US can be converted to 100% renewable energy.

[TOMapleLaughs]

It's technically possible for each state to replace fossil fuel energy with entirely clean, renewable energy, experts say. A new report is the first to outline how each of the 50 states can achieve such a transition by 2050. The 50 individual state plans call for aggressive changes to both infrastructure and the ways we currently consume energy, but indicate that the conversion is technically and economically possible through the wide-scale implementation of existing technologies.

The new plan calls for no more than 0.5 percent of any state's land to be covered in solar panels or wind turbines. The upfront cost of the changes would be significant, but wind and sunlight are free. So the overall cost spread over time would be roughly equal to the price of the fossil fuel infrastructure, maintenance and production, authors say.

One potential way to combat ongoing climate change, eliminate air pollution mortality, create jobs and stabilize energy prices involves converting the world's entire energy infrastructure to run on clean, renewable energy.

This is a daunting challenge. But now, in a new study, Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford, and colleagues, including U.C. Berkeley researcher Mark Delucchi, are the first to outline how each of the 50 states can achieve such a transition by 2050. The 50 individual state plans call for aggressive changes to both infrastructure and the ways we currently consume energy, but indicate that the conversion is technically and economically possible through the wide-scale implementation of existing technologies.

"The main barriers are social, political and getting industries to change. One way to overcome the barriers is to inform people about what is possible," said Jacobson, who is also a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and at the Precourt Institute for Energy. "By showing that it's technologically and economically possible, this study could reduce the barriers to a large scale transformation."

The study is published in the online edition of Energy and Environmental Sciences.

Jacobson and his colleagues started by taking a close look at the current energy demands of each state, and how those demands would change under business-as-usual conditions by the year 2050. To create a full picture of energy use in each state, they examined energy usage in four sectors: residential, commercial, industrial and transportation.

For each sector, they then analyzed the current amount and source of the fuel consumed -- coal, oil, gas, nuclear, renewables -- and calculated the fuel demands if all fuel usage were replaced with electricity. This is a significantly challenging step -- it assumes that all the cars on the road become electric, and that homes and industry convert to fully electrified heating and cooling systems. But Jacobson said that their calculations were based on integrating existing technology, and the energy savings would be significant.

"When we did this across all 50 states, we saw a 39 percent reduction in total end-use power demand by the year 2050," Jacobson said. "About 6 percentage points of that is gained through efficiency improvements to infrastructure, but the bulk is the result of replacing current sources and uses of combustion energy with electricity."

The next step involved figuring out how to power the new electric grid. The researchers focused on meeting each state's new power demands using only the renewable energies -- wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and tiny amounts of tidal and wave -- available to each state.

They analyzed each state's sun exposure, and how many south-facing, non-shaded rooftops could accommodate solar panels. They developed and consulted wind maps and determined whether local offshore wind turbines were an option. Geothermal energy was available at a reasonable cost for only 13 states. The plan calls for virtually no new hydroelectric dams, but does account for energy gains from improving the efficiency of existing dams.

The report lays out individual roadmaps for each state to achieve an 80 percent transition by 2030, and a full conversion by 2050. Jacobson said that several states are already on their way. Washington state, for instance, could make the switch to full renewables relatively quickly, thanks to the fact that more than 70 percent of its current electricity comes from existing hydroelectric sources. That translates to about 35 percent of the state's all-purpose power if Washington were 100-percent electrified; wind and solar could fill most of the remainder.

Iowa and South Dakota are also well-positioned, as they already generate nearly 30 percent of their electricity from wind power. California, which was the focus of Jacobson's second single-state roadmap to renewables after New York, has already adopted some of his group's suggestions and has a plan to be 60 percent electrified by renewables by 2030.

The plan calls for no more than 0.5 percent of any state's land to be covered in solar panels or wind turbines. The upfront cost of the changes would be significant, but wind and sunlight are free. So the overall cost spread over time would be roughly equal to the price of the fossil fuel infrastructure, maintenance and production.

"When you account for the health and climate costs -- as well as the rising price of fossil fuels -- wind, water and solar are half the cost of conventional systems," Jacobson said. "A conversion of this scale would also create jobs, stabilize fuel prices, reduce pollution-related health problems and eliminate emissions from the United States. There is very little downside to a conversion, at least based on this science."

Jacobson said that if the conversion is followed exactly as his plan outlines, the reduction of air pollution in the U.S. could prevent the deaths of approximately 63,000 Americans who die from air pollution-related causes each year. It would also eliminate U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases produced from fossil fuel, which would otherwise cost the world $3.3 trillion a year by 2050.

An interactive map summarizing the plans for each state is available at http://www.thesolutionsproject.org.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150609093025.htm

Okay, we know. But by 2050? The world will be an oven by then. What's taking so long?

