THE NEXT LANDSCAPE
YANGQIANQIAN HU | HANGXING LIU | QINMENG YU
We are skeptical about environmentalism, and the assumption that energy consumption does harm to “nature,” therefore humans should reduce consumption. We also question ecomodernism, which denies the fact that “pristine nature” has been greatly altered by humans and technology such as energy industry. Both of these views reinforce the illusory boundary between technology and nature. This boundary is further reflected in the complex and huge infrastructure landscape that supports the energy industry, which is isolated from people and their life. We believe that the “in-between” space should be acknowledged. The phasing-out of fossil fuel and implementation of renewable energy is gradually becoming a global mandate. This process was not, and is still not, considered to be operating ground for landscape architects. However, since renewable energy consumes more landscape than traditional energy grid, and does so in a more distributed manner, we believe that landscape architects should play a major role in constructing the next energy landscape so that it can cultivate new relationships between socio-ecological networks and the current infrastructural system.
THE NEXT LANDSCAPE
In order to scrutinize the patch dynamics of this system, we defined a new system of material exchange within which the overall working landscape should be choreographed. As Kristina Hill puts it, “the node is where numerous interactions take place.� These interactions should not be limited to the physical footprints and direct associations, but should transcend their meaning in a socio-ecological way.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXISTING POWER GRID 06 FUTURE TARGET 10 RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES 16 RENEWABLES VS NON-RENEWABLES 24 THE NEXT LANDSCAPE 50
APPENDIX ATLAS OF CONSUMPTION
24 MWh
The California ISO maintains reliability on one of the largest and most modern power grids in the world. and operates a transparent, accessible wholesale energy market.
47.2 MWh
WESTERN INTERCONNECTION
CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM
0.6 MWh
The Western Interconnection is a one of the two major alternating current (AC) power grids in the continental U.S. power transmission grid. The other major wide area synchronous grid is the Eastern Interconnection. The three minor interconnections are the Québec Interconnection, the Texas Interconnection, and the Alaska Interconnection. QUEBEQ INTERCONNECTION
1 EXISTING POWER GRID
WESTERN INTERCONNECTION
LEGEND ESTERN INTERCONNECTION
SOLAR THERMAL SOLAR PV
TEXAS INTERCONNECTION
BIOMASS
http://www.caiso.com/about/Pages/default.aspxetemoru https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interconnection
293
HYDRO LANDFILL GAS
SOURCE:
8
33 47
NATURAL GASS WIND
363 186
! ! !
! !
! !
!!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
! !!
! !
!
!
! ! !!
!
! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
POWER PLANTS TRANSMISSION GRID IN CENTRAL VALLEY
!
! !! ! !
! !
!! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! !
!
!¢
!
SOURCE: https://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/powerplants/power_plant_statewide.html
!
!!
0
!
! !! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !! ! ! !
!
! !! !
!
!¢
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! !
!!
!
!
!
! !!
! !!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
! !! !
!
!!
!!
!
! !!
! !!! !¢ !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!! ! !! !!!! ! !
!
!
!! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !! !! !
!
! !!
! ! !! !
!! ! !! !!
! !! ! !!!! ! !!! !!
! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !! ! !
!
! ! !! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!!
!! ! ! !! !!
!
!!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
! !
!
! !!
! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !!
! !
!
!
! !!
! ! !
! !
!
!!
! ! ! !
!
! !
!! ! ! !
! ! ! !!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !!!
! ! ! !!
!
! !
!
!! ! !
!! ! !
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!! !
!
! !
!
!
!!! ! ! !
!!
! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! ! !! !
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !! !
! !!
! !
2
!
EXISTING POWER GRID
! !! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !!!
!
!! ! !
752
! !!
!
!
! !! !
!
! !! ! ! !!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
!
! ! !
100
25
!
!
!! !
N
! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!!! !!! !! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! !
!
!
!! ! !
!
!!
! !! ! ! !
!¢
! ! ! !
!!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
PRODUCTION CONSUMPTION
NATURALGAS COAL
ENERGY ( TRILLIONS OF BTU PER YEAR )
PETROLEUM
ELECTRICITY NET IMPORTS 291
3476 1167 WATER
123
WATER
255 234
2325 320 WATER
0.02
0 WATER
55 0
NUCLEAR 337 GEOTHERMAL 337 HYDRO 337
3 EXISTING POWER GRID
WATER (MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER DAY )
WIND / SOALR 106
FRESH / SURFACE 18,820
SALINE SURFAC 4,514
FRESH GROUND 12,260
SALINE GROUND 320
SOURCE: HTTPS://FLOWCHARTS.LLNL.GOV/
ELECTRICI GENERATIO 1,722 4,553
TRANSPORTATION 3096 ENERGY SERVICES 2,850
RESIDENTIAL 909 4,038
COMMERCIAL 716 1,895
REJECTED ENERGY 4,446
INDUSTRIAL 1361 1,175 22.9 47.16 WASTEWATER TREATMENT
ITY ON 591
SURFACE DISCHARGE 8,400
OCEAN DISCHARGE 6,057 19.2 6,299
4 IRRIGATION 42.5
CONSUMED OR EVAPORATED 21,510
23,980
AGRICULTURE, IRRIGATION, AQUACULTURE, & LIVESTOCK
INJECTION 105
EXISTING POWER GRID
PUBLIC & MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
Generation in Gigawatt Hours ( GWh ) Renewable
5
Large Hydropower
Nuclear
Natural Gas
Misc
San
EXISTING POWER GRID
Sierra
Trinity
36
438
Siskiyou
Tulare
19,871
454
961
Sacramento
San Mateo
Solano
Tuolumne
2,982
5,915
113
2,867
4,756
Madera
Napa
San Benito
Sonoma
Ventura
8,442
1,969
3
23
55
5,285
1,609
Colusa
Inyo
Marin
Nevada
Santa Clara
Stanislaus
Yolo
2,683
1,741
18
596
12,760
3,473
2,025
273
Kern
Mariposa
Orange
San Diego
Santa Cruz
Sutter
Yuba
11,162
32,822
491
1,425
7,783*
64
356
2,036
El Dorado
Kings
Shasta
Tehama
Total
2,583
1,211
8,513
77
206,377
Alameda
Fresno
Lake
Merced
Plumas
1,868
8,949
1,241
206*
2,252
Amador
Glenn
Lassen
Mono
Riverside
949
17
279
324
8,331
Butte
Humboldt
Monterey
3,950
507
23,631
Calaveras
Imperial
1,260
Contra Costa
Los Angeles
Mendocino
42
Placer
2,454
San Bernardino
San Francisco
32
Joaquin
2,210
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
is.
RENEWABLE AND NON-RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY Comparing Utility-Scale Generation by County
Shasta
SOURCE: https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/thematic-maps/Renewable_and_Non-Renewable_Electricity.pdf
Tehama
While Caliofornia electricity generations rely huge on renewables, within the central valley area, the natural gas generated electricity takes up the largest share.
