The US could reliably run on clean energy by 2050
A new simulation reinforces the stability of a wind, solar, and hydropower-based grid.
The Biden administration has committed to a carbon-free energy sector by 2035, but with renewable energy making up only around 19% of U.S. electricity in 2020, experts warn the transition must accelerate. At Stanford University, civil and environmental engineering professor Mark Jacobson led a team to show that a fully renewable U.S. energy grid by 2050 is feasible, reliable, and potentially cheaper than today’s grid.
“One of the biggest concerns with renewables is intermittency,” says Jacobson, addressing critiques that renewables’ variability led to blackouts in California and Texas. “We wanted to test this contention.” In a new paper published in Renewable Energy, Jacobson’s team argues that transitioning entirely to renewables (wind, water, and solar) would save costs, reduce emissions, and create jobs.
The researchers modelled an energy mix that could reliably power the U.S. in 2050, using weather, pollution, and energy consumption data to simulate real-time supply and demand matching every 30 seconds. Their model includes various renewable sources like wind turbines, hydropower, solar panels, and geothermal, and shows that a 100% renewable grid could avoid blackouts while meeting regional demands.
This model stands out for its high temporal resolution, a level of detail uncommon in renewable simulations. While most studies use hourly intervals, the Stanford team tracked conditions every 30 seconds, enhancing confidence in the grid’s stability under fluctuating weather conditions. “There’s no other model that couples a continuous weather prediction system for renewable energy fields and demand,” Jacobson says.
The team examined current grid regions across the U.S. and tested large-population states like New York, California, and Texas. Texas, whose independent grid experienced severe blackouts during extreme weather in 2021, was modelled alongside other regions, and the simulation suggests that linking Texas with other grids could stabilise its power supply. The Southern Cross transmission line, proposed by Pattern Energy, could facilitate such an integration.
While Jacobson’s study points to the feasibility of a fully renewable grid, Wesley Cole of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory emphasises the importance of economics and capacity building. The cost of renewables has dropped, but scaling infrastructure remains challenging. “Supply chains and transmission capacities are key issues,” Cole says.
Christian Breyer, a professor of solar economy in Finland, underscores that Jacobson’s model includes more battery storage options than most studies, adding that Jacobson’s work stands out in the U.S., where renewable energy research often faces funding challenges from fossil fuel and nuclear energy interests. “These interests are major roadblocks,” Breyer says, “as renewables are now the least expensive option.”
As renewable costs fall, adoption will likely grow, but policy remains crucial. While the Biden administration has renewable energy goals, recent oil and gas permits in the Gulf of Mexico could hinder progress. “Continued fossil fuel expansion slows the transition,” says Jacobson. “We need all new energy to be renewable to reach 100% transition.”
Anna-Katharina von Krauland, a co-author and Stanford PhD candidate notes that a fully renewable grid would have broad benefits, including job creation and reduced healthcare costs due to cleaner air. The model also suggests that green hydrogen could replace fossil fuels in sectors like aviation. The authors exclude nuclear and carbon capture technologies, which they view as costly or unproven, urging a focus on wind, water, and solar energy.
“The best path forward is to invest quickly in what we know works,” von Krauland says.