Review of Solutions to Global Warming,

Air Pollution, and Energy Security

Mark Z. Jacobson
Atmosphere/Energy Program
Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Stanford University

The Energy Seminar, Stanford University

October 1, 2008
 Causes of Global Warming
2
Temperature Change Since 1750 ( C)
o

1.5

0.5
Cooling
particles
0
Green- Fossil- Urban Net
house fuel heat observed
-0.5 gases + biofuel island global
soot warming
particles
-1

-1.5

M.Z. Jacobson
Comparison of Energy Solutions to
Global Warming
Electricity Sources Vehicle Technologies
Wind turbines Battery-electric vehicles (BEVs)
Solar photovoltaics (PV) Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs)
Geothermal power plants
Tidal turbines
Wave devices
Concentrated solar power (CSP)
Hydroelectric power plants
Nuclear power plants
Coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)

Liquid Fuel Sources

Corn ethanol (E85) Flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs)
Cellulosic ethanol (E85)
 Effects Examined
Resource abundance
Carbon-dioxide equivalent emissions
Lifecycle
Opportunity cost emissions from planning-to-operation delays
Leakage from carbon sequestration
Nuclear war / terrorism emission risk from nuclear-energy
Air pollution mortality
Water consumption
Footprint on the ground
Spacing required
Effects on wildlife
Thermal pollution
Water chemical pollution / radioactive waste
Energy supply disruption
Normal operating reliability
Global Renewable Energy Resources
Max Potential Current
Wind over land > 6.9 m/s (TW) 72 47 0.02
Solar over land (TW) 1700 340 0.001
Geothermal (TW) 160 0.15 0.007
Hydroelectric (TW) 1.9 <1.9 0.32
Wave+tidal (TW) 3.5 0.5 0.00006

Global electric power demand (TW) 1.6-1.8

Global overall power demand (TW) 9.4-13.6
Mean 80-m Wind Speed in North America
Archer and Jacobson (2005) www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/
 Lifecycle g-CO e/kWh
2

0
100
200
300
400
500
600

Wind
CSP
Solar-PV
Geothermal
Tidal
Wave
Hydro
Nuclear
Coal-CCS
Lifecycle CO2e of Electricity Sources
Time Between Planning & Operation
Nuclear: 10-19 y (lifetime 40 y)
Site permit (NRC): 3.5 y minimum with new regs. – 6 y
Construction permit approval and issue 2.5-4 y
Construction time 4-9 years (Low value Europe/Japan)
Hydroelectric: 8-16 y (lifetime 80 y)
Coal-CCS: 6-11 y (lifetime 35 y)
Geothermal: 3-6 y (lifetime 35 y)
Ethanol: 2-5 y (lifetime 40 y)
CSP: 2-5 y (lifetime 30 y)
Solar-PV: 2-5 y (lifetime 30 y)
Wave: 2-5 y (lifetime 15 y)
Tidal: 2-5 y (lifetime 15 y)
Wind: 2-5 y (lifetime 30 y)
 Opportunity-Cost g-CO e/kWh
2

0
100
200
300
400
500
600

Wind
CSP
Solar-PV
Geothermal

Tidal
Wave
Sources

Hydro
Nuclear
Coal-CCS
Opportunity-Cost CO2e of Electricity
 Nuclear Energy/Weapons Risks
“There is no technical demarcation between the military and civilian
reactor and there never was one” (Los Alam. Rept.
LA8969MS,UC-16)

42 countries have fissionable material to produce weapons.

9 have nuclear weapons stockpiles

(US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, N. Korea)

22 of 42 countries with fissionable material have facilities in nuclear

energy plants to produce enriched uranium or to separate plutonium
13 of the 42 countries are active in producing enriched uranium or
separating plutonium.

 Spread of nuclear weapons material is caused by the spread of

nuclear energy.

Nuclear weapons treaties safeguard only 1% of the world’s

Toon et al.highly
(2007)
-enriched uranium and 35% of the plutonium.
Leakage From Carbon Sequestration
Leakage rate (Tg/yr)

L = I - S(t) / t where

I = injection rate
t = time (years)
S = stored mass (Tg)

S(t) = S(0)e-t/t + tI(1-e-t/t )

t = e-folding lifetime of stored material against leakage (years)

High est. t=100,000 (1% leakage over 1000 years, IPCC, 2005
Low est. t=5000 years (18% over 1000 years – Natural gas
storage has leaked up to 10% over 1000 years, IPCC, 2005)
War/Leakage CO2e of Nuclear, Coal
Explosion or Leak g-CO e/kWh 600

