Review of Solutions to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security

Mark Z. Jacobson Atmosphere/Energy Program Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering Stanford University
The Energy Seminar, Stanford University October 1, 2008

Causes of Global Warming
Temperature Change Since 1750 ( C) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5
M.Z. Jacobson

o

Cooling particles Green- Fossil- Urban fuel house heat gases + biofuel island soot particles Net observed global warming

Comparison of Energy Solutions to Global Warming
Electricity Sources Vehicle Technologies Wind turbines Battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) Solar photovoltaics (PV) Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs) Geothermal power plants Tidal turbines Wave devices Concentrated solar power (CSP) Hydroelectric power plants Nuclear power plants Coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) Liquid Fuel Sources Corn ethanol (E85) Cellulosic ethanol (E85)

Flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs)

Effects Examined
Resource abundance Carbon-dioxide equivalent emissions Lifecycle Opportunity cost emissions from planning-to-operation delays Leakage from carbon sequestration Nuclear war / terrorism emission risk from nuclear-energy Air pollution mortality Water consumption Footprint on the ground Spacing required Effects on wildlife Thermal pollution Water chemical pollution / radioactive waste Energy supply disruption Normal operating reliability

Global Renewable Energy Resources
Max Potential Current Wind over land > 6.9 m/s (TW) 72 47 0.02 Solar over land (TW) 1700 340 0.001 Geothermal (TW) 160 0.15 0.007 Hydroelectric (TW) 1.9 <1.9 0.32 Wave+tidal (TW) 3.5 0.5 0.00006 Global electric power demand (TW) Global overall power demand (TW) 1.6-1.8 9.4-13.6

Mean 80-m Wind Speed in North America
Archer and Jacobson (2005) www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/

Lifecycle g-CO e/kWh
2

Wind CSP Solar-PV Geothermal Tidal Wave Hydro Nuclear Coal-CCS

Lifecycle CO2e of Electricity Sources

100

200

300

400

500

600

0

Time Between Planning & Operation
Nuclear: 10-19 y (lifetime 40 y) Site permit (NRC): 3.5 y minimum with new regs. – 6 y Construction permit approval and issue 2.5-4 y Construction time 4-9 years (Low value Europe/Japan) Hydroelectric: 8-16 y (lifetime 80 y) Coal-CCS: 6-11 y (lifetime 35 y) Geothermal: 3-6 y (lifetime 35 y) Ethanol: 2-5 y (lifetime 40 y) CSP: 2-5 y (lifetime 30 y) Solar-PV: 2-5 y (lifetime 30 y) Wave: 2-5 y (lifetime 15 y) Tidal: 2-5 y (lifetime 15 y) Wind: 2-5 y (lifetime 30 y)

Opportunity-Cost g-CO e/kWh
2

Wind CSP Solar-PV Geothermal Tidal Wave Hydro Nuclear Coal-CCS

Opportunity-Cost CO2e of Electricity Sources

100

200

300

400

500

600

0

Nuclear Energy/Weapons Risks
“There is no technical demarcation between the military and civilian reactor and there never was one” (Los Alam. Rept. LA8969MS,UC-16) 42 countries have fissionable material to produce weapons. 9 have nuclear weapons stockpiles (US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, N. Korea) 22 of 42 countries with fissionable material have facilities in nuclear energy plants to produce enriched uranium or to separate plutonium 13 of the 42 countries are active in producing enriched uranium or separating plutonium.  Spread of nuclear weapons material is caused by the spread of nuclear energy. Nuclear weapons treaties safeguard only 1% of the world’s highly Toon et al. (2007) -enriched uranium and 35% of the plutonium.

