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.
Does Mr Mark Z. Jacobson practice what he preaches. Has he fully converted all of his life to ‘save the planet’ unreliable power sources? If not why should anyone follow this foolish notion.
Lead by example Mr. Mark Z. Jacobson, or sit down and shut up!
This putrid pile of excrement is indefensible, idiotic and proof that society is on a path of self destruction. As an engineer I read this and immediately begin to think how this would be possible assuming I even wanted to do it.
First, we would have to completely revamp our energy grid. Second, we would need land. Since we cant just cover the deserts of Arizona and Nevada, or only build solar plants in the west, we would need to seize land in the east. Third, we would need to build the panels and then be prepared to build them over and over every ten years. This will require a lot of rare earth metals which we don’t have but China does……
Can you imagine the graft and corruption that would go with this excrement? Or how unstable the grid would be? Even if we perfected battery technology, we would have to actually overbuild solar and wind just to allow for weather not cooperating.
Come on, are you kidding me? These people know this isn’t possible. To produce drivel like this they must be one of two things; evil or stupid. I don’t think they are stupid.
This is dystopian fantasy.
Mark Z on Twitter responding to a multi-post critique by Bas van Ruijven @vruijven
“Your clearly a climate denier, citing Pielke and discounting science as justification for policy”
==>Bas van Ruijven is Project Scientist II with the Integrated Assessment Modeling group of the Climate & Global Dynamics Division at NCAR
I guess Mark Z doesn’t know the difference between your and you’re.
One can spend hours tearing apart the ridiculous claims, some of which were pulled out of their butt; reminds me of the ‘social cost of carbon’.
Another is the belief that so-called renewables would eliminate nuclear weapon proliferation. Such stupidity – actually, it is not stupidity; just the opposite, as they are using words to influence the public. Recall something to the effect – ‘whoever gets the lie out first’.
Good for those 139 countries, as long as one of them is not the US. Let them fritter away resources trying to solve a problem that can’t exist.
The USA will not benefit from economically collapsed nations across the world.
This is in no ones interest save a few elites of the Robert Mugabe sort who would rather be king Rat on a dung heap that modestly affluent in a decent country.
Third world countries that have no reliable electrical power benefit from intermittent solar sources.
Of course they can. If you’re living a quasi-stone age existence, a small solar panel, a few tired batteries, a couple of low voltage LEDs, and some sort of radio or TV can make a huge improvement in your quality of life. From what I read, cell phones are becoming ubiquitous in the third world. How can the folks there afford them? Beats me. But apparently they are managing somehow.
“Don K August 24, 2017 at 9:52 am
From what I read, cell phones are becoming ubiquitous in the third world.”
This is true. I have been to Africa several times and I am astounded by the number of people who have them and the houses they live in have a hole in the ground for a toilet. In Ethiopia in 2006, the then president banned texting. Worked for many years, the ban was eventually lifted. I think the then Govn’t realised mobile networks capture valuable information about people and what they are up to.
Compare their chart with the energy flow chart at Lawrence Livermore Labs…hmmm.
Here’s an amusing quote from their attachment:
http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2105210418/2081159077/mmc1.pdf
Did people who watched 2001 a Space Odyssey think we’d have giant spinning space stations and moon bases by now? Did people who watched Lost in Space and the Jetsons think we’d have personal jet packs?
A number of groups are working towards hybrid electric (but probably not H2) aircraft on this time scale. See eg https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/2015_nasa_technology_roadmaps_ta_15_aeronautics.pdf
Also full electric light aircraft are coming https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/08/electric-planes-have-viable-niche-applications-now.html
Having said this the elephant in the room in this study is how to deal with the heavy duty cycle transport component (all modes). H2 isn’t the answer the way they talk (electricity -> H2 -> electricity is expensive and wastes as much as an ICE even putting aside the cost and energy used in storage). Perhaps to test their resolve we could introduce them to relatively low cost processes that take NG -> H2 and produces solid C as the byproduct :).
In NZ starting from 80% renewable electricity with hydro as a balancing factor, and significant additional geothermal and good quality wind available and some useful biomass, most loads could could go renewable at reasonable cost on these timescales, apart from the large chunk of transport fuels required for heavy duty cycle transport.
“Did people who watched 2001 a Space Odyssey think we’d have giant spinning space stations and moon bases by now?”
That was possible. We launched over 130 space shuttle flights during its lifetime. If we had put all 130 Space Shuttle External Tanks (ET) in orbit, that would have been enough building material to build a wheel-shape space station one mile in diameter, just like Arthur C. Clarke’s space station in the movie 2001. Spin it at one revolution per minute and it creates artificial gravity on the space station equivalent to the gravity on the surface of the Earth.