500
2

400 Coal-CCS:
1-18% leakage of sequestered
carbon dioxide in 1000 years
300
Nuclear:
200 One exchange of
50 15-kt weapons over 30 y
due to expansion of uranium
100 enrichment/plutonium separation
in nuclear-energy facilities
worldwide
0
 Total g-CO e/kWh
2

0
100
200
300
400
500
600

Wind
CSP
Solar-PV
Geothermal
Tidal
Wave
Hydro
Nuclear Coal-CCS
Total CO2e of Electricity Sources
Lifecycle CO2-Equivalent Emissions
Corn and Cellulosic Ethanol
Delucchi (2006)* Accounts for
- seeding, fertilization, irrigation, cultivation, crop transport,
refining, distribution, combustion.
- climate impacts of BC, other PM, NO, CO
- detailed nitrogen cycle, basic landuse/price impacts
U.S. corn ethanol ~2.4% less CO2-eq. emis. than light-duty gasoline
(China +17%; India +11%; Japan +1%, Chile -6%)
Switchgrass ethanol ~52.5% less CO2-eq. emis. than LDG -

Searchinger et al. (2008)# Adds gridded global landuse/price impacts
U.S. corn ethanol ~90% more CO2-eq. than gasoline
Switchgrass ethanol ~50% more CO2-eq. than LDG
*www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2006/UCD-ITS-RR-06-08.pdf
#Science 319, 1238 (2008)
Percent change in all U.S. CO2 emissions

-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50

Wind-BEV -32.5 to -32.7

Wind-HFCV -31.9 to -32.6
CSP-BEV -32.4 to -32.6
PV-BEV -31.0 to -32.3
Geo-BEV -31.1 to -32.3
Tidal-BEV -31.3 to -32.0
Wave-BEV -31.1 to -31.9
Hydro-BEV -30.9 to -31.7
Nuc-BEV -28.0 to -31.4
CCS-BEV -17.7 to -26.4
Corn-E85 -0.78 to +30.4
Cel-E85 -16.4 to +16.4
Percent Change in U.S. CO2 From
Converting to BEVs, HFCVs, or E85
Comparison of Emission Assumptions
With Recent CARB and Other Data
Percent change E85 minus gas

Cert data (2006) Jacobson (2007)

NMOG +45% +19.6%
NOx -29.7% -30%

Whitney (2007) Jacobson (2007)

Benzene -64% -79%
1,3-butadiene -66% -10%
Acetaldehyde +4500% +2000%
Formaldehyde +200% +60%
 Ozone isopleth
0.25
0.4
0.08 = O (g), ppmv

0.32
0.2
NO (g) (ppmv)

0.24
0.15
3

0.1
0.16
x

0.05

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
ROG (ppmC)
Effect in 2020 of E85 vs. Gasoline on
Ozone and Health in Los Angeles

Change in ozone deaths/yr due to E85: +120 (+9%) (47-140)

Changes in cancer/yr due to E85: -3.5 to +0.3
 Upstream Lifecycle Emissions
Gasoline, Corn-E90, Cellulosic-E90
Upstream Lifecycle Emissions (g/million-BTU-fuel)

847
1000 RFG

419
Corn-E90

342

236.3
221.1
240
Cel-E90

207

109.8
80.3

84.3
75.5
59.2

52.9
100
42.1

37.5
31.3

17.1
10

4.1
3.5
0.6
1

0.5
0.1
CO NMOC NO SO NO CH BC
2 2 2 4

DeLucchi, 2006
2020 U.S. Vehicle Exhaust+Lifecycle+Nuc Deaths/Year 2020

0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000

Wind-BEV 20-100
Wind-HFCV 80-380 +7.2
BEVs,

CSP-BEV 80-140
PV-BEV 190-790
Geo-BEV 150-740
Tidal-BEV 320-660
Wave-BEV 390-750
HFCVs,

Hydro-BEV 450-860
Nuc-BEV 640-2170-27,540
E85,

CCS-BEV 2880-6900
Corn-E85 15,000-15,935
Cel-E85 15,000-16,310
Gasoline 15,000
Gasoline
Low/High U.S. Air Pollution Deaths For
 Number of Plants to Run All U.S.
Vehicles as Battery-Electric
Nuclear: 202-275 850 MW plants
Hydroelectric: 270-365 1300 MW plants
Coal-CCS: 460-1010 425 MW plants
Geothermal: 1500-2250 100 MW plants
CSP: 5900-15,400 100 MW plants
Solar-PV: 4.6-12.5 billion 160 W panels
Wave: 770,000-1,275,000 0.75 MW devices
Tidal: 419,000-1,000,000 1 MW turbines
Wind: 73,000-144,000 5 MW turbines
Ratio of Footprint Area of Energy Technology to
Wind-BEV for Running U.S. Onroad Vehicles

