Review of Solutions to Global Warming Air Pollution and Energy Security
description
Transcript of Review of Solutions to Global Warming Air Pollution and Energy Security
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
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Causes of Global Warming
Tem
per
ature
Chan
ge
Sin
ce 1
750 (
oC
)
Green-housegases
Fossil-fuel
+ biofuelsoot
particles
Urbanheat
island
Coolingparticles
Netobserved
globalwarming
M.Z. Jacobson
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) Flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) Cellulosic ethanol (E85)
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) 1.6-1.8 Global overall power demand (TW) 9.4-13.6
Archer and Jacobson (2005) www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/ Mean 80-m Wind Speed in North America
Lifecycle CO2e of Electricity Sources
0
100
200
300
400
500
600L
ifec
ycl
e g-C
O2e/
kW
h
Win
d
CS
P Geo
ther
mal
Sola
r-P
V
Tid
al
Wav
e
Hydro Nucl
ear
Coal
-CC
S
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 CO2e of Electricity Sources
0
100
200
300
400
500
600O
pport
unit
y-C
ost
g-C
O2e/
kW
h
Win
d
CS
P
Geo
ther
mal
Sola
r-P
V
Tid
al
Wav
e
Hydro N
ucl
ear
Coal
-CC
S
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-enriched uranium and 35% of the plutonium.
Toon et al. (2007)
Leakage From Carbon Sequestration Leakage rate (Tg/yr)
L = I - S(t) / t where
I = injection rate t = time (years) S = 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
0
100
200
300
400
500
600E
xplo
sion o
r L
eak g
-CO
2e/
kW
h
Nuclear:One exchange of
50 15-kt weapons over 30 ydue to expansion of uranium
enrichment/plutonium separationin nuclear-energy facilities
worldwide
Coal-CCS:1-18% leakage of sequesteredcarbon dioxide in 1000 years
Total CO2e of Electricity Sources
0
100
200
300
400
500
600T
ota
l g-C
O2e/
kW
h
Win
d
CS
P Geo
ther
mal
Sola
r-P
V
Tid
al
Wav
e
Hydro
Nucl
ear
Coal
-CC
S
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 U.S. CO2 From Converting to BEVs, HFCVs, or E85
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50P
erce
nt
chan
ge
in a
ll U
.S. C
O2 e
mis
sions
Win
d-B
EV
-32.5
to -
32.7
Win
d-H
FC
V -
31.9
to -
32.6
PV
-BE
V -
31.0
to -
32.3
CS
P-B
EV
-32.4
to -
32.6
Geo
-BE
V -
31.1
to -
32.3
Tid
al-B
EV
-31.3
to -
32.0
Wav
e-B
EV
-31.1
to -
31.9
Hydro
-BE
V -
30.9
to -
31.7
Nuc-
BE
V -
28.0
to -
31.4
CC
S-B
EV
-17.7
to -
26.4
Corn
-E85
Cel
-E85
-0.7
8 t
o +
30.4
-16
.4 t
o +
16.4
Comparison of Emission Assumptions With Recent CARB and Other Data
Percent change E85 minus gas
Cert data (2006) Jacobson (2007) NMOG +45% +19.6% NOx -29.7% -30%
Whitney (2007) Jacobson (2007) Benzene -64% -79% 1,3-butadiene -66% -10% Acetaldehyde +4500% +2000% Formaldehyde +200% +60%
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
ROG (ppmC)
NO
x(g) (
ppm
v)
0 .4
0.32
0.24
0.160.
08 =
O3(g
), pp
mv
Ozone isopleth
Effect in 2020 of E85 vs. Gasoline on Ozone and Health in Los Angeles
Change in ozone deaths/yr due to E85: +120 (+9%) (47-140) Changes in cancer/yr due to E85: -3.5 to +0.3
Upstream Lifecycle Emissions Gasoline, Corn-E90, Cellulosic-E90
0.1
1
10
100
1000 RFGCorn-E90Cel-E90
Upst
ream
Lif
ecycl
e E
mis
sions
(g/m
illi
on-B
TU
-fuel
)
59.2
CO NMOC NO2 SO
2 N
2O CH
4 BC
342
207
42.1
240
31.3
80.3
847
419
52
.9 75.5
17.1
0.6
84.3
37.5
221.1
236.3
109.8
0.5
3.5 4.1
DeLucchi, 2006
Low/High U.S. Air Pollution Deaths For 2020 BEVs, HFCVs, E85, Gasoline