Butte Glenn
Colusa
Yuba Sutter El Dorado
Yolo Sacramento
Napa Solano
Contra Costa Alameda
Calaveras San Joaquin
Stanislaus Merced
Santa Clara
San Benito
Madera
Fresno
Kings
Tulare
Kern
6 EXISTING POWER GRID
Renewables Large Hydro Natural Gas Nuclear
CALIFORNIA AIMS AT 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY IN 2045 Senate Bill No. 100, CHAPTER 312, An act to amend Sections 399.11, 399.15, and 399.30 of, and to add Section 454.53 to, the Public Utilities Code, relating to energy. [ Approved by Governor September 10, 2018. Filed with Secretary of State September 10, 2018. ] (1) Displacing fossil fuel consumption within the state. (2) Adding new electrical generating facilities in the transmission network within the WECC service area. (3) Reducing air pollution, particularly criteria pollutant emissions and toxic air contaminants, in the state. (4) Meeting the state’s climate change goals by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases associated with electrical generation. (5) Promoting stable retail rates for electric service.
3,000 MW ACHIEVEMENTS
DISTRIBUTED SOLAR INSTALLED
12,000 MW
8,000 MW
52%
DISTRIBUTED RENEWABLES INSTALLED
ESTIMA
LARGE RENEWABLES INSTALLED
44%
ESTIMATED RENEWBLE
20% RENEWABLES ACHIEVED
33%
ESTIMATED RENEWBLES ACHIEVED
7
2010
2012
2014
2016
2020
FUTURE TARGET
100% RPS BY 2045
33% RPS BY 2030 POLICIES/GOALS
2018
12,000 MW RENEWABLES BY 2020 8,000 MW LARGE-SCALE RENEWABLES BY 2020
50% RPS BY 2030
2022
2024
202
(6) Meeting the state’s need for a diversified and balanced energy generation portfolio. (7) Assisting with meeting the state’s resource adequacy requirements. (8) Contributing to the safe and reliable operation of the electrical grid, including providing predictable electrical supply, voltage support, lower line losses, and congestion relief. (9) Implementing the state’s transmission and land use planning activities related to development of eligible renewable energy resources. Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB100
100%
ESTIMATED RENEWBLES ACHIEVED
60%
%
ATED RENEWBLES ACHIEVED
OPERATION 2 ACHIEVED OPERATION 1 ACHIEVED
ES ACHIEVED
26
OPERATION 3 ACHIEVED
ESTIMATED RENEWBLES ACHIEVED
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2045
8 FUTURE TARGET
CALIFORN
100
9 FUTURE TARGET
RENEWABL IN 2
NIA AIMS AT
0%
10 FUTURE TARGET
LE ENERGY 2045
WIND POWER GENERATOR STUDY
Wind power density (w/m2) 1200 Rotor diameter(m) Rating(kw)
1000
800
600
150m 10000Kw 400
A380 72.7 m
11
125m 5000Kw
RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
100m 3000Kw 70m 1500Kw
200
80m 1800Kw
50m 750Kw 17m 75Kw
30m 300Kw
$0 1980-1990
1990-1995
1995-2000
2000-2005
2005-2010
2010-2015
Present
5D
Wind farm layout ——Geometrical analysis Square layout
5D Height/m
10m 30-200Kw
Nominally centred (regular) hexagonal layout
600 m
550 m
5D
500 m Nominally centred (regular) octagonal layout 450 m
400 m The shroud of Altaeros's Buoyant Airborne Turbine (BAT) is kept aloft by 1,000 cubic meters of helium.
350 m 290m 600Kw 300 m Turbine
250 m
200 m
150 m
100 m
Three double-braided polymer tethers prevent the airship from drifting away. One contains copper conductors that transmit power, collected as high as 2,000 feet, down to a battery or the grid
50 m
0m Future
The ground station
WIND POWER GENERATOR STUDY
13
RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
14
RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
SOLAR POWER GENERATOR STUDY
15 RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
16
RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
Southwest Import 45,830 GWh Northwest Import 39,873 GWh
Renew 23,50
ENERGY CONSUMPTION PATTERN TRANSITION In the future, confronted with the decline of fossil fuel resources, the demand for energy consumption will continue to increase. The bar chart displays that in order to meet the demand of consumption, California has to import energy from other states. The two-axis shows the relationship between energy consumption and time, and indicates that the phasing-out of fossil fuel and the implementation of renewable energy is gradually becoming a global mandate.
In-State Power Generation 206,336 GWh
2045 demand 336,000 GWh
Ren 61,1
17 RENEWABLES VS NON-RENEWABLES
313,000
300,100 285,000 existing renewables
fossil fuel nuclear 2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Import
Small Hydro
Geothermal
Biomass
wables 01 GWh
Import
Oil Coal Other Nuclear Large Hydro
Solar Natural Gas
18
Biomass Small Hydro Geothermal Wind Solar
RENEWABLES VS NON-RENEWABLES
newables 183 GWh
Wind
SCALE COMPARISON OF RENEWABLES & NON-RENEWABLES For fuel mining and generating footprint. Includes production-related and life-cycle-embodied emissions. c Levelized cost of electricity, includes cost amortization for long-term waste management and plant decommissioning for nuclear energy. d Categorical rating of capacity and availability to deliver electricity on demand. e Deaths from accidents, excluding chronic health problems. f Categorical classification of the volume of the radiotoxic waste stream. a
b
Land usea (km2) Indicator (per TWh)
19
0.1
1.1
2.1
5.7
Nuclear
Natural Gas
Coal
Solar Power
RENEWABLES VS NON-RENEWABLES
GHG emissionsb (t CO2)
16,000
469,000
1,001,000
46,000
Electricity costc ($US)
108.4
65.6
100.1
144.3
A
A
A
C
0.04
4
161
0.44
NA
NA
58,600
NA
high
low
mid
trace
Dispatchabilityd Safetye (fatalities) Solid Waste (t) Radiotoxic Wastef
46
50
95
Wind Power
Hydro Power
Biomass
4,000
18,000
86.6
90.3
111
C
B
B
0.15
1.4
12
NA
NA
9170
trace
trace
low
20 RENEWABLES VS NON-RENEWABLES
12,000
! !!! !! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !! !! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !
!
! !! !
!
!! !!
! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !
!
! !
!! ! ! !! !
! ! ! ! !
!!! !!!! !! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
! ! !! !! ! !
!
! !
! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !!
!! !
!!! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
21
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !
! ! !
!
!!
! !! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !! ! ! !
!!
!
! ! !
!
!! ! !
RENEWABLES VS NON-RENEWABLES
!! !
!
!
Non-renewables: larger capacity, farther from consumption area, more isolated Renewables: smaller capacity, closer to consumption area, more distributed
SCALE COMPARISON OF RENEWABLES & NON-RENEWABLES
!
!!
!
!!!!
! ! !!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
!! !! ! !! !! ! !
