$4.4 trillion PLAN
Posted on: October 2, 2008
- In: Clickry | news
- Leave a Comment
$4.4 trillion PLAN
Clean Energy 2030 – a knol by Jeffery Greenblatt
Google’s Proposal for reducing U.S. dependence on fossil fuels
Google’s goal in presenting the Clean Energy 2030 proposal is to stimulate debate and we invite you to take a look and comment – or offer an alternative approach if you disagree.
Contents
Summary
The energy team at Google has been analyzing how we could greatly reduce fossil fuel use by 2030. Our proposal – “Clean Energy 2030” – provides a potential path to weaning the U.S. off of coal and oil for electricity generation by 2030 (with some remaining use of natural gas as well as nuclear), and cutting oil use for cars by 38%. Al Gore has issued a challenge that is even more ambitious – getting us to carbon-free electricity even sooner – and we hope the American public pushes our leaders to embrace it. T. Boone Pickens has weighed in with an interesting plan of his own to massively deploy wind energy, among other things. Other plans have also been developed in recent years that merit attention.
We announced this proposal on October 1, 2008. Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s energy speech at the Commonwealth Club on October 1 will be available shortly.
Summary: Reductions in Energy Use and Emissions
- Fossil fuel-based electricity generation by 88%
- Vehicle oil consumption by 38%
- Dependence on imported oil (currently 10 million barrels per day) by 33%
- Electricity-sector CO2 emissions by 95%
- Personal vehicle sector CO2 emissions by 38%
- US CO2 emissions overall by 48% (40% from today’s CO2 emission level)
- Deploying aggressive end-use electrical energy efficiency measures to reduce demand 33%.
- Baseline EIA demand is projected to increase 25% by 2030. In addition, the increase in plug-in vehicles (see below) increases electricity demand another 8%. Thus, our efficiency reductions keep demand flat at the 2008 level.
- Replacing all coal and oil electricity generation, and about half of that from natural gas, with renewable electricity:
- 380 gigawatts (GW) wind: 300 GW onshore + 80 GW offshore
- 250 GW solar: 170 GW photovoltaic (PV) + 80 GW concentrating solar power (CSP)
- 80 GW geothermal: 15 GW conventional + 65 GW enhanced geothermal systems (EGS)
- Increasing plug-in vehicles (hybrids & pure electrics) to 90% of new car sales in 2030, reaching 42% of the total US fleet that year
- Increasing new conventional vehicle fuel efficiency from 31 to 45 mpg in 2030
- Accelerating the turnover of the vehicle fleet from 19 to 13 years (resulting in 25 million new vehicle sales per year in 2030, a 31% increase over the baseline)
Summary: Financial Bottom Line
The financial bottom line: Although the cost of the Clean Energy 2030 proposal is significant (about $4.4 trillion in undiscounted 2008 dollars), savings are even greater ($5.4 trillion), returning a net savings of $1.0 trillion over the 22-year life of the plan.
Summary: Actions Required
- Renewable electricity:
- A long-term national commitment to renewable electricity (e.g. national renewable portfolio standard, carbon price, long-term tax credits and incentives, etc.)
- Adequate transmission capacity (to support about 450 GW targeting mostly Great Plains and coasts for wind, and desert southwest for concentrating solar power)
- Adequate grid resources to manage large-scale intermittent generation
- Public and private renewable energy R&D and investment to achieve cost parity with fossil generation in next several years
- Energy efficiency
- Long-term commitment to energy efficiency by the federal government and states (e.g, national efficiency standard, aggressive appliance standards and building codes, “decoupling” of utility profits from sales, incentives for energy efficiency investments)
- Deployment of a “smart” electricity grid that empowers consumers and businesses to manage their electricity use more effectively
- Personal vehicles:
- Public policies supporting the accelerated deployment of fuel-efficient vehicles, e.g. higher fuel efficiency standards for conventional vehicles, financial incentives to remove older vehicles from the fleet and encourage efficient (especially plug-in) vehicle purchases, special electricity rates for “smart charging”, and greater R&D
- Investment in infrastructure necessary to support massive deployment of plug-ins including charging stations and development of new power management hardware and software
Electricity Sector
Currently the US produces half of its electricity from coal, 20% each from natural gas and nuclear energy, with the remainder provided by hydro and other renewables. Very little oil is used to make electricity—only about 1.5%. Electricity generation produces about 2,400 million metric tons of CO2 per year (MMtCO2/yr), about 40% of total US emissions.
