Potential solutions to the energy problem Potential solutions to the energy problem A talk in honor...
55
1 Potential solutions to the energy problem A talk in honor of Arthur Rosenfeld Berkeley, CA April 28, 2006
Transcript of Potential solutions to the energy problem Potential solutions to the energy problem A talk in honor...
1
Potential solutions to theenergy problem
A talk in honor of Arthur RosenfeldBerkeley, CA
April 28, 2006
National Concerns
Sustainable, CO2 neutral energy
which is intimately tied toenergy security
1) National security
3) The environment
2) Economic prosperity
and International
3
Can free-market economies beharnessed to solve the problem?
• Free-markets provide powerful incentives forinnovation. (Profit is a very strong motivator)
• Free markets are more nimble than regulatedeconomies.
Question: How many free-market economistsdoes it take to change a light bulb?
Answer: None. If it needed changing, free-market forces would have taken care of it.
4
Can the free market economicforces provide a
complete solutionto the energy problem?
5
• Free markets do not account for “externalities” (e.g. pollution, climate change.)
• Free market forces promote “local” optimization (e.g. Building contractors have no incentive to invest in operating efficiency.)
• Free markets do not respond to long term problems or international/global issues. (e.g. International fishing, international pollution)
The downsides of free-market economies
6
1) Conservation: maximize energyefficiency and minimize energy use,while insuring economic prosperity
2) Develop new sources of clean energy
A dual strategy is needed to solvethe energy problem:
7
Energy demand vs. GDP per capita
8
CO2 emissions depends on the energy source
9
A transition to clean, sustainable energysupplies will require additional regulations
to decrease energy waste
And
Carbon Cap & Trade (or other mechanism)to account for externalities.
The Demand side of theEnergy Solution
Total Electricity Use, per capita, 1960 - 2001
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
KW
h
12,000
8,000
7,000
California
U.S.
kWh
The Rosenfeld Effect ?
Art Rosenfeld turns hisattention to the energy problem
12
Regulation stimulates technology: Refrigerator efficiencystandards and performance. The expectation of
efficiency standards also stimulated industry innovation
13
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000Year
Inde
x (1
972
= 10
0)
Effective Dates of National Standards
=
Effective Dates of State Standards
=
Refrigerators
Central A/C
Gas Furnaces
Impact of Standards on Efficiency of 3 Appliances
Source: S. Nadel, ACEEE, in ECEEE 2003Summer Study, www.eceee.org
75%
60%
25%
14Source: Mike Messenger, CEC Staff, April 2003
GWH Impacts from Programs Begun Prior to 2001
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
GW
H
Utility Programs
Building Standards
Appliance Standards
~ 14% of Annual Use in California in 2001
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 15EfficiencyEnergy for the Future
Electricity Use of Refrigerators and Freezers in the US compared to Generation from Nuclear,Hydro, Renewables, Three Gorges Dam and ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800B
illio
n kW
h pe
r yea
r
150 M Refrig/Freezers
at 1974 eff at 2001 eff
Nuclear
All USHydro-power
3 GorgesDam
Existing Renewables
50 Million 2 kW PV Systems
Save
d
Use
d Use
d
Nuclear energy = 20% of totalelectricity generation in the US
Total energy consumption at end-usesector 1949 – 2004
Cumulative U.S. energysavings for windows
installed by 1995:$2.1 B
Cumulative US energysavings of electronic
ballasts by 1995 = $1 B.
17
Energy sources (1970 – 2004)
oil
coal
gas
hydronuclear
Potential supply-side solutions tothe Energy Problem
• Oil, gas, coal, tar sands, shale oil, …
• Fusion
• Fission
• Wind
• Solar photocells
• Bio-mass
When will we run out offossil fuel energy?
Energy consumption by 2025 is expectedto more than triple from 1970 levels.
Solicitation number DE-RP02-05CH11231 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposalCourtesy Steve Koonin, Chief Scientist, BP
R/P ~ 1000years?
21
Computersimulations by thePrincetonGeophysical FluidDynamics Lab forCO2 increases abovepre-industrialrevolution levels:
2x CO2 : 3 – 5° C
4x CO2 : 6 - 10° C
4 x CO2
2 x CO2
Pre-industrial: ~275 ppm
Today: ~380 ppm
22
New Climate Models include bio-geo-chemicalfeedbacks
AtmosphereCO2 = 280 ppmv (560 x 1015 gm Carbon) + …
Ocean Circ. +BioGeoChem
Biophysics +BioGeoChem
37,400 Pg 2,000 Pg
90± 60±
TurnoverTime of Carbon
102-103 yr
Turnovertime of Carbon
101 yr
23
Fossil Fuel Simulation assuming A2 emission
750
1200
800
400Atm
CO
2 (pp
m)
AssumedCO2
emissions
ATM
Ocean
Land
780 ppm
0210020502000195019001850
Year
Carbon sequestration questions:
• How much can be stored and for how long ?
• How much will it cost ?
Depleted oil/gasreservoirs andenhanced oil
recoverySaline
water beds
Coal-bedmethanerecovery
Potential supply-side solutions tothe Energy Problem
• Coal, tar sands, shale oil, …
• Fusion
• Fission
• Wind
• Solar photocells
• Bio-mass
Fusion will not major contributor formost of the 21st century
0
10
20
30
40
50
2000 2050 2100 2150 2200
Wor
ld P
rimar
y En
ergy
Con
sum
ptio
n (T
W)
New CO2–neutralpower.
