[music playing] – SO WELCOME TO THE 75th
ANNIVERSARY OF NASA AMES RESEARCH AND THE DIRECTOR’S COLLOQUIUM
SUMMER SERIES. OUR SPECIES IS A SPECIALIST
EVOLVED TO USE OUR ENVIRONMENT IN NOVEL WAYS IN ORDER TO EXPAND
OUR CAPABILITY TO SURVIVE NEW ENVIRONMENTS. OUR SPECIES ALSO OWES
ITS SURVIVAL TO THE ABILITY TO PREDICT DANGERS
AND TO COUNTER THEM. OUR HOME PLANET, AND CURRENTLY
OUR ONLY HOME PLANET, EARTH, IS CHANGING IN A WAY THAT POSES A POTENTIAL DANGER
TO OUR LONG-TERM SURVIVAL. WHETHER IT’S DUE TO NATURAL,
MANMADE, OR A COMBINATION OF CAUSES, WE NEED TO FIND SOLUTIONS. TODAY’S PRESENTATION
IS ENTITLED, “ROADMAPS FOR TRANSITIONING
ALL 50 U.S. STATES TO WIND, WATER,
AND SOLAR POWER.” IT WILL BE PRESENTED
BY DR. MARK JACOBSON. DR. JACOBSON IS A DIRECTOR OF THE ATMOSPHERE
AND ENERGY PROGRAM, AND PROFESSOR OF CIVIL
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY. HE IS ALSO A SENIOR FELLOW OF THE WOODS INSTITUTE
FOR ENVIRONMENT, AND OF THE PRECOURT INSTITUTE
FOR ENERGY. DR. JACOBSON RECEIVED A B.S.
IN CIVIL ENGINEERING, AN A.B. IN ECONOMICS, AND AN M.S. IN ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING FROM STANFORD. HE ALSO RECEIVED
AN M.S. AND PhD IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES
FROM UCLA. DR. JACOBSON IS AN AUTHOR
OF TWO TEXTBOOKS, AND HAS OVER 140 PEER-REVIEWED
ARTICLES. FOR HIS WORK HE HAS RECEIVED
NUMEROUS AWARDS, INCLUDING THE 2005 AMERICAN
METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY HENRY G. HOUGHTON AWARD, AND THE 2013 AMERICAN
GEOPHYSICAL UNION ASCENT AWARD, AND THE GREEN GLOBAL POLICY
DESIGN AWARD. PLEASE JOIN ME IN WELCOMING
DR. MARK JACOBSON. [applause] – THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JACOB,
FOR THAT VERY KIND INTRODUCTION. AND SO I WANT TO TALK TODAY
ABOUT ENERGY PLANS THAT WE’VE BEEN DEVELOPING
AND HOPE TO IMPLEMENT ON CHANGING THE ENERGY
INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE UNITED STATES AND,
ULTIMATELY, THE WHOLE WORLD. AND I’LL START WITH THE–
YOU KNOW, WHAT’S THE PROBLEM? IT’S A MOTIVATION. SO I’LL LOOK
AT THE PROBLEM FIRST, AND THEN GET INTO
THE SOLUTIONS. AND I PROBABLY DON’T HAVE
TO CONVINCE YOU THAT THERE ARE PROBLEMS
THAT SOME AUDIENCES– YOU’D SOMETIMES
HAVE TO CONVINCE THEM. BUT WE LOOK AT IT
FROM AN AIR POLLUTION, A GLOBAL WARMING, AND ENERGY
SECURITY POINT OF VIEW. AND IN THE UNITED STATES, ABOUT 63,000 PEOPLE DIE
EVERY YEAR PREMATURELY FROM AIR POLLUTION, AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS MORE
BECOME ILL DUE TO AIR POLLUTION. AND THIS COSTS THE U.S.
ABOUT 3.2% OF THE G.D.P., UH, LOOKING AT–BASED ON
STATISTICAL COST OF LIFE AND ILLNESS. AND WORLDWIDE, THERE ARE ABOUT
3 TO 7 MILLION PEOPLE DIE PREMATURELY EACH YEAR. AND ALMOST ALL
THIS AIR POLLUTION IS DUE TO FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS
AND BIOFUEL EMISSIONS. AND GLOBAL WARMING, OF COURSE,
IS A GROWING PROBLEM AND ALREADY CAUSING
SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE. AND IN TERMS OF MONETARY COSTS,
IT’S–ONE ESTIMATE, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT
ESTIMATES OUT THERE, IS BY 2050
ABOUT $730 BILLION PER YEAR FROM JUST U.S. EMISSIONS ALONE. AND THESE ARE WORLDWIDE COSTS
OF $730 BILLION. OTHER PROBLEMS
ARE THE FINITE– FOSSIL FUELS
ARE FINITE RESOURCES, AND THEIR COSTS ARE GOING UP
BECAUSE THE FUEL– THERE’S A FUEL COST
THAT KEEPS GROWING. IN COMPARISON,
RENEWABLE ENERGY SUCH AS WIND,
AND SOLAR POWER IN PARTICULAR, OR GEOTHERMAL, HYDROELECTRIC,
THE FUEL COST IS ZERO. SO YOU CAN EXPECT YOU MIGHT BE
ABLE TO STABILIZE ENERGY PRICES BY GOING TO THOSE FUELS. JOBS IS ANOTHER ISSUE. AND AS WE’LL SEE, WITH THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY WE’RE ACTUALLY CAUSING
JOB STAGNATION BECAUSE THERE’S ACTUALLY FEWER
JOBS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT THAN IN BURGEONING
WIND/WATER/SOLAR INDUSTRY. SO I’LL GIVE YOU NUMBERS
ON THAT. SO THESE ARE ALL
DRASTIC PROBLEMS, BECAUSE YOU CAN IMAGINE
IF PRICES GO UP OVER TIME OF FUELS,
THEN THAT WOULD EVENTUALLY, AS IF THE PRICES
GET BEYOND A CERTAIN LEVEL, THEN YOU CAN GET NOT ONLY
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL INSTABILITY, BUT ALSO POLITICAL INSTABILITY
AND POSSIBLY CIVIL WAR. SO THESE ARE ALL
DRASTIC PROBLEMS THAT REQUIRE
DRASTIC SOLUTIONS. AND THE SOLUTIONS THAT I’M GOING
TO TALK ABOUT ARE WIND/WATER/SOLAR
SOLUTIONS. THESE WILL ALL ELIMINATE
AIR POLLUTION DEATH, ELIMINATE ALMOST ALL
GLOBAL WARMING, AND PROVIDE JOB AND ENERGY
SECURITY AND PRICE SECURITY. SO LET’S JUST LOOK A LITTLE BIT
MORE AT THE PROBLEMS. IN THE UNITED STATES,
WE LOOK AROUND AND WE SEE, WELL, IT DOESN’T LOOK
THAT DIRTY. YOU KNOW, HOW DO PEOPLE DIE
FROM AIR POLLUTION? WELL, YOU CAN ACTUALLY
JUST LOOK AT ALL– TAKE MEASUREMENTS
OF THE POLLUTION LEVELS AT ALL THE MONITORING STATIONS
IN THE U.S. AND LOOK AT EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA
THAT HAS BEEN GATHERED FOR THE LAST
40 YEARS OR SO. AND APPLY DOSE-RESPONSE
RELATIONSHIPS, AND LOOK AT THE POPULATIONS
THAT ARE EXPOSED TO THE CONCENTRATIONS. THIS IS WHERE YOU’LL GET
ABOUT 60,000 DEATHS PER YEAR IN THE U.S. BUT IN PLACES LIKE CHINA, THERE ARE ABOUT
A MILLION DEATHS ALONE PREMATURELY EACH YEAR. IN BEIJING–THIS IS A PHOTO
OF BEIJING, CHINA. AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE– REALLY SEE AND VISUALIZE
THE POLLUTION. IT’S LIKE SMOKING TWO TO THREE
PACKS OF CIGARETTES PER DAY. AND IF YOU THINK
THAT’S UNUSUAL, IN LOS ANGELES IN THE 1970s, IT WAS EQUIVALENT TO SMOKING
TWO PACKS OF CIGARETTES A DAY. AND THESE ARE THE LUNGS
OF A TEENAGE NON-SMOKER WHO DIED IN A CAR CRASH, LIVING IN LOS ANGELES
IN THE 1970s. SO, YOU KNOW, GENERALLY EVEN
TODAY IN THE UNITED STATES, A PERSON WHO LIVES IN
A BIG CITY LOSES ABOUT SIX TO EIGHT MONTHS
OF THEIR LIFE PREMATURELY ON AVERAGE DUE TO PART OF– MOSTLY PARTICULATE MATTER,
BUT ALSO OZONE AND CARCINOGENS. SO POLLUTION IS STILL
A MAJOR PROBLEM. IN TERMS OF CLIMATE, THIS–THIS GRAPH SHOWS
THE TEMPERATURE CHANGE IN RECENT YEARS
COMPARED TO 1900. AND BETWEEN–WELL, COMPARED
TO 1900 TO 1920 AVERAGE. AND THE DATA AREN’T GREAT,
BUT WHAT IT DOES INDICATE: ABOUT A 0.9-DEGREE WARMING. THAT’S 0.9 DEGREES CELSIUS
WARMING OF THE CLIMATE. AND MOST OF THE WARMING
IS IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE, AND PARTICULARLY
OVER THE ARCTIC. SO THE ARCTIC SEA ICE
IS DISAPPEARING RAPIDLY AS A RESULT OF THESE HIGHER
TEMPERATURES. AND IF IT MELTS ENTIRELY, YOU CAN EXPECT
POSITIVE FEEDBACK AS YOU UNCOVER
THE DARK OCEAN BELOW. NOW, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS
WITH– IT’S NOT ONLY CO2 AND OTHER
GREENHOUSE GASES THAT ARE CAUSING MELTING
OF THE ARCTIC. IT’S ALSO THINGS
LIKE BLACK CARBON, WHICH IS A MAIN COMPONENT
OF SOOT, WHICH IS EMITTED
FROM DIESEL EXHAUST, JET AIRCRAFT,
KEROSENE BURNING, AND BIOFUEL
AND BIOMASS BURNING. AND THE DARKENING OF SNOW
AND SEA ICE INCREASES ITS MELT RATE. IN FACT, BLACK CARBON, NOT ONLY
DUE TO ITS DARKENING OF SNOW BUT ITS IMPACT–
BECAUSE IN THE AIR, BLACK CARBON IS A MILLION TIMES
MORE POWERFUL PER UNIT MASS AT WARMING THE AIR
THAN CARBON DIOXIDE, BUT HAS A MUCH SHORTER
LIFETIME. BUT IT NOT ONLY