22
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! !
!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !
! ! !!
! ! !
0-85
!! ! !
!
!
!
! !
Energy Consumption Area
1400-2500 Powerline
Renewables capacity
!
!!
Non-renewables capacity
Gas Pipe 0-85
1400-2500
RENEWABLES VS NON-RENEWABLES
!
RENEWABLES CONSUMES MORE LANDSCAPE This diagram indicates the required energy land use under the hypothesis that power is totally generated by renewable energy, such as wind and solar energy in 2045. It also spatializes the entire area by comparing it with the Yosemite national park.
Yosemite National Park
3027 KM
2
Current E
3
CALIFORNIA URBAN LAND
9421 KM
2
If only wind energy is used for energy production...
8911 21912 KM
D=150m
TURBINES NEEDED
23
2
H=400m
10000 kw/turbine
RENEWABLES VS NON-RENEWABLES
If only solar energy is used for energy production...
20093 14608 KM
SOLAR PANELS NEEDED
150 w/panel
2
D=1.2m
CALIFORNIA
423971 KM
2
Power up 2045 California by solar
Energy Land Use
3575 KM
2
14608 KM
2
Power up 2045 California by wind
21912 KM
2
Oil Coal Other Nuclear
Large Hydro
Natural Gas Biomass Small Hydro Geothermal Wind Solar
24 RENEWABLES VS NON-RENEWABLES
25
THE NEXT LANDSCAPE
RESOURCES California, with its abundant natural resources, has a long history of support for renewable energy. A large amount of electricity came from renewable resources such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and small hydroelectric facilities.
GEOTHERMAL 26
BIOMASS
SOLAR
THE NEXT LANDSCAPE
WIND
27 THE NEXT ENERGY LANDSCAPE
COAL
SOLAR THERMAL
GAS STATION
OIL/GAS FIELD
LANDFILL GAS
GEOTHERMAL
CHARGING
AGRICULTURE
NUCLEAR PLANT
WIND
HIGHWAY
HERBACEOUS
DIGESTER GAS
SOLAR
POWER LINE
OPEN WATER
BATTERY
HYDRO
GAS PIPE
DEVELOPMENT
NATURAL GAS
BIOMASS
PASTURE
28
THE NEXT LANDSCAPE
Wind farm
Original foss
Energy kite
29 EXISTING POWER GRID
Solar farm
sil fuel plants Energy kite for cultural memory Biomass Wind farm
30 EXISTING POWER GRID
RAW MATERIALS
CONDUIT
Forest
Highway
Coal mine
Industrial harbor
Gas field
Gas pipeline
Oil field
Oil pipeline
PROCESSING
CONSUM
Coal power plant
Natural gas power plant
Oil power plant
31 THE NEXT LANDSCAPE
Urban community
Oil refinery and storage
Nuclear power plant
POSSIBLE SITES CATALOG
MPTION
RENEWABLE CONSUMPTION
Biomass power plant
Geothermal power plant
Solar farm
Wind farm
32 THE NEXT LANDSCAPE
DEMOLISHED AND CLEARED RETIRED OIL STORAGE TANK SITE
OIL TANK CONVERTED TO MAINTANENCE FACILITY
SOIL REMEDIATION TANK
GREEN HOUSE
THE VIEW DECK
SLOPE TERRACED FOR PLANTS TO GROW
DRAINAGE
AIR VENTED IN TO ACCELARATE THE REMEDIATION PROCESS
REMEDIATED SOIL RICH IN SULPHUR
CONTAMINATED SOIL
33 THE NEXT ENERGY LANDSCAPE
SOIL REMEDIATION TANK
HEAVY METAL SEDIMENTATION TRENCH
DRAINAGE PURIFICATION TRENCH
DRAINAGE PURIFICATION POND
AEROBIC BACTERIA MICRO ORGANISM DEGRADE XENOBIOTICS AND PRODUCE FERTILE SOIL
THE ORIGINAL TANK WALL AIR PUMP
AIR PUMP
SOURCE: https://www.theengineer.co.uk/breathing-new-life-into-oil-contaminated-soil/
THE RE-ASSEMBLED WALL
AIR PIPE
AIR PIPE
PERFORATED PIPE
PERFORATED PIPE
TO PURIFICATION POND
AEROBIO FERTILE MICRO SOIL ORGANISM
AIR
CONTAMINATED SOIL
THE OIL TANK
THE DOUBLE WALL TANK
CUTTING
EDITTING AND REASSEMBLEING
THE SOIL TANK
TH
OIL STORAGE TANKS STILL IN USE
GREEN HOUSE
THE PLAY GROUND
GREEN HOUSE THEATER
SOIL REMEDIATION TANK RAMP TO VIEW DECK
GREEN HOUSE TANK
34 THE NEXT LANDSCAPE
HE EXPERIENCE
THE PLAY GROUND
THE ENERGY KITE HARVEST THE WIND POWER AT HIGH SKY ( 300 FT~1000 FT )
BIOMASS STATION WITHOUT CHIMNEY THE GAS WAS PUMPED INTO THE OLD GAS WELL
BIOMASS COMBUSATION ASHES LIMING - pH PREPARATION
35 THE NEXT ENERGY LANDSCAPE
BIOMASS RESOURCE
CORN - NITROGEN UPTAKING
ALFALFA - NITROGEN UPTAKING
AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT POWERED BY CHANGEBALE BATTERY BATTERY CAN BE CHANGED AND CHARGED AT THE ENERGY HUB IN THE ARGICULTURE FIELD
ALFALFA ROTATION CROP - CORN EVERY 3 yrs
36 THE NEXT LANDSCAPE
MOVABLE SOLAR PANEL ALFALFA FIELD NEAR THE ENERGY HUB DURING FALLOW TIME CAN BE USED FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION
ROTATING GENERATOR ENERGY KITE’S GROUND STATION
SHARED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT THE ENERGY KITE , MOVABLE SOLAR PANEL AND THE CHARGING STATION SHARE THE BASIC ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
ALFALFA FIELD NEWLY PLANTED
SOLAR MID ALLEY
SOLAR FACADE
SPACE SAVED TO AVOID DRANAGE SYSTEM SHADE
ROOF SOLAR PANEL
NEIGHBORHOD GARDEN
SPACE SAVED TO AVOID CAR SHADE
PRIVATE ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM
37 THE NEXT ENERGY LANDSCAPE
URBAN FORM STUDY
A TYPICAL SACRAMENTO BLOCK
AN OFF GRID SOLAR BLOCK
A TYPICAL SCRAMENTO HOUSING UNIT
FOOTPRINT AGGREGATION COMPARISON
UNIT FOOTPRINT COMPARISON
A TYPICAL SACRAMENTO BLOCK
29
FAMILIE
60 ft
BY PARCELS
100 ft 13 ft AN OFF GRID SOLAR BLOCK UNIT
SOLAR ACCESSIBILITY +
SHARED PARTY WALL?
