Oct 30, 2009 - Rank climate, pollution, energy solutions in terms of. Resource ... Concentrated solar power (CSP) .... R
A Plan For a Sustainable Future Mark Z. Jacobson Atmosphere/Energy Program Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering Stanford University Using Economics to Confront Climate Change, SIEPR Policy Forum Stanford University, October 30, 2009
Steps in Analysis 1. Rank climate, pollution, energy solutions in terms of Resource abundance Carbon-dioxide equivalent emissions Air pollution mortality Water consumption Footprint on the ground and total spacing required Ability to match peak demand Effects on wildlife, thermal pollution, water pollution 2. Evaluate replacing 100% of energy with best options in terms of resources, materials, matching supply, costs, politics
Electricity/Vehicle Options Studied Electricity options
Wind turbines
Solar photovoltaics (PV)
Geothermal power plants
Tidal turbines Wave devices Concentrated solar power (CSP) Hydroelectric power plants Nuclear power plants Coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) Vehicle Options Battery-Electric Vehicles (BEVs) Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles (HFCVs) Corn ethanol (E85) Cellulosic ethanol (E85)
80-m Wind Speeds From Data
Archer and Jacobson (2005) www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/
Modeled World Wind Speeds at 100 m 90
Annual wind speed 100 m above topo (m/s) (global: 7.2; land: 6.4; sea: 7.5)
12 10 8
0 6 4 -90
2 -180
-90
0
90
180
All wind worldwide: 1700 TW; All wind over land in high-wind areas outside Antarctica ~ 70-170 TW World power demand 2030: 16.9 TW
Modeled World Surface Solar 90
Annual surface downward solar radiation (W/m2) (global avg: 193; land: 185) 250
200 0 150
100 -90 -180
-90
0
90
All solar worldwide: 6500 TW; All solar over land in high-solar locations~ 340 TW World power demand 2030: 16.9 TW
180
100
0
200
Nuclear
Hydro
Wave
Tidal
Geothermal
Solar-PV
CSP
Wind
2
600
500
Coal-CCS
Lifecycle g-CO e/kWh
Lifecycle CO2e of Electricity Sources
400
300
Opportunity-Cost CO2e
500
2
Opportunity-Cost g-CO e/kWh
Emissions from current electricity mix due to time between planning & operation of power source minus that from least-emitting power source 600
400
Coal-CCS
Nuclear
Hydro
Wave
Tidal
Solar-PV
0
CSP
100
Wind
200
Geothermal
300
War/Leakage CO2e of Nuclear, Coal 500
2
Explosion or Leak g-CO e/kWh
600
400 300 200 100 0
Coal-CCS: 1-18% leakage of sequestered carbon dioxide in 1000 years Nuclear: One exchange of 50 15-kt weapons over 30 y due to expansion of uranium enrichment/plutonium separation in nuclear-energy facilities worldwide
Solar-PV
0.5
Hydro
Wave
1
Tidal
0 Nuclear
CSP
2
Coal-CCS
1.5
Geothermal
Wind
2
Loss of carbon stored in land g-CO e/kWh
Loss of Carbon Stored in Land
Total CO2e of Electricity Sources Nuclear:wind = 9-17:1 Coal-CCS:wind=41-53:1
400
2
Total g-CO e/kWh
500
Coal-CCS
600
0
Nuclear Hydro
Wave
Tidal
Geothermal
CSP
100
Wind
200
Solar-PV
300
Percent change in all U.S. CO2 emissions 20
10
0
-10
-20
-30 Cel-E85
30
-16.4 to +16.4
-0.78 to +30.4
CCS-BEV -17.6 to -26.4
Nuc-BEV -28.0 to -31.3
Hydro-BEV -30.9 to -31.7
Wave-BEV -31.1 to -31.9
Tidal-BEV -31.3 to -32.0
Geo-BEV -31.1 to -32.4
PV-BEV -31.0 to -32.3
CSP-BEV -32.4 to -32.6
Wind-HFCV -31.7 to -32.2
50
Corn-E85
40
Wind-BEV -32.4 to -32.6
Percent Change in U.S. CO2 From Converting to BEVs, HFCVs, or E85
2020 U.S. Vehicle Exhaust+Lifecycle+Nuc Deaths/Year
15000
10000
5000
0
20000 Nuc-BEV 641-2181-27,681
+7.2 Gasoline 15,000
Cel-E85 15,000-16,310
Corn-E85 15,000-15,935
CCS-BEV 2900-6900
Hydro-BEV 455-857
Wave-BEV 393-753
Tidal-BEV 321-660
Geo-BEV 153-738
PV-BEV 189-792
30000
CSP-BEV 84-137
Wind-HFCV 245-381
25000
Wind-BEV 78-128
Low/High U.S. Air Pollution Deaths For 2020 BEVs, HFCVs, E85, Gasoline 35000
Ratio of Footprint Area of Technology to Wind-BEVs to Run All U.S. Vehicles Wind-BEV Wind-HFCV Tidal-BEV Wave-BEV Geothermal-BEV Nuclear-BEV Rhode Island Coal-CCS-BEV PV-BEV
CSP-BEV
Hydro-BEV California
Corn-E85
Cellulosic-E85
1:1 (1-3 square kilometers)
3-3.1:1
100-130:1
240-440:1
250-570:1
770-1100:1
960-3000:1
1900-2600:1
5800-6600:1
12,200-13,200:1
84,000-190,000:1
143,000-441,000:1
570,000-940,000:1
470,000-1,150,000:1
Wind Footprints
www.offshore-power.net Pro.corbins.com