MELTS THE ARCTIC, IT WARMS THE AIR DIRECTLY,
BUT IT ALSO EVAPORATES CLOUDS. SO YOU CAN GET, IN REGIONS
OF CHINA, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU DON’T HAVE
REAL CLOUDS ANYMORE JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE SO MUCH
BLACK CARBON THAT EVAPORATES THE CLOUDS, CAUSING THEM TO BECOME
MORE HAZY. AND MORE SOLAR RADIATION
THAT REACHES THE SURFACE, WARMING THE SURFACE FASTER
IN A POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP. WELL, THIS BLACK CARBON,
I MEAN, ONE OF THE MAIN EMITTERS OR ONE OF THE GROWING EMITTERS
IS, FOR EXAMPLE, NATURAL GAS,
BURNING FLARING. AND SO YOU HAVE ALL THESE FLARES
PUTTING OUT BLACK CARBON, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE
A LOT OF DIESEL EXHAUST. SO ENERGY–WE’LL GET INTO KIND
OF THE ENERGY SOLUTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED
THAT AREN’T SO GREAT. BUT–SO NATURAL GAS
CAN BE ONE OF THEM. IN TERMS OF CLIMATE, GLOBAL TEMPERATURES
ARE RISING FAST. AS I MENTIONED WHEN WE SAW
THE ANOMALIES ABOUT .9 DEGREES SINCE THE EARLY 1900s, THIS JUST SHOWS
AN AVERAGE TREND INDICATING THE SAME THING, BUT KIND OF SHOWING HOW,
IN MORE RECENT YEARS, IN THE LAST 30, 40 YEARS, THERE’S BEEN AN ACCELERATION
OF WARMING. IT’S NOT THAT
WE HAVEN’T HAD– IN THE PAST, PEOPLE WHO DENIED
GLOBAL WARMING HAVE SAID, “WELL, TEMPERATURES
HAVE BEEN WARMER IN THE PAST.” AND THAT’S TRUE. 100 MILLION YEARS AGO
THE EARTH WAS ICE-FREE. BUT, OF COURSE,
NOBODY LIVED BACK THEN. SO IT DIDN’T CAUSE, YOU KNOW,
ALL THE MELTING OF THE ICE WHICH, TODAY, IF YOU MELTED
ALL THE ICE WORLDWIDE, YOU’D HAVE 70 METERS MORE
OF SEA LEVEL, HIGHER SEA LEVEL. AND THAT WOULD COVER 7%
OF THE WORLD’S LAND. AND MOST PEOPLE LIVE
ALONG THE COAST. SO THE PROBLEM IS
WE HAVE WARMING IN THE PRESENCE OF 7 BILLION
PEOPLE ON EARTH. AND THIS IS
A GREAT PROBLEM, BECAUSE IT WOULD CAUSE
NOT ONLY LARGE POPULATION SHIFTS DUE TO COVERING
OF THE COASTLINES, BUT ALSO LOTS OF HEAT STRESS
AND HEAT STROKE, CHANGE IN AGRICULTURE,
ACIDIFICATION OF THE OCEANS, INCREASED AIR POLLUTION, INCREASED SEVERE STORMINESS,
ET CETERA. SO ALL THESE PROBLEMS
ASSOCIATED WITH GLOBAL WARMING HAVE COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH IT. NOW IF WE LOOK AT NET OBSERVED
GLOBAL WARMING WHICH, AS I MENTIONED,
IS ON THE ORDER OF– WELL, IT’S ON THE ORDER
OF .9 DEGREES, OR .8, DEPENDING ON WHICH DATA
YOU LOOK AT, THAT’S THIS RIGHT BAR,
IS A NET OBSERVED WARMING. THAT’S REALLY A COMBINATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS WARMING
ON THE LEFT, WHICH IS OVER
2 DEGREES CELSIUS, AND FOSSIL FUEL,
BIOFUEL SOOT WARMING, WHICH IS ON THE ORDER
OF HALF A DEGREE CELSIUS, AND A LITTLE BIT
OF URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT. BUT MINUS COOLING
DUE TO AIR POLLUTION PARTICLES THAT ARE REFLECTIVE,
SUCH AS SULFATES AND NITRATES AND CERTAIN ORGANIC MATTER, AND ASSOCIATED WATER
AND AMMONIA. AND THESE COOLING PARTICLES OFFSET ABOUT HALF
OF THE GLOBAL WARMING. SO THAT’S WHY YOU HAVE A SMALLER
NET OBSERVED GLOBAL WARMING THAN THE GREENHOUSE GASES CAUSE. BUT YOU CAN IMMEDIATELY SEE
SOME MAJOR PROBLEMS HERE. IF YOU–IF WE JUST CLEAN UP
AIR POLLUTION PARTICLES, WE’LL CLEAN OUT THE FOSSIL FUEL
AND BIOFUEL SOOT PARTICLES, PLUS THE COOLING PARTICLES. AND ALL OF A SUDDEN
WE WOULD DOUBLE THE GLOBAL WARMING
THAT’S OCCURRING. SO THE WARMING
THAT’S IN THE SYSTEM, HALF THE WARMING IS BEING MASKED
BY POLLUTION THAT’S CAUSING 3-7 MILLION
DEATHS PER YEAR. BUT WE WANT TO CLEAN UP
THAT POLLUTION TO PREVENT THESE DEATHS. BUT DOING SO WOULD UNCOVER
ALL THIS WARMING IN THE SYSTEM AND CAUSE RAPID ACCELERATION OF
THE TEMPERATURES OF THE CLIMATE. NOW, THE OTHER POSSIBLE
SOLUTION– SO ONE SOLUTION–
WELL, ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION IS JUST TO FOCUS
ON THE SOOT PARTICLES, BECAUSE THE GREENHOUSES GASES
LAST SO LONG THAT EVEN IF WE ELIMINATE
THEIR EMISSIONS TODAY, WE WOULDN’T, FOR EXAMPLE, SLOW THE MELTING
OF THE ARCTIC ICE, WHICH WILL DISAPPEAR
WITHIN 10 TO 30 YEARS. BUT IF WE REDUCE THE FOSSIL FUEL
SOOT EMISSIONS, THEN–WHICH HAVE
A SHORT LIFETIME, WE CAN ACTUALLY REDUCE
BOTH POLLUTION PARTICLES THAT CAUSE HEALTH PROBLEMS,
AND WE CAN REDUCE WARMING. SO THAT’S ONE STRATEGY. HOWEVER, IT DOESN’T ADDRESS THE
LONG-TERM HEALTH OF THE PLANET OR MOST OF THE POLLUTION
PARTICLES THAT CAUSE HEALTH PROBLEMS. SO THE OTHER SOLUTION IS JUST
TO ELIMINATE ALL THE POLLUTION: ALL THE GREENHOUSE GASES, ALL THE FOSSIL FUEL
AND BIOFUEL SOOT, AND ALL THE COOLING PARTICLES
SIMULTANEOUSLY. AND THAT’S THE SOLUTION
WE’RE GOING TO FOCUS ON TODAY. SO HOW DO WE DO THAT? WELL, WE– A FEW YEARS AGO
WE DID THIS STUDY LOOKING AT, WELL, WHAT ARE THE–
POTENTIALLY THE BEST SOLUTIONS TO GLOBAL WARMING, AIR POLLUTION
AND ENERGY SECURITY? JUST IN TERMS OF CLEANING UP
THE PROBLEM, NOT IN TERMS OF THE COSTS. AND WHAT CAME OUT OF THIS
WAS A RANKING IN TERMS OF– WELL, WE LOOKED AT A LOT
OF DIFFERENT IMPACTS ON THE POLLUTION,
ON GLOBAL CLIMATE, ON LAND USE,
ON WATER SUPPLY, ON CATASTROPHIC RISK,
ON RELIABILITY. AND SOME OTHER FACTORS. AND THE TECHNOLOGIES
THAT CAME OUT ON TOP IN TERMS OF ELECTRIC POWER
WERE WIND POWER, SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAICS
AND CONCENTRATED SOLAR POWER, GEOTHERMAL POWER,
HYDRO POWER, HYDROELECTRIC POWER
TO THE EXTENT IT EXISTS, AND SOME TIDAL AND WAVE POWER. IN TERMS OF TRANSPORTATION,
IT WAS BATTERY-ELECTRIC VEHICLES BEING WHERE THE ELECTRICITY
WAS COMING FROM. THESE, WHAT WE CALL WIND,
WATER AND SOLAR, OR “W.W.S.” ELECTRICITY OPTIONS. AND HYDROGEN FUEL CELL VEHICLES, WHERE THE HYDROGEN
ALSO CAME FROM ELECTROLYSIS BY WHERE THE ELECTRICITY
CAME FROM IN THE WIND/WATER/SOLAR OPTIONS. AND FOR AIRCRAFT,
POSSIBLY CRYOGENIC HYDROGEN, WHICH WAS USED
IN THE SPACE SHUTTLE TO PROPEL IT INTO SPACE. ALTHOUGH THAT WOULD
PROBABLY BE THE LAST THINGS
THAT HAS CHANGED. FOR HEATING AND COOLING,
WE’D USE THESE ELECTRICITY– CLEAN ELECTRICITY OPTIONS
TO RUN AIR SOURCE, GROUND SOURCE AND WATER SOURCE
HEAT PUMPS, NOT ONLY FOR AIR HEATING
AND AIR CONDITIONING, BECAUSE THEY CAN BE RUN IN
REVERSE FOR AIR CONDITIONING, BUT ALSO FOR WATER HEATING. AND YOU CAN HAVE SOLAR WATER
PRE-HEATERS. SOME ELECTRIC RESISTANCE
HEATING, BUT THAT’S LESS EFFICIENT
THAN HEAT PUMPS. FOR INDUSTRY, WHERE YOU NEED
HIGH-TEMPERATURE PROCESSES, YOU CAN HAVE THE ELECTRIC
RESISTANCE OR HYDROGEN COMBUSTION, WHERE THE HYDROGEN’S PRODUCED
FROM CLEAN ELECTRICITY. SO THESE ARE ALL
THE OPTIONS THAT WE ARE GOING
TO BE LOOKING AT, AND THE NUMBERS
I’LL PRESENT LATER. BUT YOU MIGHT ASK,
“WELL, WHY DON’T WE INCLUDE THINGS LIKE BIOFUELS, OR NUCLEAR
POWER, OR NATURAL GAS?” AND SO WHAT WAS NOT RECOMMENDED
IN THIS ANALYSIS WAS NUCLEAR POWER, OR COAL WITH CARBON CAPTURE
AND SEQUESTRATION, NATURAL GAS OR BIOMASS
FOR ELECTRICITY, OR FOR VEHICLES,
LIQUID BIOFUELS SUCH AS CORN OR CELLULOSIC,
OR SUGARCANE ETHANOL, OR SOY OR ALGAE BIODIESEL,
OR COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS. AND SO YOU MIGHT ASK, WHY? WELL, WHY NOT NATURAL GAS? IN TERMS OF–WELL, FIRST OF ALL,
WE THINK OF EVERYTHING IN TERMS OF OPPORTUNITY COST. YOU KNOW, WE’RE NOT GOING TO BE
COMPARING NATURAL GAS AND COAL. WE COULD DO THAT.