AN OFF GRID SOLAR BLOCK
28
FAMILI
BY SHARED PARTY WALL UNIT
90 ft
FOOT PRINT AGGREGATION
FOOT PRINT AGGREGATION
40 ft
POCKET STREET
POCKET RAIN GARDEN
COLLECT STREET RUNOFF
POCKET RAIN GARDEN
SHARED GREEN HOUSE
TRANSITIONAL DOOR FRONT SPACE TOWARD THE POCKET
URBAN FARMING
COLLECT STREET RUNOFF
PUBLIC RECREATION SPACE
POTENTIAL INTER-BLOCK PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION
38 THE NEXT LANDSCAPE
A POSSIBLE DOOR OPENING PATTERN
RESIDENTIAL SOLAR POWER GENERATION STUDY
ES
S
back up power source roof obstruction variable weather condition winter efficiency reduced to half car consumption not considered
EMERGING PUBLIC SPACE
IES
L
COMMUNITY ORCHARD
A standard residential solar panel 18 sq ft
To power a average family 6-7 KW Solar System
A typical housing unit roof = 780 ft best orientation 390 ft, Lorem ipsum
20 panels = 360 ft
NOT CONSIDERING OBSTRUCTIONS ON ROOF NOT CONSIDERING SHADE
To go off-grid ? Post-fossil era ?
39
THE NEXT ENERGY LANDSCAPE
40
THE NEXT LANDSCAPE
41
THE NEXT ENERGY LANDSCAPE
42
THE NEXT LANDSCAPE
43
THE NEXT ENERGY LANDSCAPE
44
THE NEXT LANDSCAPE
45
THE NEXT ENERGY LANDSCAPE
46
THE NEXT LANDSCAPE
47
THE NEXT ENERGY LANDSCAPE
48
THE NEXT LANDSCAPE
49
THE NEXT ENERGY LANDSCAPE
50
THE NEXT LANDSCAPE
ATLAS of CONSUMPTION IN CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VALLEY
YANGQIANQIAN HU | HANGXING LIU | QINMENG YU
THIS IS NEITHER ENVIRONMENTALISM,
Environmentalism or environmental rights is a broad philosophy, ideology, and social movement regarding concerns for environmental protection and improvement of the health of the environment, particularly as the measure for this health seeks to incorporate the impact of changes to the environment on humans animals, plants and non-living matter. While environmentalism focuses more on the environmental and nature-related aspects of green ideology and politics, ecologism combines the ideology of social ecology and environmentalism. Ecologism is more commonly used in continental European languages while ‘environmentalism’ is more commonly used in English but the words have slightly different connotations. En vironmentalism advocates the preservation, restoration and/or improvement of the natural environment and critical earth system elements or processes such as the climate, and may be referred to as a move ment to control pollution or protect plant and animal diversity.[1] For this reason, concepts such as a land ethic, environmental ethics, biodiversity, ecology, and the biophilia hypothesis figure predominantly. Intensifying many human activities — particularly farming, energy extraction, forestry, and settlement — so that they use less land and interfere less with the natural world is the key to decoupling human development from environmental impacts. These socioeconomic and technological processes are central to economic modernization and environmental protection. Together they allow people to mitigate climate change, to spare nature, and to alleviate global poverty. Although we have to date written separately, our views are increasingly discussed as a whole. We call ourselves ecopragmatists and ecomodernists. We offer this statement to affirm and to clarify our views and to describe our vision for putting humankind’s extraordinary powers in the service of creating a good Anthropocene. These patterns suggest that humans are as likely to spare nature because it is not needed to meet their needs as they are to spare it for explicit aesthetic and spiritual reasons. The parts of the planet that people have not yet profoundly transformed have mostly been spared because they have not yet found an economic use for them — mountains, deserts, boreal forests, and other “marginal” lands. Decoupling raises the possibility that societies might achieve peak human impact without intruding much further on relatively untouched areas. Nature unused is nature spared. Even if a fully synthetic world were possible, many of us might still choose to continue to live more coupled with nature than human sustenance and technologies require. What decoupling offers is the possibility that humanity’s material dependence upon nature might be less destructive.
NOR ECOMODERNISM.
CONSUMPTION CAN NOT BE RESTRICTED. IT IS THE WAY WE CONSUME THAT MATTERS
We are skeptical about environmentalism, which overanalyzed the vulnerability of the environment and overlooked the fact that we rely on a wide range of elements to survive on this planet. We are also ques tioning about ecomodernism, which to some extent, separated the integrity of human and nature. Admittedly, we agree with the viewpoint that “A good Anthropocene demands that humans use their growing social, economic, and technological powers to make life better for people, stabilize the climate, and protect the natural world”, but we are not sure if “humanity must shrink its impacts on the environment to make more room for nature”. This Atlas of Consume is telling the story of how human being consumes the natural resources and how this consumption produces consumable. We categorize the natural resources into three elements: water, land and energy. After exploring the geography and geology of Central Valley, we zoom into this loop of consuming and producing through the lens of infrastructure, city development, electricity generation water supply and logistics. Consumption is shaping the landscape of geomorphology through human activities. This single relationship of “consume and being consumed” between human and nature is unsustainable, which pushes us to think about the possibilities of expanding the relationship. As agriculture being the leading and most profitable industry in Central Valley, it relies heavily on natural water supply, especially groundwater, which is causing the land subsidence and the shrink of natural habitats of wildlife. We are also consuming land to extend human occupation by transforming the original wetlands to farmlands and cities, which demands a large amount of energy. Although the goal of 33% renewable energy is realized in California, a large portion of Central Valley still consumes natural gas more than renewable energy, such as solar power, wind power, etc. There are some questions arising in the process of making this Atlas. How can we improve the efficiency of consuming? Is there any new relationship between human and nature?
Second Industrial Revolution
First Industrial Revolution
Digital Revolution
Senate Bill 100, signed codifies 60% by 2030 & 100% by 2045 RPS
Civil War Timber Harvesting Has Fallen Sharply in CA
First practical silicon solar cell by Bell Lab
First Electricity Generator by Michael Faraday
First electricity-generating wind turbine invented in Ohio California Gold Rush
20% Renewables Goal Achieved ARCO Solar broke ground on the world’s largest photovoltaic facility in Camarillo, California.
Expensive Sustained Yield Planning Required
Congress also passed the Energy Tax Act
State Water Project
33% Renewables Goal Achieved
Central Valley Project Congress passed the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA)
California’s population increased by approximately 375% Union Mattole Company started producing oil in California.
Central valley project improvement act
Forest Practices Act
Oil prices had fallen too low for oil companies to maintain high profit margins.
1840
1860
1880
1900
1920
1930
California established its Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program
Electricity deregulated A blowout on the ocean bottom leaked 90,000 barrels of oil into the water of the Santa Barbara Channel
President Calvin Coolidge created the Federal Oil Conservation Board.
