Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Research Article

Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar

View ORCID ProfileChristopher T. M. Clack, View ORCID ProfileStaffan A. Qvist, Jay Apt, Morgan Bazilian, View ORCID ProfileAdam R. Brandt, View ORCID ProfileKen Caldeira, View ORCID ProfileSteven J. Davis, Victor Diakov, View ORCID ProfileMark A. Handschy, Paul D. H. Hines, Paulina Jaramillo, Daniel M. Kammen, Jane C. S. Long, M. Granger Morgan, Adam Reed, Varun Sivaram, James Sweeney, George R. Tynan, David G. Victor, John P. Weyant, and Jay F. Whitacre
  1. aEarth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO 80305;
  2. bCooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80305;
  3. cDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, 752 37 Uppsala, Sweden;
  4. dDepartment of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213;
  5. eTepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213;
  6. fCenter for Global Energy Policy, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027;
  7. gDepartment of Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
  8. hDepartment of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, CA 94305;
  9. iDepartment of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697;
  10. jOmni Optimum, Evergreen, CO 80437;
  11. kEnduring Energy, LLC, Boulder, CO 80303;
  12. lElectrical Engineering and Complex Systems Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405;
  13. mEnergy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720;
  14. nGoldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720;
  15. oRenewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3050;
  16. pLawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550;
  17. qRenewable and Sustainable Energy Institute, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80305;
  18. rCouncil on Foreign Relations, New York, NY 10065;
  19. sPrecourt Energy Efficiency Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4206;
  20. tManagement Science and Engineering Department, Huang Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
  21. uDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Jacobs School of Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093;
  22. vSchool of Global Policy and Strategy, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093;
  23. wBrookings Institution, Washington, DC 20036

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS June 27, 2017 114 (26) 6722-6727; first published June 19, 2017; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1610381114
Christopher T. M. Clack
aEarth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO 80305;
bCooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80305;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Christopher T. M. Clack
  • For correspondence: christopher@vibrantcleanenergy.com
Staffan A. Qvist
cDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, 752 37 Uppsala, Sweden;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Staffan A. Qvist
Jay Apt
dDepartment of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213;
eTepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Morgan Bazilian
fCenter for Global Energy Policy, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adam R. Brandt
gDepartment of Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Adam R. Brandt
Ken Caldeira
hDepartment of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, CA 94305;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ken Caldeira
Steven J. Davis
iDepartment of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Steven J. Davis
Victor Diakov
jOmni Optimum, Evergreen, CO 80437;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark A. Handschy
bCooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80305;
kEnduring Energy, LLC, Boulder, CO 80303;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Mark A. Handschy
Paul D. H. Hines
lElectrical Engineering and Complex Systems Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paulina Jaramillo
dDepartment of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel M. Kammen
mEnergy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720;
nGoldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720;
oRenewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3050;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jane C. S. Long
pLawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Granger Morgan
dDepartment of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adam Reed
qRenewable and Sustainable Energy Institute, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80305;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Varun Sivaram
rCouncil on Foreign Relations, New York, NY 10065;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James Sweeney
sPrecourt Energy Efficiency Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4206;
tManagement Science and Engineering Department, Huang Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
George R. Tynan
uDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Jacobs School of Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David G. Victor
vSchool of Global Policy and Strategy, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093;
wBrookings Institution, Washington, DC 20036
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John P. Weyant
sPrecourt Energy Efficiency Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4206;
tManagement Science and Engineering Department, Huang Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jay F. Whitacre
dDepartment of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Edited by B. L. Turner, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, and approved February 24, 2017 (received for review June 26, 2016)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Significance

Previous analyses have found that the most feasible route to a low-carbon energy future is one that adopts a diverse portfolio of technologies. In contrast, Jacobson et al. (2015) consider whether the future primary energy sources for the United States could be narrowed to almost exclusively wind, solar, and hydroelectric power and suggest that this can be done at “low-cost” in a way that supplies all power with a probability of loss of load “that exceeds electric-utility-industry standards for reliability”. We find that their analysis involves errors, inappropriate methods, and implausible assumptions. Their study does not provide credible evidence for rejecting the conclusions of previous analyses that point to the benefits of considering a broad portfolio of energy system options. A policy prescription that overpromises on the benefits of relying on a narrower portfolio of technologies options could be counterproductive, seriously impeding the move to a cost effective decarbonized energy system.