0.1
10
103
105
107
109
1011

Wind-BEV
Wind-HFCV
CSP-BEV
Low ratio
High ratio

PV-BEV
Geo-BEV
Tidal-BEV
Wave-BEV
Hydro-BEV
Nuc-BEV
CCS-BEV
Corn-E85
Cel-E85
California
Rhode Island
Wind-BEVs for Running U.S. Vehicles
Ratio of Footprint Area of Technology to
 Percent of U.S. land For Technology
Spacing to Power U.S. Vehicles

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

Wind-BEV 0.35-0.70
Wind-HFCV 1.1-2.1
+7.2
CSP-BEV 0.12-0.41
Spacing

PV-BEV 0.077-0.18
to

Geo-BEV 0.0067-0.0077
Tidal-BEV 0.017-0.040
Wave-BEV 0.21-0.35
Run

Hydro-BEV 1.9-2.6
Nuc-BEV 0.045-0.061
CCS-BEV 0.026-0.057
U.S.

Corn-E85 9.84-17.6

California 4.41 Cel-E85 4.7-35.4

Rhode Island 0.0295
Vehicles
Percent of U.S. (50 states) for Footprint +
Area to Power 100% of U.S. Onroad Vehicles

Solar PV-BEV
0.077-0.18%
Wind-BEV
Footprint
1-2.8 km2
Cellulosic E85 Wind-BEV
4.7-35.4% turbine spacing
(low-industry est. 0.35-0.7%
high-data)
Corn E85
9.8-17.6%

Map: www.fotw.net
 Water consumption (Ggal/year) to run U.S. vehicles

0
5000
10000
15000
20000

Wind-BEV 1-2
Wind-HFCV 150-190
CSP-BEV 1000-1360
PV-BEV 51-70
Geo-BEV 6.4-8.8
Tidal-BEV 1-2
Wave-BEV 1-2
+7.2 Hydro-BEV 5800-13,200

Nuc-BEV 640-1300
CCS-BEV 720-1200
Corn-E85 12,200-17,000

Cel-E85 6400-8800
Water Consumed to Run U.S. Vehicles

U.S. water demand = 150,000 Ggal/yr

Matching Hourly Electricity Demand in
2020 With 80% Renewables

Renewables for Load-Matching, July 2020

60000

50000
Geothermal
40000 Wind
electricity (MW)

30000
Solar
20000

10000
Hydro
0 Remaining
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
time of day, PST

Hoste et al. (2007)

 Aggregate Wind Power (MW) From 81% of
Spain’s Grid Versus Time of Day, Oct. 26, 2005
 Overall Score of Technology Combination

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16

Wind-BEV 2.09
+7.2
Wind-HFCV 3.22
CSP-BEV 4.28
Geo-BEV 4.60
Tidal-BEV 4.97
PV-BEV 5.26
Recommended

Wave-BEV 6.11
Hydro-BEV 8.40
CCS-BEV 8.47
Nuc-BEV 8.50

Corn-E85 10.60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Cel-E85 10.70
Not recommended
Overall Scores/Rankings (Lowest is Best)
 Summary
Among many vehicle options, wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs have the
greatest benefit and least impact in terms of solving climate, pollution,
landuse, water supply problems. Wind requires 2-6 orders of magnitude
less land footprint than any other option.

CSP-, hydro-, geothermal-, PV-, tidal-, wave-BEVs also extremely

beneficial. Hydro-BEVs recommended due to load balancing ability.

Nuclear-BEVs, coal-CCS-BEVs are less beneficial options for addressing

climate/air pollution and should not be favored at expense of other
options.

Corn-E85, cellulosic-E85 detrimental to climate, air quality, land, water,

undernutrition compared with other technologies. Should not be included
in policy options to address climate or air pollution.

More at
www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm
Number of 5 MW Wind Turbines in
7-8.5 m/s winds to Eliminate All U.S.
CO2 2007
Onroad
vehicles
(battery)
Other (73-144)
(139-230)

Coal
electricity
(121-185)

Total (2007)
Natural gas 389-645
electricity
(53-81) Oil electricity
(3-5)
C
Land Area For 50% of US Energy From Wind

Turbine
area
touching
ground

Spacing
between
turbines

Map: www.fotw.net
 Alternatively, Water Area For 50% of US
Energy From Wind

Spacing
between
turbines

Map: www.fotw.net