1820
Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 350 to codify ambitious climate and clean energy goals
California electricity crisis
Z’Berg-Nejedly Forest Practices Act (FPA)
1800
2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
Deregulation took effects Public concern about forestry resurfaced
1990
2000
Clean Energy Jobs Plan Hydraulic fracturing of shale oil deposits leads to new supplies of natural gas and increased oil production
2010
2020
Water Resources Ground Water Depth Lake 1-50ft
River
Dried River
> 400ft Snow Melt
Annual Precipitation +
N
0
WATER Water is an essential element to daily life. In California, water mainly comes from Sierra Nevada snow melt, rainfall and groundwater. Water is stored in lakes and reservoirs, while pumping plants are working on getting groundwater out of the strata of earth. Californians consumes the highest amount of groundwater in the States. We consume water in different ways, mostly by agriculture which includes crop farming, aquaculture and livestock farming. We consume water in urban context. We drink water everyday and we can’t survive without consuming water.
25
75
150 km
California Water Storage and Use
N
150 km
Pumping Plant
Reservoir Capacity (Acre Feet)
<1000
500,0001million
Aqueducts
> 3 million
Population Density
Crop Farming
Grazing Land
Urban Land
Shasta Lake
Lake Oroville
Trinity Lake
New Melones Lake
San Luis Reservoir
Don Pedro Reservoir
Lake Berryessa
Lake Almanor
Folsom Lake
Historical Avg Total Volume
Lake McClure
Environmental
Agricultural
Urban
25 20 15
10
5
Coastal
Central Valley
Colorado River
South Lahontan
North Lahontan
Tulare Lake
San Joaqin River
Sacramento River
Mountains and Desert
Applied Water Use Millions of acre feet
Both agricultural and urban water use have fallen 50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
1960
1967
1972
Population
1980
1985
1990
Total Use
1995
2000
2005
2010
Agricultural
2015
0
Population in millions
South Coast
Central Coase
0
San Francisco Bay
75
North Coast
25
Average annual applied water use, millions of acre feet (1982-2010)
0
Urban
SOURCES: Water use in 1960â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2010: California Water Plan Updates (Department of Water Resources, various years).
How much water is used to produce your food? Californiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s crippling drought has prompted conservation efforts, such as replacing grass lawns and minding how long you leave the tap water running. But what about the food on your plate? Agriculture uses 40% of Californiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s water supply, and producing what you eat can require a surprising amount of water. The number next to the plate below represents the direct and indirect amount of water required to produce your food plate, based on U.S. data from the Water Footprint Network. Food items are assumed as fresh (unfrozen) and do not include the footprint for cooking (when applicable).
Wine: 8 ounces 34.2 gallons
A VEGAN BREAKFAST Fruits and Vegetables: 7.4 gallons
Drink: 33.8 gallons
Starch: 29.8 gallons
Protein: 356.2 gallons
Beef: 8 ounces 850.2 gallons
Peas: 8 ounces 356.2 gallons
NET WATER USE OF SELECTED CROPS Units: TAF - Thousand of acre-feet
Potatoes: 10 ounces 29.8 gallons
45
Potato
55
Fresh tomato
87
Sugar beet
545
Winter wheat
726
1183
Cotton
Grape
Bread: 6 ounces 86.6 gallons
Carrots: 8 ounces 7.4 gallons 1507
Corn
1655
Walnut
1517
Rice
2270
Pasture
2892
Almonds
3652
Cherries: 8 ounces 97.8 gallons
Alfalfa
STEAK LUNCH SET Fruits and Vegetables: 97.8 gallons
Drink: 34.2 gallons
Starch: 86.6 gallons
Protein: 850.2 gallons
Apple Juice: 8 ounces 33.8 gallons
Source: http://graphics.latimes.com/food-water-footprint/
Delta Cross Channel INFLOW Snodgrass Slough Sacramento River
TO PUMP
Groundwater Level Change 2008-2018 Groundwater Withdrawals 2015 in million gallons per day
Groundwater Basin Groundwater Level Increase 20-40 inches Groundwater Level Increase 0-20 inches
40%
Groundwater Level Decline more than 100 inches Groundwater Level Decline 80-100 inches Groundwater Level Decline 60-80 inches Groundwater Level Decline 40-60 inches Groundwater Level Decline 20-40 inches
60%
Groundwater Level Decline 0-20 inches N
25
100
Groundwater provides nearly 40% daily water use for California. Approximately 30 million people (80 percent of Californians) live in areas overlying alluvial groundwater basins. Some communities in California use very little groundwater, while many communities are 100-percent reliant upon groundwater.
0-2000 2001-5000 2001-5000 10,001-20,000 20,001-28,000
Central Valley Relies Heavily on Groundwater Supply Dry years
Sacramento Valley
San Joaquin Basin
Tulare Basin
20 0 -20
Cumulative change in groundwater storage (millions of acre-feet)
0
-40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140 -160 1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Water Year
Source: Dieter, C.A., Maupin, M.A., Caldwell, R.R., Harris, M.A., Ivahnenko, T.I., Lovelace, J.K., Barber, N.L., and Linsey, K.S., 2018, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1441, 65 p.
Estimated California Water Flow 46000 Million Gallons/Day
This diagram is showing water resources mainly come from surface freshwater and large portion of that water is used for irrigation and discharge for surface water and groundwater.
5700
Domestic 4500
800 2500
Public Supply 7000 9.9
Surface Water (fresh) 22000
23
19 0.29
34
460 190 110 88
2000
Commercial/ Industrial 3100
1300
How can we improve the efficiency of consuming water?
1200
250
620
460
220
Mining 310
83
Aquaculture 650
480
Livestock 200
83
160 110
7300
16000
Discharge to Ocean 14000
17000
Surface Water (Saline) 13000
Discharge to Surface Water 13000
Water in California is shared across three main sectors. Statewide, average water use is roughly 50% environmental, 40% agricultural, and 10% urban, although the percentage of water use by sector varies dramatically across regions and between wet and dry years. Some of the water used by each of these sectors returns to rivers and groundwater basins and can be used again.
430
57
Irrigation 24000
Ground Water (Saline) 250
9.8
Source: LLNL 2011. Data is based on USGS Circula 1344, October 2009
12
13000
12000
ThermoElectric Cooling 13000 230
Consumed or Evaporated 19000
Ground Water (fresh) 11000
8600
LAND USE MAPPING LAND USE MAPPING Forest
Grazing area
Crop area
Urban area
Agricultural suitability of soil Low
LAND Land is a precious resource with healthy soil, intact habitats, and lush forests. Human consumes land through conversing it into industrial agriculture, traffic, and urban human settlements. This chapter focuses on three ways of land consumption in Central Valley. People consume land through URBANIZATION. The expansion of cities and the installation of infrastructure encroaches ecological habitats of wildlife, such as Chinook Salmon. People consume land through AGRICULTURE. Agriculture is the most significant industry in Central Valley. Take wineries, which is one of the most profitable agricultural industries as a case study to analyze the consumption process. People consume land through LUMBERING. Moderate lumbering is both an efficient use of resources and a protection of the environment.
