100% Renewables by 2030 Summary of a report by Mark Jacobson and Mark Delucchi

Note to the presenter:

All images in the presentation have the appropriate credits and source in the notes view of the first slide they appear in. In addition to these slide notes and

the presentation, there is also a 1-page handout associated with this presentation. It contains the take-home points in a condensed form that may be

handed out to the audience before/after your presentation or left behind at a meeting with a member of congress.

Slide 1 -Title Slide

This presentation is based off the information from two scientific publications (1, 2) by Mark Jacobson and Mark Delucchi in 2011 in the Journal Energy Policy, as well as 2009 Scientific American article (3) that was based on the same work. References:

(1) Journal of Energy Policy part 1 (EP1) (2) Journal of Energy Policy part 2 (EP2) (3) Scientific American

Slide 2 – About the Authors

This slide is to give credibility to this study by highlighting the records of Professors Jacobson and Delucchi. Highlights for Dr. Jacobson: Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University. 125 Published peer-reviewed scientific papers. Numerous awards and prizes including American Meteorological Society Henry G. Houghton Award "for significant contributions to modeling aerosol chemistry and to understanding the role of soot and other carbon particles on climate," 2005 and top-cited first author, Stanford University School of Engineering, all departments, for first-authored papers published since Jan. 1, 1994 (4). Highlights for Dr. Delucchi: Dr. Mark A. Delucchi is a research scientist at the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis and a private consultant, specializing in economic, environmental, engineering, and planning analyses of current and future transportation systems. He is a member of the Alternative Fuels Committee and the Energy Committee of the Transportation Research Board. (5)

Highlights for the study detailed in this presentation (4):

• Top three "Most Interesting Science and Technology News of 2008", by Blogher, "Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security," (link to story)(link to article)

• Economist.com "noteworthy journal article" for January 2009, "Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security." (link to story)(link to article)

• All-time top downloaded paper in Energy and Environmental Science as of June 2012, "Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security." (link)

• One of the top two science stories of 2009 according to Science of the Times, "A path to sustainable energy by 2030," Scientific American, November 2009.(link)

• Top-downloaded paper from January-December 2011 in Energy Policy, "Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials." (link)

• Second-most-downloaded paper from January-December 2011 in Energy Policy, "Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II: Reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies." (link)

References:

(4) Dr. Jacobson's CV available online (5) Dr. Delucchi's web page online

Slide 3 – About the Work This slide highlights what made this study special. Reference: (1) EP1, p. 1155

Slide 4 – About the Work No study can cover everything, and this slide highlights the most important boundaries they used to frame their study. Of particular importance to emphasize here is the final point. This means that their entire study, including the finding that renewables will be cheaper than sticking with our current mix by 2030 does not include improvements in energy efficiency for automobiles, lighting, building construction, weatherization, anything. This is hugely significant, as such energy efficiency gains on the demand side are seen as “low-hanging fruit”; a first and

obvious step for people concerned about being green. This means that their study is likely conservative with regards to how much energy we'll need in a 100% WWS world in 2030, and it's cost! References:

(1) EP1, p. 1155-1157

Slide 5 - Punchline This slide contains three of the biggest “take-home” points for this presentation. This is to tell people the end of the story before the beginning so they hear it multiple times and have a framework from which to view the content.

Slide 6 - Timeline

The while their plan could be executed by 2030, they see this as unlikely. The main reason is that fossil and nucelar powerplants have an approximate 40 year lifetime, and they don't see these being turned offline before it is necessary. They also see the social and political barriers as significant. Reference: (3) Scientific American article, p. 65.