But we didn’t orbit 130 ET’s. Instead, NASA threw every one of them away. This is called “lack of vision”. This is why we have to buy a ride on a Russian rocket to get our astronauts into orbit. We have had some real winners running NASA in the past. Goldin was the worst.
Goldin is the one who thought small and bureaucratic, rather than big and innovative. He’s the one that chose the $100 billion space station design instead of the $10 billion one, that was just as capable as the higher priced one, and would only take two space shuttle launches to get everything in orbit, as compared to dozens of flights to get the equipment into space for the $100 billion option, along with taking a decade to get it finished.
$10 billion and two shuttle launches versus $100 billion, 35 shuttle launches and a decade to construct. The choice seems like a no-brainer to me, but not to Goldin and he was the only one that counted.
Goldin screwed our space program bigtime. We still haven’t gotten over it.
The Space Shuttle reference shows they have absolutely no clue about technology. A $40M liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen rocket engine plus all the associated plumbing is in no way related to anything they are talking about. They just looked up stuff on the internet with hydrogen in the name and threw it in there.
I wouldn’t let these clueless people near anything more technological than a doorknob.
I want to hear how they plan to operate a power grid based on a bazillion static inverters all hooked together.
You’re concerned about how they keep the frequency stable, Reasonable concern I reckon. I’d guess they’ll either superimpose a synchronizing signal on the grid or transmit it separately. Maybe a regional longwave transmitter?
Fake engineering is worse than fake science.
The idiots who produced the fake engineering study are ignoring the German example as to what is the absolute limit of the green scams, ignoring the cost issue.
Germany has reached the engineering limit of the green scam madness. Energy storage is required to reduce CO2 emissions further (ignoring the energy input and CO2 input to construct the batteries) using the green scams.
Germany has more than 100% green scam energy, maximum nameplate capacity Vs full Germany electric grid requirements.
The problem is actual average energy green scam energy (wind and solar), in Germany, is 20% average, of the maximum nameplate rating.
http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/04/germanys-energiewende-leading-to-suicide-by-cannibalism-huge-oversupply-risks-destabilization/#sthash.8tE9YRDj.PSllYaQF.dpbs
http://www.cfact.org/2014/12/16/germanys-energy-transformation-unsustainable-subsidies-and-an-unstable-system/
Merkel is about as willing to give up on a dumb idea as that other guy who lead Germany a few years back.
Politically, how can one not be for “Saving the World”? It’s political suicide not to be on the side of “Saving the World.
Hydrogen powered aircraft? While technically possible it the economics are not viable. Firstly the plane would have to carry liquid hydrogen (-423 °F) at cryogenic conditions to even be in consideration. But, LH2 (liquid hydrogen) only has 25% the energy capacity that JP (jet propulsion) fuel has. That would mean that the fuel capacity for equivalent range would necessarily need to be at a minimum 4 times larger. This would require that either the plane carries less payload (cargo, passengers) for the same range or that the fuel tanks would need to grow enormously. If the tanks grow then the drag losses go up and the tanks need to grow even larger to achieve the range. In most aircraft the fuel is carried in the wings for two reasons. Firstly because it is mostly otherwise unused volume, but more importantly it provides inertial load alleviation for the wing structure. If most of the mass of the vehicle were in the fuselage the bending loads across the carry-through spars is huge and would need heavier wing structure. By locating a good part of the mass in the wings these loads are better distributed. LH2 is not a good candidate for this. Its density is too low. Balsa wood will sink in LH2. Don’t forget to pile on top of this all the cryogenic insulation necessary to fly this fuel for extended periods (13+ hrs trans-oceanic flight times). The 747-800 needs about 650,000 lbs of JP for transpacific flights which converts to about 13,230 cubic feet of tankage. An equivalent tank size would be about 53,000 cubic feet of LH2. That would create a fuel tank the size of the one used to launch the Space Shuttle. And, that’s just the fuel. Where will the cargo go?
As I have said before any scientist can calculate a number, but it takes an engineer to show you how big a crap load that really is.
Rocket science is easy…Rocket engineering is a bitch!
It sounds like they are envisioning prop aircraft powered by fuel cells rather than jet aircraft. Sure … maybe … I think their point is that if you’re only going from NYC to Washington, DC, or London to Paris, the ground delays are so long compared to the time in the air, that a slightly longer time in the air won’t matter much. Could have a point. Now Miami to Singapore — that’s likely going to take a while without JP4.
What powers the propellers? Piston engines? Turbojets? Surely you cannot be suggesting eclectic motors?
