Jacobson doubles down~ctm
Public Release: 23-Aug-2017
VIDEO: In this video, Mark Z. Jacobson explains the energy transition timeline for 139 countries to 100 percent wind, water, and solar for all purposes by 2050. view more
Credit: Jacobson et al./Joule 2017
The latest roadmap to a 100% renewable energy future from Stanford’s Mark Z. Jacobson and 26 colleagues is the most specific global vision yet, outlining infrastructure changes that 139 countries can make to be entirely powered by wind, water, and sunlight by 2050 after electrification of all energy sectors. Such a transition could mean less worldwide energy consumption due to the efficiency of clean, renewable electricity; a net increase of over 24 million long-term jobs; an annual decrease in 4-7 million air pollution deaths per year; stabilization of energy prices; and annual savings of over $20 trillion in health and climate costs. The work appears August 23 in the journal Joule, Cell Press’s new publication focused on sustainable energy.
The challenge of moving the world toward a low-carbon future in time to avoid exacerbating global warming and to create energy self-sufficient countries is one of the greatest of our time. The roadmaps developed by Jacobson’s group provide one possible endpoint. For each of the 139 nations, they assess the raw renewable energy resources available to each country, the number of wind, water, and solar energy generators needed to be 80% renewable by 2030 and 100% by 2050, how much land and rooftop area these power sources would require (only around 1% of total available, with most of this open space between wind turbines that can be used for multiple purposes), and how this approach would reduce energy demand and cost compared with a business-as-usual scenario.
“Both individuals and governments can lead this change. Policymakers don’t usually want to commit to doing something unless there is some reasonable science that can show it is possible, and that is what we are trying to do,” says Jacobson, director of Stanford University’s Atmosphere and Energy Program and co-founder of the Solutions Project, a U.S. non-profit educating the public and policymakers about a transition to 100% clean, renewable energy. “There are other scenarios. We are not saying that there is only one way we can do this, but having a scenario gives people direction.”
The analyses specifically examined each country’s electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, industrial, and agriculture/forestry/fishing sectors. Of the 139 countries–selected because they were countries for which data were publically available from the International Energy Agency and collectively emit over 99% of all carbon dioxide worldwide–the places the study showed that had a greater share of land per population (e.g., the United States, China, the European Union) are projected to have the easiest time making the transition to 100% wind, water, and solar. Another learning was that the most difficult places to transition may be highly populated, very small countries surrounded by lots of ocean, such as Singapore, which may require an investment in offshore solar to convert fully.
As a result of a transition, the roadmaps predict a number of collateral benefits. For example, by eliminating oil, gas, and uranium use, the energy associated with mining, transporting and refining these fuels is also eliminated, reducing international power demand by around 13%. Because electricity is more efficient than burning fossil fuels, demand should go down another 23%. The changes in infrastructure would also mean that countries wouldn’t need to depend on one another for fossil fuels, reducing the frequency of international conflict over energy. Finally, communities currently living in energy deserts would have access to abundant clean, renewable power.
“Aside from eliminating emissions and avoiding 1.5 degrees Celsius global warming and beginning the process of letting carbon dioxide drain from the Earth’s atmosphere, transitioning eliminates 4-7 million air pollution deaths each year and creates over 24 million long-term, full-time jobs by these plans,” Jacobson says. “What is different between this study and other studies that have proposed solutions is that we are trying to examine not only the climate benefits of reducing carbon but also the air pollution benefits, job benefits, and cost benefits”
The Joule paper is an expansion of 2015 roadmaps to transition each of the 50 United States to 100% clean, renewable energy (doi:10.1039/C5EE01283J) and an analysis of whether the electric grid can stay stable upon such a transition (doi: 10.1073/pnas.1510028112). Not only does this new study cover nearly the entire world, there are also improved calculations on the availability of rooftop solar energy, renewable energy resources, and jobs created versus lost.