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
3500020
20
U.S
. V
ehic
le E
xh
aust
+L
ifec
ycl
e+N
uc
Dea
ths/
Yea
r
Win
d-B
EV
20
-100
+7.2W
ind
-HF
CV
80
-380
PV
-BE
V 1
90-7
90
CS
P-B
EV
80-1
40
Geo
-BE
V 1
50
-740
Tid
al-B
EV
320-6
60
Wav
e-B
EV
390-7
50
Hy
dro
-BE
V 4
50-8
60
Nuc-BEV 640-2170-27,540
CC
S-B
EV
28
80
-690
0
Corn
-E8
5 1
5,0
00
-15,9
35
Cel
-E8
5 1
5,0
00
-16,3
10
Gas
oli
ne
15
,00
0
Number of Plants to Run All U.S. Vehicles as Battery-Electric
Nuclear: 202-275 850 MW plants Hydroelectric: 270-365 1300 MW plants Coal-CCS: 460-1010 425 MW plants Geothermal: 1500-2250 100 MW plants CSP: 5900-15,400 100 MW plants Solar-PV: 4.6-12.5 billion 160 W panels Wave: 770,000-1,275,000 0.75 MW devices Tidal: 419,000-1,000,000 1 MW turbines Wind: 73,000-144,000 5 MW turbines
Ratio of Footprint Area of Technology to Wind-BEVs for Running U.S. Vehicles
0.1
10
103
105
107
109
1011
Low ratioHigh ratio
Rat
io o
f F
ootp
rint
Are
a of
Ener
gy T
echnolo
gy t
o
Win
d-B
EV
for
Runnin
g U
.S. O
nro
ad V
ehic
les
Win
d-B
EV
Win
d-H
FC
V CS
P-B
EV
PV
-BE
V
Geo
-BE
VT
idal
-BE
VW
ave-
BE
VH
ydro
-BE
V
Nuc-
BE
VC
CS
-BE
V Corn
-E85
Cel
-E85
Cal
iforn
iaR
hode
Isla
nd
Percent of U.S. (50 states) for Footprint + Spacing to Run U.S. Vehicles
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40P
erce
nt
of
U.S
. la
nd F
or
Tec
hnolo
gy
Spac
ing t
o P
ow
er U
.S. V
ehic
les
Win
d-B
EV
0.3
5-0
.70
+7.2W
ind-H
FC
V 1
.1-2
.1
PV
-BE
V 0
.077-0
.18
CS
P-B
EV
0.1
2-0
.41
Geo
-BE
V 0
.0067-0
.0077
Tid
al-B
EV
0.0
17-0
.040
Wav
e-B
EV
0.2
1-0
.35
Hydro
-BE
V 1
.9-2
.6
Nuc-
BE
V 0
.045-0
.061
CC
S-B
EV
0.0
26-0
.057
Corn
-E85 9
.84-1
7.6
Cel
-E8
5 4
.7-3
5.4
Cal
iforn
ia 4
.41
Rhode
Isla
nd 0
.0295
Area to Power 100% of U.S. Onroad Vehicles
Map: www.fotw.net
Corn E85 9.8-17.6%
Cellulosic E85 4.7-35.4%
(low-industry est. high-data)
Wind-BEV turbine spacing 0.35-0.7%
Solar PV-BEV 0.077-0.18%
Wind-BEV Footprint 1-2.8 km2
Water Consumed to Run U.S. Vehicles
U.S. water demand = 150,000 Ggal/yr 0
5000
10000
15000
20000W
ater
consu
mp
tion
(G
gal
/yea
r) t
o r
un U
.S.
veh
icle
s
Win
d-B
EV
1-2
+7.2W
ind-H
FC
V 1
50
-190
PV
-BE
V 5
1-7
0
CS
P-B
EV
10
00-1
36
0
Geo
-BE
V 6
.4-8
.8
Tid
al-B
EV
1-2
Wav
e-B
EV
1-2
Hydro-BEV 5800-13,200
Nuc-
BE
V 6
40
-13
00
CC
S-B
EV
72
0-1
20
0
Corn-E85 12,200-17,000
Cel
-E8
5 6
40
0-8
80
0
Matching Hourly Electricity Demand in 2020 With 80% Renewables
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
ele
ctri
city
(M
W)
time of day, PST
Renewables for Load-Matching, July 2020
Geothermal
Wind
Solar
Hydro
Remaining
Hoste et al. (2007)
Aggregate Wind Power (MW) From 81% of�Spain’s Grid Versus Time of Day, Oct. 26, 2005
Overall Scores/Rankings (Lowest is Best)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Over
all
Sco
re o
f T
ech
nolo
gy C
om
bin
atio
n
Win
d-B
EV
2.0
9+7.2
Win
d-H
FC
V 3
.22
PV
-BE
V 5
.26
CS
P-B
EV
4.2
8
Geo
-BE
V 4
.60
Tid
al-B
EV
4.9
7
Wav
e-B
EV
6.1
1
Hydro
-BE
V 8
.40
CC
S-B
EV
8.4
7
Corn
-E85 1
0.6
0
Cel
-E85 1
0.7
0
Nuc-
BE
V 8
.50
Recommended 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
C
Coalelectricity(121-185)
Oil electricity(3-5)
Natural gaselectricity(53-81)
Other(139-230)
Onroadvehicles(battery)(73-144)
Total (2007)389-645
Land Area For 50% of US Energy From Wind
Map: www.fotw.net
Turbine area
touching ground
Spacing between turbines
Alternatively, Water Area For 50% of US Energy From Wind
Map: www.fotw.net
Spacing between turbines