High
HOW PEOPLE CONSUME LAND â&#x20AC;&#x201D;â&#x20AC;&#x201D; CITY
SACRAMENTO EXPANSION
CITY EXPANSION AND FISH HABITAT REDUCTION Dam
Dam
Aqueduct
Aqueduct
Current run
Current run
Historic run
Historic run
Current remnant-intermittent Current remnant-intermittent run run Intermittent waterway Intermittent waterway Historic chinook salmon Historic distribution chinook range salmon distribution range Fall-run and Late-full Fall-run run chinook and Late-full salmon run range chinook salmon range
1940
1980
2010
Winter-run chinook salmon Winter-run range chinook salmon range Spring-run chinook salmon Spring-run range chinook salmon range Anthropogenically Blocked Anthropogenically historic watershed Blocked historic watershed City ranges in the 1940s City ranges in the 1940s City ranges in the 1980s City ranges in the 1980s Sacramento Population
Natural Production of salmon for the Central Valley
600,000
600,000
500,000
500,000
400,000
400,000 300,000
300,000
200,000
200,000
100,000
100,000 1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Estimated number of adult Chinook
City ranges nowadays City ranges nowadays
2020
CHINOOK SALMON HABITAT REDUCTION
Winter-run chinook salmon current range
Spring-run chinook salmon current range
Fall-run chinook salmon current range
Late-fall run chinook salmon current range
Winter-run chinook salmon current range
Spring-run chinook salmon current range
Fall-run chinook salmon current range
Late-fall run chinook salmon current range
HOW PEOPLE CONSUME LAND —— AGRICULTURE
Top 10 Commodities for California Agriculture,2017
Area,Volume, and Value of California Grape Production, 2016
GRAPE AND WINE PRODUCTION IN CALIFORNIA
100% 6
80%
Shares
4 3
60% 40%
Raisin
2 20%
3000
2800
2250
2100
1500
1400
750
700
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Thousands of Acres
3500
Bearing Acres
VALUE
VOLUME
USD Million
3750
3750
3500
3000
2800
2250
2100
1500
1400
750
700
0
100 200
1970
1973
1976
1979 1982 1985
1988
1991
1994
1997 2000
2003
2006
2009
2012 2015
Volume
Value
VALUE
VOLUME
0
1967
Wine
0%
Thousands of Acres
VALUE
Thousands of Acres
Thousands of Acres
VOLUME
s ce s s s e rs ts es ie ve io nd le ap al ttu rr nu ato ch roi gr lmo al be nd c le m ta b w o s w a t pi ra le a st tt ca
USD Million
ilk
m
Table
3750
3500
3000
2800
2250
2100
1500
1400
750
700
0
0
Thousands of Acres
0
100 200 300 400 500
AREA 1967
1970
1973
1976
1979 1982 1985
1988
1991
1994
1997 2000
2003
2006
2009
RAISIN GRAPE
600
2012 2015 1967
AREA
TABLE GRAPE
USD Million
1
1970
1973
1976
1979 1982 1985
1988
1991
1994
1997 2000
WINE GRAPE
2003
2006
2009
2012 2015
AREA
Thousands of Acres
Billion ($)
5
Frozen Foods Sugar CENTRAL VALLEYY FOOD PROCESSING FACILITIES Tomato Processing Tannery/Rendering Main roads Waste & Miscellaneous Wineries Citrus Processing The Wine Regions of California
TOP 10 FOOD AND BEVERAGE PROCESSING SECTORS BY VALUE ADDED IN CALIFORNIA
All other food manufacturing
2,694,640,985
Animal(except poultry) slaughtering and processing
2,966,844,057
Frozen food manufacturing
3,342,012,489
Breweries
3,812,455,911
4,595,478,405
Snack food manufacturing
Soft drink and ice manufacturing
7,029,209,324
Baking
7,357,965,965
7,850,813,846
Fruit & vegetable canning, pickling, and drying
Wineries
11,120,021,346
Dairy
15,648,524,520
0
4,000,000,000
8,000,000,000
12,000,000,000
16,000,000,000
VALUE ADDED ($)
Wine
Fruit Drying
Nuts
Frozen Foods
Fruit Processing
Meat Packing
Sugar
Tannery/ Rendering
Vegetable Processing
Olive Processing
Tomato Processing
Waste & Miscellaneous
Canning & Other Food Processing
Dairy Processing
Food oils
Citrus Processing
WINE INDUSTRY
California wine enjoys the fame worldwide. California produces 90% of all of the wine made in the United States, and two out of every three bottles of wine sold in America comes from California. Central valley is one of the four main wine regions in California. There are five stages of the wine making process: Harvesting, Crushing and Pressing, Fermentation, Clarification, Aging and Bottling. Wine industry consumes different proportions of land, water and energy resources at different stages.
Number of wineries in California Gallons of wine produced in the US Gallons of wine produced in California Wine consumption per resident in the USA by year Reported acreage of winegraps Percentage of Energy Consumption Percentage of Water Consumption 6 gallons of water/ per gallon of wine
11%
Sanitation
Miscellaneous
Wine push water
4%
7%
800
10%
3000
600 15%
15%
21%
2000
400
23%
200
Reported acreage of winegraps (Thousands of acres)
32%
0
0
200
1
400
2
600
3
44%
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Wine consumption per resident in the USA by year (Gallons per Person per Year)
1000
Gallons of wine produced in the US and California (Millions of Gallons Produced)
9%
Wastewater Treatment
7%
4000
Landscape irrigation
Output
HVAC
2%
Barrel washing
Domestic
Processing
Compressed Air
Number of wineries in California
3%
Lighting
6 gallons of water/ per gallon of wine Annual consumption of energy is 39 GWH
Laboratory
Wineries processing
305 gallons of irrigation water/ per gallon of wine
Refrigeration
Vineyards
HOW PEOPLE CONSUME LAND —— LUMBERING
Volume figure - all timber(MMBF)
Public
Private
Number of acres burned in wildfires(millions)
5000
10
4500
9
California’s rich forest resource was scarcely affected by man until little over a century ago. The native inhabitants had little impact on the forests of this region. Significant exploitation of the forest resource and development of forest industry began with the discovery of gold in California in 1848. Traditional fear of running out of wood, coupled with concern within the State’s lumber industry that the Federal government was going to get involved in forest regulation. However, due to the strict regulation, timber harvesting has fallen sharply in California since the 1990s. Ironically, the dense forest becomes “an unnatural setting of continuous fuels”, which increases the wildfire risks.
4000
8
3500
7
3000
6
2500
5
2000
4
“The industry is certainly prepared to assist and encourage and support the thinning of our forests,” said Gordon. “We can actually have more resilient, fire resistant forests if we thin them a little bit.”
1500
3
1000
2
500
1
California's timberlands and forest products industries have played an important part in the growth of California's economy.