In Clean Energy 2030 we transform this sector by: 1) Keeping electricity demand FLAT at the 2008 level, rather than allowing it to grow 25% by 2030, and 2) Eliminating all coal and oil in electricity generation (and about half of natural gas) by 2030 and replacing that generation with renewable energy–primarily wind, solar and geothermal.
For energy efficiency, there is ample proof in several states and from research studies [1] that growth in electricity demand can be kept flat or even made to decline (nationally demand is otherwise projected to grow by about 1% per year). This can be done using a combination of strategies, including energy efficiency targets, appliance standards, building codes, R&D investment, financial incentives, “decoupling” of utility profits from sales, and voluntary programs.
Keeping demand flat would reduce fossil fuel-based generation by 30% in 2030. The question is how we would meet remaining electricity needs without fossil fuels. The “business-as-usual” scenario developed by the EIA has very modest growth projections for renewables: about the same hydropower capacity as today (7%), and an expansion from 2% to 7% for other renewables (mostly biomass). Under the EIA view most of our remaining electricity requirements would still be met by fossil fuels.
We propose something radically different. Onshore and offshore wind could grow from about 20 GW today to 380 GW, generating 29% of 2030 demand. Solar, both photovoltaic and concentrating solar power (CSP), could grow from about 1 GW today to 250 GW, generating 12% of demand. Geothermal, both conventional and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS; see below), could grow from 2.4 GW today to 80 GW, generating 15% of demand. Together with modest projected expansion of other non-fossil energy sources, including nuclear (115 GW), hydro (78 GW), and biomass and municipal waste (23 GW), about 90% of demand could be met.[2]
The remaining demand would be supplied by natural gas (250 GW), which is likely necessary for shoring up imbalances between generation and demand, particularly with large amounts of intermittent renewables on the grid. Some capacity would also be provided by hydro resources, while distributed demand management (scheduling of large devices such as washing machines, dryers and plug-in vehicles, and making loads such as air conditioning interruptible) and energy storage (both distributed and centralized) would help make optimal economic use of intermittent generation.
The US Department of Energy (DOE) just completed a study looking at deploying 300 GW of wind by 2030, and concluded that the wind resource was ample for the task, and the impact on manufacturing was measurable but not overwhelming. Solar photovoltaics have been growing very strongly in recent years, topping 50%, but this technology still has a very small market share because of its cost. Concentrating solar power may break through this cost barrier faster, and could deliver massive amounts of power.
Geothermal energy is perhaps the sleeping giant. Conventional hydrothermal resources have been quietly growing in recent years, with 4 GW in the pipeline and likely 15 GW developed by 2030. Last month we announced a significant initiative in enhanced geothermal energy systems (EGS). EGS, which has the potential to provide significant baseload power on a broad-scale basis, promises extremely rapid growth if key technologies can be proven in the next few years.
For wind and solar, where the lion’s share of resources are located in the Great Plains and desert southwest – far from population centers – the biggest challenge is providing adequate transmission capacity to get the power to market. Extrapolating from the DOE study, about 20,000 miles of new transmission capacity would be required to support 380 GW of onshore wind and concentrating solar power generation in the Clean Energy 2030 proposal. About 200,000 miles of high-voltage transmission now exist in the US. By contrast, offshore wind is located close to cities on both coasts, solar PV is typically highly distributed near where electricity is consumed, and there are significant potential EGS resources from border to border and coast to coast.
In summary, if we achieve the above electricity targets in the Clean Energy 2030 proposal, it would eliminate 88% of fossil fuel use and reduce CO2 emissions by 95% relative to the 2030 baseline, or about 2,800 MMtCO2/yr.
