Abstracts Of 19 Peer-Reviewed Published Journal Articles .

4m ago
31 Views
0 Downloads
2.76 MB
21 Pages
Transcription

Abstracts of 19 Peer-Reviewed PublishedJournal Articles From 2009-2019 by 100Co-Authors Forming the Scientific Basisof100% Clean, Renewable Wind-WaterSolar (WWS) All-Sector EnergyRoadmaps for Towns, Cities, States,Countries, and the WorldLinks to Papers Available on Last PageSee dffor Additional Papers Supporting 100%RenewablesJanuary 7, 2020

Links to 100% WWS Papers2009 Jacobson, Energy and Environmental on/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf2009 Jacobson and Delucchi, Scientific on/Articles/I/sad1109Jaco5p.indd.pdf2011 Jacobson and Delucchi, Energy /Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf2011 Delucchi and Jacobson, Energy /Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf2011 Hart and Jacobson, Renewable 12 Hart and Jacobson, Energy and Environmental 3 Jacobson et al., Energy Articles/I/NewYorkWWSEnPolicy.pdf2014 Jacobson et al., Articles/I/CaliforniaWWS.pdf2014 Becker et al., /Articles/Others/BeckerEnergy14.pdf2015 Becker et al., /Articles/Others/BeckerEnergy15.pdf2015 Jacobson et al., Energy and Environmental /Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf2015 Jacobson et al., 16 Jacobson et al., Renewable Articles/I/WashStateWWS.pdf2016 Frew et al., /Articles/Others/16-Frew-Energy.pdf2016 Frew and Jacobson, /Articles/Others/16-Frew-Energy-B.pdf2017 Jacobson et al., rticles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf2018 Jacobson et al., Renewable 2018 Jacobson et al., Sustainable Cities and /Articles/I/TownsCities.pdf2019 Jacobson et al., One rticles/I/143WWSCountries.pdfLink to Infographic Maps of 100% WWSRoadmaps for Cities, States, CountriesThe Solutions Project - -clean-energy/

REVIEWwww.rsc.org/ees Energy & Environmental ScienceReview of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security†Mark Z. Jacobson*Received 12th June 2008, Accepted 31st October 2008First published as an Advance Article on the web 1st December 2008DOI: 10.1039/b809990cThis paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollutionmortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as onwater supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution,nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options areconsidered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP),wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS)technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electricand liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address theproblems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs),hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energysource-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to eachof 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked)includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidalBEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includescorn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two mostimportant, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient thanBEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 optionsprovide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However,hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, isan excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) wereranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemicalwaste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger landfootprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereascellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upperlimit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclearDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University,Stanford, California, 94305-4020, USA. E-mail: [email protected];Tel: 1 (650) 723-6836† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available: Derivation ofresults used for this study. See DOI: 10.1039/b809990cBroader contextThis paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energysecurity while considering impacts of the solutions on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, reliability, thermalpollution, water pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. To place electricity and liquid fuel options on an equal footing,twelve combinations of energy sources and vehicle type were considered. The overall rankings of the combinations (from highest tolowest) were (1) wind-powered battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), (2) wind-powered hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, (3) concentrated-solarpowered-BEVs, (4) geothermal-powered-BEVs, (5) tidal-powered-BEVs, (6) solar-photovoltaic-powered-BEVs, (7) wave-poweredBEVs, (8) hydroelectric-powered-BEVs, (9-tie) nuclear-powered-BEVs, (9-tie) coal-with-carbon-capture-powered-BEVs, (11)corn-E85 vehicles, and (12) cellulosic-E85 vehicles. The relative ranking of each electricity option for powering vehicles also appliesto the electricity source providing general electricity. Because sufficient clean natural resources (e.g., wind, sunlight, hot water, oceanenergy, etc.) exist to power the world for the foreseeable future, the results suggest that the diversion to less-efficient (nuclear, coalwith carbon capture) or non-efficient (corn- and cellulosic E85) options represents an opportunity cost that will delay solutions toglobal warming and air pollution mortality. The sound implementation of the recommended options requires identifying goodlocations of energy resources, updating the transmission system, and mass-producing the clean energy and vehicle technologies, thuscooperation at multiple levels of government and industry.148 Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148–173This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009