Leakage From Carbon Sequestration
Leakage rate (Tg/yr) L I t S = I - S(t) / t where

= injection rate = time (years) = stored mass (Tg) S(t) = S(0)e-t/t + tI(1-e-t/t )

t

= e-folding lifetime of stored material against leakage (years) High est. t=100,000 (1% leakage over 1000 years, IPCC, 2005 Low est. t=5000 years (18% over 1000 years – Natural gas storage has leaked up to 10% over 1000 years, IPCC, 2005)

War/Leakage CO2e of Nuclear, Coal
600 Explosion or Leak g-CO e/kWh 500 400 300 200 100 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

2

Total g-CO e/kWh
2

Wind CSP Solar-PV Geothermal Tidal Wave Hydro Nuclear Coal-CCS

Total CO2e of Electricity Sources

100

200

300

400

500

600

0

Lifecycle CO2-Equivalent Emissions Corn and Cellulosic Ethanol
Delucchi (2006)* Accounts for - seeding, fertilization, irrigation, cultivation, crop transport, refining, distribution, combustion. - climate impacts of BC, other PM, NO, CO - detailed nitrogen cycle, basic landuse/price impacts U.S. corn ethanol ~2.4% less CO2-eq. emis. than light-duty gasoline (China +17%; India +11%; Japan +1%, Chile -6%) Switchgrass ethanol ~52.5% less CO2-eq. emis. than LDG - Searchinger et al. (2008)# Adds gridded global landuse/price impacts U.S. corn ethanol ~90% more CO2-eq. than gasoline Switchgrass ethanol ~50% more CO2-eq. than LDG *www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2006/UCD-ITS-RR-06-08.pdf #Science 319, 1238 (2008)

Percent change in all U.S. CO2 emissions -30
PV-BEV -31.0 to -32.3 Geo-BEV -31.1 to -32.3 Tidal-BEV -31.3 to -32.0 Wave-BEV -31.1 to -31.9 Hydro-BEV -30.9 to -31.7 Nuc-BEV -28.0 to -31.4 CCS-BEV -17.7 to -26.4 Corn-E85 Cel-E85 -0.78 to +30.4 -16.4 to +16.4

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

-20 10 20 30 40 0

-10

50

Wind-BEV -32.5 to -32.7 Wind-HFCV -31.9 to -32.6 CSP-BEV -32.4 to -32.6

Comparison of Emission Assumptions With Recent CARB and Other Data
NMOG NOx Percent change E85 minus gas Jacobson (2007) +19.6% -30% Jacobson (2007) -79% -10% +2000% +60% Cert data (2006) +45% -29.7%

Whitney (2007) Benzene -64% 1,3-butadiene -66% Acetaldehyde +4500% Formaldehyde +200%

Ozone isopleth
0.25
0.08 = O (g), ppmv

0.4
0.32 0.16

0.2
NO (g) (ppmv) x

0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0

0.5

0.24

3

1 1.5 ROG (ppmC)

2

Effect in 2020 of E85 vs. Gasoline on Ozone and Health in Los Angeles

Change in ozone deaths/yr due to E85: Changes in cancer/yr due to E85:

+120 (+9%) (47-140) -3.5 to +0.3

Upstream Lifecycle Emissions Gasoline, Corn-E90, Cellulosic-E90
Upstream Lifecycle Emissions (g/million-BTU-fuel) 847 419 342 207
1000

80.3

42.1

31.3

0.1 CO NMOC NO
2

SO

2

NO
2

CH

4

BC

0.5

1

0.6

3.5 4.1

10

17.1

37.5

100

52.9 75.5

59.2

84.3

221.1 236.3 109.8

240

RFG Corn-E90 Cel-E90

DeLucchi, 2006

2020 U.S. Vehicle Exhaust+Lifecycle+Nuc Deaths/Year

Wind-BEV 20-100

+7.2

Wind-HFCV 80-380 CSP-BEV 80-140 PV-BEV 190-790 Geo-BEV 150-740 Tidal-BEV 320-660 Wave-BEV 390-750 Hydro-BEV 450-860

CCS-BEV 2880-6900 Corn-E85 15,000-15,935 Cel-E85 15,000-16,310 Gasoline 15,000

Low/High U.S. Air Pollution Deaths For 2020 BEVs, HFCVs, E85, Gasoline 35000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

5000
Nuc-BEV 640-2170-27,540

0

Number of Plants to Run All U.S. Vehicles as Battery-Electric
Nuclear: Hydroelectric: Coal-CCS: Geothermal: CSP: Solar-PV: Wave: Tidal: Wind: 202-275 270-365 460-1010 1500-2250 5900-15,400 4.6-12.5 billion 770,000-1,275,000 419,000-1,000,000 73,000-144,000 850 MW plants 1300 MW plants 425 MW plants 100 MW plants 100 MW plants 160 W panels 0.75 MW devices 1 MW turbines 5 MW turbines