BUT IT’S REALLY– WE’RE COMPARING NATURAL GAS
VERSUS WIND OR SOLAR. SO IF WE COMPARE IT TO WIND,
FOR EXAMPLE, NATURAL GAS PUTS OUT 50 TO 70
TIMES MORE CARBON DIOXIDE, EQUIVALENT EMISSIONS
AND AIR POLLUTANTS PER KILOWATT HOUR OF ELECTRICITY
GENERATED THAN WIND DOES. AND NOT ONLY THAT, IT’S PUTTING
OUT A LOT OF THE BLACK CARBON FROM FLARING AND METHANE
FROM LEAKAGE THAT HAS– THE METHANE HAS A RELATIVELY
SHORTER LIFETIME THAN CARBON DIOXIDE ON THE ORDER
OF EIGHT TO 12 YEARS. BUT IT’S ONE OF THOSE TWO:
BLACK CARBON AND METHANE ARE– IF YOU WANT TO CONTROL
THE ARCTIC SEA ICE LOSS, THOSE ARE REALLY THE ONLY
TWO WAYS YOU CAN CONTROL IT: ELIMINATING BLACK CARBON,
ELIMINATING METHANE. BUT NATURAL GAS ACTUALLY
CONTRIBUTES TO BOTH. DUE TO–IN THE CASE
OF NATURAL GAS, THERE’S A LEAKAGE RATE. IF IT’S CONVENTIONAL GAS, IT’S ON THE ORDER OF 1 TO 2%
OF ALL GASES LEAKED. BUT IF IT’S NON-CONVENTIONAL,
SUCH AS FROM HYDROFRACKING, YOU GET LEAKAGE RATES
THAT ARE ANYWHERE UP TO– THERE ARE SOME STUDIES
THAT GO UP TO 9%, BUT MORE LIKELY
4-6% LEAKAGE. NATURAL GAS MINING TRANSPORT
AND USE CAUSES ABOUT 5,000 PREMATURE
DEATHS PER YEAR IN THE U.S. AND THAT’S FROM THE COMBUSTION
PRODUCTS OF, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE,
WHEN YOU’RE MINING YOU PUT OUT–YOU USE A LOT
OF FOSSIL FUELS TO GET THE GAS OUT. AND SO THERE’S A HEALTH PROBLEM
ASSOCIATED WITH, THERE’S EMISSIONS. AND THEN THERE’S WATER SUPPLY
AND LAND USE, AS YOU CAN SEE
FROM THE PHOTOGRAPH THERE. I MEAN, THERE ARE TENS
OF THOUSANDS OF WELLS ALONE FOR HYDROFRACK GAS
IN PENNSYLVANIA. AND ABOUT 5%
OF ALL FRACKED WELLS, THE CEMENT CASINGS LEAK
IMMEDIATELY. AND ABOUT 50% LEAK OVER
THE LIFETIMES OF THE WELL. SO YOU CAN IMAGINE HAVING TENS
OF THOUSANDS OF WELLS IN EACH STATE. LIKE IN PENNSYLVANIA,
AS I MENTIONED, LIKE 70,000. AND HALF OF THOSE WELLS
ARE GOING TO LEAK OVER THEIR LIFETIME,
JUST THE CEMENT CASINGS ALONE. ANY CASE,
THIS IS A PROBLEM, AND IT’S NOT
A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE. WHY NOT WHAT’S CALLED
CLEAN COAL, OR COAL WITH CARBON CAPTURE. WELL, THAT’S WHERE YOU TAKE
THE CO2 EMISSIONS FROM THE EXHAUST STREAM
OF THE COAL FIRE POWER PLANT AND YOU PUMP IT UNDERGROUND. AND THAT WOULD REDUCE 85
TO 90% OF THE CO2 EMISSIONS FROM THE STACK. HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT REDUCE
ANY OF THE EMISSIONS OF CO2 FROM THE UPSTREAM MINING
AND TRANSPORT OF THE COAL, WHICH IS ABOUT A THIRD
OF THE EMISSIONS. IN FACT,
IT INCREASES THAT 25%, BECAUSE IT TAKES
25% MORE ENERGY. THAT’S 25% MORE COAL TO RUN
THE CARBON CAPTURE EQUIPMENT. AND IT ALSO DOES NOT–
THE CARBON CAPTURE EQUIPMENT DOES NOT REDUCE ANY OF THE OTHER
POLLUTANTS FROM COAL. IN FACT, IT HAS
TO INCREASE IT 25%. SO YOU END UP GETTING ABOUT
150 TIMES MORE AIR POLLUTION PER KILOWATT HOUR THAN WIND. AND SO IT SHOULD REALLY
BE CALLED DIRTY COAL RATHER THAN CLEAN COAL. NOW, WHY NOT WHAT’S CALLED
NUCLEAR POWER? SO NUCLEAR–WELL, IT SEEMS CLEAN
BECAUSE YOU DON’T HAVE DIRECT EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED
WITH ITS USE. HOWEVER, YOU NEED TO MINE
AND REFINE URANIUM CONTINUOUSLY OVER THE LIFETIME OF THE NUCLEAR
POWER PLANT. AND THAT’S AN ENERGY-INTENSIVE
PROCESS. AND THEN IT ALSO TAKES SO LONG
TO PUT UP A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. BETWEEN 10 AND 19 YEARS
IN THE U.S. AND THAT’S BROKEN DOWN INTO
SIX TO TEN YEARS FOR PERMITTING, AND ANOTHER FOUR TO NINE YEARS
FOR CONSTRUCTION. AND THIS IS ALL COMPARED
TO ABOUT TWO TO FIVE YEARS TOTAL FOR A WIND OR SOLAR FARM. SO WHILE YOU’RE WAITING AROUND FOR YOUR NUCLEAR PLANT
TO BE PUT UP YOU’RE RUNNING REGULAR
ELECTRIC POWER GRID, WHICH IS MOSTLY COAL AND GAS. AND SO THAT’S AN OPPORTUNITY
COST EMISSIONS. WHEN YOU COMBINE THAT
WITH THE ENERGY REQUIRED AND EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MINING
AND REFINING OF URANIUM, PLUS THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE PLANT, WHICH IS NOT A GREAT
PART OF IT, YOU GOT ABOUT 9 TO 25 TIMES MORE
CO2 EQUIVALENT EMISSIONS PER KILOWATT HOUR GENERATED
THAN WIND POWER. WELL, THERE’S ALSO,
OF COURSE, THE RISK OF MELTDOWN. 1 1/2% OF ALL NUCLEAR REACTORS
EVER BUILT TO DATE HAVE MELTED DOWN
TO SOME DEGREE. AND FIVE COUNTRIES
OF THE WORLD HAVE SECRETLY DEVELOPED
NUCLEAR WEAPONS UNDER THE GUISE OF CIVILIAN
NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS. SO IF YOU WANTED TO POWER
THE ENTIRE WORLD WITH NUCLEAR, YOU’D NEED ABOUT 16, 17,000
LARGE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. AND WE HAVE ABOUT 440 TODAY. SO EVEN IF WE DOUBLED THE NUMBER
TODAY TO 800 OR SO, THAT’D BE ABOUT 5%
OF THE WORLD’S ENERGY. AND MORE COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD
WOULD POSSIBLY TRY TO DEVELOP WEAPONS SECRETLY. SO THERE’S A RISK
OF PROLIFERATION, WHICH YOU HAVE NO SUCH RISK WITH
WIND/WATER/SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES. OF COURSE, THERE’S THE
UNRESOLVED WASTE ISSUES. WELL, WHAT ABOUT BIOFUELS? WELL, CELLULOSIC ETHANOL
AND CORN ETHANOL ARE EXAMPLES OF BIOFUELS
THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED TO BE USED
ON LARGE SCALES. NOW FOR TRANSPORTATION. BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA
HOW MUCH LAND AREA TAKES ALONE, LET ALONE ALL THE OTHER ISSUES, IF YOU WANTED TO POWER
ALL THE U.S. VEHICLES WITH CELLULOSIC ETHANOL, WHICH IS A SECOND GENERATION
ETHANOL– WHICH, BY THE WAY,
DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST AT ANY COMMERCIAL SCALE, ALTHOUGH IT’S BEEN PROPOSED
SINCE 1980. THIS IS THE LAND AREA
IT WOULD TAKE, WHICH IS ON THE ORDER
OF 20% OF THE ENTIRE U.S., INCLUDING ALASKA. AND NOW THERE’S A LOW ESTIMATE
AND A HIGH ESTIMATE HERE: THE LOW ESTIMATES
FROM THE ETHANOL INDUSTRY AND THE HIGH ESTIMATES
FROM SOME SCIENCE STUDIES. BUT THIS IS AN AVERAGE
OF THE TWO. ANYWAY, SO IT’S A LARGE
LAND AREA. BUT IF YOU BURN THE ETHANOL,
YOU STILL GET THE SAME POLLUTION AS YOU DO WITH GASOLINE. IN FACT, IN TERMS OF OZONE,
IT’S SLIGHTLY WORSE IN THE U.S. IT DOESN’T MATTER WHERE
THE ETHANOL COMES FROM. SO YOU ACTUALLY CAUSE ABOUT 4%
HIGHER DEATH RATES IN THE U.S. FROM OZONE BY USING ETHANOL
OF ANY TYPE THAN GASOLINE. SO IT’S NOT HELPING IN TERMS
OF AIR POLLUTION. AND THE CLIMATE BENEFIT
IS KIND OF MARGINAL, BECAUSE– DEPENDING ON WHETHER OR NOT
YOU COUNT FOR LAND USE CHANGE. NOW, IN TERMS OF CORN ETHANOL, THERE’S A LITTLE MORE
UNCERTAINTY. AND IT’S ABOUT
14% OF THE U.S. TO POWER THE ENTIRE U.S.