Table 1. Electricity sector summary.
|
2007
|
2010
|
2020
|
2030
|
|
|
Wind-total
(offshore)
|
16 GW
(0 GW)
|
41 GW
(0.5 GW)
|
176 GW
(18 GW)
|
380 GW
(80 GW)
|
|
Solar-total
(CSP)
|
1.0 GW
(0.5 GW)
|
3.1 GW
(1.3 GW)
|
69 GW
(20 GW)
|
250 GW
(80 GW)
|
|
Geothermal-total (EGS)
|
2.9 GW
(0.0 GW)
|
7.2 GW
(0.1 GW)
|
32 GW
(20 GW)
|
80 GW
(65 GW)
|
|
Reduced demand from efficiency
|
0.0%
|
3.0%
|
18%
|
33%
|
|
Increased demand from plug-in vehicles
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.7%
|
8.0%
|
|
Fraction of CO2 saved
|
0.0%
|
8.0%
|
52%
|
95%
|
According to the Energy Information Administration, transportation-related energy use accounts for 70% of the 21 million barrels per day (mbd) of liquid fuels consumed in the US. By 2030, the sector will consume 17 mbd and emit 2,200 million metric tons of CO2 per year (MMtCO2/yr), about 1/3 of projected total US energy-related CO2 emissions.
Personal vehicles (also known as “light-duty” vehicles, e.g. cars, sport-utility vehicles, and light trucks), account for approximately 60% of transportation sector fuel consumption and CO2 emissions; the remainder comes primarily from freight trucks and airplanes, with appreciable contributions from other sources (buses, trains, ships, etc.). The Clean Energy 2030 proposal focuses on the personal vehicle subtotal, because we think this can be transformed by plug-in electric vehicles and higher efficiency conventional vehicles.
Although the average fuel efficiency of new conventional vehicles, currently 22 mpg, is projected to increase to 31 mpg by 2030,[3] plug-in vehicles can already achieve significantly higher fuel efficiency because they drive on electricity for a significant fraction of their yearly miles. A plug-in hybrid with a 40-mile electric range drives on electricity for about half of its yearly miles, so it consumes half the gasoline of its conventional cousin. And switching to an all-electric vehicle of course consumes no gasoline.
The Clean Energy 2030 plan rapidly ramps up sales of plug-in vehicles, starting with 100,000 in 2010 (annual US vehicle sales today are roughly 15 million), and increasing to 3.7 million annual vehicle sales in 2020 and 22 million in 2030. Seventy percent of these vehicles would be plug-in hybrids, with the remainder being all-electric vehicles.
In addition to rapidly deploying plug-in vehicles, the Clean Energy 2030 proposal assumes that conventional (e.g. non-plug-in) vehicle efficiency can increase as well. We have consulted with industry experts and determined that it is possible to push average conventional vehicle efficiency to 40-50 mpg in 2030, and assume 45 mpg in our proposal. In Europe, this average fuel efficiency target is mandated by 2012.
Finally, the average vehicle in the US operates for almost 20 years, meaning that many older, inefficient vehicles continue to consume large amounts of fuel with increasing maintenance cost. To accelerate both the adoption of plug-in vehicles as well as more efficient conventional vehicles, we propose a program to accelerate the retirement of older vehicles. There are a number of mechanisms that might be considered such as “feebates” and consumer and manufacturer incentives for efficient vehicles. As will be seen below, the higher up-front cost of a more efficient vehicle is quickly made up by much lower fuel costs. The impact of such a program would be an increase in new vehicle sales, rising to 6.2 million additional vehicles (31%) in 2030.
These three strategies (more plug-in vehicles, higher efficiency conventional vehicles, and accelerated vehicle turnover) would together reduce oil consumption (and CO2 emissions) by 38% relative to the baseline, or 56 billion gallons per year.
