Mark A. Ruffalo (Water Defense)Marco Krapels (Rabobank)Mark Z. Jacobson (Stanford University)

How to Power the World and U.S. With Wind, Water and Sunlight

Talks at GoogleMountain View, California

June 20, 2012

What’s the Problem? Why Act Quickly?

Air pollution mortality is one of five leading causes of death worldwide

Global temperatures are rising faster than during deglaciation at end of last ice age; Arctic sea ice is decreasing quickly

Higher population and growing energy demand will result in higher energy prices and worse air pollution and climate problems over time.

Norilsk, Russia

http://www.worldinterestingfacts.com/infrastructure/top-10-most-polluted-cities-in-the-world.html

http://www.worldinterestingfacts.com/infrastructure/top-10-most-polluted-cities-in-the-world.html

Sukinda, India

http://www.worldinterestingfacts.com/infrastructure/top-10-most-polluted-cities-in-the-world.html

Linfen, China

Lung of LA Teenage Nonsmoker in 1970s; Lungs of People in Most Big Cities of the World Today

SCAQMD/CARB

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/1900-2011

Mean Global Temperature Anomalies

NASA GISS, 2012

WARMEST YEARS1. 20102. 20053. 20074. 19985. 20096. 20117. 20068. 20039. 200210. 2004

ELECTRIC POWER VEHICLES

Recommended – Wind, Water, Sun (WWS)

1. Wind 2. CSP WWS-Battery-Electric3. Geothermal 4. Tidal WWS-Hydrogen Fuel Cell5. PV 6. Wave7. Hydroelectricity

Not RecommendedNuclear Corn, cellulosic, sugarcane ethanolCoal-CCS Soy, algae biodieselNatural gas, biomass Compressed natural gas

Cleanest Solutions to Global Warming, Air Pollution, Energy Security – Energy & Env. Sci, 2, 148 (2009)

9-25 times more pollution per kWh than wind from mining & refining uranium and using fossil fuels for electricity during the 11-19 years to permit (6-10 y) and construct (4-9 y) nuclear plant compared with 2-5 years for a wind or solar farm

Risk of meltdown (1.5% of all nuclear reactors to date have melted)Risk of nuclear weapons proliferation

Unresolved waste issues

Why Not Nuclear?

50 times more CO2 emissions per kWh than wind

150 times more air pollutant emissions per kWh than wind

Requires 25% more energy, thus 25% more coal mining and transport and traditional pollution than normal coal.

Why Not Clean Coal (With Carbon Capture)?

Corn and cellulosic E85 cause same or higher air pollution as gasoline

Corn E85: 90-200% of CO2 emissions of gasoline

Cellulosic E85: 50-150% of CO2 emissions of gasoline

Wind-BEVs: <1% of CO2 emissions as gasoline

Enormous land use and water requirements

Why Not Ethanol?

50-70 times more CO2 and air pollution emissions per kWh than wind

Hydrofracking causes land and water supply degradation

Methane leaks a leading cause of Arctic ice loss over next 20 years

Why Not Natural Gas?

www.mywindpowersystem.com

Wind Power, Wind-Driven Wave Power

www.gizmag.comwww.inhabitat.com

myecoproject.orgwww.sir-ray.com

Hydroelectric, Geothermal, Tidal Power

Torresol Gemasolar Spain, 15 hrs storage,Matthew Wright, Beyond Zero

Concentrated Solar Power, PV Power

www.solarthermalmagazine.comi.treehugger.com

Tesla Roadster all electric

weeble.netwww.blogcdn.comwww.greenlaunches.comwww.ecofriend.comwww.blogcdn.com

Hydrogen fuel cell–electric hybrid busHydrogen fuel cell bus

Nissan Leaf all electric Tesla Model S all electric

Electric truck

Electric/Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles

Zmships.eu

Ecofriend.org

Ec.europa.eu

Electric shipupload.wikimedia.org

Concentrated Solar Power, PV Power

Midlandpower.com

Heat pump water heaterConservpros.com Adaptivebuilders.com

Air-Source Heat Pump, Air Source Electric

Water Heater, Solar Water Pre-Heater

WORLD U.S.2010 12.5 TW 2.50 TW

2030 with current fuels 16.9 TW 2.83 TW

2030 converting all energy To wind-water-sun (WWS) and electricty/H2 11.5 TW 1.78 TW