Slide 7 – Renewables Considered This slide lists the technologies considered in their study. The numbered WWS technologies are in order of decreasing cleanliness as determined in Dr. Jacobson's 2009 review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security (6). A key component of the plan is to use excess power (typically from off-peak energy) to generate hydrogen gas (H2) by electrolysis from water. This is an important point, since much hydrogen today is generated from fossil methane, and is thus not so great (1) Reference:

(6) Royal society of chemistry, p. 165 (1) PS 1, p. 1158

Slide 8 – Why Not Biomass? This slide simply lists the reasons they decided not to include biomass burning in their final analysis. As slide 3 points out, most studies do include biomass. The images at the bottom are of common materials used in biomass burning, wood, corn used to make ethanol (it is in fact the sugar in the corn kernals themselves, not the stalks from which ethanol is derived, so the picture is appropriate), and

garbage. NOx is formed as nitrogen in the air is combined with oxygen at high temperatures. NO2, i.e. laughing gas, is 1 type of NOx emission that happens to be worth about 320 CO2 molecules. Ozone in the troposphere is also a greenhouse gas, but it has significant respiratory effects as well (6) References: (1) PS1, p. 1156 (7) Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone)

Slide 9 – Why Not Nuclear? Jacobson and Delucchi enumerate several reasons why they don't include nuclear in their plan (1a). None of them are economic, though they note that these aren't favorable either (1b). In the appendix they include a statistic that the real costs of nuclear power increased with an expansion of capacity because of ever-increasing complexity in the design, construction, operation, management, and regulatory oversight of nuclear systems. This is contrary to normal economic commodities, which decrease in price with economies of scale. Reference: (1) EP1, (a) p. 1156-1157; (b) p. 1165, appendix 1.

Slide 10: What is a Terawatt? This slide seeks to give people perspective on how much energy the world uses, and to define terms that are used. The pictures at the bottom correspond to examples.

• The heater: A 1 kw heater operating for one hour uses one kilowatt hour. • The light bulb: A 60-watt light bulb on for 1 hour uses 0.06 kilowatt hours

of energy. • The desktop CPU and monitor: Personal Computer and Monitor used 4

hours a day for a year: 394 kWh References: They are included in the notes of the powerpoint itself.

Slide 11: How much Energy Do We Need? Now that people have an idea for how much a terawatt is, this slide shows them how much installed capacity the world needs today, and how much the world will need in 2030 with our current energy mix, and with the mix proposed by Jacobson and Delucchi. Reference: (3) Scientific American article, p. 60

Slide 12: Why the difference?

This slide seeks to explain why the difference exists. We know from slide 4 it's not because they assumed more efficient buildings or lightbulbs. But, it turns out that electrification is inherently a lot more efficient at delivering power than fossil fuels. This is mostly explained by the fact that so much energy is lost as heat when burning fossil fuels. By contrast, a wind turbine creates energy directly. Sure, some of it is lost in transmission, but there is a lot less lost as heat. They estimate that the total efficiency gain at ~30% (1). 16.9 TW x 68% = 11.49 TW needed in a WWS world. Reference: (1) EP1, p. 1159

Slide 13: Problems with Renewables This slide is to remind the speaker to ask the audience for 2 or 3 reasons they've heard that renewables are not feasible.

Slide 14: Is there enough? This slide takes a graphic from the Scientific American article showing there is more than enough energy available on the planet (3). There is enough wind in developable locations to power the world 3-5 times over and solar to power the world 15-20 times over (1). It's important to highlight “developable” to emphasize that they're not counting sunshine or wind in the middle of the Pacific Ocean as “available”. References: (3) Scientific American article, p. 60; (1) EP1, p. 1159

Slide 15: How much land? A common concern with renewables is that they will take up too much space. Accounting for what is already installed, assuming that 50% of the wind is installed in water, and accounting for the roof space already available for solar PV, they find that .41% of the worlds physical space would be required for the power, and .59% for spacing between wind turbines to maximize efficiency. (1) The image in this slide shows the US, and the square in the bottom left represents 1% of the area of the IMAGE, not 1% of the area of the United States. So, parts of ocean, Mexico, and Canada are going into how big that square is. The black part of the square is the actual footprint (40% of the square's area), and the gray is the spacing (60% of the square's area). The space between windmills can be used to grow crops or graze cattle.

