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
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/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)
Lifecycle CO2e of Electricity Sources
Low Estimate
High Estimate
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:
Coal-CCS:
Geothermal:
Ethanol:
CSP:
Solar-PV:
Wave:
Tidal:
Wind:
8 - 16 y (life 80 y)
6 - 11 y (life 35 y)
3 - 6 y (life 35 y)
2 - 5 y (life 40 y)
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)
CO2e From Current Power Mix due to
Planning-to-Operation Delays, Relative to Wind
Low Estimate
High Estimate
CO2e From Loss of Carbon Stored in Land
Low Estimate
High Estimate
Total CO2e of Electricity Sources
Low Estimate
High Estimate
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
Nuclear Terrorism or War
Wind
BEV
Wind
HFCV
CSP
BEV
PV
BEV
Geo
BEV
Tidal
BEV
Wave
BEV
Hydro Nuclear
BEV
BEV
Low Estimate
CCS
BEV
Corn
E85
High Estimate
Cell Gasoline
E85
Water-Hydro, Geothermal, Tidal
www.gizmag.com
www.inhabitat.com
webecoist.com
www.reuk.co.uk
Area to Power 100% of U.S. Onroad Vehicles
Wind-BEV
Footprint 1-2.8 km2
Turbine spacing
0.35-0.7% of US
Cellulosic E85
4.7-35.4% of US
Nuclear-BEV
0.05-0.062%
Footprint 33%
of total; the rest is
buffer
Corn E85
9.8-17.6% of
US
Geoth BEV
0.006-0.008%
Solar PV-BEV
0.077-0.18%
Water Consumed to Run U.S. Vehicles
U.S. water demand = 150,000 Ggal/yr
World Wind Speeds at 100m
90
10
8
0
6
4
-90
2
-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
Annual wind speed 100 m above topography (m/s) (global: 7.0; land: 6.1; sea: 7.3)
90
180
80-m
Wind
Speeds
From
Data
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 Hourly Summer 2020 Electricity Demand
with 100% Renewables (No Change in Hydro)
Total Demand
Hydro
Solar
Wind
Geothermal
Overall Ranking
Cleanest solutions to global warming, air pollution, energy security
Electric Power
Vehicle Power
Recommended
Recommended
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1. Wind – BEVs
Wind
CSP
Geothermal
Tidal
PV
Wave
Hydroelectricity
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Wind – HFCVs
CSP – BEVs
Geothermal – BEVs
Tidal – BEVs
PV – BEVs
Wave – BEVs
Hydro – BEVs
Not Recommended
Not Recommended
8. Nuclear
9.
10.
11.
12.
9. Coal-CCS
Nuclear – BEVs
Coal-CCS – BEVs
Corn ethanol
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 wind-water-sun
(WWS) and electricty/H2(TW)
Electricity: 3.3
Total: 11.5
 Conversion to electricity, H reduces power demand 30%
Number of Plants or Devices to Power World
Technology
Percent Supply 2030
5-MW wind turbines
0.75-MW wave devices
100-MW geothermal plants
1300-MW hydro plants
1-MW tidal turbines
3-kW Roof PV systems
300-MW Solar PV plants
300-MW CSP plants
50%
1
4
4
1
6
14
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 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
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 917 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.
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