(32% reduction) (37% reduction)

End Use Power Demand For All Purposes

TECHNOLOGY PCT SUPPLY 2030NUMBER5-MW wind turbines 50% 3.8 mill. (0.8% in place)0.75-MW wave devices 1

720,000100-MW geothermal plants 4 5350 (1.7% in place)1300-MW hydro plants 4

900 (70% in place)1-MW tidal turbines 1

490,0003-kW Roof PV systems 6

1.7 billion300-MW Solar PV plants 1440,000300-MW CSP plants 20

49,000

100%

Number of Plants or Devices to Power World

Cellulosic E854.7-35.4% of US

Solar PV-BEV0.077-0.18%

Corn E859.8-17.6% of

US

Wind-BEVFootprint 1-2.8 km2

Turbine spacing 0.35-0.7% of US

Geoth BEV0.006-0.008%

Nuclear-BEV0.05-0.062%Footprint 33% of total; the rest is buffer

Area to Power 100% of U.S. Onroad Vehicles

-180 -90 0 18090

0

-90

90

6

2

10

4

8

All wind over land in high-wind areas outside Antarctica ~ 70-80 TW= 6-7 times world end-use WWS power demand 2030 of 11.5 TW

m/s

World Wind Speeds at 100m

All solar over land in high-solar locations~ 340 TW= 30 times world end-use WWS power demand 2030 of 11.5 TW

m/s

World Surface Solar

Hart and Jacobson (2011); www.stanford.edu/~ehart/

End Use Power Demand For All Purposes

In these tests, California electricity was obtained from WWS for 99.8% of all hours in 2005, 2006. Can oversize WWS capacity, use demand-response, forecast weather, use more CSP to reduce natural gas backup more.

COUNTRY RESOURCES Needed to power 50% of world with windChina 16CIS 3.8U.S. 2.1Australia 1India 0.2Others 4.1World 27.3 4.4 (0.1 Tg/yr for 44 years)Current production: 0.022 Tg/yr

periodictable.com

Resources for Nd2O3 (Tg) Used in Permanent Magnets for Wind Turbine Generators

Jacobson & Delucchi (2011)

COUNTRY RESOURCES Possible number of vehicles @10kg/eachBolivia 9 with current known land resourcesChile 7.5China 5.4U.S. 4Argentina 2.6Brazil 1Other 3.5World land 33 3.3 billion+ (currently 800 million)Oceans 240

www.saltsale.com

Resources for Lithium (Tg) Used in Batteries

Jacobson & Delucchi (2011)

ENERGY TECHNOLOGY 2008-2010 2020-2030Wind onshore 4-7

≤4Wind offshore 10-17

8-13Wave >>11

4-11Geothermal 4-7

4-7Hydroelectric 4

4CSP 10-15

7-8Solar PV 9-13

5-7Tidal >>11

5-7Conventional (+Externalities) 7 (+5.3)=12.3 8-9.6(+5.7)=13.7-15.3

Costs of Energy, Including Transmission (¢/kWh)

Jacobson & Delucchi (2011)

Converting to Wind, Water, & Sun (WWS) and electricity/H2 will reduce global power demand by ~32%

Eliminates 2.5-3 million air pollution deaths/year

Eliminates global warming, provides energy stability

2030 electricity cost 4-10¢/kWh for most, 8-13 for some WWS ,vs. fossil-fuel direct+externality cost ~13.5¢/kWh

Additional long-distance transmission (1200-2000 km) ~1¢/kWh

Summary of Plan to Power World with WWS

Summary of Plan to Power World with WWSRequires only 0.4% more of world land for footprint; 0.6% for spacing (vs. 40% of world land for cropland and pasture)

Multiple methods of addressing WWS variability.

Materials are not limits although recycling may be needed.

Barriers : up-front costs, transmission needs, lobbying, politics.