Reference: (1) EP1, p. 1161

Slide 16: Intermittency A big cause of concern for renewables is inttermittency. To highlight in this slide is what intermittency is (the idea that the sun isn't always shining, the wind isn't always blowing, and we can't predict when those things will happen). The images were taken by Danny.

Slide 17: 7 Strategies . . . On pages 1170-1174 of EP II, the authors list 7 strategies for dealing with intermittency with renewables. This slide lists those 7 strategies. Reference: (1) EP2, p. 1170-1174

Slide 18: 1. Interconnect The principle behind interconnection is that even if the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining in one place, it is somewhere else. By interconnecting geographically disperse wind, solar, or wave farms can eliminate hours of zero power. Some specific findings: Wind: Interconnecting over just a few hundred kilometers can eliminate hours of

zero power accumulated over all wind farms. When 19 geographically disperse wind sites in the midwest, over a region of 850x850 km were hypothetically interconnected, ~33% of the yearly averaged wind power was calculated to be usable at the same reliability as a coal-fired power plant; i.e. baseload.

For Solar PV, interconnection over 20-150 km can eliminate hours of zero power.

Reference: (1) EP 2, p. 1171

Slide 19: 1. Interconnect This slide makes the same point as the previous one, it just visually interconnects the dispersed wind sites for the benefit of the audience.

Slide 20: 2. Complement There is no rule saying only one type of renewable resource can be installed. There are benefits to installing many types, because when the sun is shining, there tends to be little wind, and vice-versa. By installing both solar and wind in

the same area, you are suddenly able to smooth out the times when one or the other is not blowing. They complement each other. The figure is taken from the Scientific American piece (3), but there are similar pieces in EP 2, page 1172 (2). They highlight a study that found that for all days of 2005 and 2006 (730 days total) 99.8% of delivered energy could have been produced from a complementary mix of WWS technology in California. A similar study for 2006 and 2007 found that 1.1 billion people in Europe, North Africa, and near Asia could be satisfied reliably and at low cost by interconnecting wind sites dispersed over North Africa, Europe, Russia, and near Asia, and using hydropower from Scandinavia as back up. References: (2) EP II, p. 1172; (3) Scientific American, p. 63

Slide 21: 3. “Smart” demand-response This slide highlights how increasing computing and processing power can be used to take advantage of flexible loads. Some things need constant power; such as a desktop computer or lighting. But other things do not need constant power, such as refrigerators (because of their insulation they can remain cold for a long period of time without much extra energy), or things that need to be charged. Shifting flexible loads simply diverts power away from flexible loads (such as the electric vehicles depicted in the image) and reserves it to those things with inflexible loads, such as desktop computers. Reference: (2) EP2, p. 1172

Slide 22: 4. Store at Site of Generation Another important strategy in this study is to store power at the site of generation. Wind, for example, is often strongest in the morning and evening, when power demand is relatively low. Wind mills at these times can generate much more power than is needed. Instead of simply turning the windmills off, the power they are generating can be stored using one of the tools listed on this slide. Wind to hydrogen is highlighted with pictures, since this is an especially important strategy espoused by this study. Hydrogen can be used to power cars, trains, ships, and even planes. They can also be used in fuel cells colocated with the wind turbines to run when the wind doesn't blow. If the power isn't doing anything else, it can be used to make hydrogen, which can then be easily transported and put into a car tank. You can't put a wind mill on top of every car, but you can use wind mills to make hydrogen, and then put that in the car!

All the other methods listed also save power for use later, but none are as portable as hydrogen. Reference: (2) EP2, p. 1172-3

Slide 23: 5. Oversize If you recall from slide 18 slide notes, 33% of wind energy over 19 wind power plants in an 850x850 km area can be supplied with the reliability of baseload. The idea with oversizing is that instead of Installing 10 GW of rated wind power when you need 10 GW, if you install 30 GW of rated capacity, then you will always have 10 GW ready with the same reliability of coal. When it is particularly windy, and you are actually producing, say 20 GW of power instead of the 10 you need, that extra 10 can be saved for use later using one of the technologies listed on the previous slide. This ensures that no wind gust goes unused. However, it costs money to store energy as hydrogen or anything else, so simply installing 30 GW of wind is not ideal. The optimal, least-cost balance of installed power and storage has not been done for the scale of this study, and the authors specifically cite that as a need for future research. Reference: (2) EP2, p. 1173