ENERGYA PATH TOSUSTAINABLE ENERGYWind, water andsolar technologiescan provide100 percent of theworld’s energy,eliminating allfossil fuels.HERE’S HOWBy Mark Z. Jacobsonand Mark A. Delucchi58SCIENTIFIC AMERICANIn December leaders from around the worldwill meet in Copenhagen to try to agree oncutting back greenhouse gas emissions fordecades to come. The most effective step to implement that goal would be a massive shift awayfrom fossil fuels to clean, renewable energysources. If leaders can have confidence that sucha transformation is possible, they might committo an historic agreement. We think they can.A year ago former vice president Al Gorethrew down a gauntlet: to repower Americawith 100 percent carbon-free electricity within10 years. As the two of us started to evaluate thefeasibility of such a change, we took on an evenlarger challenge: to determine how 100 percentof the world’s energy, for all purposes, could besupplied by wind, water and solar resources, byas early as 2030. Our plan is presented here.Scientists have been building to this momentfor at least a decade, analyzing various pieces ofthe challenge. Most recently, a 2009 StanfordUniversity study ranked energy systems according to their impacts on global warming, pollution, water supply, land use, wildlife and otherconcerns. The very best options were wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and hydroelectric power— all of which are driven by wind, water orsunlight (referred to as WWS). Nuclear power,coal with carbon capture, and ethanol were allpoorer options, as were oil and natural gas. Thestudy also found that battery-electric vehiclesand hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles recharged byWWS options would largely eliminate pollutionfrom the transportation sector.Our plan calls for millions of wind turbines,water machines and solar installations. Thenumbers are large, but the scale is not an insurmountable hurdle; society has achieved massiveNovember 20 09JOHN LEE Aurora Photos (wind farm); BILL HEINSOHN Aurora Photos (dam)BY 2030

Energy Policy 39 (2011) 1154–1169Contents lists available at ScienceDirectEnergy Policyjournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpolProviding all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I:Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure,and materialsMark Z. Jacobson a,n, Mark A. Delucchi b,1abDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4020, USAInstitute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USAa r t i c l e i n f oa b s t r a c tArticle history:Received 3 September 2010Accepted 22 November 2010Available online 30 December 2010Climate change, pollution, and energy insecurity are among the greatest problems of our time. Addressingthem requires major changes in our energy infrastructure. Here, we analyze the feasibility of providingworldwide energy for all purposes (electric power, transportation, heating/cooling, etc.) from wind,water, and sunlight (WWS). In Part I, we discuss WWS energy system characteristics, current and futureenergy demand, availability of WWS resources, numbers of WWS devices, and area and materialrequirements. In Part II, we address variability, economics, and policy of WWS energy. We estimate that 3,800,000 5 MW wind turbines, 49,000 300 MW concentrated solar plants, 40,000 300 MW solarPV power plants, 1.7 billion 3 kW rooftop PV systems, 5350 100 MW geothermal power plants, 270new 1300 MW hydroelectric power plants, 720,000 0.75 MW wave devices, and 490,000 1 MW tidalturbines can power a 2030 WWS world that uses electricity and electrolytic hydrogen for all purposes.Such a WWS infrastructure reduces world power demand by 30% and requires only 0.41% and 0.59%more of the world’s land for footprint and spacing, respectively. We suggest producing all new energywith WWS by 2030 and replacing the pre-existing energy by 2050. Barriers to the plan are primarily socialand political, not technological or economic. The energy cost in a WWS world should be similar tothat today.& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Keywords:Wind powerSolar powerWater power1. IntroductionA solution to the problems of climate change, air pollution, waterpollution, and energy insecurity requires a large-scale conversion toclean, perpetual, and reliable energy at low cost together with anincrease in energy efficiency. Over the past decade, a number of studieshave proposed large-scale renewable energy plans. Jacobson andMasters (2001) suggested that the U.S. could satisfy its Kyoto Protocolrequirement for reducing carbon dioxide emissions by replacing 60% ofits coal generation with 214,000–236,000 wind turbines rated at1.5 MW (million watts). Also in 2001, Czisch (2006) suggested that atotally renewable electricity supply system, with intercontinentaltransmission lines linking dispersed wind sites with hydropowerbackup, could supply Europe, North Africa, and East Asia at total costsper kWh comparable with the costs of the current system. Hoffert et al.(2002) suggested a portfolio of solutions for stabilizing atmosphericCO2, including increasing the use of renewable energy and nuclearenergy, decarbonizing fossil fuels and sequestering carbon, andnCorresponding author. Tel.: 1 650 723 6836.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.Z. Jacobson),[email protected] (M.A. Delucchi).1Tel.: 1 916 989 5566.0301-4215/ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.040improving energy efficiency. Pacala and Socolow (2004) suggested asimilar portfolio, but expanded it to include reductions in deforestationand conservation tillage and greater use of hydrogen in vehicles.More recently, Fthenakis et al. (2009) analyzed the technical,geographical, and economic feasibility for solar energy to supplythe energy needs of the U.S. and concluded (p. 397) that ‘‘it is clearlyfeasible to replace the present fossil fuel energy infrastructure inthe U.S. with solar power and other renewables, and reduce CO2emissions to a level commensurate with the most aggressiveclimate-change goals’’. Jacobson (2009) evaluated several longterm energy systems according to environmental and othercriteria, and