Abstract

A number of analyses, meta-analyses, and assessments, including those performed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the International Energy Agency, have concluded that deployment of a diverse portfolio of clean energy technologies makes a transition to a low-carbon-emission energy system both more feasible and less costly than other pathways. In contrast, Jacobson et al. [Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Cameron MA, Frew BA (2015) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(49):15060–15065] argue that it is feasible to provide “low-cost solutions to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of WWS [wind, water and solar power] across all energy sectors in the continental United States between 2050 and 2055”, with only electricity and hydrogen as energy carriers. In this paper, we evaluate that study and find significant shortcomings in the analysis. In particular, we point out that this work used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions. Policy makers should treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.

  • energy systems modeling
  • climate change
  • renewable energy
  • energy costs
  • grid stability

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: christopher{at}vibrantcleanenergy.com.
  • ↵2Present address: Vibrant Clean Energy, LLC, Erie, CO 80516.

  • ↵3Retired.

  • ↵4Table S1 in ref. 11 shows non-UTES storage of 1,065 GW, UTES electric storage of 1,072 GW, and UTES thermal storage of 467 GW. In ref. 11, there is no description of how LOADMATCH differentiates energy types.

  • ↵5In ref. 12, the authors state that “100% conversions [to WWS energy systems] are technically and economically feasible with little downside … Numerous low-cost solutions are found, suggesting that maintaining grid reliability upon 100% conversion to WWS is economically feasible and not a barrier to the conversion [to a 100% WWS system] … We do not believe a technical or economic barrier exists to ramping up production of WWS technologies. Based on the scientific results presented, current barriers to implementing the [100% WWS] roadmaps are neither technical nor economic.” In January of 2016, Jacobson (16) said that “[o]ur goal is to get to 80% by 2030 and 100% by 2050. It is certainly technically and economically practical.”

  • ↵6Excel spreadsheets from refs. 11 and 12, Tab EIA capacity factors 2011–2075 are at web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStates.xlsx.

  • ↵7The five sources cited in ref. 12 give construction time estimates of 5–8 y.

  • ↵8In the almost 60 y of civilian nuclear power (two of the assumed war cycles), there have been no nuclear exchanges. The existence of nuclear weapons does not depend on civil power production from uranium.

  • Author contributions: C.T.M.C. and K.C. designed research; C.T.M.C. and S.A.Q. performed research; C.T.M.C., S.A.Q., and K.C. analyzed data; and C.T.M.C., S.A.Q., J.A., M.B., A.R.B., K.C., S.J.D., V.D., M.A.H., P.D.H.H., P.J., D.M.K., J.C.S.L., M.G.M., A.R., V.S., J.S., G.R.T., D.G.V., J.P.W., and J.F.W. wrote the paper.

  • Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no conflict of interest, and with the exception of S.A.Q., none received support from sources other than normal salary from their employers for work on the preparation of this paper. With the exception of M.B. and J.C.S.L., all of the authors have recently received outside support for more general research on energy systems and renewable energy. C.T.M.C. received support in the past from NOAA. S.A.Q. was supported for analysis that supported this paper by the Rodel Foundation of Delaware and has received more general faculty funding from Uppsala University. J.A. and M.G.M. have received support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), EPRI, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and members of the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center. A.R.B. has received support from the California Air Resources Board, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Argonne National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory, NREL, Ford Motor Company, and Saudi Aramco. K.C. has received support from the Carnegie Institution for Science endowment and the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research. S.J.D. has received support from the NSF. V.D. has received support from NREL. M.A.H. has received support from the NSF and DOE. P.D.H.H. has received support from the NSF and DOE. P.J. has received support from the NSF, EPA, and NOAA. D.M.K. has received support from the NSF and the Zaffaroni and Karsten Family Foundations. A.R. has received support from the NSF. V.S. has received support from the Sloan Foundation. J.S. has received funding from Jay Precourt, Bloom Energy, EPA, ExxonMobil Corporation, California Energy Commission, and DOE. G.R.T. has received support from DOE and the University of California, San Diego (UC San Diego) Deep Decarbonization Initiative. D.G.V. has received support from EPRI, the UC San Diego Deep Decarbonization Initiative, and the Brookings Institution. J.P.W. has received support from DOE, EPA, and industry affiliates of the Energy Modeling Forum. J.F.W. has received support from the NSF, DOE, DOD, Toyota, and Aquion Energy.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1610381114/-/DCSupplemental.

Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.

View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Evaluation of 100% wind, water, and solar power
Christopher T. M. Clack, Staffan A. Qvist, Jay Apt, Morgan Bazilian, Adam R. Brandt, Ken Caldeira, Steven J. Davis, Victor Diakov, Mark A. Handschy, Paul D. H. Hines, Paulina Jaramillo, Daniel M. Kammen, Jane C. S. Long, M. Granger Morgan, Adam Reed, Varun Sivaram, James Sweeney, George R. Tynan, David G. Victor, John P. Weyant, Jay F. Whitacre
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jun 2017, 114 (26) 6722-6727; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1610381114

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Evaluation of 100% wind, water, and solar power
Christopher T. M. Clack, Staffan A. Qvist, Jay Apt, Morgan Bazilian, Adam R. Brandt, Ken Caldeira, Steven J. Davis, Victor Diakov, Mark A. Handschy, Paul D. H. Hines, Paulina Jaramillo, Daniel M. Kammen, Jane C. S. Long, M. Granger Morgan, Adam Reed, Varun Sivaram, James Sweeney, George R. Tynan, David G. Victor, John P. Weyant, Jay F. Whitacre
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jun 2017, 114 (26) 6722-6727; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1610381114
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Article Classifications

  • Physical Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Social Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences

This article has a Letter. Please see:

  • Relationship between Research Article and Letter - June 19, 2017
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 114 (26)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Faults with the Jacobson et al. Analyses
    • Modeling Errors
    • Implausible Assumptions
    • Insufficient Power System Modeling
    • Inadequate Scrutiny of Input Climate Model
    • Conclusions
    • SI Appendix
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Setting sun over a sun-baked dirt landscape
Core Concept: Popular integrated assessment climate policy models have key caveats
Better explicating the strengths and shortcomings of these models will help refine projections and improve transparency in the years ahead.
Image credit: Witsawat.S.
Model of the Amazon forest
News Feature: A sea in the Amazon
Did the Caribbean sweep into the western Amazon millions of years ago, shaping the region’s rich biodiversity?
Image credit: Tacio Cordeiro Bicudo (University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil), Victor Sacek (University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil), and Lucy Reading-Ikkanda (artist).
Syrian archaeological site
Journal Club: In Mesopotamia, early cities may have faltered before climate-driven collapse
Settlements 4,200 years ago may have suffered from overpopulation before drought and lower temperatures ultimately made them unsustainable.
Image credit: Andrea Ricci.
Steamboat Geyser eruption.
Eruption of Steamboat Geyser
Mara Reed and Michael Manga explore why Yellowstone's Steamboat Geyser resumed erupting in 2018.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Birds nestling on tree branches
Parent–offspring conflict in songbird fledging
Some songbird parents might improve their own fitness by manipulating their offspring into leaving the nest early, at the cost of fledgling survival, a study finds.
Image credit: Gil Eckrich (photographer).

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490