The 100% clean, renewable energy goal has been criticized by some for focusing only on wind, water, and solar energy and excluding nuclear power, “clean coal,” and biofuels. However, the researchers intentionally exclude nuclear power because of its 10-19 years between planning and operation, its high cost, and the acknowledged meltdown, weapons proliferation, and waste risks. “Clean coal” and biofuels are neglected because they both cause heavy air pollution, which Jacobson and coworkers are trying to eliminate, and emit over 50 times more carbon per unit of energy than wind, water, or solar power.
The 100% wind, water, solar studies have also been questioned for depending on some technologies such as underground heat storage in rocks, which exists only in a few places, and the proposed use of electric and hydrogen fuel cell aircraft, which exist only in small planes at this time. Jacobson counters that underground heat storage is not required but certainly a viable option since it is similar to district heating, which provides 60% of Denmark’s heat. He also says that space shuttles and rockets have been propelled with hydrogen, and aircraft companies are now investing in electric airplanes. Wind, water, and solar can also face daily and seasonal fluctuation, making it possible that they could miss large demands for energy, but the new study refers to a new paper that suggests these stability concerns can be addressed in several ways.
These analyses have also been criticized for the massive investment it would take to move a country to the desired goal. Jacobson says that the overall cost to society (the energy, health, and climate cost) of the proposed system is one-fourth of that of the current fossil fuel system. In terms of upfront costs, most of these would be needed in any case to replace existing energy, and the rest is an investment that far more than pays itself off over time by nearly eliminating health and climate costs.
“It appears we can achieve the enormous social benefits of a zero-emission energy system at essentially no extra cost,” says co-author Mark Delucchi, a research scientist at the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley. “Our findings suggest that the benefits are so great that we should accelerate the transition to wind, water, and solar, as fast as possible, by retiring fossil-fuel systems early wherever we can.”
“This paper helps push forward a conversation within and between the scientific, policy, and business communities about how to envision and plan for a decarbonized economy,” writes Mark Dyson of Rocky Mountain Institute, in an accompanying preview of the paper. “The scientific community’s growing body of work on global low-carbon energy transition pathways provides robust evidence that such a transition can be accomplished, and a growing understanding of the specific levers that need to be pulled to do so. Jacobson et al.’s present study provides sharper focus on one scenario, and refines a set of priorities for near-term action to enable it.”
###
Joule, Jacobson et al.: “100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight (WWS) All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World” http://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(17)30012-0
Joule (@Joule_CP) published monthly by Cell Press, is a new home for outstanding and insightful research, analysis, and ideas addressing the need for more sustainable energy. A sister journal to Cell, Joule spans all scales of energy research, from fundamental laboratory research into energy conversion and storage up to impactful analysis at the global level. Visit: http://www.cell.com/joule. To receive Cell Press media alerts, contact press@cell.com.
Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.
Wow! It’s that easy? Who knew? I want in!
easy and no new costs …
“It appears we can achieve the enormous social benefits of a zero-emission energy system at essentially no extra cost”
It’s easy to make the numbers work, when you make them up from scratch.
And everyone will ride around on unicorns instead of driving. We’ll consume magic wafers made from good feelings and never harm a living plant, animal or microbe again in order to satisfy our evil hunger. We’ll float above the ground through meditative antigravity waves so as never to leave a footprint on virgin Mother Earth, and we’ll all be voluntarily reincarnated after 27 years as planet friendly garden gnomes. It’s all in my computer model. Please send money.
andrewpatullo,
Thank you.
Hugely appreciated.
To where do I send all my earthly money and possessions?
I will not need to live longer after this comes to pass.
Auto
{mods. /SARC] (SERIOUSLY so) like andrew’s comment, I suspect.
I always wondered when they were going to reduce yogic flying to practice. Perhaps we will soon see their patent application for the new technology. Or perhaps not.
Wind already is solar energy, and maybe even less efficient and lower energy density usage of solar energy than even bio-mass. At a KW / m^2 peak solar input, what is the on grid annual terajoules of electricity ENERGY per meter squared ??