Slide 24: 6. Vehicle to Grid (V2G) As mentioned in the “smart” demand slide, charging electric cars is a flexible load. Beyond that, the batteries stored in them could represent a significant reservoir of energy that could run the other way; i.e. the grid could use the energy stored in car batteries to meet demand. This concept is called “vehicled to grid”, or “V2G”. It would not be compulsory; rather electric car owners would sign up to participate. The authors lay out several hypothetical examples of demand, and how much of the US light duty fleet of vehicles (i.e. the cars and trucks in the driveways and garages of normal people) would have to be on V2G contract to meet that hypothetical demand. One example: to compensate for hourly variations in wind power when wind supplies 50% of US electricity demand, 38% of the US LDV fleet would have to be battery-powered and on V2G contract, assuming that only half the cars are plugged in at any give time (2a). Further concerns with V2G are that all the charging, discharging, and re-charging, would require early replacement of car batteries, that extra electronics would be required, and that they lose energy during the charge/discharge cycling. The authors discuss this in the costs section (2b). They find that this doesn't

significantly change battery lifetimes, and and estimate an additional cost of $0.01 per kWh generated by the whole WWS system. They also state that there is evidence that V2G cycling does not cause the same battery degradation as does driving. References: (2) EP2, (a) p 1173; (b) EP2, p. 1176

Slide 25: Forecast This slide is pretty self-explanatory. The credits for the image are in the slide notes.

Slide 26: Summary The authors break down the 7 strategies listed into those that cost virtually nothing, and those that will add additional costs (2). They do not mention the oversizing strategy, probably because the optimal oversize-storage cost scenario has not been done for a major region of the world, let alone for the entire world. It may not be necessary to oversize, or only minimally necessary. References: (2) EP 2 p. 1173-4

Slide 27: Intermittency Perspective The last 9 slides have been dedicated to addressing intermittency of renewable energy. However, it is important to bear in mind that conventional power is intermittent too. The figure shows the average down time for a coal plant for both scheduled and undscheduled maintenance. Individual wind turbines or entire solar plants, by contrast have significantly less down time. The authors bring up several further important points:

1. Even if a single wind turbine is down for maintenance, the turbines around it are not, so the total output from a wind field doesn't change much. By contrast, if a coal plant is down, all the power is lost. This is an advantage inherent in the decentralized nature of renewable energy

2. When more than one centralized power station goes offline, the entire grid can be affected. For example, on November 2, 2009, one-third of France’s nuclear power plants were shut down ‘‘due to a maintenance and refueling backlog,’’ and that as a consequence France’s power distribution firm stated ‘‘that it could be forced to import energy from neighboring markets for two months from mid-November.

3. Large solar plants have experienced 0 down time in an entire year!

References (2) EP2 p. 1170-1171

Slide 28: Transportation The authors give cost comparisons between traditional vehicles and their BEV or HFCV counterparts. The highlights are reproduced on this slide. References: (1) EP1, p. 1158; (2) EP2 p. 1176-7.

Slide 29: Transportation This slide highlights the conclusions of their cost and feasibility analysis for WWS-powered transportation. They do not explicitly mention airplanes in their conclusion that cars, buses, trains, and ships have a lifetime social cost comparable to that of petroleum-fueled models, though they do mention that airplanes could be powered by WWS-derived hdyrogen later. I assume this means that though planes can be run off of hydrogen, the technology to make it cost-competitive with traditional aviation doesn't exist yet. References same as previous slide.

