The next landscape: a guide to future energy landscape for California

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