G
Not sure but it only took 1 Joule to write this paper
(1) Always, and I mean *always*, missing from these “studies” is how much the average household’s electricity bill will go up using these absurd scenarios. (2) Using the same logic as this paper, the “cost” of a a [major meteor strike, Super-volcano, airborne pandemic, …] means that we should shell out the xx trillion dollars immediately. Pure silliness, probably paid for by taxpayers.
My interview Nuclear Energy vs. RE and Climate Change: http://sarahwestall.com/nuclear-energy-and-global-climate-change-a-controversial-science-discussion/
Massively unsustainable renewable energy: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/05/monumental-unsustainable-environmental-impacts/
B****** F****** S********.
Don’t hold back, tell us what you really think.
My immediate description was it’s a load of bo££ocks (technical term used in engineering).
And on reflection I would assume that you still have the same accurate description of this work?
You mean erotic bovine dejecta, no doubt
Or perhaps intact adult male domestic bovidae dejecta.
Or pre-fosilized bovine coprolite.
‘The southerly ejecta from a northerly facing bovine with a Y chromosome’ seems to cover it [like the road].
Auto
Is “dejecta” depressing sh!t?
$2 per kWh is the price for PV + Wind + batteries. So all your electric bills go up by a factor of 15. Then add the fact that you need more electricity for your car, and you are 25x. So about $5k per month in energy costs for a small home with 4 people. Not a problem for the rich Stanford types.
That is where the “EFFICIENCY” aspect comes in. Everyone will only need to utilize 1KWh per day thereby dropping the total utility bill to $60 per person per month.
Talk about Dim Watts (Not you Anthony, good Sir)
There is nothing wrong with dreaming I suppose. Except when your policies screw the poorest in society. People like the authors of this stuff are just a bunch of one eyed, over zealous, “insert expletive here”
Its not a dream, its a nightmare. At least from a grid operator’s perspective. How do you dispatch power when 100% of your generation is unschedulable?
I am not an electrical (or any other type of) engineer, but, would a direct current system be a possible work around?
I am.
No.
That is what ‘smart meters’ are for. As soon as everyone has one, the day and night price will be replaced with the 15 minute exchange rate.
On sunny days around noon, the price will be €-0.05/kWh. On a foggy January day, the price will be €2.50/kWh.
What Leo said.
Edison’s first power plants were DC, and the last DC service in NYC was shut down only in the last decade (2007). That said, if DC had been the better choice out of the box, we’d be using it today. Very high voltage DC is a good way to move power long distances, but the troubles start when you try to step down to common utilization voltages.
They ignore the fact that an all electric car world would quickly eliminate long distance driving, cutting down on cars, freedom of movement, and altering society big time. Energy usage will wind down to very low as they regulate all useful, common machines and appliances out of existence.
Remember, even indoor plumbing is unsustainable according to the UN. All paved roads are unsustainable as well. Cars will be urban only and people discouraged from living outside the city. To live outside, you will be in a human settlement, cut off from others, surrounded by buffer and no-humans-allowed zones. Minimal electricity would be allowed. Even tools would be communally owned, to be checked out of the library as needed. We would not have anybody tinkering about in their spare time making useful things if tool use is monitored Can’t have that, can we?
I am curious how the grid deals with what happens on a regular basis in Wyoming: We have 5 mph winds until around 3 PM. A front crashes through. The wind goes from 5 mphh to 30 mph in 10 minutes, stays high for around 10 to 30 minutes and then drops to 5 mph. How does a power plant deal with zero to maximum to zero in less than 2 hours. The only answer I could come up with is the wind power really is terribly insignificant. Otherwise, disaster would occur. Can anyone explain how this is dealt with?
Not really. We have quite reliable and efficient power semiconductors these days. If we were starting from scratch DC might well be the winner today (no phase/frequency matching and the hassles of apparent vs. real power). But we’re not starting from scratch and AC is perfectly serviceable for our needs.
A non-existent solution for a non-existent problem by those with non-existent intelligence.
Andrew – such an accurate comment as that will get you banned at skeptical science.