Pro.corbins.com
www.eng.uoo.ca
Nuclear Footprints
wwwdelivery.superstock.com; Pro.corbis.com; Eyeball-series.org; xs124.xs.to
Ethanol Footprints
Cellulosic refinery development
www.k0lee.com; amadeo.blog.com; www.istockphoto.com; www.thereisaway.us; media-2.web.britannica.com
Area to Power 100% of U.S. Onroad Vehicles Solar PV-BEV 0.077-0.18% Wind-BEV Footprint 1-2.8 km2 Cellulosic E85 Wind-BEV 4.7-35.4% turbine spacing (low-industry est. 0.35-0.7% high-data) Corn E85 9.8-17.6%
Map: www.fotw.net
Land For 50% of All US Energy From Wind
Turbine area touching ground
Spacing between turbines
Map: www.fotw.net
Alternatively, Water For 50% of All US Energy From Wind
Spacing between turbines
Map: www.fotw.net
Water consumption (Ggal/year) to run U.S. vehicles
5000
0
10000 +7.2 Hydro-BEV 5800-13,200 Cel-E85 6400-8800
CCS-BEV 720-1200
Nuc-BEV 640-1300
Wave-BEV 1-2
Tidal-BEV 1-2
Geo-BEV 6.4-8.8
PV-BEV 51-70
CSP-BEV 1000-1360
Wind-HFCV 150-190
15000
Wind-BEV 1-2
Water Consumed to Run U.S. Vehicles 20000 Corn-E85 12,200-17,000
U.S. water demand = 150,000 Ggal/yr
Matching Hourly Electricity Demand in Summer 2020 With 100% Renewables With no Change in Current Hydro Demand
Hydro
Solar Wind Wind Geothermal Hoste et al. (2009)
Overall Ranking Cleanest solutions to global warming, air pollution, energy security
Electric power
Vehicles
1. Wind
1. Wind-BEVs
2. CSP
2. Wind-HFCVs
3. Geothermal
3. CSP-BEVs
4. Tidal
4. Geothermal-BEVs
5. PV
5. Tidal-BEVs
6. Wave
6. PV-BEVs
7. Hydroelectricity
7. Wave-BEVs
8. Hydro-BEVs
**************************************** Not Recommended
8. Nuclear (tie)
9. Nuclear BEVs
8. Coal-CCS (tie)
10. Coal-CCS BEVs (tie)
11. Corn ethanol
12. Cellulosic ethanol
Powering the World on Renewables Global power demand 2010 (TW)
Electricity: 2.2 Total: 12.5 Global overall power demand 2030 with current fuels (TW)
Electricity: 3.5 Total: 16.9 Global overall power demand 2030 converting to windwater-sun (WWS) and electricty/H2(TW)
Electricity: 3.3 Total: 11.5 Conversion to electricity, H2 reduces power demand 30%
Number of Plants or Devices to Power the World Technology
Percent Supply 2030
5-MW wind turbines
50% 0.75-MW wave devices 1
100-MW geothermal plants 4
1300-MW hydro plants 4
1-MW tidal turbines
1
3-kW Roof PV systems 6
300-MW Solar PV plants 14 300-MW CSP plants
20
____
100%
Number
3.8 mill. (0.8% in place)
720,000
5350 (1.7% in place)
900 (70% in place)
490,000
1.7 billion
40,000
49,000
Materials, Costs Wind, solar Materials (e.g., neodymium, silver, gallium) present challenges, but are not limitations. Lithium for batteries Known resources > 13,000,000 tonnes, half in Bolivia Enough known supply for 26 million vehicles/yr for 50 yrs. If recycling supply for much longer Costs $100 trillion to replace world’s power recouped by electricity sale, with direct cost 4-10¢/kWh Eliminates 2.5 million air pollution deaths/year Eliminates global warming, provides energy stability
Summary The use of wind CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity fo all uses, including BEVs and HFCVs and will result in the greatest reductions in global warming and air pollution and provide the least damage among the energy options considered. Coal-CCS and nuclear cause climate and health opportunity cost loss compared with the recommended options and should not be advanced over them. Coal-CCS emits 41-53 times more carbon, and nuclear emits 9-17 times more carbon than wind. Corn and cellulosic ethanol provide the greatest negative impacts among the options considered, thus their advancement at the expense of other options will severely damage efforts to solve global warming and air pollution.
Summary Converting to Wind, Water, and Sun (WWS) and electricity/ hydrogen will reduce global power demand by 30%, eliminating 13,000 current or future coal plants. Materials are not limits although recycling will needed. Electricity cost should be similar to that of conventional new generation and lower when costs to society accounted for. Barriers to overcome: lobbying, politics, transmission needs, up-front costs Energy Environ. Sci. (2008) doi:10.1039/b809990C www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm
Scientific American, November (2009) www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/susenergy2030.html