A Plan For a Sustainable Future - Stanford University

3 downloads 195 Views 6MB Size Report
Oct 30, 2009 - Using Economics to Confront Climate Change, SIEPR Policy Forum. Stanford ... terms of resources, material
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