The fuel energy density does not change. You’ll still need 4 times the volume of CRYOGENICALLY stored fuel.
We will need to be constantly de-icing the wings during flight.
I expect cartoons of these on the cover of such prestigious engineering journals as Popular Mechanics. [sarc]
Sorry should read “electric” motors.
BTW while “delayed on the ground” are these vehicles connected to cart power of onboard APU (Aux. Power Units)? How about taxiing about? Really long extension cords or traveling ground carts?
Hey, maybe we can have the airplanes deploy overhead pantograph arms riding on overhead catenaries to taxi about and takeoff.
You might want to do a bit of research. Hydrogen Fuel cells have much higher energy density than batteries. Hydrogen fuel cells and Hydrogen ICEs have actually been used in some full scale prototype aircraft that get off the ground and fly reasonable distances at reasonable altitudes
Moreover, while the volumetric energy density of Hydrogen is low compared to hydrocarbon fuel, the stuff is not very heavy so the weight of the fuel is not dramatically different than hydrocarbons for the same amount of energy. For a variety of reasons, a serious Hydrogen fuel cell passenger aircraft would likely be kind of slow and pokey, but otherwise not too much different than a modern passenger jet.
All a bit iffy. You won’t see any hydrogen powered airliner loading passengers at your local airport today. Not today. And not any time soon. Maybe not ever. But it’s not impossible one could be built that would work acceptably. At least for short haul. if anyone cared to build one.
I do this stuff every day. I work for a large aerospace company that contracts out to NASA and the military. I am also quite familiar with fuel cell technology as I was a lead engineer for a hybrid bus program that ran ICE on CNG. We investigated fuel cell technology and quickly realized it wasn’t feasible due to the large sizes of designs that used CNG or even gaseous H2. I have also designed numerous launch vehicles using both LOX/LH2 and LOX/RP, so I am rather familiar with the volumes involved.
Small general aviation vehicles have been flown with limited range and success using H2 as fuel. These are a far cry away from viable commercial transports, or even commercially producible general aviation aircraft. Yes the LH2 fuel is light about 4.3 lbs/ft3 as I recall, and JP is about 50 lbs/ft3. With LH2 (even worse for gaseous H2) the weight issue is in the tankage needed to enclose it. The size of the tanks are huge and pressures involved require significant thicknesses. While composite tanks have some merit, the leakage through the tank wall is still an issue.
As I noted above the H2 FC idea is a bit far fetched, but hybrids less so https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/2015_nasa_technology_roadmaps_ta_15_aeronautics.pdf
“rocketscientist August 24, 2017 at 10:41 am
What powers the propellers? Piston engines? Turbojets? Surely you cannot be suggesting eclectic motors?”
In a discussion a few years back someone who suggested that the propellers would be powered by electric motors and mounted as you would find in a conventional engine/prop/wing design. But then came the clever bit. There would be batteries on board, further reducing carrying capacity and range, but also wind turbines mounted on the wings using the forward motion of the aircraft to turn the turbines to power the electric motors and charge the batteries. I believe this person was being serious.
Talking about engineering such a travesty, would you be willing to complete a Failure Modes Effects and Analysis for an airplane filled with LH2. The LH2 would have to be pressurized. H2 is flammable at concentrations as low as 4%.
One Leak. In a vehicle that is supposed to have reliability over multiple cycles between servicing. One Leak.
I sure as %^&*^%& would not fly in that!!!!
Every day there are about 100,000 commercial airline flights worldwide (IIRC). That is going to be accomplished with renewables????????
Not in any foreseeable future.
Anyone want to re-propose the nuclear powered airplane?
A most chilling statement: “beginning the process of letting carbon dioxide drain from the Earth’s atmosphere,….” …..and killing all life on the planet!
This is exactly why Donald Trump is LEADING the USA out of idiocracy level enviro-loon land. If 139 stupid countries want to doom their poor people by insisting on pipe dreams and unicorn farts, then, quite literally, less power to them.
Well if it’s so easy, let him do it first. Start with his home, then attempt to get his place of business converted.
But I don’t want to see fossil backups. That’s cheating!
He must have no power lines from the grid going into the house, etc, and no backup generators of any kind or it does not count.
Leaving those hydrocarbons in the ground means you will also have to leave all those modern tech gadgets in the ground. What fun!
Total electrical energy used in 2014 to produce 53 million metric tons of new aluminum: 690 TWh. It takes roughly 13 MWh to make a metric ton of aluminum.
Total electrical energy produced in 2012 from renewable sources (wind, solar, geothermal): 690 TWh.
