A Plan For a Sustainable Future Using
Wind, Water, and the Sun
Mark Z. Jacobson
Atmosphere/Energy Program
Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Stanford University
Mark A. DeLucchi
Institute of Transportation Studies
University of California, Davis
Clean Air Forum 2010
Sydney, Australia
August 19, 2010

Jacobson (2010, JGR 115, D14209)

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

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)

www.mywindpowersystem.com

www.gizmag.com
www.inhabitat.com
webecoist.com
www.reuk.co.uk

sustainabledesignupdate.com
www.wapa.gov

Tesla Roadster all electric
Hydrogen fuel cell bus
Nissan Leaf
Tesla Model S all electric www.carforums.net
www.carazed.com
www.utexas.edu
www.ubergizmo.com
Ecofriendly mag.com
Hydrogen fuel cell–electric hybrid

Zmships.eu
Ecofriend.org
Ec.europa.eu

Midlandpower.com
Conservpros.com
Adaptivebuilders.com
Heat pump water heater

Lifecycle CO
2 e of Electricity Sources
Low Estimate High Estimate

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
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:
Solar-PV:
Wave:
Tidal:
Wind:
2 - 5 y (life 30 y)
2 - 5 y (life 30 y)
2 - 5 y (life 15 y)
2 - 5 y (life 15 y)
2 - 5 y (life 30 y)

CO
2 e From Current Power Mix due to
Planning-to-Operation Delays, Relative to Wind
Low Estimate High Estimate

CO
2 e From Loss of Carbon Stored in Land
Low Estimate High Estimate

Total CO
2 e of Electricity Sources
Low Estimate High Estimate

2

Low/High U.S. Air Pollution Deaths/yr For 2020 Upon
Conversion of U.S. Vehicle Fleet
Nuclear Terrorism or War Low Estimate High Estimate
Wind
BEV
Wind
HFCV
CSP
BEV
PV
BEV
Geo
BEV
Tidal
BEV
Wave
BEV
Hydro
BEV
Nuclear
BEV
CCS
BEV
Corn
E85
Cell
E85
Gasoline

Area to Power 100% of U.S. Onroad Vehicles
Wind-BEV
Footprint 1-2.8 km 2
Turbine spacing
0.35-0.7% of US
Cellulosic E85
4.7-35.4% of US
Corn E85
9.8-17.6% of
US
Nuclear-BEV
0.05-0.062%
Footprint 33% of total; the rest is buffer
Geoth BEV
0.006-0.008%
Solar PV-BEV
0.077-0.18%

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

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

Archer and Jacobson (2005)www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/

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

Matching Renewable Supply to Demand in California by
Aggregating Sites and Combining Different Renewables
Modeled power at one wind farm
June 12, 2005
Modeled power at one CSP plant
June 12, 2005
Modeled generation combining renewables at all sites, June 12, 2005
Demand+T&D losses
Hydropower
~Same as actual California hydro used June 12, 2005
CSP with Storage
Wind
Geothermal
Hart and Jacobson, 2010

Matching Renewable Supply to Demand in California by
Aggregating Sites and Combining Different Renewables
For almost all hours, four renewables could power whole state.
Hart and Jacobson, 2010

Overall Ranking
Cleanest solutions to global warming, air pollution, energy security
Electric Power
Recommended
1.
Wind
2.
CSP
3.
Geothermal
4.
Tidal
5.
PV
6.
Wave
7.
Hydroelectricity
Not Recommended
8.
Nuclear
9.
Coal-CCS
Vehicle Power
Recommended
1.
Wind – BEVs
2.
Wind – HFCVs
3.
CSP – BEVs
4.
Geothermal – BEVs
5.
Tidal – BEVs
6.
PV – BEVs
7.
Wave – BEVs
8.
Hydro – BEVs
Not Recommended
9.
Nuclear – BEVs
10. Coal-CCS – BEVs
11. Corn ethanol
12. Cellulosic ethanol

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/H
2
(TW)
Electricity: 3.3 Total: 11.5
 Conversion to electricity, H
2 reduces power demand 30%

Number of Plants or Devices to Power World
Technology Percent Supply 2030 Number
5-MW wind turbines
0.75-MW wave devices
100-MW geothermal plants 4
1300-MW hydro plants 4
1-MW tidal turbines
3-kW Roof PV systems
1
6
50%
1
300-MW Solar PV plants
300-MW CSP plants
14
20
____
100%
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

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 52 million vehicles/yr for over 25 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

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.

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 be 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