Papers:www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/susenergy2030.html

Scientific conclusion:WWS can power the USA

Businesses need energy price stabilityand predictability.  Oil and gas can’tprovide that. Solar, wind and water

can.

There's plenty of it:  1 hour of the sun's energy can power the planet for

a year.

Elon Musk “all life on earth already is powered by the sun.  We're next...”

Google definition of Fossil:  An antiquated

or stubbornly unchanging person or thing.

Over the last 100 years, trillions of dollar have been invested in building a

fossil fuel dependent energy infrastructure.

Since 1960 the oil and gas industry has received $400 billion in US

subsidies They are still receiving

$4 billion per year…

California Electricity Prices Outpace Inflation, 1970-2011

Source Data: *U.S. Energy Information Administration: California’s Average Retail Electricity Price**U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Urban Consumer Price Index (rebased)

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

02468

10121416

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Power (cents/kilowatt-hour)* Inflation**

Annual Inflation 4.3% (CAGR)

Annual Electricity Price Increase 6.1% (CAGR)

Cen

ts/kW

h

CPI I

n-de

x

Rabobank, N.A.

Key Facts:Location: Hanford, CA (Central Valley)System Size: 887 kW DCConfiguration: Single-axis trackerExpected first year energy production: 1,716,851 kWhUtility Offset: Expected to replace 78% of utility power use at meterPower Equivalency: Solar production equal to 243 homes in California

Lakeside Dairy is a family-run dairy operation with 6,300 head of cattle and a custom farming business. The recent volatility in milk prices hasunderlined the importance of hedging costs. The solar energy system enables Lakeside to hedge against long run increases in utility power rates, improving the client’s business and creditworthiness.

The solar array is at the bottom of the picture at right.

Committment to Renewable Energy: Direct Financing - Lakeside Dairy

Key Facts:Location: Delano, CA (Central Valley)System Size: 1,184 kW DCConfiguration: Fixed ground mountExpected first year energy production: 1,771,507 kWhUtility Offset: Expected to replace 69% of utility power usePower Equivalency: Solar production equal to 251 homes in California

Castle Rock Vineyards is one of the world’s largest table grape growers. Many of Castle Rock’s European clients inquire about sustainability, making green technology and practices an integral part of Castle Rock’s business. Their solar energy system, financed by Rabobank, powers their cold storage facility. Rabobank structured the loan with a customized amortized loan to match the seasonality of solar energy production and associated state incentives. The value of avoided utility payments, combined with federal and state incentives, enables Castle Rock to generate net positive cash flow on a quarterly basis after loan payments. After the loan is paid off, Castle Rock’s savings will increase correspondingly. As utility electricity prices rise over time, their annual savings will increase.

Committment to Renewable Energy: Direct Financing - Castle Rock

Rabobank, N.A.

Committment to Renewable Energy – Main Financial Drivers

Main Financial Subsidies/Benefits from Ownership of a Renewable Energy Project

30% Investment Tax Credit or Cash Grant The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 allows eligible taxpayers to take an investment tax credit (ITC) or to

receive a cash grant from the U.S. Treasury Department. The grant in lieu of tax credit option falls under section 1603 of the ARRA and is only available to systems where construction began

prior to December 31, 2011.

Depreciation Benefits Business owned systems may be eligible for MACRS 5-year Accelerated Depreciation The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 allows for 50% bonus depreciation in 2012 for

projects placed in service for by December 31, 2012 "Bonus Depreciation" means acceleration of the otherwise applicable depreciation (not "more" depreciation, but "sooner"

depreciation) Depreciable basis of a Renewable Energy System is 85% of project cost (the depreciable basis is reduced by one-half of the tax credit

total or 15%) Net Depreciation Impact: Assuming a 35% Federal Tax Rate, depreciation could account for approximately 30% of the cost of the

renewable energy project

State Incentives Based on the production of the renewable energy system Incentives varies by state/utility; may account to 5%-10% of the total cost of the project

Rabobank, N.A.

Mark A. Ruffalo (Water Defense)http://www.waterdefense.org/

Marco Krapels (Rabobank)http://www.rabobank.com/content/

Mark Z. Jacobson (Atmosphere/Energy Program, Stanford University)http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/

susenergy2030.html