Mark Jacobson has been publishing blueprints along these lines for a while. For this one, he tied one arm behind his back and omitted battery storage. Given the state of hydrogen tech, I have a feeling that this plan would be even more economical if lithium ion batteries and vanadium redox flow batteries were added.
Once you look at the cost of coal in terms of lost life and health, it makes no sense not to start transitioning to this immediately. Our economy would be improved by a tax on coal and/or carbon to internalize the externalities. The only reason not to is to kowtow to entrenched interests that have been freeloading off of human health.
The link leads to a paywall. When you finally find a paper with details[1] it turns out to be for Washington State, which has the most hydroelectric power of any US state. There's another vague summary at [2], which glosses over the storage issue. The paper referred to seems to be be at [3].
There's a lot of hand-waving about thermal energy storage. Using electricity to make low-grade heat and storing the heat is insanely inefficient if you want to get electricity back out. E = (T1-T0) / T0. That's mostly used for solar hot water storage for nighttime heading.[4]
If this is so great, and he's at Stanford, why is Stanford building their second natural gas power plant on campus?
There are plans for all 50 states [1]. The science still exists, despite being behind a paywall. You'll find much more description of this paper on Ars Technica [2], but I think that the paper has addressed your concerns. Also, Stanford building a natural gas plant has nothing to do with research which is a blueprint for action over the next 40 years, so it's a distraction from your main points.
'Storing solar power underground' - what if it's in a pressurized and compressed form that's easily transported and has a high mass to energy ratio? Brilliant!
I think you're describing methane, the primary component of natural gas. Methane production from electricity is ~60% efficient, according to a 6.3MW plant that Audi and SolarFuel cobuilt in Germany. And then converting methane into electricity or movement will only be ~50% efficient, for total roundtrip efficiency of 30%. That may make sense for electrical storage if the price swings from low to high are 3x or more.
Well I think thebmax is joking about how all fossil fuels are effectively dense, underground storage of solar energy. ;)
(But your information on methane is interesting. I somehow didn't realize it was the biggest component in natural gas; I guess I had assumed it was a more complex hydrocarbon and not considered it further.)
That was what I was getting at ;). I had an old boss who used to call hydrocarbons 'Mother Nature's Battery'. Its almost a miracle when you think of it. Millions of years of solar energy stored in solid, liquid, and gas forms, available for the ingenuity of man to extract and use to power the marvels of the modern world.
For all the hate that hydrocarbons get they are probably the main reason most of us aren't still living a very primitive existence.
Once you look at the cost of coal in terms of lost life and health, it makes no sense not to start transitioning to this immediately. Our economy would be improved by a tax on coal and/or carbon to internalize the externalities. The only reason not to is to kowtow to entrenched interests that have been freeloading off of human health.