Mark Z. Jacobson

Canada can 'definitely' transition to renewables by 2050, expert tells youth climate trial "Canada does not need to rely on fossil fuels, he testified Thursday, as he outlined how the country could meet its energy demands by tapping “humongous” resources and opportunities in wind, solar and geothermal, along with pre-existing hydroelectric capacity." "Combine that with the electrification of energy and transportation and “Canada can do it,” Jacobson said of transitioning to renewables." “Whether it actually does it by 2050 is more of a social and political question.” cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c… @youthvgov

Synthetic carbon capture and direct air capture only increase CO2, air pollution, fossil mining, fossil infrastructure, energy costs, health costs, climate costs, and total social costs vs transitioning to clean, renewable energy, as shown clearly here web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/… No study has ever shown otherwise. Yet, international organizations keep pushing these scam technologies. Why? Oh, this is why. How a Secret Vote by U.N. Scientists Legitimized Carbon Capture and Skewed Decades of Climate Policy propublica.org/article/carbo… @propublica @ProjectDrawdown

New @GlobalCCS data confirm carbon capture and direct air capture are useless opportunity costs. - At the rate of capture (0.59 MTCO2/y) from new CC/DAC installations operational in 2026 where the CO2 is not used for enhanced oil recovery, it will take 81,000 years to build enough CC/DAC to capture the current emissions of CO2 from fossils and land-use change (47,200 MTCO2/y). -All CC/DAC ever built for non-EOR purposes captures only 0.04% of today's CO2 emissions. 74.3% of all CO2 captured today from all installations built in any year is used for EOR (which releases 50-120% of the CO2 back to the air). 68.1% of all CO2 captured from 2026 installations is used for EOR. globalccsinstitute.com/globa… None of this accounts for all the direct and opportunity-cost CO2 and air pollution released back to the air from the energy used to run the CC/DAC equipment, which negates any benefit web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/…

The lesson here is that when you have large amounts of WindWaterSolar (mostly wind, solar but also geothermal, and existing hydro) on a grid, you --match demand with supply better than a base load plant and -- provide base-load electricity that can exceed that of the base-load plant.

CAISO has the most reliable US grid as evidenced by the fact it has the lowest maximum wholesale electricity price in the US. All those WWS renewables plus its batteries have made it the most reliable grid. web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/… Not only does WWS make grids more reliable, it also reduces the retail electricity price, and this result is statistically significant across all 50 states and DC. web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/… In fact, 12 of the 14 highest-WWS states (meeting 49-127% of demand) had electricity prices 2-5 cents/kWh below the U.S. average. South Dakota, for example, meets 127% of demand with WWS (86% wind, 38% hydro, 3% solar) and has a retail electricity price of 14.1 cents/kWh, below the 17 cent/kWh average. From July 1, 2025-June 30, 2026, CA residential retail electricity price averaged 33.01 cents/kWh. Georgia averaged 15.01 cents/kWh. Worldwide, more WWS correlates with lower electricity prices and more fossil fuels and nuclear correlate with higher prices. web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/…

Facts are correct. The California ISO grid, with all its renewables, is the most reliable grid in the U.S. in terms of matching demand with supply, and increasing renewables increases such reliability. teapawt.net/mzjacobson/status/2099… Plus, renewables and storage can provide inertia through direct physical generation, spinning storage systems, and advanced power electronics.