WHAT IF CALIFORNIA, OR THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES, could be entirely powered by sustainable energy by 2030? That’s just 16 years from now. Such an achievement would mean there wouldn’t be constantly fluctuating (really, increasing) oil and gas prices, no more destruction of natural habitat and other resources, a significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, and less toxic health effects overall.
Mark Z. Jacobson
Mark Jacobson is a Stanford University civil and environmental engineering professor and the director of Stanford’s Atmosphere and Energy Program. In 2009, he and co-author Mark Delucchi wrote “A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030” in Scientific American. The path they wrote of would be based totally on wind, water and solar (WWS) technologies.
The piece is based on technologies that are zero-emissions or near-zero-emissions over their entire life cycle, including “construction, operation and decommissioning.” The technologies also must not “present significant waste disposal of terrorism risks.”
Why bother?
Jacobson’s February 2014 presentation to a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science included some compelling data about the rationale for becoming energy sustainable.
For instance, if we don’t become energy sustainable:
• Air pollution will kill between 2.5 to 4 million people worldwide each year, including an estimated 60,000 in the U.S.
• Arctic sea ice may disappear in 10-30 years as global temperatures rise at a faster rate than at any time in recorded history.
• Energy demand will increase with concurrent increases in pollution, climate change and energy prices.
• Higher energy prices will lead to economic, social and political instability.
On the other hand, if we do become energy sustainable:
• Health savings costs to the U.S. would be approximately $534 billion (or 3.3 percent of gross domestic product) with less death and illness related to greenhouse gas emissions.
• WWS-generated jobs (at the scale to become self-sufficient) are estimated at 5.1 million construction jobs and 2.6 million operation jobs (Jacobson indicates these are gross, not net, numbers).
• Offshore wind turbines, in sufficient numbers, could help dissipate hurricane damage and use the wind energy for power.
How much ‘juice’ is necessary and what would it take?
How much energy is needed to “run” the U.S. in 2030? The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that number at about 2.8 TW (terawatts). That is 2.8 trillion watts of energy. (The estimate for global energy use is 12.5 TW by 2030.) California will need about 0.25 TW.
To begin with, Jacobson eliminates natural gas as an energy source, as it produces more CO2 and air pollution than wind. Additionally, the methane from natural gas is a main contributor to Arctic ice loss, and the mining of natural gas, its transport and use causes an estimated 5,000 premature mortalities annually. Hydrofracking for natural gas causes land and water supply degradation and methane leaks.
He also rules out clean coal with carbon capture because that process produces 50 times more CO2 emissions per kilowatt hour and 150 times more air pollution emissions per kWh than wind. It also requires 25 percent more energy to mine and transport this coal.
Nuclear energy is eliminated from his recommendations as well, because the mining and refining of uranium produces nine to 25 times more pollution than wind — and then there is a risk of meltdown, along with nuclear weapons proliferation and unresolved nuclear waste issues.
Ramping up California by 2050 would take:
Number Technology
24,700 5 MW (MegaWatt) onshore wind turbines
7,800 5 MW offshore wind turbines
19.1m 5kW Residential roof photovoltaic (PV) systems
1.29m 100kW commercial/government roof PV systems
2,140 50 MW Solar PV plants
72 100MW CSP plants
3,370 1MW tidal turbines
4,960 .75 MW wave devices
Over 40 years, Jacobson estimates the creation of more than 800,000 construction jobs.
Why not?
I love this solid and comprehensive thinking! The U.S., and California specifically, has always pushed the boundaries of innovation and creativity. Why not transition to clean, productive energy sustainability that produces a renaissance of new jobs? What an accomplishment and legacy for our children and future generations!
Of course there are problems to solve, but many of the solutions are on the drawing table (or CAD/CAM tablet apps) for energy storage, transmission, turbine siting, etc.
Just think if Benicia took the lead and became a self-sustaining energy community, and maybe even a provider. Wouldn’t that be a nice steady cash flow for our economy?
Learn more
• A plan for a sustainable energy — resource page: stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/susenergy2030.html
• U.S. Energy Information Administration: eia.gov
• thesolutionsproject.org
Constance Beutel is the chair of Benicia’s Community Sustainability Commission. She is a university professor and videographer and holds a doctorate from the University of San Francisco.
Sharing is caring!
“Just think if Benicia took the lead and became a self-sustaining energy community, and maybe even a provider. Wouldn’t that be a nice steady cash flow for our economy?”
The Benicia of the future could be self-sustaining by exploiting the abundant winds from shoreline to hilltops. I’m still looking for somebody to lead the policy discussion at council level. At worst it could be a significant cost avoidance strategy to lease land to a developer and buy electricity at a fixed rate for 20 years at a time.
Is the answer to our local energy needs blowing in the wind?
From the above article:
“..California specifically, has always pushed the boundaries of innovation and creativity. Why not transition to clean, productive energy sustainability that produces a renaissance of new jobs? What an accomplishment and legacy for our children and future generations”!
From the post below:
“Silent rooftop wind turbines could generate half of a household’s energy needs”
“Small wind turbines scaled to the right size for residential and urban areas have so far lived in the shadows of their larger wind-farm-sized counterparts. The power output has been too low for a reasonable return on investment through energy savings and the noise they produce is louder than most homeowners can deal with.”
“A Dutch renewable energy start-up called The Archimedes is working to solve both of those problems in a new class of small-scale wind turbine — one that is almost silent and is far more efficient at converting wind into energy. The company states that the Liam F1 turbine could generate 1,500 kWh of energy per year at wind speeds of 5m/s, enough to cover half of an average household’s energy use.”
“When used in combination with rooftop solar panels, a house could run off grid. “When there is wind you use the energy produced by the wind turbine; when the sun is shining you use the solar cells to produce the energy,” The Archimedes CEO Richard Ruijtenbeek said.
http://www.treehugger.com/wind-technology/silent-wind-turbines-could-generate-half-household-energy.html
Stan you may want to explain how that can happen. A hundred years Aago it was happening. Few and far between now. Just a dream Stan..;