|
2007
|
2010
|
2020
|
2030
|
|
|
Conventional new vehicle efficiency
|
21.6 mpg
|
23.9 mpg
|
34.5 mpg
|
45.0 mpg
|
|
Overall fleet efficiency
|
20.4 mpg
|
20.9 mpg
|
27.1 mpg
|
45.1 mpg
|
|
Plug-in fraction of fleet (annual sales)
|
0.0% (0.0%) |
0.0% (0.6%) |
4.4% (18%) |
42% (90%) |
|
Fraction of fuel or CO2
|
0.0%
|
0.7%
|
10%
|
38%
|
- Efficiency capital cost of 25 cents per kWh annual savings (one-time cost)
- Savings from efficiency of 10 cents per kWh (average electricity price)
Renewable energy:
- Renewable electricity capital costs:
- Onshore wind: $2 per watt
falling to $1.5/W in 2030 - Offshore wind: $2.5/W falling to $2/W in 2030
- Solar PV: $6/W falling to $2/W in 2030
- Solar CSP: $3.5/W falling to $2/W in 2030
- Conventional geothermal: $3.5/W flat through 2030
- Enhanced geothermal systems: $5/W falling to $3.5/W in 2030
- Intermittency cost of $20/MWh (applied to wind and solar)
- Avoided fossil capital costs (for plants planned in baseline but not built in our proposal because of efficiency and renewables):
- Coal: $2/W constant
- Natural gas and oil: $1/W constant
- Saved fossil fuel cost (that is not already counted as efficiency savings):
- Coal: $2/MBtu constant
- Natural gas and oil: $10/MBtu constant
- No write-down cost for retiring coal plants (all plants assumed to be older than 40 years when retired), no decommissioning cost or salvage value for plants
- Transmission infrastructure cost: $0.30/W for wind (including offshore) and solar CSP
Vehicles:
- Plug-in vehicle premiums: $5000 per plug-in hybrid vehicle (PHEV), $10,000 per pure-electric vehicle (EV), plus $1000 per vehicle for charging infrastructure
- Higher-efficiency conventional vehicle premium $3000 for 45 mpg (pro-rated for lower mpg, down to zero cost for 22 mpg today)
- Fuel cost: $4/gallon gasoline today, doubling to $8/gallon by 2030
- Plug-in electricity cost: 7 cents per kWh (discounted due to flexible smart-charging price)
- Older vehicle buy-back cost: $5000 per vehicle
Carbon (not counted in net savings):
- Carbon credit for CO2 not emitted (relative to baseline): $20/ton CO2, doubling to $40/ton in 2030 (applied to both electricity and vehicles)
| Costs | Undiscounted total | Net present value* |
| Electrical efficiency investment | $348 | $175 |
| Renewable capacity investment | $1,642 | $712 |
| Transmission capacity investment | $133 | $59 |
| Intermittency cost | $329 | $121 |
| Coal plant write-down, decommissioning and salvage | $0 | $0 |
| Plug-in vehicle premium | $1,221 | $374 |
| Plug-in electricity cost | $122 | $35 |
| Higher efficiency conventional vehicle premium | $325 | $146 |
| Vehicle buyback cost | $322 | $119 |
| Subtotal | $4,442 | $1,742 |
| Savings | ||
| Electrical efficiency savings | $1,599 | $620 |
| Avoided fossil fuel generation capacity savings | $267 | $117 |
| Avoided fossil fuel savings | $437 | $162 |
| Plug-in fuel savings | $2,193 | $626 |
| Conventional fuel savings | $939 | $368 |
| Subtotal | $5,435 | $1,893 |
| Net savings | $994 | $151 |
| Carbon credits | $1,134 | $397 |
| Net savings with carbon credits | $2,128 | $548 |
* Discount rate of 7%/year used for net present value calculations.
- Making gasoline significantly more or less expensive changes the cost of the scenario relative to the baseline, and here the change can have a sizable impact on net savings. If gasoline rises to $12/gallon in 2030 rather than $8, an additional $1,189 billion in undiscounted savings are realized. If gasoline remains constant at $4/gallon in 2030, an additional cost of $1,317 billion is incurred, changing the balance to a net cost of $323 billion.
- 259,000 construction jobs each year
- 217,000 permanent operations jobs
- Broken down as:
- 150,000 direct employees
- 100,000 jobs in associated industries (e.g., accountants, lawyers, steel workers, and electrical manufacturing)
- 220,000 jobs through economic expansion based on local spending
Navigant Consulting examined the impact of expanding solar generation to 28 GW (PV and CSP) in 2016, and found it would provide 440,000 jobs in the US:
- 110,000 direct
- 130,000 indirect (response as supplying industries increase output)
- 200,000 induced (spending of households who benefit from the additional wages and business income they earn through all of the direct and indirect activity)
The Geothermal Energy Association finds that manufacturing and construction jobs typically create 6.4 person-year jobs per MW of capacity, as well as 0.74 permanent full-time jobs per MW of capacity directly related to power plant operation and maintenance.