VEHICLE FLEET. SO IT’S STILL A LARGE AREA. AND YOU’D REQUIRE ABOUT 13%
OF THE U.S. WATER SUPPLY TO DO THE SAME THING, AND YOU
HAVE THE AIR POLLUTION ISSUES. AND PROBABLY THE CLIMATE BENEFIT
IS VIRTUALLY ZERO. IT’S MAYBE 2-5%, DEPENDING ON
WHOSE STUDY YOU LOOK AT. IF YOU–NOW, NUCLEAR POWER, IT WOULD TAKE ABOUT THE SIZE
OF RHODE ISLAND TO POWER THE SAME
VEHICLE FLEET. SO THAT’S NOT ONE
OF ITS PROBLEMS, UNLESS WE WANT TO SACRIFICE
RHODE ISLAND. BUT IF WE LOOK
AT OTHER OPTIONS… SO WIND, TO POWER THE WHOLE
U.S. VEHICLE FLEET, WOULD TAKE–THERE’S TWO TYPES
OF AREAS. THERE’S THE FOOTPRINT,
WHICH IS THE LAND ON THE GROUND THAT’S TAKEN UP
BY THE TURBINE TOWER AND THE CEMENT CASING
AROUND IT. SO THAT’S REFERRED TO
AS THE FOOTPRINT. AND THEN THERE’S THE SPACING, WHICH IS SPACE YOU NEED
BETWEEN TURBINES TO PREVENT INTERFERENCE
OF ONE TURBINE WITH THE NEXT. SO THE BLACK ON HERE
IS THE SPACING, AND THE RED DOT IN THE CENTER
IS THE FOOTPRINT. SO IT WOULD REQUIRE– THE SPACING AREA’S ABOUT 1/30
THAT OF CORN ETHANOL TO POWER THE SAME
VEHICLE FLEET. AND THE FOOTPRINT AREA’S
ABOUT ONE-MILLIONTH. IT’S ONLY 1-3 SQUARE KILOMETERS
OF LAND ON THE GROUND TO POWER THE ENTIRE
U.S. VEHICLE FLEET WITH WIND. AND THAT WOULD BE WITH ABOUT
73,000 TO 144,000 FIVE-MEGAWATT WIND TURBINES
OPERATING IN WIND SPEEDS OF 7-8.5 METERS PER SECOND. WHICH, THOSE WIND SPEEDS YOU CAN
FIND OVER ABOUT 13% OF THE U.S. SO YOU NEED ONLY ONE-HALF
OF 1% OF THE U.S. LAND AREA FOR SPACING OF WIND TURBINES
WHERE– TO POWER THE VEHICLE FLEET. AND YOU HAVE ABOUT 13%. SO YOU HAVE 26 TIMES MORE AREA
THAN YOU NEED FOR–TO DO THAT. NOW, A LOT OF THIS
COULD ALSO GO OFFSHORE, WHERE YOU HAVE EVEN MORE WIND
AND MORE SPACE. NOW, IN TERMS
OF OTHER SOLAR P.V. TO POWER BATTERY-ELECTRIC
VEHICLES WOULD TAKE ONE-THIRD THE SPACING
AREA OF WIND, BUT IF IT’S NOT ON ROOFTOPS– AND YOU CAN’T PUT IT ALL
ON ROOFTOPS, AS I’LL SHOW LATER. –THEN YOU WOULD BE… IT’S MORE FOOTPRINT,
BUT LESS SPACING. AND GEOTHERMAL WOULD TAKE EVEN
LESS SPACING AREA THAN WIND, BUT STILL MORE FOOTPRINT. BUT WE’RE GOING TO BE LOOKING
AT WIND AND GEOTHERMAL AND SOLAR AS POSSIBLE OPTIONS, SO THEY ALL TAKE RELATIVELY
LITTLE SPACE TO DO THIS, TO RUN THE VEHICLE FLEET. BUT WE’RE GOING
TO BE LOOKING NOW AT POWERING THE ENTIRE U.S.
FOR ALL PURPOSES. SO LET’S GIVE
SOME OVERALL NUMBERS, WORLDWIDE AND IN THE U.S. SO IN 2010, THE END-USE POWER
DEMAND WORLDWIDE IN TERAWATTS,
OR A TRILLION WATTS. THIS IS END USES,
INCLUDING ELECTRICITY, TRANSPORTATION, HEATING
AND COOLING, AND INDUSTRY, AND WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY USE
TO RUN THINGS. IT’S ABOUT 13 TERAWATTS. IF YOU GO TO 2050, THE PROJECTION IS ABOUT
21.6 TERAWATTS. BUT IF YOU CONVERT EVERYTHING
TO WIND/WATER/SOLAR, AND ELECTRICITY
AND ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN, YOU GO DOWN ABOUT 30%
OF YOUR POWER DEMAND. AND ONLY ABOUT 5 PERCENTAGE
POINTS OF THIS 30% IS DUE TO END-USE
ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS. THE 25% IS DUE TO THE EFFICIENCY
OF ELECTRICITY OVER COMBUSTION. AND YOU CAN TELL ABOUT THIS
ELECTRICITY EFFICIENCY BY WHEN YOU LOOK AT CONVERTING
TRANSPORTATION. SO THE PLUG-TO-WHEEL EFFICIENCY
OF AN ELECTRIC CAR IS ABOUT 80 TO 86%. IN OTHER WORDS, 80 TO 86% OF
THE ELECTRICITY GOING INTO A CAR GOES TO MOVE THE CAR. THE REST IS WASTE HEAT. AND IN AN INTERNAL
COMBUSTION ENGINE, THE TANK-TO-WHEEL EFFICIENCY
IS ABOUT 17-20%. SO ABOUT 80-83%
OF THE ENERGY IN THE GASOLINE IS WASTED AS HEAT,
AND 17-20% GOES TO MOVE THE CAR. SO YOU USE ONE-FOURTH
TO ONE-FIFTH THE ENERGY DRIVING AN ELECTRIC CAR
THE SAME DISTANCE AS DRIVING A GASOLINE CAR. SO IT COSTS ABOUT ONE-FOURTH
TO ONE-FIFTH TO DRIVE THE ELECTRIC CAR
IN TERMS OF THE FUEL. SO IN OTHER WORDS, IT’S ABOUT
80 CENTS A GALLON EQUIVALENT FOR DRIVING AN ELECTRIC CAR COMPARED TO $4 A GALLON
FOR A GASOLINE CAR. SO IF YOU DROVE
AN ELECTRIC CAR FOR 15 YEARS, 15,000 MILES PER YEAR, YOU WOULD SAVE ABOUT $20,000
IN FUEL COSTS. AND THAT’S BECAUSE
OF THE EFFICIENCY. SO TRANSPORTATION’S
ONE SECTOR WHERE YOU GET
MOST OF THE EFFICIENCY. SO THAT’S WHY, JUST BY
CONVERTING TO ELECTRICITY, YOU REDUCE YOUR ENERGY USE. AND IN THE U.S., BECAUSE THERE’S
MORE TRANSPORTATION IN THE WORLD AS A WHOLE, YOU GO DOWN 40–SORRY, 37.6%
IN YOUR ENERGY DEMAND. AND ABOUT 5 PERCENTAGE POINTS
OF THAT IS, AGAIN, END-USE EFFICIENCY. IN CALIFORNIA, BECAUSE THERE’S MORE
TRANSPORTATION IN CALIFORNIA THAN EVEN IN THE U.S., THAT’S ABOUT 44% REDUCTION
IN POWER DEMAND JUST BY GOING
TO ELECTRICITY. SO HERE’S ONE WAY
TO POWER THE WORLD WITH THESE WIND/WATER/SOLAR
TECHNOLOGIES. THIS IS FOR 2030. THIS WOULD BE 50% WIND,
40% SOLAR. AND THE SOLAR WOULD BE DIVIDED
INTO A ROOFTOP SYSTEM: 6%. P.V. POWER PLANTS:
ABOUT 14%. AND C.S.P. POWER PLANTS:
ABOUT 20%. ALTHOUGH THEY PROBABLY REVISED
THOSE DISTRIBUTIONS NOW. AND ABOUT 10% FOR EVERYTHING
ELSE, INCLUDING 4% HYDRO, 4% GEOTHERMAL,
1% WAVE AND TIDAL. AND SO THE WIND
WOULD BE ABOUT 3.8 MILLION FIVE-MEGAWATT
WIND TURBINES. SOUNDS LIKE A LOT,
BUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS TO POWER HALF THE WORLD
FOR ALL PURPOSES. THAT’S EVERYTHING IN 2030. AND, YOU KNOW,
THE U.S. IN WORLD WAR II PRODUCED ABOUT 330,000 AIRCRAFT
EACH YEAR, AND THE WORLD PRODUCED– SORRY, 330,000 AIRCRAFT
DURING THE WHOLE WAR. AND THE WORLD PRODUCED
ABOUT 800,000. AND EVERY YEAR,
THE WORLD PRODUCES ABOUT 70 MILLION
AUTOMOBILES. SO JUST PRODUCING 4 MILLION
WIND TURBINES TO POWER HALF THE WORLD
SHOULD NOT BE A GREAT FEAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE’S A LOT OF
POLITICS GOING INTO PLAY HERE. SO LET’S LOOK AT IT
A LITTLE MORE CLOSELY. WHAT ABOUT THE U.S.? TO POWER THE ENTIRE
UNITED STATES FOR ALL PURPOSES– AND THIS IS BASED ON
WE ACTUALLY DID PLANS FOR EVERY SINGLE STATE
INDIVIDUALLY, AND THIS IS THE SUM–
SUM RESULT. AND I’LL SHOW YOU A MAP
OF THE RESULTS. UH, WE WOULD– THIS IS ONE WAY TO DO IT, AND YOU CAN DO IT
IN OTHER WAYS TOO. THIS WOULD BE 31% ONSHORE WIND,
19% OFFSHORE WIND. AND THEN RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP
SYSTEM, ALMOST 5%. COMMERCIAL GOVERNMENT
P.V. ROOFTOP SYSTEMS, ABOUT 4%. SO IN THE ORDER OF 8 1/2%
ROOFTOP SOLAR. NOW, WE ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH
EVERY STATE AND CALCULATED THE ROOFTOP AREAS
IN EVERY STATE. AND INCLUDING THE PARKING
STRUCTURE, POTENTIAL AREAS, AND THEN PROJECTED TO 2050
TO GET THESE NUMBERS. SO THIS IS ABOUT–THIS IS
SATURATING ALL THE ROOFS. SO YOU COULD POWER
FOR THE WHOLE–ALL PURPOSES U.S. IN 2050 WITH PROBABLY NO
MORE THAN 8 1/2 OR 9%. YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO SQUEEZE
UP TO 10% ROOFTOP SOLAR. SO WE WANT TO DO AS MUCH
AS POSSIBLE. IF WE CAN DO MORE,
THAT’S GREAT. BUT YOU’RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE
TO DISTRIBUTE IT. ENERGY CAN ONLY GO
SO FAR. YOU WILL NEED POWER PLANTS
AS WELL. SO THAT’S WHY WE HAVE POWER
PLANT P.V.’S, LIKE IN DESERTS, AND CONCENTRATED SOLAR POWER
IN DESERTS. SO ABOUT 29.6% OF THE PLANT HERE
ACROSS STATES IS SOLAR P.V. PLANTS. ANOTHER 8% IS C.S.P.,
OR CONCENTRATED SOLAR PLANTS. AND THEN GEOTHERMAL’S
ABOUT 1.3%. THIS IS ACCOUNTING FOR POTENTIAL
GROWTH OF GEOTHERMAL. AND HYDRO IS ABOUT 2.5%. NOW, THIS IS NOT JUST
ELECTRICITY. AGAIN, THIS IS ALL POWER. RIGHT NOW HYDRO POWERS ABOUT
6 1/2% OF ALL U.S. ELECTRICITY. BUT ELECTRICITY IS ONLY
ABOUT ONE-FIFTH OF TOTAL ENERGY. SO IT’S ONLY PRODUCING ABOUT
1%, 1 1/2% OF TOTAL ENERGY. AND SO WE’D BE DOUBLING,
BASICALLY, THE HYDRO WITHOUT ACTUALLY INCREASING
ANY PLANTS. THIS PLAN HAS VIRTUALLY
NO INCREASE IN THE NUMBER
OF HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS, EXCEPT FOR IN ALASKA,
WHERE THERE’S– THOSE FOUR PLANTS LISTED THERE
WOULD ALL BE IN ALASKA, BECAUSE WE’RE JUST PLANNING
TO HAVE THE EXISTING HYDRO, BUT INCREASE
THE EFFICIENCY, POSSIBLY TAKING SOME NON-POWER
DAMS AND MAKING THEM POWER DAMS, BUT NOT ACTUALLY PUTTING
NEW DAMS IN. THEN THERE’S A SMALL AMOUNT
OF TIDAL WAVE POWER. SO HOW MUCH LAND AREA
DOES THIS TAKE? SO THIS IS THE LAND AREA
REQUIRED. THE GREEN IN THE CENTER
IS FOR ONSHORE WIND, AND THAT’S MOSTLY SPACING AREA, WHICH IS 31% OF THE TOTAL
ENERGY OF POWER. THE FOOTPRINT WOULD BE
ABOUT 4 1/2 SQUARE KILOMETERS ON THE GROUND. AND THE SPACING AREA’S
ABOUT 1.7% OF THE U.S. OFFSHORE WIND IS ABOUT 19%
OF THE TOTAL. P.V. PLUS C.S.P. POWER PLANTS
IS 37%, AND THAT ORANGE DOT– BUT THE LAND AREA IS ABOUT .4%
OF THE U.S. ROOFTOP P.V., WHICH WOULD NOT
REQUIRE NEW LAND, IS ABOUT 9% OF THE TOTAL
POWER SUPPLY, AND ABOUT .09%
OF THE LAND AREA. AND THEN THERE’S A SMALL AMOUNT
OF HYDRO AND TIDAL WAVE. JUST ONE MORE OF THESE.