Ratio of Footprint Area of Energy Technology to Wind-BEV for Running U.S. Onroad Vehicles

1011

Ratio of Footprint Area of Technology to Wind-BEVs for Running U.S. Vehicles

Wind-BEV Wind-HFCV CSP-BEV PV-BEV Geo-BEV Tidal-BEV Wave-BEV Hydro-BEV Nuc-BEV CCS-BEV Corn-E85 Cel-E85 California Rhode Island

103

105

107

109

0.1 10

Low ratio High ratio

Percent of U.S. land For Technology Spacing to Power U.S. Vehicles

Wind-BEV 0.35-0.70

+7.2

Wind-HFCV 1.1-2.1 CSP-BEV 0.12-0.41 PV-BEV 0.077-0.18 Geo-BEV 0.0067-0.0077 Tidal-BEV 0.017-0.040 Wave-BEV 0.21-0.35 Hydro-BEV 1.9-2.6 Nuc-BEV 0.045-0.061 CCS-BEV 0.026-0.057

California 4.41 Rhode Island 0.0295

Percent of U.S. (50 states) for Footprint + Spacing to Run U.S. Vehicles 40

10

15

Corn-E85 9.84-17.6 Cel-E85 4.7-35.4

20

25

30

35

0

5

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

Water consumption (Ggal/year) to run U.S. vehicles

10000

15000

20000

Wind-BEV 1-2 Wind-HFCV 150-190 CSP-BEV 1000-1360 PV-BEV 51-70 Geo-BEV 6.4-8.8 Tidal-BEV 1-2 Wave-BEV 1-2

Nuc-BEV 640-1300 CCS-BEV 720-1200

Water Consumed to Run U.S. Vehicles

5000

0

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

Cel-E85 6400-8800

+7.2 Hydro-BEV 5800-13,200

Corn-E85 12,200-17,000

Matching Hourly Electricity Demand in 2020 With 80% Renewables
Renewables for Load-Matching, July 2020

60000

50000

Geothermal Wind Solar Hydro Remaining
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 time of day, PST

electricity (MW)

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

Hoste et al. (2007)

Aggregate Wind Power (MW) From 81% of Spain’s Grid Versus Time of Day, Oct. 26, 2005

Overall Score of Technology Combination
10 12 14 16 0
Wind-BEV 2.09

2 +7.2
Wind-HFCV 3.22 CSP-BEV 4.28 Geo-BEV 4.60 Tidal-BEV 4.97 PV-BEV 5.26 Wave-BEV 6.11 CCS-BEV 8.47 Nuc-BEV 8.50

4

6

8

Recommended

Hydro-BEV 8.40

Overall Scores/Rankings (Lowest is Best)
Corn-E85 10.60 Cel-E85 10.70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Not recommended

Summary
Among many vehicle options, wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs have the greatest benefit and least impact in terms of solving climate, pollution, landuse, water supply problems. Wind requires 2-6 orders of magnitude less land footprint than any other option. CSP-, hydro-, geothermal-, PV-, tidal-, wave-BEVs also extremely beneficial. Hydro-BEVs recommended due to load balancing ability. Nuclear-BEVs, coal-CCS-BEVs are less beneficial options for addressing climate/air pollution and should not be favored at expense of other options. Corn-E85, cellulosic-E85 detrimental to climate, air quality, land, water, undernutrition compared with other technologies. Should not be included in policy options to address climate or air pollution. More at www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

Number of 5 MW Wind Turbines in 7-8.5 m/s winds to Eliminate All U.S. CO2 2007
Other (139-230) Onroad vehicles (battery) (73-144)

Coal electricity (121-185) Natural gas electricity Oil electricity (53-81) (3-5)
C

Total (2007) 389-645

Land Area For 50% of US Energy From Wind

Turbine area touching ground

Spacing between turbines

Map: www.fotw.net

Alternatively, Water Area For 50% of US Energy From Wind

Spacing between turbines

Map: www.fotw.net

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.