We don’t yet have job estimates related to efficiency installations or the plug-in vehicle market, but we note that the 6.2 million/year increase in vehicle sales by 2030 would result in many new jobs in the vehicle manufacturing sector.
- Transport:
- Reduced vehicle usage (mass transit, carpooling, telecommuting, etc.)
- Low-carbon biofuels for transportation
- Improved efficiency in freight trucks and airplanes
- Buildings and industry:
- Improved efficiency of heating fuel use
- Use of low-carbon biofuels or hydrogen as a heating fuel
- Shift away from fuels and toward electricity (including use of combined heat and power systems)
- Management of non-CO2 greenhouse gases including methane and halocarbon gases
- Agriculture and forestry:
- Forest and grassland management
- Methane management from animals and landfills
- American Wind Energy Association, AWEA 2nd Quarter 2008 Market Report, 2008: http://awea.org/publications/reports/2Q08.pdf.
- Clean Edge, Utility Solar Assessment Study: Reaching Ten Percent Solar by 2025, 2008: http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/reports-solarUSA2008.php
- Geothermal Energy Association, All About Geothermal Energy: Employment: http://www.geo-energy.org/aboutGE/employment.asp.
- Interlaboratory Working Group, Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, ORNL/CON-476 and LBNL-44029, 2000: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/eere/cef/.
- Laxson, A., M.M. Hand, and N. Blair., High Wind Penetration Impact on U.S. Wind Manufacturing Capacity and Critical Resources, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP-500-40482, 2006: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/40482.pdf.
- McKinsey & Company, Reducing US Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?, 2007: http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/US_ghg_final_report.pdf.
- Nadel, S., Energy Efficiency and Resource Standards: Experience and Recommendations, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Report E063, 2006: http://www.aceee.org/pubs/e063.htm.
- Navigant Consulting, Economic Impacts of Extending Federal Solar Tax Credits, Final Report Prepared for the Solar Energy Research and Education Foundation, 2008: http://www.seia.org/galleries/pdf/Navigant%20Consulting%20Report%209.15.08.pdf.
- US Department of Energy, 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply, DOE/GO-102008-2567, 2008: http://www.20percentwind.org/20percent_wind_energy_report_05-11-08_wk.pdf.
- Godoy, M. CAFE standards: Gas-Sipping Etiquette for Cars, National Public Radio, 2007: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5448289.
- Neff, J., Lutz says new CAFE standards will increase car price by $6k, Auto Blog Green, 2008: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/13/lutz-says-new-cafe-standards-will-increase-car-price-by-6k/.
- Union of Concerned Scientists, Fuel economy basics: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/solutions/cleaner_cars_pickups_and_suvs/fuel-economy-basics.html.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report, 2007: http://www.ipcc.ch.
- Marland, G., T. Boden, and R. J. Andres, Global, Regional, and National Annual CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Production, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2005, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2008: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2005.ems.
References
- See also a study by McKinsey & Company.
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/US_ghg_final_report.pdf - Electricity generation technologies do not all generate the same amount of electricity over a year. The ratio of average output to maximum output is known as the “capacity factor,” and is around 20% for solar photovoltaics, 30% for concentrating solar, 35-40% for wind, 50% for hydroelectric, and 90% for geothermal, biomass, nuclear and coal. Natural gas, which is mostly used for “ramping” purposes (increasing or decreasing output quickly according to changing demand) can run up to 90% but is typically operated around 20%. Thus, 100 GW of geothermal (with 90% capacity factor) produces the same amount of electricity in a year as 300 GW of solar (with 30% capacity factor).
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fuel efficiency estimates tend to be inflated by about 20%. This is because such estimates are done under ideal, rather than real-world, conditions. Therefore, although the current CAFE standard mandates that fleet average new vehicles must achieve 35 mpg in 2020 and beyond, the actual fuel efficiency is projected by EIA is lower.
clickry.blogspot.com
clickry.wordpress.com
Huffington Post - huffingtonpost.wordpress.com 
Leave a comment