Lauren Bezek Nichole Duden Alex Harrington and Cody Puzza Mark Z Jacobson professor at Stanford University and Mark A Delucchi research scientist at the University of California developed a plan in 2009 to transfer 100 of worlds energy to renewable sources such as wind wat ID: 524810
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Running the U.S. on Wind Water, and Sola..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Running the U.S. on Wind Water, and Solar as advocated by Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi
Lauren
Bezek
, Nichole
Duden
, Alex Harrington, and Cody
PuzzaSlide2
Mark Z. Jacobson, professor at Stanford University, and Mark A. Delucchi, research scientist at the University of California, developed a plan in 2009 to transfer 100% of world’s energy to renewable sources, such as wind, water, and solar, by the year 2030 and replace pre-existing nonrenewable sources by 2050 to eliminate climate change, pollution, and energy insecurity. The critical issues arise socially and politically, not technically and economically, because industries would need to change.Slide3
Required Sources of Energy… must be clean, low-risk, and sustainable
Wind
Energy is converted into electricity from wind turbines using a gearbox that turns the turbine, which then converts mechanical energy into electrical energy.
II. Solar
Solar photovoltaics (PVs) convert solar radiation into electricity through cells containing materials, like silicon.
Concentrated solar power (CSP) focuses sunlight on a liquid to increase its temperature from using mirrors or reflective lenses. The heated liquid is converted to electricity through a heat engine.Slide4Slide5
III. WaterSurface waves, created by wind, produce electricity that is captured by wave powered devices, such as a buoy.
Tidal turbines generate electricity from a rotor that turns when water goes through the processes of 6 hour tides.
IV. Geothermal
Power plants use steam and hot water below Earth’s surface to generate electricity.
V. Hydroelectricity
Electricity is generated when water is dropped, such as from dams or
down flowing
rivers, to drive a turbine or generator. Slide6
Amount of Each Resource Required
Today about 12.5 terawatts (TW) of energy is consumed worldwide.
For year 2030, energy consumption has been projected to increase to 16.9 TW.
Running the world on WWS, would decrease the projected amount to 11.5 TW because electricity is a more efficient use of energy.
Also, it has been researched that wind provides 1,700 TW and solar 6,500 TW, which would be an immense amount of supply. Slide7
Possible Shortage of Materials
Concrete and steel would not be an issue in creating wind turbines because they are both completely recyclable.
Problems would arise in creating turbine gear boxes from rare-earth materials, such as neodymium, but moving away from gearless turbines would solve this issue.
Solar reliability can be problematic from limited tellurium and indium for some thin-film cells, and silver that is required, but old cell recycles can help.
Electric vehicles can be limited from supply of rare-earth materials, such as lithium batteries and platinum, for electric motors.
Recycling can ameliorate material difficulties for most resources, but recycling batteries will depend on the material they are made from.Slide8Slide9
Reliability… must be equal or more reliable than the current infrastructure
The US coal plant is offline 12.5% of the year compared to wind turbines less than 2% on land, 5% at sea, and photovoltaic systems less than 2%.
Even if a WWS system is offline, only a small portion of production is affected compared to a large area being affected when a coal, nuclear or natural gas plant goes down.
The
inconsistency
of wind and solar not always being able to provide can be mitigated from a steady supply of geothermal and tidal power.
Jacobson and Delucchi propose it would be smart to rely on wind at night, solar during the day, and using hydroelectric to balance supply and meet demand.
Also, interconnecting sources, such as wind farms 100 to 200 miles apart, would be a possible solution to better meet demand.Slide10
Clean Electricity 24/7Slide11
Critique on Reliability
Critic Ted Trainer believes the variability of renewable energy would propose a serious problem in initiating their use worldwide.
For example, the entire continent of Europe experiences weeks of extreme calm, cloud and cold due to the synoptic patterns of weather from the west.
Areas, such as the Danish wind system, contribute hardly any electricity at all during certain times, which would cause them and interconnecting
systems
to rely completely on other sources.
Periods of oversupply and dumping occur from high penetrations of wind and solar. If either contribute 25% or 30% of electricity, they would be generating more than double the average demand.
Oversupply can sound nice, but the capital cost of storage and backup systems are generally overlooked and are
likely
to
cause a
large increase.Slide12
Compared Costs
Jacobson and
Delucchi
estimated
overall construction for WWS system would cost about $100 trillion dollars worldwide, over 20 years, not including transmission.
The investment would be paid back from sale of electricity and energy not from governments or consumers.
