Nice article in PNAS. “Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits of wind and solar generation” Doi: 10.1073/pnas.1221978110 “When wind or solar energy displace conventional generation, the reduction in emissions varies dramatically across the United States. Although the Southwest has the greatest solar resource, a solar panel in New Jersey displaces significantly more sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter than a panel in Arizona, resulting in 15 times more health and environmental benefits. A wind turbine in West Virginia displaces twice as much carbon dioxide as the same turbine in California. Depending on location, we estimate that the combined health, environmental, and climate benefits from wind or solar range from $10/MWh to $100/MWh, and the sites with the highest energy output do not yield the greatest social benefits in many cases. We estimate that the social benefits from existing wind farms are roughly 60% higher than the cost of the Production Tax Credit, an important federal subsidy for wind energy. However, that same investment could achieve greater health, environmental, and climate benefits if it were differentiated by region.” A figure shows the best place to site these renewable is in a swath from Indiana to Maryland roughly. Perhaps that will inspire someone here Or we could turn it around and say that swath is the worst place to plug in your BEV.
Too early to read but an interesting premise: http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2013/06/19/1221978110.DCSupplemental/pnas.201221978SI.pdf Bob Wilson
