error

This study characterized the annual mean US East Coast (USEC) offshore wind energy (OWE) resource on the basis of 5 years of high-resolution mesoscale model (Weather Research and Forecasting–Advanced Research Weather Research and Forecasting) results at 90 m height. Model output was evaluated against 23 buoys and nine offshore towers. Peak-time electrical demand was analyzed to determine if OWE resources were coincident with the increased grid load. The most suitable locations for large-scale development of OWE were prescribed, on the basis of the wind resource, bathymetry, hurricane risk and peak-time generation potential. The offshore region from Virginia to Maine was found to have the most exceptional overall resource with annual turbine capacity factors (CF) between 40% and 50%, shallow water and low hurricane risk. The best summer resource during peak time, in water of 50 m depth, is found between Long Island, New York and Cape Cod, Massachusetts, due in part to regional upwelling, which often strengthens the sea breeze. In the South US region, the waters off North Carolina have adequate wind resource and shallow bathymetry but high hurricane risk. Overall, the resource from Florida to Maine out to 200 m depth, with the use of turbine CF cutoffs of 45% and 40%, is 965–1372 TWh (110–157 GW average). About one-third of US or all of Florida to Maine electric demand can technically be provided with the use of USEC OWE. With the exception of summer, all peak-time demand for Virginia to Maine can be satisfied with OWE in the waters off those states. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Michael J. Dvorak

Papers

California offshore wind energy potential

Flexibility mechanisms and pathways to a highly renewable US electricity future

Examining the feasibility of converting New York State's all-purpose energy infrastructure to one using wind, water, and sunlight

The challenge of integrating offshore wind power in the U.S. electric grid. Part I: Wind forecast error

US East Coast offshore wind energy resources and their relationship to peak‐time electricity demand