[TOMapleLaughs]

In a related story, it's your fault, extroverts:

Extroverts 'too busy' to be green

Extroverts are the least likely to adopt green lifestyles because they're distracted by their social life, activities and other people, according to new research.

Researchers at the University of Portsmouth Business School conducted a small-scale study of the over-50s to try and establish if personality type affects how green a person is.

They found that among the UK's older population, those with open personalities are the most green, and extroverts are the least green. The findings are particularly pertinent in the light of G7 leaders recent agreement to phase out fossil fuels emissions.

Overall, older consumers are only moderately green and although they become more green with age, the findings suggest government, campaigners and advertisers should step up their attempts to educate older people to adopt green behaviours.

The research is published in Futures.

The researchers, Sianne Gordon-Wilson and Pratik Modi, say older consumers' attitudes to being green was under-researched, particularly in light of the role that section of the population will play in the government's target of reducing greenhouse emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

Mrs Gordon-Wilson said: "Research hasn't paid much attention to whether age or personality type has an effect on someone's greenness.

"Older consumers are growing and their behaviour and attitudes will increasingly be important. Their attitudes are likely to have a powerful effect on Britain's overall response to reducing greenhouse emissions.

"It isn't surprising that people who we describe as open -- those who are curious, imaginative and untraditional -- are more likely to be green. But we were surprised that extroverts are less likely to be green. We had expected that of all the five main personality types, open and extrovert people would be the most green."

Extroverts are or might be 'reasonably green', but it appears they are easily distracted from making further efforts or changes because other things were competing for their attention.

Green behaviour includes not leaving a television on standby, switching off lights, not letting taps run, buying recycled products and taking your own bags to the supermarket.

The study examined 204 people aged over 50 using two theories. Socio-emotional selectivity theory was used to gauge the influence of age on behaviour, particularly whether someone prefers emotion-related goals or knowledge-related goals. Time perspective theory is used to better understand how someone's behaviour is influenced by how much time they think they have left to live.

Mrs Gordon-Wilson said: "A limitation of the previous research was it lumps all older people together. We know that someone in their early 50s will behave entirely differently to someone in their 70s. Someone aged 52 was born in the Sixties, a period of liberal social advances; they are likely to be working and have money and knowledge-related goals.

"People in their 70s are more aware they have less time left and consequently more likely to prioritise emotion-related goals, such as spending time with family. They are also from the post-War era and familiar with rationing and hardship."

Despite clear differences among older people, the over-50s make up a third of the British population, making them an important group socially and politically, she said.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150609065536.htm

Maybe that's why advances in social media and communication techs are taking precedence over advances of other techs. Conpiracy to keep the masses occupied with farmville while selling them the plastics and energy demand increases required to keep the oil industry peaked no matter what approach governments decided to take on climate change. It's a conspiraceeeee!

[Heretic]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150609093025.htm

Okay, we know. But by 2050? The world will be an oven by then. What's taking so long?

That's only 35 years from now - and it won't be a lights out/light on transition - it would be a slow shift.

Who knows, as technology improves and costs lower - maybe it can be completed by 2040 or earlier - which would be cool.

[Baer.]

The united states will be an oil addicted country until the last drop is sucked from this earth. Luckily around 2050 is when that should happen, SO START NOW.

[taxi]

The technology just isn't there right now...unless you go nuclear. The main issue is that wind and solar power do not produce steady supplies of energy, which means building giant batteries to store energy during down times. The battery technology is not quite there yet. Currently, batteries are expensive and environmentally costly.

The countries investing heavily in solar and wind are having serious problems. The country that has invested the most, Germany, simply isn't showing the supposed benifits:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanys-green-energy-disaster-a-cautionary-tale-for-world-leaders/

Quite frankly, It'd be great if the US could pull this off, a few Californian professors stating it would be a good idea are hardly evidence that it's possible. The US has been becoming more efficient with their oil use, and, most notably, has vastly decreased their dependency on foreign oil. The idea of totally doing away with the need for fossil fuels by 2050 seems a bit far fetched, unless there are some huge advancements in technology. That might actually happen, but it's not really an issues of political will.

[Nuxfanabroad]

Ha! Well said OP(what's taking so long?..)

We're nearing 405 ppm now, & have activated about 50 self-reinforcing, feedback-loops. Methane is rapidly approaching THREE HUNDRED % increase(from pre-industrial); & the jet stream is meandering like a butterfly on LSD.

So now they wanna stash that toothpaste back into the tube?! Wonderful.

Special shout-out to MSM for keeping us all(ahem) up-to-date on the most important issue in the history of mankind.

For chess enthusiasts: this is end-game.

[mpt]

The USD relies heavily on the price of oil to keep the value of their dollar high, they'll never go for it, hence why they haven't.