Assuming he isn’t already banned, of course.
FOR those with non existent intelligence…
It’s for those living in the land of the cloud and the cuckoo and they have very trendy jackets with sleeves that do up at the back.
James Bull
I expect the government to invest in alchemy and perpetual motion machines soon.
They’re already heavily invested in alchemy of the mind and perpetual ₑmotion machinations
I have a perpetual motion machine powered by alchemy, lots of papers are witness to it’s effectiveness
…so send cash & a noball pi$$ prize…. then I can be like Al Gore.
(actually it’s a toilet & senna pods, but don’t tell anyone (:-) )
We can disregard the claims about lower death rates, etc – historically, such estimates by clean air people have been outrageously exaggerated, AND, even if one believes their claims, one has no need to adopt crappy renewable power generation to achieve them – nuclear power produces fewer emissions than all of the renewables and therefore their own arguments are actually in favor of nuclear power. They also make ridiculous claims about the (non-existent) problem of nuclear wastes,when in fact, those spent fuels are not wastes at all, but a source of a very large amount of ‘free” energy – much less costly than either solar or wind. And, believe it or not, but consumers are NOT going to be happy about those millions of “new jobs” that are required, unlesss they are performed by unpaid volunteers. The huge advantage of the revolutionary new molten salt reactors
is that one need not create this massive grid structure required by this (technologically) rather silly approach, which requires enormous cooperation across many national boundaries. Every nation should control its own power grid and not be at the mercy of other nation’s actions.
So we can easily see that renewables are not the future – India and China (and half a dozen Western companies) are rushing ahead with molten salt reactors, powered by Uranium or Thorium. And they will have been deployed for many decades before we reach the 2050 date specified by these victims of this massive renewable illusion.
https://youtu.be/KaeSGZu_KlA
Imagine if we spent all the time/money/brainpower wasted on the fake science of CAGW instead on advanced energy sources like molten salt reactors…
Let’s talk about real death rates …
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/20/older-person-dying-winter-fuel-poverty
They were old. They were going to die soon anyway. I guess.
because electric cars will still be incredibly expensive and unreliable more people will be walking, which will cut energy demand by another 14%
Does that allow for the increased shoe production needed as a result of extra miles walked? 🙂
They can’t be made from petrochemicals or animal skins, so wood and hemp will be hand hewn and woven into “bottomsiders”.
“Policymakers don’t usually want to commit to doing something unless there is some reasonable science that can show it is possible”……..
…..so we’ll make up one
“reasonable” is the cheat word. One can define “reasonable” as whatever one wants and get the desired outcome. Of course, that’s not how science really works, but details.
sustainable and renewable are the same. sustainable means whatever you want it to mean for whatever whatever purpose, like selling renewables. renewables is supposed to imply a reusable product, but none are. there is always a cost attached to unpredictable and expensive to build infrastructure, these costs are far higher than the fuel for so called non renewables.
n
A reduction in air pollution deaths by 4-7 million a year????
That’s 10 to 20 times more than the number of people who die from air pollution, of all kinds, presently.
Tell ’em they’re dreaming!
PS: That’s assuming the green nut jobs will allow new dams to be built.
In this country they are demanding that existing dams be torn down.
I’m still waiting for the solar powered farming equipment that is fully able to replace existing equipment, people will still need to eat, after all. Is it nearly into mass production I wonder? How about mining equipment? Solar powered smelters maybe? Perhaps when all of these are available and proven sucesses, then maybe they can begin to think about powering the rest of society with solar, wind or other so called renewable energy.
The fact is, there will need to be at least one country allowed to still be industrialized and coal powered, which does nothing but build and replace these generating devices for the rest of the world.
Imagine how much influence such a country could have over the rest of the world. To offset the ability of such a country to rule everyone, other countries would then abandon their renewables to again become energy self sufficient and free.
