1 Lauren Bezek, Nichole Duden, Alex Harrington, and Cody PuzzaRunning 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 Puzza
2 Mark Z. Jacobson, professor at Stanford University, and Mark AMark 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 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.
3 Required Sources of Energy… must be clean, low-risk, and sustainableWind 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.
4
5 III. Water Surface 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.
6 Amount of Each Resource RequiredToday 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.
7 Possible Shortage of MaterialsConcrete 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.
8
9 Reliability… must be equal or more reliable than the current infrastructureThe 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. Offline due to scheduled or necessary construction
10 Clean Electricity 24/7
11 Critique on ReliabilityCritic 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.
12 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.
13 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.
14 Politically
15 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.
16 Critique of Job IncreaseAccording 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.
17 Estimated Job Losses
18 Statewide Job Loss California: 221,738 long-term jobs lostNew 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.
19
20 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.”
21 Is it possible? Our conclusionWe 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.”
22 Works Cited Everley, Steve. “Climate Activists Push Study Showing 3.8 Million Lost Jobs From Renewable Energy Transition.” Energy in Depth. 5 Jan 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 Web. 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 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 Web. content/uploads/2012/12/Pages-single SR60-.pdf