HERE’S FOR CALIFORNIA. CALIFORNIA WOULD BE DOMINATED
MORE BY SOLAR, IN THIS CASE. BUT STILL,
35% TOTAL WIND, WITH 25% ONSHORE WIND
AND 10% OFFSHORE. ROOFTOP SOLAR AND BUILDING
COMMERCIAL GOVERNMENT– BUILDING SOLAR,
ABOUT 14% TOTAL– OF THE TOTAL ENERGY
WOULD BE PROVIDED FROM THERE. P.V. POWER PLANTS: 26%. 15% C.S.P. POWER PLANTS. 5% GEOTHERMAL,
3 1/2% HYDRO. AGAIN, NO NEW DAMS. AND A SMALL AMOUNT
OF TIDAL WAVE. AND HERE’S–THIS IS WHAT
THE LAND AREA’S REQUIRED AND WATER AREA’S REQUIRED
FOR CALIFORNIA ENERGY PLAN. AND SO, AGAIN,
WE DO THIS FOR ALL 50 STATES WELL, IN THESE PLANS, THERE’D BE
A LOT OF OFFSHORE WIND. AND WE DID A STUDY,
A COMPUTER MODELING STUDY, LOOKING AT, WELL,
WHAT’S THE IMPACT? BECAUSE YOU MIGHT ASK– IF YOU HAVE A LOT
OF WIND TURBINES, DO THEY INTERFERE
WITH EACH OTHER? MAYBE THEY TAKE TOO MUCH ENERGY
OUT OF THE WIND, AND THEREFORE CAN’T PROVIDE
ALL THE ENERGY. WE DID ONE STUDY ON THAT
LOOKING AT IF YOU SATURATE THE U.S. AND
THE WORLD WITH WIND TURBINES, WOULD YOU HAVE ENOUGH ENERGY
STILL TO POWER THE WORLD? BECAUSE EACH TURBINE TAKES
ENERGY FROM OTHER TURBINES. BUT WE FOUND THAT THERE– WELL, IN THE WORLD– YOU CAN COVER THE ENTIRE WORLD
WITH WIND TURBINES, AND THE MOST ENERGY
OR POWER YOU CAN EXTRACT IS ABOUT 250 TERAWATTS
WORLDWIDE. THAT’S OVER LAND AND OCEAN. AND WE NEED ABOUT… ON THE ORDER OF 12 OR SO
TERAWATTS OF POWER. AND SO–TO POWER
THE ENTIRE WORLD. SO THERE’S PLENTY
OF WIND WORLDWIDE TO POWER THE ENTIRE WORLD,
EVEN IF YOU SET– EVEN IF YOU HAVE TURBINES
RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER. OVER LAND,
THERE’S ABOUT 80 TERAWATTS OF WIND POWER AVAILABLE
WORLDWIDE. SO IT’S NOT–WE WON’T
RUN OUT OF WIND. BUT THE KEY IS TO HAVE WIND
FARMS SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER SO WIND FARMS THEMSELVES
DON’T INTERFERE WITH EACH OTHER. YOU CAN HAVE A LOT OF INDIVIDUAL
TURBINES IN A WIND FARM, BUT YOU WANT TO SEPARATE
THE WIND FARMS FAR ENOUGH APART. BUT ANOTHER QUESTION THAT AROSE
IS, “WELL, WHAT’S THE IMPACT?” IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF OFFSHORE
WINDS OFF THE EAST COAST, YOU GET A LOT OF HURRICANES. WON’T THE HURRICANES
DESTROY THE WIND TURBINES? AND SO WE THOUGHT
ABOUT THIS, AND THEN LOOKED
AT THE QUESTION. WELL, THE TURBINES
MIGHT BE DESTROYED. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND,
IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH TURBINES, MAYBE THEY’LL FEED BACK
AND EXTRACT ENOUGH ENERGY FROM THE HURRICANES. SO WE DID A CASE WHERE WE PUT
WIND TURBINES IN A 3D WEATHER MODEL
OFF THE COAST OF NEW ORLEANS. AND WE LOOKED
AT HURRICANE SANDY– WELL, HURRICANE KATRINA
AND ISAAC OFF NEW ORLEANS, AND HURRICANE SANDY OFF
NEW YORK AND THE EAST COAST. AND HERE’S ONE OF THE RESULTS. SO IN THIS CASE
WE HAVE TWO HURRICANE– OF THE SAME HURRICANE:
HURRICANE KATRINA. THE LEFT SIDE
IS NO WIND TURBINES. ON THE RIGHT SIDE WE HAD 170,000
OF 7 1/2-MEGAWATT TURBINES TO THE SOUTHEAST
OF NEW ORLEANS. AND WE THEN RAN–
PRODUCED THE HURRICANE. WE COMPARED THE HURRICANE
WITH DATA WHEN THERE WERE NO TURBINES. THEN WHAT WE FOUND
IS THE HURRICANE– THE HURRICANES WERE BEING
DIMINISHED BY– WHEN YOU HAVE LARGE ARRAYS
OF OFFSHORE WIND. SO IN THIS CASE,
YOU CAN SEE IN THE RIGHT, THAT’S KIND OF WHERE
THAT TRIANGLE IS, THAT’S WHERE THE TURBINES
WERE LOCATED. AND WHAT HAPPENS IS, THE TURBINES WOULD EXTRACT
ENERGY FROM THE HURRICANE, SLOW THE WIND SPEEDS LOCALLY,
REDUCE THE WAVE HEIGHTS, REDUCE CONVERGENCE,
BECAUSE YOU NEED WAVES TO PRODUCE FRICTION THAT CAUSES
CONVERGENCE OF AIR TO THE CENTER
OF THE HURRICANE. SO WHEN YOU REDUCE
THE WIND SPEEDS LOCALLY, YOU REDUCE WAVE HEIGHT,
YOU REDUCE FRICTION. SO YOU REDUCE CONVERGENCE
TO THE CENTER. SO YOU INCREASE
THE ESSENTIAL PRESSURE. AND THAT CAUSED A DIMINISHMENT
OF THE ENTIRE HURRICANE SUCH THAT BY THE TIME THE CORE
GOT TO NEW ORLEANS, THE WHOLE THING
WAS PRETTY MUCH DIMINISHED. AND, IN FACT, IT REDUCED ABOUT
80% OF THE STORM SURGE, AND OVER IN 50 TO 60%
OF THE WIND SPEED AT NEW ORLEANS.
AND WE FOUND THIS– FOR ALL THE HURRICANES
THAT WE TESTED, WE FOUND THIS RESULT. AND ALSO, THE WIND SPEEDS,
IN FACT, WHEN YOU HAD ENOUGH OF THEM, NEVER GOT UP TO THE DESTRUCTION
OF WIND SPEED OF THE TURBINES,
WHICH IS 50 METERS PER SECOND, BECAUSE YOU FEED BACK TO THE
CENTER OF THE HURRICANE SO MUCH THAT YOU JUST DIMINISH
ALL THE WINDS LOCALLY. AND I CAN GO INTO DETAIL NOW,
BUT I DON’T HAVE TIME. BUT…SO THE RESULT WAS THAT IF YOU HAVE LARGE ARRAYS,
YOU CAN HAVE THIS IMPACT. YOU CAN HAVE A BENEFIT. NOW YOU MIGHT SAY, “WELL, THAT’S
GOING TO BE REALLY EXPENSIVE.” BUT THE THING IS,
YOU PUT UP THE TURBINES TO GENERATE NORMAL ELECTRIC
POWER YEAR-ROUND. SO THEY PAY FOR THEMSELVES. AND SO AS A RESULT,
IT WOULD NOT COST EXTRA TO PREVENT THE HURRICANE, OR REDUCE THE DAMAGE
OF THE HURRICANE. UM, ON THE OTHER HAND,
IF YOU PUT UP SEA WALLS, THEY MIGHT COST $30 BILLION
FOR ONE CITY. THEY DON’T GENERATE
ELECTRICITY, SO THEY DON’T PAY
FOR THEMSELVES. AND THEY DON’T ACTUALLY REDUCE
WIND SPEEDS. THEY ONLY REDUCE
STORM SURGE. AND SO YOU CAN TAKE
$30 BILLION AND JUST BUY WIND TURBINES
WITH THEM, AND GET THAT MONEY BACK
OVER TIME. SO I THINK IT’S PROBABLY
A BETTER INVESTMENT TO GO WITH OFFSHORE WIND. NOW IF YOU DON’T HAVE ENOUGH
TURBINES, YOU DO RUN MORE RISK OF TURBINE DESTRUCTION
IN THE GULF COAST, BUT NOT THE EAST COAST,
BECAUSE IN THE EAST COAST THE HURRICANES ARE NEVER–
THE WIND SPEEDS NEVER GET UP TO THE DESTRUCTION WIND SPEED
OF THE TURBINE IN ANY CASE. ANYWAY, I’M GOING TO MOVE ON
FROM THAT. SO, WHAT ABOUT THE COSTS
OF ENERGY IF WE DO THIS CONVERSION
TO WIND, WATER AND SOLAR? WELL, ON THE LEFT SIDE HERE
IS THE CURRENT COST OF THESE DIFFERENT
CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES. FOR WIND, IT’S 4 TO 10 CENTS
A KILOWATT HOUR. THAT’S ONSHORE WIND. OFFSHORE WIND’S 11-22 CENTS.
