Energy systems modeling, economics, policy | IPCC, NCA, Stanford/CMU alum | Views my own
Here's the 2025 update: iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1...
Reposted by Daniel Huppmann, Hisham Zerriffi
This is similar to Zheng et al.: Even >3x interregional transmission only cuts costs of a zero-emissions 2050 system by ~7% (lots of substitutes: storage, siting, nuclear). Reliability benefits can be larger than pure $ savings: arxiv.org/abs/2402.14189
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Reposted by Peter Thorne
Electrifying a car-dependent city still means congestion, space, safety risk, and asphalt eating your budget.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
h/t my colleague Erik Smith for the analysis: 2025 temps from GFS 06z, 1975-2024 from ERA5, area-weighted (lat) and averaged over the CONUS.
The EMF 37 study also discusses opportunities and challenges in this space: www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Reposted by Leah Stokes
Reposted by Paul Lehmann, Juan Cole, Paul Nightingale
Grid: "Please hold. Your call is very important to us. Estimated wait time... 8 to 12 years."
Check out our new EPRI and RFF report here: www.epri.com/research/pro...
More solar instead of wind, more gas or CCS in some regions, higher costs, different transmission needs. Pathways diverge.
Wind is abundant, but setbacks, federal lands, and local ordinances dramatically shrink what's developable.
Our new EPRI analysis shows this vividly: Layering land restrictions and local ordinances shrinks land far more than many models assume.
Instead of pretending everything is deployable everywhere, models can limit annual build rates, restrict land availability, or cap technologies, testing how sensitive pathways are to real-world bottlenecks.
- Where projects are allowed
- How fast infrastructure can scale
- Whether communities say "yes"
Ignoring these can bias results toward unrealistically smooth buildouts.
Permitting, land access, local ordinances, supply chains, social acceptance. These shape what can get built but are tricky to model.
There's an interactive site here: interactive.epri.com/wattworks/p/1
But the very large jump between 23-24 is partially due to HB 5066 requiring ERCOT to consider load forecasts provided by utilities/TSPs, incl. loads that don’t have signed IX agreements.
Reposted by Richard S.J. Tol
It's interesting to see benefits extend far outside the target zone, although they happened on a smaller scale.