0 1978
Logging period
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
1946,Forest Practices Act
1974, Z'Berg-Nejedly Forest Practices Act (FPA)
1993, Expansive sustained yield planning required
The Federal government began forest regulation
This Act requires that a Timber Harvest Plan (THP) be prepared by a (newly created) Registered Professional Forester (RPF) for timber harvest on virtually all non-federal land
Since the 1990s, Timber harvesting has fallen sharply in California
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
Large tree growt and reduced timber activity have increased the fire risk
ENERGY California is during the era of boosted renewable electricity generation. Much of its electricity source now is renewable energy source such as solar power, wind power, and biomass. The behavior of consuming the natural resources require extensive infrastructure construction which will dramatically shape the landscape. Along with the energy sources changing, the relationship between the electricity producer and the consumer is changing too. Now the used-tobe consumer can participate in the production process too. This is a fundamental change in the energy market. Will the shaping of the landscape be intensified under the new circumstance? How can landscape architects construct this confluence?
= 1 EJ
SUN 3.8 / 2,860
USED / AVAILABLE
WIND 0.5 / 200
BIOMASS 0.4 / 20
GEOTHERMAL 1/5
OCEAN 0.05 / 2
HYDRO 0.15 / 1
!
!
! !
! !
24 MWh
! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
!!
!
!
! !!
! !
!
!
! ! !!
!
! !
!
The California ISO maintains reliability on one of the largest and most modern power grids in the world. and operates a transparent, accessible wholesale energy market.
!
!
! ! !
!
POWER PLANTS TRANSMISSION GRID IN CENTRAL VALLEY
!
! !! ! !
! !
!! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! !
!
!¢
!
SOURCE: https://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/powerplants/power_plant_statewide.html
!
!!
0
!
!! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
47.2 MWh
!
!
! !
! !
! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !
!
WESTERN INTERCONNECTION
CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM
0.6 MWh
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !! ! ! !
!
! !! !
!
!¢
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! !
!!
!
The Western Interconnection is a one of the two major alternating current (AC) power grids in the continental U.S. power transmission grid. The other major wide area synchronous grid is the Eastern Interconnection. The three minor interconnections are the Québec Interconnection, the Texas Interconnection, and the Alaska Interconnection.
! !! !
! !
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
! !
!
! !!
! !!! !¢ !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !! !
!
!
! ! !!
!
! !
!
! !!
! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !!
! !
!
!
! !! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
! !!
! ! !
!
SOLAR THERMAL
8
!
!
!!
! !
! !
752
SOLAR PV
!! ! ! !
! !
!
!
33
!
47
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
http://www.caiso.com/about/Pages/default.aspxetemoru https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interconnection
363
! !
WIND
186
!
!
!
! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!!! ! ! !
!!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !! !
!
NATURAL GASS
!
!! ! !
!! ! !!
!
SOURCE:
! ! !
! ! ! !!
!
BIOMASS
!
!
!
LANDFILL GAS
!
!
293
HYDRO
! !
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! !!
!!! TEXAS INTERCONNECTION
!
!
! !! !
! !!
! !
!
!
! !
ESTERN INTERCONNECTION
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !!!
!
!! ! !
LEGEND
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !
! !! ! ! !!
! !
!
!
! !! !
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !! !
!
!
! ! !!
!
!
QUEBEQ INTERCONNECTION
WESTERN INTERCONNECTION
!
! ! !!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!! ! !! !!!! ! !
!
!
!! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !! !! !
!
! !!
! ! !! !
!! ! !! !!
! !! ! !!!! ! !!! !!
! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !! ! !
!
! ! !! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!!
!! ! ! !! !!
!
!!
!
!
100
25
!
!
!! !
N
! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!! ! !!! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !
!
!
!! ! !
!
!!
! !! ! ! !
!¢
! ! ! !
!!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
SOURCE: Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Right of Way Constraints and Guidelines
50X50 ft
50X50 ft
50X50 ft 25X25 ft
500 Kv TRANSMISSION TOWER R.O.W
500 Kv TRANSMISSION TOWER R.O.W
220 Kv TRANSMISSION TOWER R.O.W
TRANSMISSION GRID
220 Kv TRANSMISSION TOWER R.O.W
25X25 ft
115 Kv TRANSMISSION TOWER R.O.W
25X25 ft
115 Kv TRANSMISSION TOWER R.O.W
69 Kv TRANSMISSION TOWER R.O.W
DISTRIBUTION GRID
A PERSON
Generation in Gigawatt Hours ( GWh ) Renewable
Large Hydropower
Nuclear
Natural Gas
RENEWABLE AND NON-RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY
Misc
Comparing Utility-Scale Generation by County Alameda
Fresno
Lake
Merced
Plumas
1,868
8,949
1,241
206*
2,252
San Joaquin
Sierra
Trinity
36
438
Shasta
2,210
SOURCE: https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/thematic-maps/Renewable_and_Non-Renewable_Electricity.pdf
Amador
Glenn
Lassen
Mono
Riverside
San Luis Obispo
Siskiyou
Tehama
Tulare
While Caliofornia electricity generations rely huge on renewables, within the central valley area, the natural gas generated electricity takes up the largest share.
Butte Glenn
949
17
279
324
8,331
19,871
454
961 Colusa
Butte
Humboldt
Los Angeles
Monterey
Sacramento
San Mateo
Solano
Tuolumne
Yuba Sutter El Dorado
Yolo Sacramento
Napa
3,950
Calaveras
1,260
507
Imperial
8,442
23,631
Madera
1,969
2,982
Napa
3
5,915
San Benito
23
113
Santa Barbara
2,867
Sonoma
5,285
55
Solano
4,756
Contra Costa Alameda
Ventura
Calaveras San Joaquin
Stanislaus Merced
Santa Clara
1,609
San Benito
Colusa
Inyo
Marin
Nevada
San Bernardino
Santa Clara
Stanislaus
Madera
Fresno
Yolo Kings
1,741
18
596
12,760
3,473
2,025
273
Kern
Mariposa
Orange
San Diego
Santa Cruz
Sutter
Yuba
11,162
32,822
491
1,425
7,783*
64
356
2,036
El Dorado
Kings
Shasta
Tehama
Total
2,583
1,211
8,513
77
206,377
2,683
Contra Costa
Tulare
Kern
Mendocino
Placer
San Francisco
Renewables Large Hydro
42
2,454
32
Natural Gas Nuclear
is.
