1 / 26

A Plan for a Sustainable Future

A Plan for a Sustainable Future. Mark Z. Jacobson Atmosphere/Energy Program Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering Stanford University Beyond Zero Going Zero Emissions – Local and Global Melbourne, Australia Feb. 21, 2010. Steps in Analysis. 1. Rank energy technologies in terms of

howell
Download Presentation

A Plan for a Sustainable Future

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Plan for a Sustainable Future Mark Z. Jacobson Atmosphere/Energy Program Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering Stanford University Beyond Zero Going Zero Emissions – Local and Global Melbourne, Australia Feb. 21, 2010

  2. Steps in Analysis 1. Rank energy technologies in terms of Carbon-dioxide equivalent emissions Air pollution mortality Water consumption Footprint on the ground and total spacing required Resource abundance Ability to match peak demand Effects on wildlife, thermal pollution, water pollution 2. Evaluate replacing 100% of energy with best technologies in terms of resources, materials, matching supply, costs, politics

  3. 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)

  4. Lifecycle CO2e of Electricity Sources Low Estimate High Estimate g-CO2e/kWh

  5. Time Between Planning & Operation Nuclear: 10 - 19 y (life 40 y) Site permit: 3.5 - 6 y Construction permit approval and issue 2.5 - 4 y Construction time 4 - 9 years (Average today in China = 7.1 years) Hydroelectric: 8 - 16 y (life 80 y) Coal-CCS: 6 - 11 y (life 35 y) Geothermal: 3 - 6 y (life 35 y) Ethanol: 2 - 5 y (life 40 y) CSP: 2 - 5 y (life 30 y) Solar-PV: 2 - 5 y (life 30 y) Wave: 2 - 5 y (life 15 y) Tidal: 2 - 5 y (life 15 y) Wind: 2 - 5 y (life 30 y)

  6. CO2e From Current Power Mix due to Planning-to-Operation Delays, Relative to Wind Low Estimate High Estimate g-CO2e/kWh

  7. CO2e From Loss of Carbon Stored in Land Low Estimate High Estimate g-CO2e/kWh

  8. Total CO2e of Electricity Sources Low Estimate High Estimate g-CO2e/kWh

  9. Percent Change in U.S. CO2 From Converting to BEVs, HFCVs, or E85

  10. Low/High U.S. Air Pollution Deaths/yr For 2020 Upon Conversion of U.S. Vehicle Fleet Deaths/yr Nuclear Terrorism or War Low Estimate High Estimate WindBEV WindHFCV CSPBEV PVBEV GeoBEV TidalBEV WaveBEV HydroBEV NuclearBEV CCSBEV Corn E85 Cell E85 Gasoline

  11. Water-Hydro, Geothermal, Tidal www.gizmag.com www.inhabitat.com webecoist.com www.reuk.co.uk

  12. Area to Power 100% of U.S. Onroad Vehicles Wind-BEV Footprint 1-2.8 km2 Turbine spacing 0.35-0.7% of US Nuclear-BEV 0.05-0.062% Footprint 33%of total; the rest is buffer Cellulosic E85 4.7-35.4% of US Geoth BEV 0.006-0.008% Solar PV-BEV 0.077-0.18% Corn E85 9.8-17.6% of US

  13. Water Consumed to Run U.S. Vehicles U.S. water demand = 150,000 Ggal/yr

  14. World Wind Speeds at 100m m/s 90 10 8 0 6 4 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 -90 2 -180 -90 0 90 180 Annual wind speed 100 m above topography (m/s) (global: 7.0; land: 6.1; sea: 7.3)

  15. 80-m Wind Speeds From Data Archer and Jacobson (2005)www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/

  16. World Surface Solar m/s All solar worldwide: 6500 TW; All solar over land in high-solar locations~ 340 TW World power demand 2030: 16.9 TW

  17. Matching Hourly Summer 2020 Electricity Demand with 100% Renewables (No Change in Hydro) Power (MW) Total Demand Hydro Solar Wind Geothermal

  18. Overall Ranking Cleanest solutions to global warming, air pollution, energy security Electric Power Recommended • Wind • CSP • Geothermal • Tidal • PV • Wave • Hydroelectricity Not Recommended • Nuclear • Coal-CCS Vehicle Power Recommended • Wind – BEVs • Wind – HFCVs • CSP – BEVs • Geothermal – BEVs • Tidal – BEVs • PV – BEVs • Wave – BEVs • Hydro – BEVs Not Recommended • Nuclear – BEVs • Coal-CCS – BEVs • Corn ethanol • Cellulosic ethanol

  19. 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 wind-water-sun (WWS) and electricty/H2(TW) Electricity: 3.3 Total: 11.5  Conversion to electricity, H2 reduces power demand 30%

  20. Number of Plants or Devices to Power World Technology Percent Supply 2030 Number 5-MW wind turbines50% 3.8 mill. (0.8% in place) 0.75-MW wave devices1 720,000 100-MW geothermal plants 4 5350 (1.7% in place) 1300-MW hydro plants4 900 (70% in place) 1-MW tidal turbines1 490,000 3-kW Roof PV systems6 1.7 billion 300-MW Solar PV plants14 40,000 300-MW CSP plants20 49,000 ____ 100%

  21. Materials, Costs • Wind, solar • Materials (e.g., neodymium, silver, gallium) present challenges, but not limits. • Lithium for batteries • Known land resources over 28 million tonnes • Enough land supply for 65 million vehicles/yr for over 40 yrs. • Ocean contains another 240 million tonnes. • 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

  22. Summary Wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro together with electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles can eliminate global warming, air pollution, and energy instability. Coal-CCS emits 41-53 times more carbon, and nuclear emits 9-17 times more carbon than wind. Nuclear increases the threat of nuclear war and terrorism. Corn and cellulosic ethanol result in far more global warming, air pollution, land degradation, and water loss than all other options.

  23. 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. The 2030 electricity cost should be similar to that of conventional new generation and lower when costs to society accounted for. Barriers to overcome: up-front costs, transmission needs, lobbying, politics, 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

More Related