Estimated TotalPrimary EnergyConsumption
Fusion with growth rate = 0.4% / year of total energy.
650550
750 ppmCO2
ITER Demo
Source: Rob Goldston, Princeton Plasma National Lab
Potential supply-side solutions tothe Energy Problem
• Coal, tar sands, shale oil, …
• Fusion
• Fission
• Wind
• Solar photocells
• Bio-mass
Nuclear Fission
Waste andNuclear
Proliferation
3 TW = One new GWreactor every week for
the next 50 years)
Max. fuel temperature
Graphite helium-cooledpebble bed reactor(General Atomics)
30
Heat generation is the limiting factor inlong term storage
Assumes continued electricity growth andnuclear power remains at 20% of market share.
Nuclear Power Production Waste Generation
32
33
Potential supply-side solutions tothe Energy Problem
• Coal, tar sands, shale oil, …
• Fusion
• Fission
• Wind
• Solar photocells
• Bio-mass
Tax incentives were essential to stimulatedevelopment of power generation from wind
Develop a new class of durable, high efficiencysolar cells/collector systems at 1/10th the cost
of current silicon solar arrays.
Direct band-gap, multiple layer solar cellscombined with solar concentrators(> 40% efficiencies now possible)
Distributed Junction Solar CellsOrganic materials for the creation of electron-hole pairs and charge separation, and a differentmaterial to collect the electrons.
Hierarchical Junction Solar Cells:Materials which self-organize to form“hierarchical” junctions: e.g. the combination oforganic dendrimers and inorganic branchednanocrystals.
37
Potential supply-side solutions tothe Energy Problem
• Coal, tar sands, shale oil, …
• Fusion
• Fission
• Wind
• Solar photocells
• Bio-mass
Photosynthesis: Nature has found a way toconvert sunlight, CO2, water and nutrients
into chemical energy
~13 B ha of land in the Earth• 1.5 B ha for crops• 3.5 B ha for pastureland• 0.5 B ha are “built up”• 7.5 B ha are forest land or “other”
41
Land best suited for biomass generation(Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa)
is the least utilized
Potential arable land suitable for rain-fed crops:1.5 Billion ha ⇒ 14 Billion ha
Sunlight
CO2, H20,
NutrientsBiomass Chemical
energy
Self-fertilizing,drought and pest
resistant
Improvedconversion ofcellulose intochemical fuel
Cellulose 40-60% Percent Dry WeightHemicellulose 20-40%
Lignin 10-25%
The majority of a plant is structural material
43
Replace NH3 fertilizer with BiologicalN fixation
• Engineer major crop plants to contain thenitrogen fixation genes
OR• Engineer major crop plants to accept
nitrogen fixing bacteria in root nodules
44From Christopher Somerville, IAC workshop, 2006
45
> 1% conversion efficiency may be feasible. 1 B ha (< 10% of potential non-irrigated crop land
capability) might supply >100 Bn barrels of oil.
Current usage: 28 Bn barrels2025 projection: 43 Bn barrels
• Miscanthus: 17.5 dry tons/acre
• 200 gallons of ethanol / dry ton may be possible.
• 200 M out of 450 M acres ⇒ ~17 Bnb oil
• US transportation = 13 Bnb
46
Commercial ethanol production from cellulose
The biggest energy gains will come from improvedfuel production from cellulose/lignin
47
The biggest energy gains will come fromimproved fuel production from cellulose/lignin
Conc. H 2SO4
Water
Gypsum
Water
Purified
Sugar Solution
Lignin
Utilization
Ethanol
Recovery
Fermentor
Neutralization
Tank
Acid
Reconcentration
Acid/Sugar
Separation
DecrystallizationHydrolysis
Hydrolysis
A-CoA
AA-CoA
HMG-CoA
Mev
Mev-P
Mev-PP IPP
PMK MPDMK idi ispAHMGSatoB tHMGR
DMAPP
Amorphadiene
OPP
FPP
ADS
O
OO
O
O
Artemisinin
Synthetic Biology: Production of artemisinin in bacteria Jay Keasling
Identify thebiosynthesispathways in
A. annua
Can synthetic organisms beengineered to produce
ethanol, methanol or moresuitable hydrocarbon fuel?
Bell Laboratories
15 scientists who worked at AT&T Bell Laboratoriesreceived Nobel Prizes.
50
51
Shockley
Bardeen
BrittainMaterials Science
Theoretical and experimental physics- Electronic structure of
semiconductors- Electronic surface states- p-n junctions
52
UC BerkeleyCampus
BerkeleyLab 200-acre site
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory3,800 employees, ~$520 M / year budget
10 Nobel Prize winners were/are employees of LBNL,and at least one more “in the pipeline”
Today:
59 employees in the National Academy of Sciences,18 in the National Academy of Engineering,
2 in the Institute of Medicine,7 MacArthur Fellows…
Lawrence Berkeley Lab Energy Work
FusionCarbon
sequestration
Computation and ModelingEnergy Efficiency
geothermal
Fossil recovery
Helios
CellulosePlantsCellulose-degrading
microbesEngineered
photosynthetic microbesand plants
ArtificialPhotosynthesis
ElectricityPV Electrochemistry
MethanolEthanolHydrogenHydrocarbons
Helios Research Building
