A Plan for a Sustainable Future

Mark Z. JacobsonAtmosphere/Energy ProgramDept. of Civil & Environmental EngineeringStanford University

Beyond ZeroGoing Zero Emissions – Local and GlobalMelbourne, AustraliaFeb. 21, 2010

Steps in Analysis1. Rank energy technologies in terms ofCarbon-dioxide equivalent emissionsAir pollution mortalityWater consumptionFootprint on the ground and total spacing requiredResource abundanceAbility to match peak demandEffects on wildlife, thermal pollution, water pollution

2. Evaluate replacing 100% of energy with best technologies interms of resources, materials, matching supply, costs, politics

Electricity/Vehicle Options StudiedElectricity options

Wind turbinesSolar photovoltaics (PV)Geothermal power plantsTidal turbinesWave devicesConcentrated solar power (CSP)Hydroelectric power plantsNuclear power plantsCoal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)

Vehicle OptionsBattery-Electric Vehicles (BEVs)Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles (HFCVs)Corn ethanol (E85)Cellulosic ethanol (E85)

Lifecycle CO2e of Electricity Sources

g-CO2e/kWh Low Estimate High Estimate

Time Between Planning & OperationNuclear: 10 - 19 y (life 40 y)

Site permit: 3.5 - 6 yConstruction permit approval and issue 2.5 - 4 yConstruction 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)

CO2e From Current Power Mix due to Planning-to-Operation Delays, Relative to Wind

Low Estimate High Estimateg-CO2e/kWh

CO2e From Loss of Carbon Stored in Land

Low Estimate High Estimateg-CO2e/kWh

Total CO2e of Electricity Sources

Low Estimate High Estimateg-CO2e/kWh

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

Low/High U.S. Air Pollution Deaths/yr For 2020 Upon Conversion of U.S. Vehicle Fleet

Low Estimate High EstimateNuclear Terrorism or War

WindBEV

WindHFCV

CSPBEV

PVBEV

GeoBEV

TidalBEV

WaveBEV

HydroBEV

NuclearBEV

CCSBEV

CornE85

CellE85

Gasoline

Deaths/yr

Water-Hydro, Geothermal, Tidal

www.gizmag.comwww.inhabitat.comwebecoist.comwww.reuk.co.uk

Area to Power 100% of U.S. Onroad Vehicles

Cellulosic E854.7-35.4% of US

Solar PV-BEV0.077-0.18%

Corn E859.8-17.6% of US

Wind-BEVFootprint 1-2.8 km2

Turbine spacing 0.35-0.7% of US

Geoth BEV0.006-0.008%

Nuclear-BEV0.05-0.062%Footprint 33% of total; the rest is buffer

Water Consumed to Run U.S. Vehicles

U.S. water demand = 150,000 Ggal/yr

World Wind Speeds at 100m

-180 -90 0 18090

0

-90

90

6

2

10

4

8

All wind worldwide: 1700 TW;All wind over land in high-wind areas outside Antarctica ~ 70-170 TWWorld power demand 2030: 16.9 TWAnnual wind speed 100 m above topography (m/s) (global: 7.0; land: 6.1; sea: 7.3)

m/s

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

World Surface Solar

All solar worldwide: 6500 TW;All solar over land in high-solar locations~ 340 TWWorld power demand 2030: 16.9 TW

m/s

Matching Hourly Summer 2020 Electricity Demand with 100% Renewables (No Change in Hydro)

Total Demand

Geothermal

Wind

Solar

Hydro

Power (MW)

Overall Ranking

Electric PowerRecommended1. Wind2. CSP3. Geothermal4. Tidal5. PV6. Wave7. Hydroelectricity

Not Recommended8. Nuclear9. Coal-CCS

Vehicle PowerRecommended1. Wind – BEVs2. Wind – HFCVs3. CSP – BEVs4. Geothermal – BEVs5. Tidal – BEVs6. PV – BEVs7. Wave – BEVs8. Hydro – BEVs

Not Recommended9. Nuclear – BEVs10. Coal-CCS – BEVs11. Corn ethanol12. Cellulosic ethanol

Cleanest solutions to global warming, air pollution, energy security

Powering the World on RenewablesGlobal 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%

Number of Plants or Devices to Power WorldTechnology Percent Supply 2030 Number

5-MW wind turbines 50% 3.8 mill. (0.8% in place)0.75-MW wave devices 1 720,000100-MW geothermal plants 4 5350 (1.7% in place)1300-MW hydro plants 4 900 (70% in place)1-MW tidal turbines 1 490,0003-kW Roof PV systems 6 1.7 billion300-MW Solar PV plants 14 40,000300-MW CSP plants 20 49,000

____ 100%

Materials, CostsWind, solar

Materials (e.g., neodymium, silver, gallium) present challenges, but not limits.

Lithium for batteriesKnown land resources over 28 million tonnesEnough 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¢/kWhEliminates 2.5 million air pollution deaths/yearEliminates global warming, provides energy stability

SummaryWind, 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.

SummaryConverting 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/b809990Cwww.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

Scientific American, November (2009)www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/susenergy2030.html