Other than it is not possible to run a modern economy on 100% renewables, little things like wind and clouds get in the way, none of this is possible without a HUGE amount of government intervention, rules, regulations and using, against their will, taxpayers’ money to pay subsidies. In other words cramming all this down the throats of us ignorant peons who they believe are incapable of knowing what is best for us. I have actually sat in meetings with technocrats developing new rules where “we the people” were discussed as if we had IQ’s under 60. The real “joke” was that those leading these discussions were often government attorneys who really had a dimmer view of those in the real world than the “scientists” in the room. Worse though is all of them believed they fully understood the science, even if it was no their field of expertise, and the impact of the regulations they were proposing better than anyone else. In the meetings I attended I always challenged their position and their understanding of the science involved. Sadly more than once someone in the room suggested making the data support the rule or making up data. Finally in one meeting when I questioned what the heck was going on I was told by the majority in the room that “we are responsible for passing regulation because they [the public] are not capable of functioning without government regulation.” This attitude was across more than one agency in our state and more than one federal department.
Joule should have been named POOMA
Can it be done by out competing fossil fuels in the open market? If so it will happen on its own and there is no need for discussion. But if it requires massive takeover of my liberties and massive subsidies than it’s BS anyway. Manufactured problems to create a reason for government take over the socialist playbook.
Bob. Keep an eye on Hawaii. Economically developed and 4000 km from the nearest source of fossil fuels.. Not surprisingly, electric rates there are quite high there –0.30 USD/kwhr give or take. That’s pretty high for a place that hasn’t massively screwed up the energy marketplace with subsidies and worse.
So, I expect Hawaii may be one of the first places where non-dispatchable renewable energy actually stands a chance to succeed on its merits (if any). I think it’ll be economically viable there long before it is on the mainland. I don’t think it’s viable today, so it’ll be interesting to see how long it takes to become competitive. (If it ever does).
When I was in the military and stationed in Hawaii there was a lawsuit over solar access. As I recall, a homeowner had put solar panels on his roof (federal subsidies were very high then). His neighbor then built a two story home next door blocking the sunlight from the roof of his home for much of the year. Unfortunately I was transferred and never knew the outcome of the suit.
Stanford University used to be a good school – even when they had Professor Paul Ehrlich. Now they have Professor Mark Jacobson. Harvard has Professor Naomi Oreskes. We are close to a tipping point.
“Such a transition could mean less worldwide energy consumption due to the efficiency of clean, renewable electricity …”
Half right. It’d result in less worldwide energy consumption. But the reason would be because it is difficult to consume energy when none is available. There are a few countries with a combination of abundant rainfall, suitable topography, and limited populations that could probably get by. And a few more with handy volcanoes (Iceland, Costa Rica, etc) that could do OK so long as the magma holds out, but doesn’t become overly abundant. But 139 countries by 2050? Two chances — slim and none.
At some point, cheap, abundant battery storage will likely become available. Could be as soon as 2050, but it’ll take a number of decades after it appears for everyone to transition. We’re gonna need a LOT of batteries. And there are some things — jet airaft, fire engines, emergency generators, weapons systems that may always be powered by liquid hydrocarbons.
energy consumption will drop because their policies will de-populate 1/3 of the planet … but thats ok its will just be the poor dieing …
“At some point, cheap, abundant battery storage will likely become available” we’ve been saying that for 50 years … just like fusion … always just around the corner …
When cheap (really cheap) battery storage becomes available, then MAYBE intermittent energy sources will be worthy of review. But until today, storing electrical energy in batteries and retrieving it in usable AC form costs more than simply generating it when needed.
For this reason among several others, electrical energy which is generated when it is not needed has a negative value.
As long as that remains true, then intermittent energy sources will necessarily wasteful of resources and expensive.
necessarily remain wasteful
Excuse me Kaiser, but I was around 50-60 years ago and no one but a few nut cases was promising us fusion in the near future. They were telling us 60-80 years. Looks to me like they are a decade, maybe a bit, more behind schedule. … Assuming that magnetic containment can really be made to work for real world power plants. … Which seems by no means certain.