Slide 30: Costs This is the first of 7 slides dealing with cost. The table is included in the hand-out, and is a simplified summary of table one in EP1. The table compares costs from 2005-2010 with projected costs in 2020 and on. The social (health plus climate change costs) are not included in the hand-out chart, but are included below on the slide. Every technology has lower lifetime-costs than coal, oil, gas, or nuclear by 2010 except CSP. When social costs of coal, oil, gas, or nuclear are included, every technology is less than half the cost. This is a very important point to make to audiences, as it goes against conventional wisdom. Table one has many clarifying footnotes, and it may be prudent to review them before presenting. Reference: (2) EP2, p. 1175

Slide 31: Costs – What's included? This slide spells out what was included in the numbers of the previous slide. Reference same as previous slide.

Slide 32: Costs – extra-long distance Since a WWS world would need interconnected power supply over great distances, and since this was not included in the cost table (again, since no

optimization study has been done, and so it is not known how great the distances will need to be), those costs are spelled out here. Reference: (2) EP2 table A.2a, page 1182.

Slide 33: Perspective – Extra-long distance To give the audience an idea of over what distances these costs would be incurred, I created this image. Each concentric circle is centered on the second “a” in the word “Kansas” on the map shown. The distances shown represent a radius. Thus, for all energy generated on that “a” in Kansas, the cost shown is how much more it would cost to build the lines and then ship it to the edge of each circle over the lifetime of the lines and the power station. Shipping it anywhere less than that distance would obviously cost less.

Slide 34: Wind Map of US The point of providing this wind map (4) is to build off the previous slide to show the enormous wind potential in the US, and to let the audience's imagination run with just how much extra-long distance transmission would really be needed. Not shown on the wind map, but shown in this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Wind_Resources_and_Transmission_Lines_map.jpg (8) are the huge wind resources off the west coast as well. Also worth mentioning are the enormous solar resources of the southwestern united states. References: (7) Archer and Jacobson 2003. (8) Wikipedia

Slide 35: Total Cost This lists everything that's included in the slide 30 table (3) Reference: (3) Scientific American article, p. 64

Slide 36: Total Cost The conclusions speak for themselves. Emphasize that the costs are not

government handouts; rather they are private investment paid back through the sale of electricity and energy.

Reference: (3) Scientific American article, p. 64

Slide 37: The Breakdown This chart includes the specific WWS breakdown proposed by the authors. It is reproduced in the handout. Reference: (3) Scientific American, p. 61 figure.

Slide 38: Perspective While the numbers in the previous slide's table may seem daunting, the authors list some other pretty incredible numbers. The speaker should emphasize that this transition to 100% WWS is supposed to take place over 20 years, not 1 year, and that the costs are not paid by governments, but through private enterprise that recoups its costs through energy sales. The example on the left of the slide comes from (3) Scientific American p. 61. The example on the right comes from (2) EP2, page 1178.

Slide 39: Conclusions These should speak for themselves.

Slide 40: Conclusions This last one is to get the crowd fired up.

Slide 41: Questions Allow time to answer questions. References 1. Jacobson, M.Z., and M.A. Delucchi, Providing all Global Energy with Wind, Water, and Solar Power, Part I: Technologies, Energy Resources, Quantities and Areas of Infrastructure, and Materials, Energy Policy, 39, 1154-1169, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.040, 2010. 2. Delucchi, M.Z., and M.Z. Jacobson, Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II: Reliability, System and Transmission Costs, and Policies, Energy Policy, 39, 1170-1190, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.045, 2011. 3. Jacobson, M.Z., and M.A. Delucci, A path to sustainable energy by 2030, Scientific American, November 2009 (cover story) 4. Dr. Mark Jacobson's Online CV. Last accessed 7/15/12. http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/vita/ 5. Dr. Mark Delucchi's website: Last accessed 7/15/12. http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/delucchi/index.php 6. Jacobson, M.Z. Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Energy and Environmental Science, 2, 148-173. doi:10.1039/b809990c. 2009 7. Archer, C.L. And Jacobson, M.Z. Spatioal and temporal distributions of U.S. Winds and wind power at 80 m derived from measurements. Journal of Geophyisical Research, vol. 108, no. D9,

4289. doi:10.1029/2002JD002076, 2003.