Trainer argues the $100 trillion dollar estimate would require an annual investment of $5 trillion, which would be 11 times more than the early 2000s investments of $450 billion.
For Trainer, the problem is their claim is implausible because the target assumed is less then half the probable 2050
world
energy demand that is indicated by the International Energy Agency (IEA), which would make their cost projection incorrect.Slide13
Is there a solution?
According to Trainer, “renewables can enable a satisfactory quality of life for all, but not in energy intensive, consumer capitalist societies.”
Society would need to be willing to abandon their affluent living standard and economic growth.
If so, the “simpler way” would be much more viable and attractive, including a frugal lifestyle, small and high self-sufficient local economies, and participatory and cooperative ways in an overall economy that is not driven by growth or market forces.Slide14
PoliticallySlide15
Increase in Jobs
According to Jacobson and Delucchi, a nationwide transition to renewable energy would create an abundance of jobs, while generating other health and climate benefits.
Jacobson claimed he would push his plan by stating it would create more jobs than lost, in a 2013 interview.
In a more recent interview with CNN, Jacobson claimed the transition would create “22 million jobs.” He had even implied this fact would not require people to believe in climate change because it was such a
valuable
impact.
Jacobson estimated nearly 2.6 million jobs would be created.
Data of Jacobson’s shows the creation of 5.3 million “construction” jobs.Slide16
Critique of Job Increase
According to an article by Steve Everley in
Energy in Depth
, the plan devised by Jacobson and Delucchi would actually destroy about 3.8 million jobs nationwide.
A net loss, including jobs gained from renewables, of 1.2 million jobs.
In transportation, more than 2.4 million men and women would be put out of work.
In production of oil and natural gas, more than 80,000 people would lose their jobs.
About 90,000 jobs in correlation with coal mining would be gone.
These
numbers
of job loss estimating to about 3.8 million are far much larger than the 2.6 million that are claimed to be created.Slide17
Estimated Job LossesSlide18
Statewide Job Loss
California: 221,738 long-term jobs lost
New York: 80,113 permanent jobs lost
Hawaii: 9,013 permanent jobs lost
Vermont: 4,584 long-term jobs lost
Texas, the country’s largest oil and natural gas producer, would lose more than 250,000 long-term jobs.
Wyoming, the largest coal producing state, would lose more than 32,000 jobs.Slide19Slide20
Is there a solution?
Surveys for more than two years have remained consistent averaging 63% of Americans believing job creation is more important than trying to stop global warming.
The idea of banning fracking and losing jobs has exacerbated a growing divide between greens, or climate activists, and labor unions.
Climate activists have struggled to push their plan to the general public, which is most concerned with jobs and the economy, but Jacobson’s claim about net job creation has given them a chance.
Jacobson would say to people afraid of job loss and economic changes that “there’s not technical or economic reason why we need to continue with oil, gas, and coal
.” Slide21
Is it possible?
Our conclusion
We believe Jacobson and
Delucchi’s
plan for transition to renewables by year 2030 is a necessary one because the climate is not going to improve on its own.
Yes there are
risks,
such as job loss and capital costs, but there are also detrimental risks from maintaining our current nonrenewable infrastructure, like global warming, health, and vanishing resources.
We believe government policy must be implemented to push the plan forward because the general public is not adequately informed and are more concerned with
their own well-being
.
People need to focus more on the positive benefits and less on the “what ifs.”Slide22
Works Cited
Everley, Steve. “Climate Activists Push Study Showing 3.8 Million Lost Jobs From Renewable Energy Transition.”
Energy in Depth
. 5 Jan 2016. Web. https://energyindepth.org/national/climate-activists-study-millions-lost-jobs- renewables/
Jacobson, Mark Z. & Delucchi, Mark A. “A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030.”
Scientific American.
Nov 2009, p. 58-65. Web. http://
www.nonukesyall.org
/pdfs/sad1109Jaco5p.indd.pdf
Jacobson, Mark Z. & Delucchi, Mark A. “Providing All Global Energy with Wind, Water, and Solar Power, Part I: Energy Resources, Quantities and Areas of Infrastructure, and Materials.”
Energy Policy
, 39 (2011): p. 1154-1169.
Science Direct.
Trainer, Ted. “A Critique of Jacobson and
Delucchi’s
Proposals for a World Renewable Energy Supply.”
A Magazine of Green Social Thought
. Winter 2013, p. 23-28. Web. http://greensocialthought.org/archive/wp- content/uploads/2012/12/Pages-single-23- 28SR60-.pdf