GEOTHERMAL’S ABOUT 10-15 CENTS. HYDRO IS ABOUT 4-6 CENTS
A KILOWATT HOUR. CONCENTRATED SOLAR’S
ABOUT 13 1/2-17. P.V. UTILITY SCALE
IS 10-11 CENTS A KILOWATT HOUR. NOW, IF WE USE THE 2050 MIX OF WIND/WATER/SOLAR
TECHNOLOGIES THAT WE WANT AND APPLY THEM
TO THESE COSTS, THEN WE GET ABOUT 11.3 CENTS
A KILOWATT HOUR ON AVERAGE. AND THAT COMPARES TO
CONVENTIONAL FUELS RIGHT NOW AT 10 CENTS A KILOWATT HOUR. BUT THERE’S ANOTHER 5 CENTS
A KILOWATT HOUR OF EXTERNALITY, OR HEALTH AND CLIMATE COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. SO THEY’RE REALLY 15 CENTS
A KILOWATT HOUR, ALTHOUGH THE… THESE UTILITIES
AND THE ENERGY COMPANIES ARE GETTING A FREE RIDE
FOR 5 CENTS A KILOWATT HOUR. SO RIGHT NOW, PEOPLE CAN ARGUE
THAT WIND/WATER/SOLAR IS MORE EXPENSIVE
IF WE CONVERTED EVERYTHING. EXCEPT WIND, ONSHORE WIND,
GEOTHERMAL AND HYDRO ARE COST-COMPETITIVE. IN FACT, ONSHORE WIND
IS THE CHEAPEST FORM OF NEW ELECTRIC POWER
IN THE U.S. RIGHT NOW, IN THE GREAT PLAINS. IT’S ON THE ORDER OF 2 CENTS
A KILOWATT HOUR SUBSIDIZED, AND 3 1/2 CENTS UNSUBSIDIZED. AND THAT’S LESS
THAN NATURAL GAS. BUT IF WE GO TO 2030, BECAUSE YOU STABILIZED
THE ENERGY PRICES WITH WIND/WATER/SOLAR, BECAUSE THEY HAVE ZERO
FUEL COSTS. SO THEIR COSTS
ARE ALL GOING DOWN, WHEREAS FOSSIL FUELS,
IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THE TREND FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS, AND YOU JUST PROJECT FORWARD, YOU’RE GOING TO GET 17 CENTS
A KILOWATT HOUR FOR FOSSIL FUELS IN 2030, PLUS ANOTHER 6 CENTS
FOR EXTERNALITY. SO THAT’S 23 CENTS
A KILOWATT HOUR. SO IN 2050, WIND/WATER/SOLAR
WILL BE, ON THE AVERAGE, 6 CENTS A KILOWATT HOUR
VERSUS 17 CENTS A KILOWATT HOUR FOR THE FOSSIL FUELS. AND TO JUST
DEMONSTRATE HOW– WE’LL LOOK AT SOME OF THESE
COST BENEFITS IN A SECOND, BUT I WANT TO DEMONSTRATE
HOW YOU STABILIZE PRICES IN A SECOND. BUT THE ADDITIONAL BENEFIT,
THE EXTERNALITY BENEFIT OF ELIMINATING FOSSIL FUELS
WITH WIND/WATER/SOLAR IS–IS IN REDUCING AIR POLLUTION
HEALTH COSTS AND CLIMATE COSTS. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER,
THERE ARE 63,000 PEOPLE DIE PREMATURELY EACH YEAR. AND THAT COSTS ABOUT
$510 BILLION TO THE U.S., OR 3.2% OF ITS G.D.P. GLOBAL WARMING COSTS
TO THE WORLD FROM U.S. EMISSIONS ARE ABOUT $730 BILLION
BY 2050. SO THESE COSTS
WOULD BE ELIMINATED. BUT THE COSTS CHANGE. JUST TO DEMONSTRATE
THAT YOU STABILIZE THE ACTUAL DIRECT COST
OF ENERGY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE 11 STATES
IN THE U.S. WITH THE MOST– THE HIGHEST FRACTION
OF ELECTRICITY FROM WIND, IN THE TOP TWO
ARE IOWA AND SOUTH DAKOTA, WITH ABOUT 28% OF ALL
ELECTRICITY FROM WIND LAST YEAR. THEIR–THEIR STATES, THE 11 STATES WITH
THE HIGHEST FRACTION OF ELECTRIC POWER FROM WIND
HAVE DECREASED IN COST .4% IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. ALL THE OTHER STATES
WENT UP 8%, BECAUSE WIND HAS ZERO
FUEL COSTS. SO IT’S ALL
IN CAPITAL COSTS. IT HAS HIGHER CAPITAL COSTS
THAN FOSSIL FUELS, BUT LOWER FUEL COSTS. SO YOU KNOW
WHAT THE COST WILL BE. IT’LL STAY STABLE OVER TIME, WHEREAS FOSSIL FUEL COSTS GO UP
OVER TIME. IN TERMS OF JOBS, WE LOOKED AT EACH STATE TO LOOK
AT JOB CREATION VERSUS LOST, AND USED THE N.R.E.L.
J.E.D.I. MODELS TO DETERMINE JOB CREATION. AND LOOKED AT ACTUAL JOBS
THAT WOULD BE LOST IN FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRIES. WE FOUND 5 MILLION
40-YEAR CONSTRUCTION JOBS WOULD BE CREATED, AND ANOTHER 2.4 MILLION
OPERATION JOBS. SO IT’S ABOUT 7 1/2 MILLION JOBS
CREATED VERSUS 3.9 MILLION JOBS IN THE
FOSSIL AND NUCLEAR INDUSTRIES, WHICH WOULD BE LOST
IF WE DO THIS CONVERGENT. SO THERE WOULD
BE A NET JOB GAIN. AND THEN ONE MORE POINT
I WANT TO MAKE IS ABOUT MATCHING
POWER SUPPLY WITH DEMAND. PEOPLE SAY THE WIND
DOESN’T ALWAYS BLOW, THE SUN DOESN’T ALWAYS SHINE. WELL, CAN YOU MAKE IT RELIABLE? WE DID A STUDY
A FEW YEARS AGO LOOKING AT CALIFORNIA. AND USING CALIFORNIA DEMAND
FOR 2006 AND ’05, AND THAT’S THE BLACK LINE
IN EACH OF THESE PLOTS. AND THESE ARE TWO
PARTICULAR DAYS. AND THEN TAKING THAT DEMAND
AND SEE IF WE CAN MATCH IT WITH EXISTING GEOTHERMAL
EXISTING HYDRO, BUT JUST INCREASING
WIND AND SOLAR. SO THE LIGHT BLUE
ON THESE GRAPHS ARE WIND. AND THAT’S USING WIND DATA GIVEN SEVERAL LOCATIONS
IN CALIFORNIA. THE YELLOW IS SOLAR P.V. THE ORANGE IS CONCENTRATED
SOLAR POWER. AND THE BLUE
IS HYDROELECTRIC, WHICH IS USED
TO FILL IN THE GAPS. AND YOU CAN SEE–AND THEN THE
RED IS GEOTHERMAL AT THE BOTTOM. YOU CAN SEE ON THESE TWO
PARTICULAR DAYS WE CAN MATCH THE POWER DEMAND,
THE BLACK LINE, EXACTLY. THE GRAY ABOVE THE BLACK LINE IS SPINNING RESERVES
OF NATURAL GAS, WHICH WAS NEVER USED
ON THESE TWO DAYS. IN FACT, WE FOUND THAT THE
NATURAL GAS WAS NEVER NEEDED EXCEPT FOR 0.2% OF THE HOURS
OVER TWO YEARS. SO WE CAN MATCH IT EVERY HOUR
OF EVERY DAY WITH JUST WIND/WATER/SOLAR
TECHNOLOGIES. AND THIS WAS WITHOUT
EVEN DOING THINGS LIKE DEMAND RESPONSE
MANAGEMENT, OVERSIZING THE GRID
WITH RENEWABLES TO MAKE IT EASIER
TO MATCH DEMAND, AND THEN USING
THE EXCESS ELECTRICITY FOR PRODUCING HYDROGEN. OR USING VERY MUCH CONCENTRATED
SOLAR POWER WITH STORAGE. SO ANYWAY, WE THINK IT’S MORE
OF AN OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM TO MATCH THE POWER DEMAND. AND THEN FINALLY,
I JUST WANT TO SHOW WHAT’S THE TIMELINE
FOR THE TRANSITION. IF WE LOOK FROM 2010 TO 2050–
WELL, IF WE DON’T DO ANYTHING, WE GO FROM 2.4 TERAWATTS
OF U.S. POWER DEMAND IN 2010 TO 3.1 TERAWATTS. THAT’S THE TOP–
THE TOP LINE, WHICH IS THE BUSINESS-AS-USUAL
LINE. IF WE JUST CONVERT EVERYTHING
TO ELECTRICITY PLUS ELECTROLYTIC HYDROGEN, THEN WE GET ABOUT– UH, WE GO DOWN
TO THE SECOND LINE, WHICH IS THE REDUCTION
OF POWER DEMAND BY ONE TERAWATT
IN THE U.S. JUST DUE TO THE EFFICIENCY
OF ELECTRICITY. THEN WE CAN REDUCE IT
ANOTHER .2 TERAWATTS, OR PROBABLY EVEN MORE JUST WITH END-USE ENERGY
EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS TO GET TO THE 100% LINE. AND ALL THE REST OF THAT WOULD
BE WIND/WATER/SOLAR PRODUCED. AND WE EXPECT THAT BY 2020, IF WE CAN GET ALL NEW ENERGY
TO BE CLEAN– SO ALL NEW CARS,
ELECTRIC CARS, ALL NEW ELECTRICITY,
WIND/WATER/SOLAR ELECTRICITY, AND THEN REPLACE EXISTING
INFRASTRUCTURE AS IT RETIRES WITH CLEAN ENERGY, AND THEN HAVE AGGRESSIVE
POLICY MEASURES, BY 2030 WE’D HAVE REPLACED
80% OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO 80-85%. AND BY 2050, 100%. AND WE WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED
ALL THESE PROBLEMS. SO THE OVERALL SUMMARY
IS HERE. IF WE CONVERT EVERYTHING
TO WIND/WATER/SOLAR AND ELECTRICITY HYDROGEN
IN THE U.S., WE’D REDUCE POWER DEMAND
BY OVER 37%. ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW,
LET’S CLOSE IT UP. ELIMINATE 63,000 U.S.
