Master Plan Part 3
It is remarkable to me that on HN (a tech discussion forum?) the top comment on this thread is about politics.  Sign of the times, I guess.<p>I look at papers like this and predictions with great interest.  Several years ago I wrote a simulation model to try to understand energy requirements for a full transition to electric ground transportation in the US.<p>I learned a few things through this exercise.  The first was that speaking of energy was wrong.  Charging vehicles is a <i>power</i> problem.  Second, predicted a need for an <i>additional</i> 900 GW to 1400 GW.  Again, just cars, nothing else electrified.<p>Over the years I&#x27;ve had confirmation of this range being within what I would call a reasonable prediction.  It is interesting to see Master Plan Part 3 (MPP3) continue to confirm I wasn&#x27;t too far off.<p>I have also modified my stance over time about what this meant.  In simple terms, this prediction would be equivalent to having to build over a thousand new 1 GW nuclear power plants.  This is never going to happen.  I doubt we can (or want to) even build a hundred of them.  MPP3 assumes we build zero additional nuclear.  Not sure I agree with this idea. However, it isn&#x27;t a deal-breaker.<p>After reading this paper a while back I developed the thought that wind might just be a far more intelligent source of clean power than nuclear (definitely) and likely solar.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41467-021-26355-z" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41467-021-26355-z</a><p>Table 6 (page 20) is interesting to me.  We have to build a 5,338 GW (again, power) generation capacity in order to reliably produce the energy we will need.<p>Our current capacity is 1,200 GW.  This highlights the enormity of the project.  We have to <i>replace</i> the current generation systems with clean systems and build an additional 4,138 GW on top of that.  That is over three times current capacity on top of what we have.  Again, just highlighting the enormity of the task so it doesn&#x27;t get lost in the numbers.<p>When looking at table 6 I immediately focused on what I will call the &quot;specific energy generation factor&quot; for each technology.  I&#x27;ll define this as Annual Generation &#x2F; Installed Capacity.<p>In other words:  How much energy do we get per year for each GW of installed capacity for each technology.<p>Here are the numbers (based on table 6):<p><pre><code>    Onshore Wind:  3.07 TWh&#x2F;GW
    Offshore Wind: 3.31 TWh&#x2F;GW
    Solar PV:      1.33 TWh&#x2F;GW
    Nuclear:       7.06 TWh&#x2F;GW
    Hydro:         4.07 TWh&#x2F;GW
</code></pre>
Once we look at installation cost solar and onshore wind are very similar.  Yes, table 5 shows a difference in operating and maintenance costs.  I&#x27;ll take their word for it.  My sense is these costs would decrease, perhaps significantly, through the natural optimization that happens as a technology is deployed and matures.<p>My point is that, to me, wind seems like a far better idea that solar on many fronts.  It is far more reliable on its own.  Without going too far, solar is off approximately 50% of the time and requires 100% reliable backup even if a nice fluffy white cloud flies over a panel.<p>Wind requires far less overbuild and somewhere in the order of a factor of four less storage to be over 95% reliable.<p>Jumping to table 14, we discover how much land is required for each technology:<p><pre><code>    Solar:  3.9  acres&#x2F;MW or 3900 acres&#x2F;GW
    Wind:   0.75 acres&#x2F;MW or  750 acres&#x2F;GW
</code></pre>
Wind requires 5.2 times less land.<p>Going back to table 6, solar and onshore wind combined contribute 10,106 TWh.<p>How many GW of installed capacity would be required to supply that much energy if all of it came from a single technology?<p><pre><code>    Solar: 7,598 GW
    Wind:  3,292 GW
</code></pre>
How much land?<p><pre><code>    Solar: 29,632,200 acres = 12 times the area of Hawaii (all islands)
    Wind:   2,469,000 acres =  1 time the area of Hawaii
</code></pre>
Anther comparison of land requirements:<p><pre><code>    Solar: 30% of California 
    Wind:   2.5% of California
</code></pre>
I am not categorically stating that wind is a better option.  I am simply raising the question.  To me it seems that solar might not be the best idea.  It requires far more land, storage and overbuilding.  The cost is about the same.  And, apropos to the crazy times we navigate today, a massive proportion of the supply chain for solar is in China.<p>NOTE: Sad that I have to make this request.  Another sign of the times.<p>It&#x27;s OK to disagree with with me.<p>If you do, please use numbers, not insults.  There&#x27;s just too much of that crap going around these days.  I actively want to know where I might be wrong.  That only happens in the context of a conversation, not by throwing fecal matter at each other.<p>Oh, yes, and it is also OK to ask questions.  For example &quot;How did you calculate...?&quot; or &quot;Why do you think ... is more important than ...?&quot;, etc.<p>Again, sad that I feel it is important to explain how to disagree and have a conversation these days.<p>PS.: Hope I didn&#x27;t make any dumb errors in the math.  Please let me know.