Most of the technology needed to shift the world from fossil fuel to clean, renewable energy already exists. Implementing that technology requires overcoming obstacles in planning and politics, but doing so could result in a 30 percent decrease in global power demand, say Stanford civil and environmental engineering Professor Mark Z. Jacobson and University of California-Davis researcher Mark Delucchi.
The study further provides examples of how a combination of renewable energy sources could be used to meet hour-by-hour power demand, addressing the commonly asked question, given the inherent variability of wind speed and sunshine, can these sources consistently produce enough power?
To make clear the extent of those hurdles — and how they could be overcome — they have written an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. In it, they present new research mapping out and evaluating a quantitative plan for powering the entire world on wind, geothermal, water and solar energy, including an assessment of the materials needed and costs. And it will ultimately be cheaper than sticking with fossil fuel or going nuclear, they say.
The key is turning to wind, water and solar energy to generate electrical power — making a massive commitment to them — and eliminating combustion as a way to generate power for vehicles as well as for normal electricity use.
The problem lies in the use of fossil fuels and biomass combustion, which are notoriously inefficient at producing usable energy. For example, when gasoline is used to power a vehicle, at least 80 percent of the energy produced is wasted as heat.
With vehicles that run on electricity, it's the opposite. Roughly 80 percent of the energy supplied to the vehicle is converted into motion, with only 20 percent lost as heat. Other combustion devices can similarly be replaced with electricity or with hydrogen produced by electricity.
Jacobson and Delucchi used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to project that if the world's current mix of energy sources is maintained, global energy demand at any given moment in 2030 would be 16.9 terawatts, or 16.9 million megawatts.
They then calculated that if no combustion of fossil fuel or biomass were used to generate energy, and virtually everything was powered by electricity — either for direct use or hydrogen production — the demand would be only 11.5 terawatts. That's only two-thirds of the energy that would be needed if fossil fuels were still in the mix.
In order to convert to wind, water and solar, the world would have to build wind turbines; solar photovoltaic and concentrated solar arrays; and geothermal, tidal, wave and hydroelectric power sources to generate the electricity, as well as transmission lines to carry it to the users, but the long-run net savings would more than equal the costs, according to Jacobson and Delucchi's analysis.
"If you make this transition to renewables and electricity, then you eliminate the need for 13,000 new or existing coal plants," Jacobson said. "Just by changing our infrastructure we have less power demand."
Jacobson and Delucchi chose to use wind, geothermal, water and solar energy options based on a quantitative evaluation Jacobson did last year of about a dozen of the different alternative energy options that were getting the most attention in public and political discussions and in the media. He compared their potential for producing energy, how secure an energy source each was, and their impacts on human health and the environment.
He determined that the best overall energy sources were wind, water and solar options. The Scientific American article provides a quantification of global solar and wind resources based on new research by Jacobson and Delucchi.
Analyzing only on-land locations with a high potential for producing power, they found that even if wind were the only method used to generate power, the potential for wind energy production is 5 to 15 times greater than what is needed to power the entire world. For solar energy, the comparable calculation found that solar could produce about 30 times the amount needed.
If the world built just enough wind and solar installations to meet the projected demand for the scenario outlined in the article, an area smaller than the borough of Manhattan would be sufficient for the wind turbines themselves. Allowing for the required amount of space between the turbines boosts the needed acreage up to 1 percent of Earth's land area, but the spaces between could be used for crops or grazing. The various non-rooftop solar power installations would need about a third of 1 percent of the world's land, so altogether about 1.3 percent of the land surface would suffice.
The study further provides examples of how a combination of renewable energy sources could be used to meet hour-by-hour power demand, addressing the commonly asked question, given the inherent variability of wind speed and sunshine, can these sources consistently produce enough power? The answer is yes.
Expanding the transmission grid would be critical for the shift to the sustainable energy sources that Jacobson and Delucchi propose. New transmission lines would have to be laid to carry power from new wind farms and solar power plants to users, and more transmission lines will be needed to handle the overall increase in the quantity of electric power being generated.
The researchers also determined that the availability of certain materials that are needed for some of the current technologies, such as lithium for lithium-ion batteries, or platinum for fuel cells, are not currently barriers to building a large-scale renewable infrastructure. But efforts will be needed to ensure that such materials are recycled and potential alternative materials are explored.
Finally, they conclude that perhaps the most significant barrier to the implementation of their plan is the competing energy industries that currently dominate political lobbying for available financial resources. But the technologies being promoted by the dominant energy industries are not renewable and even the cleanest of them emit significantly more carbon and air pollution than wind, water and sun resources, say Jacobson and Delucchi.
If the world allows carbon- and air pollution-emitting energy sources to play a substantial role in the future energy mix, Jacobson said, global temperatures and health problems will only continue to increase.
Louis Bergeron is a science writer for Stanford University News Service covering earth sciences, biology, chemistry and environmental science. He has written on research findings as varied as the importance of circadian rhythm to learning retention in Siberian hamsters, energy transfer in near-collisions at the molecular scale, and tagging and tracking studies of bluefin tuna, white sharks and leatherback turtles. Before joining the News Service he worked as a freelance science writer and editor, contributing to print and online publications such as New Scientist, ScienceNOW, Exploratorium Magazine, PC World, SWARA (the magazine of the East African Wild Life Society) and Stanford Medicine. He earned a bachelor's degree in geology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a master's degree in earth sciences from the University of California-Santa Cruz.