AIR POLLUTION DEATHS AND $730 BILLION IN GLOBAL
CLIMATE COSTS, CREATE 5 MILLION
40-YEAR CONSTRUCTION JOBS, 2.4 MILLION 40-YEAR
OPERATION JOBS, COST 3.9 MILLION FOSSIL FUEL
AND NUCLEAR JOB, SAVE ABOUT $4,400 PER YEAR PER
PERSON IN DIRECT ENERGY COSTS JUST BY LOOKING AT THE PRICE
DIFFERENTIAL IF WE GO BUSINESS AS USUAL
VERSUS WIND/WATER/SOLAR, LOOKING AT THE TRENDS. AND ANOTHER $3,100 PER YEAR
PER PERSON IN HEALTH AND CLIMATE COSTS
IN 2050. WE’D REQUIRE ONLY .44% OF THE
U.S. LAND AREA FOR FOOTPRINT, AND 1.7% FOR SPACING. THERE ARE SEVERAL METHODS
OF ADDRESSING THE VARIABILITY OF WIND/WATER/SOLAR
TECHNOLOGIES. WE DIDN’T FIND
MATERIAL LIMITS, BUT RECYCLING MAY BE NEEDED
FOR SOME COMPONENTS. THE BARRIERS ARE PRIMARILY
UP-FRONT COSTS, BECAUSE IT’S VERY
CAPITAL-INTENSIVE. TRANSMISSION NEEDS ARE… THEY’RE NOT A TECHNICAL
OR ECONOMIC BARRIER, BUT MORE SOCIAL
AND POLITICAL BARRIER. BUT THEN LOBBYING
AND POLITICS IS THE MAIN BARRIER. AND JUST FINALLY,
IF YOU WANT MORE INFORMATION, THERE ARE A COUPLE
OF WEBSITES HERE THAT HAVE ALL THE PAPERS
ASSOCIATED WITH THESE PLANS. AND YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED
IN THE SOLUTIONS PROJECT, WHICH IS A GROUP
THAT’S DEDICATED TO TAKING THESE
SCIENCE-BASED PLANS AND TRYING TO IMPLEMENT THEM AT THE STATE AND COUNTRY
AND WORLD LEVELS, AND TRYING TO INVOLVE
BUSINESSES, AND… AND BUSINESS AND CULTURE AND ALONG WITH THE SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY. SO ANYWAY,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND I’LL WELCOME– I’M HAPPY TO TAKE
ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. THANKS.
[applause] THANK YOU VERY MUCH. – SO, WE HAVE TIME
FOR A FEW QUESTIONS. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND,
WAIT FOR THE MICROPHONE, AND STAND UP WHEN YOU GET
THE MICROPHONE. – I REMEMBER READING THIS
IN THE “SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN” A FEW YEARS AGO, AND THE COMMENTS WERE
PRETTY BRUTAL FOR THAT ARTICLE, CRITICIZING IT FOR NOT TAKING
INTO ACCOUNT THE SUNK COSTS OF THE PIPES IN THE GROUND FOR THE TRADITIONAL
OIL INFRASTRUCTURE. I WONDER WHAT YOUR RESPONSE WAS
TO THAT. – THE SUNK COST–
WELL, THERE IS A SUNK INFRA– BUT, SO WE’RE GOING
TO BE REPLACING– WHEN WE HAVE NEW ENERGY DEMAND
WE’D BE REPLACING WITH WIND/WATER/SOLAR. WHEN EXISTING PLANTS RETIRE, THEN WE’D BE REPLACING– INSTEAD OF BUILDING
A NEW COAL PLANT, WE’RE GOING TO BUILD A NEW,
A SOLAR FARM OR SOMETHING. SO WE’RE RELYING
ON NATURAL RETIREMENTS AS WELL AS SOME FORCED
RETIREMENTS. SO COAL PLANTS ARE COMING
OUT OF THE GROUND. BUT THOSE SUNK COSTS
ARE PRETTY TRIVIAL COMPARED TO THE HEALTH
AND CLIMATE COSTS THAT THOSE PLANTS
ARE CAUSING. SO I WOULD– YEAH, BUT WE’RE BASICALLY– THERE’S GOING TO BE
NATURAL RETIREMENTS. I MEAN, JUST TO PUT IT
IN PERSPECTIVE. IF WE DID THIS WORLDWIDE, WE’D HAVE TO SPEND $100 TRILLION
IN CAPITAL COSTS TO REPLACE EVERYTHING. BUT THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY
SPENDS– I THINK THE NUMBER
WAS $6-7 TRILLION A YEAR. SO IT WOULD BASICALLY PAY–
YOU KNOW, PAY FOR THEIR SYSTEM. AND, YOU KNOW,
YOU CAN COUNT THE YEARS. TEN, FIFTEEN YEARS OR SO. – RIGHT NOW WE DON’T USE
A LOT OF HYDROGEN, BUT WE DO USE SOME. AND WE HAVE EXCESS ELECTRICITY
AT CERTAIN HOURS OF THE DAY IN CERTAIN AREAS. WHY ISN’T THAT, ELECTROLYSIS
WITH THE ELECTRICITY, THE PRIMARY SOURCE
OF HYDROGEN? – EXACTLY. WELL, THAT’S PART
OF THIS PLAN. YOU WOULD,
INSTEAD OF CURTAILING– BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WHEN WE HAVE
TOO MUCH WIND OR TOO MUCH SOLAR
IN THE U.S. A LOT OF TIMES IT JUST
GETS WASTED. IT’S NOT USED. AND–BUT IN DENMARK,
THEY USE EXTRA WIND FOR DISTRICT HEATING. SO THEY USE IT
TO HEAT THE CITIES. AND ANOTHER PLAN WAS TO USE IT
TO PRODUCE HYDROGEN BY ELECTROLYSIS,
SO YOU CAN THEN STORE IT. OR SOME OTHER STORAGE. OR YOU CAN USE IT
FOR PUMPED HYDRO. ACTUALLY, LIKE,
A THIRD OF ALL THE– THE HYDROELECTRIC POWER
IN CALIFORNIA IS PUMPED HYDRO. SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY JUST PUMP IT
UP TO A HIGHER RESERVOIR. WHEN YOU HAVE EXTRA
ELECTRICITY. SO THERE’S NO REASON AT ALL
THAT YOU CAN’T DO IT. IT JUST HASN’T
BEEN DONE A LOT. AND THAT’S–AS PART
OF THIS PLAN. THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE GOALS WOULD NOT BE TO CURTAIL
ANY WIND OR SOLAR. – STAND UP. – I WAS WONDERING
IF YOU CAN TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH ENERGY STORAGE
IS NEEDED? FROM ONE OF YOUR SLIDES
ABOUT DEMAND-RESPONSE, IT SOUNDED LIKE
YOU WERE SAYING THAT IT COULD BE MANAGED
IN REAL TIME. BUT RATHER–IN ADDITION
TO A GENERATION BEING RANDOM, OR AT DIFFERENT CYCLES, THE ENERGY USAGE IS ALSO
IN DIFFERENT CYCLES AS WELL. I WAS WONDERING HOW THAT
ALL COMES TOGETHER. – WELL, CERTAINLY THE MORE
STORAGE WE HAVE, THE BETTER. THE STUDY THAT I SHOWED YOU
INDICATED THAT, YOU KNOW, IF PUSH CAME TO SHOVE WE COULD GET AWAY WITH
NOT A WHOLE LOT OF IT. BUT THE MORE WE HAVE,
THE BETTER. IN THESE PLANS,
I MEAN, THERE’S– HYDROELECTRIC IS A FORM
OF STORAGE ALREADY. AND CONCENTRATED SOLAR POWER
WITH STORAGE IF A FORM OF STORAGE
THAT WE ACCOUNTED FOR. UM, AND SO THOSE ARE TWO FORMS
OF STORAGE. BUT THERE ARE ADDITIONAL
FORMS OF STORAGE COULD BE LIKE IN HYDROGEN. IT COULD BE IN BATTERIES
OR IT COULD BE IN FLYWHEELS. COULD BE SOIL IN SOIL. LIKE, THERE’S A TOWN IN CANADA THAT–THAT HEATS THE SOIL
IN THE SUMMER AND THEN USES THAT HEAT
IN THE WINTER TO POWER 90%
OF THEIR HEATING. SO THE MORE,
THE BETTER. BUT THERE’S A–OUR STUDY
AND ANOTHER STUDY SHOW THAT YOU CAN DO, LIKE,
98-99% OF THE GRID RELIABLY WITHOUT A WHOLE LOT OF STORAGE, EXCEPT FOR HYDRO
AND CONCENTRATED SOLAR POWER. – OKAY. UM… – I HAVE A QUESTION
BACK HERE. I WAS INTERESTED
IN THIS QUESTION FOR THE LAST
SIX OR SEVEN YEARS, AND LOOKED AT THE PROBLEM
OF ENERGY DENSITY WITH REGARD TO MOSTLY
FLYING AIRPLANES. AND THE ISSUE WITH REGARD
TO LIQUID FUELS VS. HYDROGEN. I LOOKED AT ALGAE AS BEING
A HUNDRED TIMES BETTER PRODUCER OF HYDROCARBON LIGHT FUELS,
DIESEL, BUT ALSO OTHER FUELS
THROUGH SYNGAS. AND IT LOOKED LIKE
ALGAE WOULD WORK, PROVIDED YOU DID IT OFFSHORE
AND DIDN’T USE LAND, AND USED WASTE WATER
INSTEAD OF WATER AND FERTILIZER. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU’RE FAMILIAR
WITH THE PROJECT. IT WAS FUNDED AT $10 MILLION
BY N.A.S.A. FOR THREE YEARS. AND WE SAW THAT ALGAE WOULD
REALLY REPLACE A BIG CHUNK OF OUR LIQUID FUELS. BUT WITH REGARD TO FLYING
AIRPLANES WITH YOUR SYSTEM, IS IT HYDROGEN-BASED?
IS THAT YOUR PLAN? – WELL, THE CRYOGENIC HYDROGEN,
WHICH WOULD BE– SO, YOU DO NEED AIRPLANES, AIRCRAFT THAT HAVE
LARGER VOLUME, BECAUSE HUNDREDS IS NOT
VERY DENSE. SO YOU NEED MORE VOLUME.
