The Cost of Net Zero Electrification of the U.S.A.


© Version 2 (1)
August 23, 2022
By: Ken Gregory, P.Eng.

See full pdf document here.

Executive Summary
Many governments have made promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by replacing fossil fuels with solar and wind generated electricity and to electrify the economy. A report by Thomas Tanton estimates a capital cost of US$36.4 trillion for the U.S.A. economy to meet net zero emissions using wind and solar power. This study identifies several errors in the Tanton report and provides new capital cost estimates using 2019 and 2020 hourly electricity generation data rather than using annual average conditions as was done in the Tanton report. This study finds that the battery costs for replacing all current fossil fuel fired electricity with wind and solar generated electricity, using 2020 electricity data, is 111 times that estimated by the Tanton report. The total capital cost of electrification is herein estimated, using 2020 data, at US$290 trillion, or 13.5 times the U.S.A. 2019 gross domestic product. Overbuilding the solar plus wind capacity by 18% reduces overall costs by 17% by reducing battery storage costs. Allowing fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage to provide 60% of the electricity demand dramatically reduces the total costs from US$290 trillion to US$20.5 trillion, which is a reduction of 92.9%. Battery storage costs are highly dependent on the year’s weather and the seasonal shape of electricity demand.

1 Version 2 utilized the ratio of the efficiencies of internal combustion vehicles to electric vehicles. The factor of 0.21, was not considered in the Tanton Report. The battery efficiency was reduced from 90% to 80% which increased the battery storage by 2.0%. The cost of carbon capture and storage was increased by 11%.


5 Comments

  1. Andrew Roman

    I see the costs for the US, but what about Canada, both in dollars and related to GNP?

  2. Nick Anaxagoras

    Fact 1: Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or even just the GreenHouse Gases and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At our distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K).
    That’s NOT what the Radiative GreenHouse Effect theory says.
    EVIDENCE:
    RGHE theory “288 K w – 255 K w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth” 255 K assumes w/o keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud.
    Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
    Kramm “Moon as test bed for Earth”
    UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
    Int’l Space Station HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
    Astronaut backpack life support w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)

    Fact 2: The GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from a surface radiating as a black body.
    EVIDENCE:
    According to the K-T atmospheric power flux balance, numerous clones and SURFRAD the GHGs must absorb an “extra” 396/333/63 W/m^2 LWIR energy upwelling from the surface allegedly radiating as a black body. These graphics contain egregious arithmetic and thermodynamic errors. See https://youtu.be/0Jijw7-YG-U

    Fact 3: Because of the significant non-radiative, i.e. kinetic, heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules the surface cannot upwell “extra” energy as a black body.
    EVIDENCE:
    As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
    For the experimental write up see:
    https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/

    CONCLUSION:
    No RGHE, no GHG warming, no CAGW or mankind/CO2 driven climate change.

  3. Nick Anaxagoras

    Fact 1: Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or even just the GreenHouse Gases and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At our distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K).
    That’s NOT what the Radiative GreenHouse Effect theory says.
    EVIDENCE:
    RGHE theory “288 K w – 255 K w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth” 255 K assumes w/o keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud.
    Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
    Kramm “Moon as test bed for Earth”
    UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
    Int’l Space Station HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
    Astronaut backpack life support w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)

    Fact 2: The GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from a surface radiating as a black body.
    EVIDENCE:
    According to the K-T atmospheric power flux balance, numerous clones and SURFRAD the GHGs must absorb an “extra” 396/333/63 W/m^2 LWIR energy upwelling from the surface allegedly radiating as a black body. These graphics contain egregious arithmetic and thermodynamic errors. See https://youtu.be/0Jijw7-YG-U

    Fact 3: Because of the significant non-radiative, i.e. kinetic, heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules the surface cannot upwell “extra” energy as a black body.
    EVIDENCE:
    As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
    For the experimental write up see:
    https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/

    CONCLUSION:
    No RGHE, no GHG warming, no CAGW or mankind/CO2 driven climate change.

  4. Van Snyder

    Limited battery lifetime means they have to be replaced. What’s the cost per year, not the total cost to do it once? Using Euan Mearn’s optimistic estimate of 390 Wh/W, 1,700 GWe total average demand, $0.578 before installation from Tesla’s catalogue, and five year lifetime, I got FOUR TIMES TOTAL USA GDP EVERY YEAR! And that’s with the most optimistic estimates.

20 Pingbacks

  1. The Cost of Net Zero Electrification of the U.S.A. – Climate- Science.press
  2. Calculating The Full Costs Of Electrifying Everything Using Only Wind, Solar And Batteries Francis Menton | RUTHFULLY YOURS
  3. Calculating The Full Costs Of Electrifying Everything Using Only Wind, Solar And Batteries
  4. Watts Up With That?: The Cost of Net Zero Electrification of the U.S.A. - E&E Legal
  5. Durchbruch bei der Abschätzung von Kosten der Stromspeicherung in den USA | EIKE - Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
  6. Durchbruch bei der Abschätzung von Kosten der Stromspeicherung in den USA – Aktuelle Nachrichten
  7. Durchbruch bei der Abschätzung von Kosten der Stromspeicherung in den USA • Cottbuser Freiheit
  8. Durchbruch bei der Abschätzung von Kosten der Stromspeicherung in den USA - FreeSpeech.international
  9. What The Future Holds for Our Climate Leaders – Watts Up With That?
  10. Think we can get to Net Zero without a working prototype? Think again
  11. Was die Zukunft für unsere Klima-Führer bereit hält | EIKE - Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
  12. Was die Zukunft für unsere Klima-Führer bereit hält • Cottbuser Freiheit
  13. Was die Zukunft für unsere Klima-Führer bereit hält - FreeSpeech.international
  14. Demand Control: Wind & Solar ‘Transition’ Means Routine State-Controlled Power Rationing | ajmarciniak
  15. Demand Control: Wind & Solar ‘Transition’ Means Routine State-Controlled Power Rationing - Climate- Science.press
  16. Alberta’s Moratorium on Renewables | Friends of Science Calgary
  17. Review of Proposed Minimum Efficiency Standards for “Consumer Boilers" - Master Resource
  18. Review of Proposed Minimum Efficiency Standards for “Consumer Boilers” • Watts Up With That?
  19. Review of Proposed Minimum Efficiency Standards for “Consumer Boilers” • Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
  20. Review of Proposed Minimum Efficiency Standards for “Consumer Boilers” • Watts Up With That? – The Insight Post

Leave a Reply! Please be courteous and respectful; profanity will not be tolerated.


Privacy Policy Cookies Policy
©2002-2024 Friends of Science Society
Friends of Science Calgary