Batteries really are getting better. If they weren’t Tesla’s vehicles would be lucky to make it more than a few kilometers before needing a charge. But batteries have a long way to go. And figuring out how far and how fast would be a major research project. I’m GUESSING — based on a few lines drawn on a virtual cocktail napkin — that in 30 years, they might be approaching cost and reliability levels that will give non-dispatchable renewable power sources reasonable life cycle costs.
I’d love to hear from someone who actually knows something about this.
Storing electricity, in any form, introduces inefficiency: you lose energy in transmission from the source to the storage, more energy loss as the storage device loads up and then even more when you release the energy. And try locating the necessary transmission lines to do this, localities rise up in vehement protest to protect their viewshed or to prevent imagined ill-effects from high voltage lower lines.
“power” lines
Interesting that power lines are bad for the view and have ill-effects, but turbines are so beautiful and dazzling that no one could object to their presence and they have no ill-effects whatsoever, no matter what anyone says.
Electric bicycling is extremely popular here in Holland where I am visiting. Perhaps a good alternative to car use provided you have the infra structure for bicycling. Would be difficult in South Africa: no cycling paths.
And electric bicycles need, what? Remind me. Darn, that again. Electricity, and to be charged up just when there is no electricity on the grid, along with all of the Teslas.
Jsuther,
You are overlooking an obvious power source that does not require the grid and that is the E-bike itself. Most modern E-bikes can be modified such that with a tire stand and the the flip of a switch the bike motor becomes a generator. All that is required is someone to pedal it to restore the charge. The energy conversion rates are quite good with some users reporting up to 45 minutes of electric ride time for each hour of charge time. Some users have installed permanent charging stands with televisions and or computers for entertainment during charging and researchers are reporting that there are health benefits associated with the exercise of charging the bikes. When you add to all of this the benefit of free electric generation it is nothing but a win/win situation.
/sarc
First we would need to bring the South African’s out of the third world………
South Africa cannibalism case leads to 5 arrests
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/south-africa-cannibalism-case-leads-arrests-49373665
Not sure I want an electric bicycle when I have to drive 1800 miles across a good chunk of the United States in 29 hours.
bye, bye cheap, reliable, assured energy, along with factories, glass, steel, plastics, schools, farms, primary resource exploitation of any kind (fishing, farming, forestry, mining, oil, gas: the backbone of most, developed societies) hospitals, Offices, restaurants, and well-paying jobs. Hello really, really high energy prices along with brownouts, blackouts, back to wood-burning, washing in cold water, filth, poverty, ill health, poor education (worse than even now). Welcome to a rigidly controlled regimented society (a la ‘1984’) with wage and price controls, energy rationing, food rationing and illiteracy and shorter lifespans. No medical research etc. etc. etc. True hardship for most of us, except for the few privileged elites. I am sure I missed a few things out.
Sounds like a “Great Leap Forward”….
The price of mules just went up…
The dream of flying.
https://youtu.be/cyOKGk4WvOE
To wonderful places like Paris, Kyoto … miles and more.
And we tried all of that, remember? It was called ‘The Good Old Days’. No thanks.
And not one engineer was taken away from other work for this study (80% there in 13 years, lol. Store the energy with hot rocks! Why can’t these guys stick to ‘strings’ and ‘dark matter’ and stop making fools of themselves?) There is a major conference for bats and birds at the same time to decide what can be done to get rid of deathstars (bat for windmill) and flashroasters (bird for solar) by 2025. One novel approach was to consider having billions of them at a time swoop down on the deathstars and flash smokers and hope the carnage would shock the Dumasses (humans in both bird and bat languages). Their press release was scoriating on the Dumasses’ claim of no deaths and health effects. Yeah, what about oil spills one flightless bird called out. OK, but at least they can clean you off with Dove!
https://atomicinsights.com/climate-scientists-skeptical-about-mark-z-jacobsons-wws-plans/
basically refutes it all politely.
Behind the scenes its getting less polite..
His US study was thoroughly discredited. Expanding to the world does not fix the creditability problem. It only shows he is delusional.