BOOSTED RENEWBLE ELECTRICITY INDUSTRIES
SOLAR 24,331 GWh
POLICIES/GOALS
90% IN-STATE POWER GENERATION
12,000 MW RENEWABLES BY 2020
W 12 IND ,86 7G
SOLAR ROOF
33% RPS BY 2030
W h 2008, ~10%
2011
2017, 30% RENEWABLES CALNIFORNIA ELECTRICAL ENERGY GENERATION
292,039 GWh
ON MOST RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS BY
O HYD R GWh 3 3 ,3 43
ACHIEVEMENTS
BIO 5,8 MASS 27 GW h GEO THE R 11,7 45 G MAL Wh
60% RPS BY 2030
50% RPS BY 2030
8,000 MW LARGE-SCALE RENEWABLES BY 2020
NU 17,9 CLEAR 25 G Wh
N 89 ATU ,5 R 64 AL GW G h AS
2001, ~10%
2012
2014
2013
2015
20% RENEWABLES ACHIEVED
2016
2017
2018
2020
2019
2020
33%
3,000 MW
ESTIMATED RENEWBLES ACHIEVED
DISTRIBUTED SOLAR INSTALLED
8,000 MW
12,000 MW
LARGE RENEWABLES INSTALLED
DISTRIBUTED RENEWABLES INSTALLED
100,000
BTM SOALR
*RPS:RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD
13,618
90,000 80,000
SOALR
70,000
30,262
60,000 GWH
In 2017, total system electric generation for California was 292,039 gigawatt-hours (GWh). California’s non CO2 emitting electric generation categories (nuclear, large hydroelectric, and renewable generation) accounted for more than 56 percent of total in-state generation for 2017 .P California’s in-state electric generation was up by 4 percent to 206,336 GWh. Net energy imports from the Northwest and Southwest decreased by 7 percent from 2016 levels based on reported exchanges by California balancing authorities. Balancing authorities control power flowing across transmission ties between different regions within the Western Electricity Coordinating Council, which is the Western Interconnect. The total in-state generation share in 2017 was 90%.
50,000
WIND
40,000
27,838
30,000
GEO THERMAL
20,000
13,249
10,000
SMALL HYDRO
4,347
0 SOURCE: 2001-2017 California Total System Electric Generation https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data
1983
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2018
BIOMASS
8,044
CHANGING PORDUCER AND CONSUMER RELATIONSHIP
CALIFORNIA’S DEREGULATED WHOLSESALE MARKET
TRADITIONAL VERTICAL-INTEGREATED & REGULATED MARKET
HUMBOLDT
TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE
MEDDOCINO
ELECTRICITY GENERATION PLANT
CONSUMER
ELECTRICITY GENERATION PLANT
2018 LAUNCH CONSUMER
Clean Power Alliance of So CA
Phase 2 – Unincorporated LA County, South Pasadena, Rolling Hills
Desert Community Energy Cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Palm Desert
PLACER
King City (8)
San Jose Clean Energy (9) Phase 1
SONOMA
YOLO
NAPA SOLANO
2019/2020 LAUNCH
MARIN CONRTA COSTA SAN FRANCISCO ALAMEDA SAN MATEO
(anticipated)
FRENSO FRENSO
OPERATIONAL COUNTY LAUNCH COUNTY
OPERATIONAL
Clean Power Alliance So CA
(as of June 2018)
Ventura County and 28+ additional cities
SAN JOSE SANTA CRUZ
INVESTING COUNTY
MCE Clean Energy
Pioneer Community Energy
San Jose Clean Energy Phase 2
INVESTING COUNTY ( CENTRAL VALLEY )
Marin, Napa and Contra Costa Counties, City of Benicia
Placer County
SAN BENITO
San Luis Obispo/Morro Bay
Sonoma Clean Power Sonoma and Mendocino
Pico Rivera Municipal Energy
Lancaster Choice Energy Clean Power San Francisco
San Jacinto Power
MONTEREY
Peninsula Clean Energy San Mateo County Silicon Valley Clean Energy Most of Santa Clara County
SAN LUIS OBISPO
Redwood Coast Energy Humboldt County Apple Valley Choice Energy Clean Power Alliance of Southern CA Phase 1 – Municipal LA
VENTURA
Monterey Bay Clean Power LOS ANGELES
Santa Cruz Monterey San Benito
Unincorporated Riverside County
Rancho Mirage Energy Authority East Bay Community Energy Alameda County Valley Clean Energy Alliance Unincorporated Yolo County Citiy of Davis Citiy of Woodland Solana Beach Energy Alliance
Western Community Energy
INVESTIGATING Cities of: Baldwin Park Carlsbad Commerce Del Mar El Monte Encinitas Hanford Oceanside Pomona San Diego Santa Paula
Counties of: Butte Fresno King Modoc Nevada San Joaquin Santa Barbara Solano
$/MWh $ 600
250 m Height/m 10000Kw
$ 480
200 m
A380 72.7 m
5000Kw 150 m
3000Kw
$ 360 1800Kw 1500Kw
$ 240
100 m
750Kw $ 120
50 m
300Kw 75Kw
$0
0m 1980-1990
1990-1995
1995-2000
2000-2005
2005-2010
Present
Future
REICEIVER
COLD WATER TANK
HEAT EXCHANG FEED WATER PUMP
HELIOSTAT FIELD
STEAM TURBINE+ GENERATOR
HOT WATER TANK CONDENSER
CALIFORNIA SOLOR ROOFS $ / WDC 1,200,000
12
1,000,000
10
800,000
8
600,000
6
400,000
4
200,000
2
0
0 2000
2005
2010
2015
2018
ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION IN A DAY
30,000
HYDRO
25,000
IMPORTS
20,000
THERMAL 15,000
NUCLEAR
10,000
RENEWABLES 5,000
24:00
01:00
SOURCE: Southern California Edison Company Transmission Line Right of Way Constraints and Guidelines
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
07:00
08:00
09:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
24:00
PRODUCTION CONSUMPTION
NATURALGAS COAL
ENERGY ( TRILLIONS OF BTU PER YEAR )
PETROLEUM
ELECTRICITY NET IMPORTS 291
TRANSPORTATION 3096
3476 1167 WATER
123
WATER
255 234
ENERGY SERVICES 2,850
RESIDENTIAL 909 4,038
COMMERCIAL 716 1,895
REJECTED ENERGY 4,446
2325 320 WATER
0.02
0 WATER
55 0
INDUSTRIAL 1361 1,175
NUCLEAR 337
22.9 47.16
GEOTHERMAL 337 HYDRO 337 WIND / SOALR 106
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
ELECTRICITY GENERATION 1,722
591
SURFACE DISCHARGE 8,400
4,553
WATER (MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER DAY )
OCEAN DISCHARGE 6,057 FRESH / SURFACE 18,820
19.2 6,299 PUBLIC & MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
SALINE SURFAC
IRRIGATION 42.5
4,514
CONSUMED OR EVAPORATED 21,510
23,980 FRESH GROUND 12,260
SALINE GROUND 320
SOURCEï¼&#x161; HTTPS://FLOWCHARTS.LLNL.GOV/
AGRICULTURE, IRRIGATION, AQUACULTURE, & LIVESTOCK
INJECTION 105
ATLAS of CONSUMPTION IN CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VALLEY
YANGQIANQIAN HU HANGXING LIU QINMENG YU LAR7020 PROTOTYPING TERRITORY UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | 2019SPRING CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE MANIFESTO VIDEO