Total electrical energy projected for 2020 from wind, solar, geothermal: 1,900 TWh — projecting large growth in wind and solar.
The electrical data is from here.
I won’t believe 139 countries can go 100% renewable until they can make it work in the ideal case — say Bonaire — reliable wind 90+% of the time and no heavy manufacturing. Lots of hype going back to 2010 on their renewable power future and still using about 67% diesel power.
The proposed solution would still need copper to carry all of those electrons around. I wonder how many batteries would be needed for one of these copper mine trucks?
Another market for Mush?
Energy too cheap to meter. We’ve heard that before.
Yes, usually at a fraud trial…
Proponents / defenders of wind/solar energy often cite the statistic that electricity bills are smaller in Germany 🇩🇪 than in USA 🇺🇸. This is not really true and it ignores the fact that dwellings on average are 2.5 times bigger (floor space) in the US than in Germany.
It would be better to talk about the average price per year of electricity per m2 of floor space. This statistic gives the following values:
Germany: 16.96 US dollars
USA: 5.48 US dollars
Here are the raw data numbers.
In Germany the average electricity cost per residence per year is 1450 euros or 1696 US dollars.
Source:
https://tranio.com/germany/maintenance/
The average area of dwellings in Germany was
89.9 m2 in 2006.
Source:
https://www.bmwfw.gv.at/Wirtschaftspolitik/Wohnungspolitik/Documents/housing_statistics_in_the_european_union_2010.pdf
However since this was a decade ago we will generously assume that today the average is a round 100 m2.
Thus in Germany the annual electricity per m2 dwelling is 14.5 euro or 16.96 usd.
Meanwhile in the USA, the average cost per month for electricity per month it is on average 114.09 usd, or an annual 1369 usd.
Source:
https://smartasset.com/personal-finance/how-much-is-the-average-electric-bill
Dwellings are much larger in the US than in Germany or Europe as a whole. The average dwelling in the USA has floor area of 2687 square feet, or 249.6 m2.
Source:
https://www.fatherly.com/love-and-money/family-finance/average-size-houses-us/
Thus in the US the annual electricity price per m2 of dwelling is 5.48 usd.
Note finally that in Germany it is much more common for people to live in apartments within large multi-storey apartment blocks, than in the US. This is especially so in the formerly communist east Germany. According to the report below, at German reunification in 1992, the average dwelling floor areas were in west and east Germany was 82.7 and 64.5 m2, respectively.
Source:
http://countrystudies.us/germany/93.htm
In 1992 united Germany had approximately 34.5 million dwellings with 149 million rooms, for a total of 2.8 billion square meters of living space. Dwellings in the west were larger than those in the east. In 1992 dwellings in the old Länder had an average floor space of 82.7 square meters for an average of 35.1 square meters per person, compared with 64.5 square meters and an average of 29.0 square meters per person in the new Länder.
I’d like to invite Dr. Jacobson to come live in my shed in my back yard. In January. I will provide him with both wind and solar power to the extent he would recommend for an 8×10 shed. I’ll ask him to live there for a month. I’ll even provide an ample supply of food, free of charge for the entire month.
I’m guessing he won’t need much food after the first four days.
If we have no wind he’ll have to rely on solar. Solar will have to rely on less than 8 hours of daylight, assuming it’s not cloudy and snowing that day and even on a bright, sunny day the intensity is sufficiently low that it really won’t matter.
Very, very tired of California based scientists and activists making all sorts of asinine claims like these or 100 mile diets or what have you.
More idiocy from those that can’t do hard subjects like math and engineering. Reality? What dat?
The worldwide economic disaster that will follow the attempted implementation of Jacobson’s plan will rival the 1930’s depression era. It will also lead to wars or a world war. Decarbonisation plans by the green zealots are setting the stage for catastrophe in which millions of people will – ironically – be carbonised.
After thousands of years, the horse was replaced by the automobile, virtually overnight. If it was truly better, it wouldn’t need the govt. to force it into being.
In fact, the government’s involvement usually ran toward attempts to slow down or even stop the conversion to, or even introduction of, automobiles.
That means 139 countries blighted by revolting eyesores that make pylons look like little toys. Why can we not at least have the claims of climate scientists examined by a properly organised quality control group. Peer review is fine for something irrelevant as pure science where all that matters is the other scientists’ opinion for prestige purposes.
When it becomes a policy driver is is no longer science it is engineering so only engineers should be considered peers and the scientists merely supplicants for approval to be granted only extremely grudgingly after passing a severe test..
By 2050 and no extra cost. Wow. Someone show him rising energy prices in countries makimg the switch now.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!