Nice general article review... not surprising at all on the results. All the tech we need is here now for the most part... that is of course not the problem as noted in the article.
Man will not go the way of the dinosaur for lack of technology or knowledge. He will do so because of his inability to control the social systems that he created along with his own population.
It is funny that in Matrix I, agent "Smith" likened humans to a virus when talking to Morphious. .....We keep multiplying until we have used up all the resources in an area, then move on..... paraphrased...
I wonder if a virus "thinks" about multiplying itself out of existence by killing the host..??..
.....Bill
When minds learn that what is real cannot be destroyed, and that only what is real can only be extended by sharing will the new world begin. It is quite often that the separate minds (the ego) will not step up to accepting truth untill they have exhausted every illusionary solution they can possibly concieve of. It will be up to us to determine if we have the will to accept the new mind order that awareness of peace will establish or become an extinct blip on a miniscule spec in space.
Perhaps we can begin by throwing PACs and all corporate lobbiests out of representative gpvernment so people are represented instead of money. Treat people with value by funding medical care and education instead of war machines and other fearmongering ideas. This is one world. The only one. It is in your mind right now. How will you make it sustainable for the generation. How will you do it right now! It all is up to you to determine how to see. No one else is at fault here. Forgive the past because it is an illusion made in your mind alone God did not make illusions. You did, and insanity is the result. Are you ready.
Yes, it's a phenominal number, (that is 520 wind turbines per day), do you think that even ten times that amount (per day) will be impossible by 2030?
I don't think so (on a global level)!
Same goes with the future of robotic solar manufacturing...
It will expontiate like some kind of virus!
In the 20th century, Americans alone laid down some 52,000 square miles of roads and highways, in this century, we only need to produce some 15,000 square miles of solar. That's without any other form of power production! Now I know you are going to say something like "it's impossible because of the storage issue!"
You are "almost" right.
However, the LiFePo4 battery is "almost" a utility storage option. It is the only battery capable of thousands of cycles, is enviro safe, and it's raw materials are virtually unlimited.
There is no reason why people like you and me can not DEMAND robotic LiFePo4 battery mass manufacture along with ROBOTIC mass solar panel and solar dish manufacture. Towards the end of 2030, renewable energy should be viral such that it creates it own energy to continue to expontiate. Cheap too...
Of course you are totally right about the lack of political will, as in the George Bush days, however, as you already see, there has been much improvement in that "sector" too.
It appears that you may be unsure or embarrassed about your position. If you wish to be taken seriously - you may want to consider signing your comments. Otherwise, you will be viewed as one of those angry bloggers who will disagree with any position, no matter how valid, simply to substitute for some insecurity, need for attention, etc.
As to this, or any other article on Renewable Energy, we, the readers are the editors of the quality of it's content. The readers who comment with substantively backed accolades or retorts more than adequately fill this roll. Opinions are like....well, never mind - your ears are likely shut anyway.
Have A Nice Day!
You should not assume that anonymous posts are rooted in insecurity or anger.... Possibly I only want google searches on my name to yield hits for my articles in refereed journals rather than blog posts. And possibly I hope my opinion will stand on its own merit....
Editors do serve a useful role in filtering at least some of the chaff from the wheat. Here we have an article than claims in the title that renewable energy will "save money" but the text makes absolutely no attempt at an economic argument. Nor is there any such argument in the single (and rather weak) source (the article of Jacobson and Delucchi) cited in this piece. I wonder if you have read this reference; I note that you offer no counter argument to my point concerning the complete lack of evidence cited to support the premise in the title--either herein on in the cited material.
Entirely unsubstantiated opinion pieces by uncredentialed "science writers" who are essentially university media agents promoting the work of their institution really don't merit support from this site.
Anonymous from comment 6
If only to clear the skies around the world, we should all give clean renewables a go! A zero emmissions world would really be a fantastic legacy for us to pass on...WAY better than a base on the moon or 50 new nuclear power stations for example.
And don't forget, the planet will be fine whatever we do. It is us that is in danger of dying off if we continue our ravaging and burning rather than sustainably harvesting the energy and resources we need.
And by the way, where are the political parties that are touting ZERO future emission levels (and a fully sustainable food supply) goal ???!!!!!
They would get my vote.
The "turning" is the difficult part. Momentum for continued use of fossil fuels is still high at the present time and will probably remain that way for years to come. It is not a matter just of money per se but clarity of thinking on this matter. We cannot continue indefinitely depending so greatly upon fossil fuels because we already know that they are insidiously harmful in producing products that cause pollution to our environment and sickness to us. The resulting gases blanket our Earth trap heat and cause global warming. They are convient but, like fast foods are, in the long run, not good for a steady diet.
The real question is why anyone would want to continue along this path without making an effort to promote an alternative solution.
adrianakau2aol.colm
....ahh....MONEY!! in obscene amounts.
.....Bill
Nice retort! While I still prefer critical reviews and comments come from a known source - I will concede to the need for anonymity on occasion.
Jeffrey
Add Your Comment
Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!