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.
Funny.
The Rats that do not want to be quick marched into the Rat barrel are trying to publicly keep exposing the dirtiest final scheme of total international dominance of the civilization by the absolute power obsessed network.
These guys trying a get free and rebel nicely against such network, because such as guys never after or obsessed with power or absolute power, only in to the game for wealth and money…..and definitely do not want to be in the crossfire.
What explained in this article has no chance anymore to happen, but many have being involved with such scheming and want to break free, before too late……by keep nicely exposing such dirty schemes.
it seems to be played only as means of a break free “jail” card…….before too late.
What explained in this article is a final scheme of dominance, slavery, hijacking and hostage keeping of a considerable amount of nations in the end of the day through total control over their energy sectors and energy systems of such nations.
While in the same time freedom and democracy would only be a freak show for such as nations, allowing this dark network to force even further it’s power over global politics and global economics and control of global structures………
I can’t see how it will ever going a happen now…….it is basted already.
I know this seems a bit like too much from this angle, but that how it looks from my position.
Pilot schemes like this already applied, for not saying that in some cases such schemes already in full application already.
But still no anywhere good enough to make it……
I have no doubt that info about this and it’s implication is already addressed by agencies like CIA and NSA.
Anyway, I just trying to offer just another point of view in this aspect…..
cheers
Singapore, the largest transshipment port in the world, is going to install offshore solar? Where?
What is this air pollution computer modeler smoking?
Something green 😉
You don’t have to increase supply, you can cut demand. Killing 7.9 billion people will make wind power quite viable.
Here’s a plan…let everyone else convert to all these other sources of energy and the US can maintain a high standard of living using fossil fuels. Everybody wins.
Monorail!
“Aside from… beginning the process of letting carbon dioxide drain from the Earth’s atmosphere.”
The Holy Church of Climate Change and its prophet the Blessed Al Gore has vouchsafed us many an inconvenient truth. Here, however, is the real inconvenient truth: we live in a carbon dioxide-impoverished atmosphere. We need more CO2, not less, as any commercial greenhouse operator will tell you.
Do these people live on the same planet as us?
“Do these people live on the same planet as us?”
No. They live on a completely different planet.
Now for some real science.
Bones have recently been discovered on the moon.
The cow didn’t make it.
With an expected useful life span of 20-25 years, by 2050 we would need to be thinking about replacing all of the wind generators for the second time. With the proposed increase in the numbers of these generators (from virtually nothing currently to 37%+ in 2050), that’s a lot of steel and concrete manufacture (energy intensive) plus rare earth mining (extremely dirty and polluting using China as an example).
Will they remove all of the old towers or use up more land than currently proposed?
There is no real evidence that CO2 has any affect on climate and plenty of sceintific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero.
I want it all now. I want a solar energy system installed on my roof that will charge up an electric car and will include enough batter power so that I can get off the grid. I want some foreign power to pay for it all because I cannot afford to but I also must insist that anything installed on by property belongs to me free and clear.
Jacobson is obviously assuming the populations of First World countries would gladly submit to a much lower standard of living to achieve his dream. I wish a country like the UK or Germany would wholeheartedly embrace his concepts, thus ruining its economy so the remainder of the world could see the foolishness of people like Jacobson.
UK or Germany or both, eh?
What a load of academic polywaffle!!!!
Completely unsubstantiated with engineering calculations.
The main thing missing here, the elephant in the room is what is proposed for back up.
The Danish low quality space heating example is just misplaced nonsense! The cost of backup has to be assigned these academic schemes on costs as we know them today….not on the basis of some mythical future solution.
So the entire system as proposed still required 100% backup from nuclear or fossil fuels.
Without massive investments in grid storage or integrated storage in wind farms and solar farms you would not get this result. Grid storage is not environmental impact free: more big dams, big hydrogen tanks or big battery warehouses. The greens oppose any dams or giant gasometers.
Some of it will work: battery cars will double in range soon when someone makes a lithium + metal air battery pack.
His car fuel numbers are for pure IC not hybrids.
He has completely left out bio-fuels. Three things are disallowed in that field.
1. Biomethanol to hydrocarbons: an available technology that can’t get licencing even for testing.
2. Small on farm automated ethanol plants so the high protein by products, wet distillers grains, can go straight to the cow or pig in the adjacent paddock or pen. G. W. Bush allowed that in his last year but Obama reversed that allowance days after starting work. Why?!
3. No one has made an ethanol or wood gas hybrid. A hybrid drive train would negate the limits of both. Why not?!
I’m trained in the field. There are solutions the IPCC does not want to discuss or try. Why?
There is no law of physics that says it is impossible to meet either the target he sets if you have large investments in storage. You could even meet the business as usual target eventually with the technology emerging. Nano technology ultra capacitors have been 3D printed in the lab so has sodium batteries.
There are a lot of economic laws and red tape in the way.
“powered by wind, water, and sunlight”
The part that makes this theoretically possible is “water”. But just try building a dam for hydro power these days. And you have to pick your 139 countries carefully.
Good post, Forrest. You hit on a lot of good points.
Why do they talk about “24 million new jobs” as if it was a good thing? It’s a catastrophe because those jobs are not producing more electricity but are simply required to keep us where we are now.
We can get 24 million new jobs at any point we want. Ban all tractors and that’s millions of new jobs from day one. We need productivity. Not jobs.
24 million workers costs a trillion dollars a year @ur momisugly 42 k$ per worker.
I will stop laughing at posts such as this when I see a wind farm and a solar farm produced from scratch and installed using only wind and solar power.