BUT IT’S LESS MASSIVE. SO THERE HAVE BEEN STUDIES
IN THE U.S. AND IN EUROPE SHOWING THAT THE TOTAL DRAG
ON THE AIRCRAFT WOULD BE ABOUT THE SAME. I MEAN, THE RUSSIANS
BUILT A HYDROGEN– A CRYOGENIC HYDROGEN AIRCRAFT
IN THE 1980s, BUT IT WASN’T ECONOMIC
AT THE TIME. AND THE SPACE SHUTTLE RAN
ON CRYOGENIC HYDROGEN. SO IT’S TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE. I MEAN, ALL THE AIRCRAFT
COMPANIES HAVE LOOKED INTO IT. THEY JUST–RIGHT NOW THEY JUST
HAVE A STATUS QUO, SO THEY DON’T WANT
TO CHANGE ANYTHING. BUT THERE’S NO TECHNICAL REASON
THEY CAN’T BE CHANGED. IN TERMS OF ALGAE… I MEAN, WE’RE LOOKING
AT AIR POLLUTION AND CLIMATE. AND WHEN YOU BURN THE PRODUCTS
OF ALGAE, YOU’RE JUST BURNING A FUEL
THAT CREATES– YOU HAVE COMBUSTION PRODUCTS
THAT CONTAIN BLACK CARBON, CARBON MONOXIDE,
HYDROCARBONS, INCLUDING NOx AND OTHER THINGS. SO YOU STILL HAVE A SIMILAR
AMOUNT OF POLLUTION. PHOTOSYNTHESIS
IS ONLY 1% EFFICIENT. SO YOU CAN TAKE–
EVEN THOUGH– I MEAN…YOU CAN’T REALLY SKIMP
ON THE LAND. YOU’RE EITHER GOING TO SPREAD IT
OUT OVER LOTS OF LAND, OR YOU’LL BUILD THESE TOWERS,
WHICH WILL BE REALLY INEFFICIENT IN TERMS OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS. SO AS A RESULT,
YOU NEED ABOUT– IT TAKES ABOUT 30 TIMES
MORE LAND. IN FACT,
30-80 TIMES MORE LAND– THE ENERGY YOU GET
FROM THE BIOFUEL IS 30-80 TIMES LESS THAN THAT OF PUTTING SOLAR
PHOTOVOLTAICS ON THE SAME LAND, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW,
THE PHOTOVOLTAICS, YOU CAN GET– THEY HAVE EFFICIENCIES
IN THE ORDER OF 20, 25%. WELL, 22% AT THE MOST. BUT PHOTOSYNTHESIS
IS MUCH LESS. – YEAH, BUT PHOTOSYNTHESIS
CAN BE UP TO 5 OR EVEN 7% AND THE SYSTEM WE DESIGNED
DOESN’T USE ANY. ZERO, IT’S ALL OFFSHORE.
– OKAY. I GOT IT. WELL, I’M INTERESTED
TO LOOK AT IT. BUT IT STILL–IT HAS THE PROBLEM
OF COMBUSTION. THAT’S STILL
THE MAIN PROBLEM. – UM–OH, SORRY. GO AHEAD. – I’M JUST WONDERING
IF YOU’D TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOLAR THERMAL ENERGY, AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK
THAT’S A GOOD IDEA TO INVEST IN. – WELL, THERE ARE DIFFERENT
TYPES OF SOLAR THERMAL, LIKE THE CONCENTRATED SOLAR
POWERS FORM A SOLAR THERMAL. OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
THE ROOFTOP…? – I MEAN, HAVING STEAM
GENERATION FROM SOLAR THERMAL, AND RUNNING
GENERATORS FROM THAT. – WELL, SO CONCENTRATED SOLAR
POWER IS WHERE YOU FOCUS LIGHT ONTO MIRRORS,
ONTO ESSENTIAL TOWER RECEIVER, TO HEAT A FLUID
SUCH A MOLTEN NITRATE SALT. AND THEN YOU CAN STORE THAT
MOLTEN NITRATE SALT OVERNIGHT, AND THEN USE IT TO RUN IT
NEXT TO WATER TO EVAPORATE THE WATER TO GENERATE THE STEAM
FOR A STEAM TURBINE. AND THAT’S GREAT.
SO THAT’S– IT’S A LITTLE MORE COSTLY
RIGHT NOW, BUT BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE– YOU HAVE THE STORAGE
ASSOCIATED WITH IT, THEN IT MAKES IT
EXTREMELY VALUABLE. YOU CAN REALLY PRODUCE
ANY PROFILE YOU WANT OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION. SO IT’S DEFINITELY
WORTH USING. SO THAT’S WHY WE TRY TO PUT IT
AS MANY PLACES AS POSSIBLE. BUT YOU NEED DIRECT
SOLAR RADIATION. YOU CAN’T USE DIFFUSE RADIATION
TOO MUCH. – WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR COMING. I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE AREA OF,
LIKE, WIND TURBINES AND THINGS. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MATERIAL
THAT’S NEEDED TO ACTUALLY MAKE THESE
AND MANUFACTURE THEM? SO MANUFACTURING PLANTS,
THE COST– OR, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE COST, BUT MORE OF LIKE THE ENERGY
REQUIRED TO MAKE THESE. AND THEN ALSO YOU TALKED ABOUT
HOW WIND TURBINES OFF THE COAST CAN REDUCE WINDS
FROM HURRICANES, BUT HOW CAN THAT BE NEGATIVELY
SEEN AS WELL? SO WE MIGHT
BE CHANGING THE CLIMATE WHEN WE PUT THESE
WIND TURBINES UP. DO YOU–HAVE YOU SEEN
RESEARCH DONE, OR DO YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF HOW IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE
REFLECTED IN A NEGATIVE WAY, OR IN A DIFFERENT TYPE
OF CLIMATE STRUCTURE. – YEAH. LET ME ANSWER
THE FIRST QUESTION. THE ENERGY EMBODIED IN PRODUCING
A WIND TURBINE IS ABOUT THREE TO SIX MONTHS
OF RUNNING THE TURBINE. SO THE TURBINE LIFETIME’S
ABOUT 30 YEARS. AND SO FOR THE FIRST
THREE TO SIX MONTHS, YOU’RE BASICALLY GENERATING
THE ELECTRICITY YOU NEED TO PRODUCE THE–WHICH MIGHT HAVE
BEEN FROM FOSSIL FUEL. SO IT’S ABOUT 98% CARBON-FREE IF YOU USE TODAY’S ENERGY
INFRASTRUCTURE. BUT EVENTUALLY, IF WE HAVE
100% RENEWABLE ENERGY, THEN THERE’D BE 100%
CARBON-FREE. IN TERMS OF METALS,
LIKE, YOU NEED STEEL AND CEMENT. BUT YOU ALSO NEED
SOME RARE EARTH ELEMENTS. BUT WE’VE LOOKED AT THE RARE
EARTH, LIKE NEODYMIUM. THERE’S ABOUT SEVEN TIMES MORE
NEODYMIUM AVAILABLE RESOURCES THAN YOU NEED TO PROVIDE
ALL THE WIND TURBINES YOU NEED TO POWER THE WORLD. IN TERMS OF THE WIND TURBINE
IT IMPACTS, WE DID TWO STUDIES. ONE LOOKING AT–COVERING THE
ENTIRE WORLD WITH WIND TURBINES. COVERING ALL LAND
WITH WIND TURBINES, AND THEN PUTTING FOUR MILLION
WIND TURBINES, WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH
TO POWER 50% OF THE WORLD. AND IN THE FOUR MILLION CASE,
WHICH IS THE PRACTICAL CASE, THERE’S VIRTUALLY NO
LARGE-SCALE IMPACT. YOU GOT LOCAL IMPACTS
DOWNWIND. YOU’LL REDUCE WIND SPEEDS
LOCALLY. BUT IF YOU COVER THE U.S.
OR THE WORLD, WHAT YOU’LL FIND IS ACTUALLY
THEY COOL THE CLIMATE. IN FACT, WIND TURBINES
WILL COOL THE CLIMATE. THEY WARM THE LAND LOCALLY,
RIGHT DOWNWIND OF THE TURBINES, BECAUSE THEY REDUCE
EVAPORATION, AND EVAPORATION
IS A COOLING PROCESS. SO IF YOU HAVE LESS EVAPORATION
YOU WARM THE–WARM THE LAND. BUT BECAUSE YOU HAVE
LESS WATER IN THE AIR, YOU GOT LESS CONDENSATION
IN THE AIR. AND CONDENSATION’S
A WARMING PROCESS. SO IF YOU HAVE LESS
CONDENSATION, YOU COOL THE AIR. SO THOSE TWO THINGS
OFFSET EACH OTHER IN TERMS OF TEMPERATURE. BUT BECAUSE YOU NOW HAVE
LESS WATER VAPOR IN THE AIR, WHICH IS A GREENHOUSE GAS,
YOU CAUSE LESS GLOBAL WARMING. IT’S THE MOST ABUNDANT
NATURAL GREENHOUSE GAS. SO WE FOUND THAT THERE’S
A NET COOLING OF CLIMATE DUE TO PUTTING ALL THESE WIND
TURBINES UP. BUT AT THE NUMBERS
WE’RE TALKING ABOUT: FOUR MILLION WIND TURBINES
FOR HALF THE WORLD’S ENERGY, IT’S REALLY A TRIVIAL IMPACT
ON THE WATER BUDGET OVERALL. YOU’LL GET LOCAL IMPACTS,
REDUCING WIND SPEEDS, MAYBE CHANGING THE PRECIPITATION
LOCALLY. BUT YOU’RE NOT GOING TO HAVE
LARGE-SCALE CLIMATE IMPACTS FROM THOSE TURBINES. – HI. THAT WAS A GREAT TALK. I WAS JUST WONDERING
IF THE PLANS LOOKED INTO DISTRIBUTION
LOGISTICS. SO DISTRIBUTING PLACES
THAT HAVE HIGH SOLAR ENERGY AND HIGH WIND SPEEDS TO AREAS
THAT NEED THE ENERGY TO USE. – WELL, SO THE TRANSMISSION
SYSTEM. THAT’S KIND OF WHERE
ONE OF THE BARRIERS IS. NOT SO MUCH TECHNICAL
OR ECONOMIC. YOU WOULD–WELL, IN THE U.S.
YOU HAVE A LOT OF WIND IN THE GREAT PLAINS,
FOR EXAMPLE. YOU ALSO HAVE A LOT OF WINDS
OFFSHORE THE EAST COAST. AND–BUT EVERY STATE
HAS SOME WIND, EXCEPT IN THE SOUTH,
IT’S NOT THAT GREAT. BUT THERE ARE STILL PLACES
IN THE SOUTH. SO YOU WOULD–AND THE SAME THING
WITH SOLAR. YOU HAVE A LOT OF SOLAR
IN THE SOUTHWEST, BUT EVERY STATE HAS SOME
AMOUNT OF SOLAR. BUT IN PARTICULAR FOR WIND, YOU MIGHT NEED LONG-DISTANCE
TRANSMISSION. SO THERE’S JUST GOING
TO BE A BALANCE. TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE,
IN THE EAST COAST. IS IT LESS EXPENSIVE
TO BUILD OFFSHORE WIND, WHICH YOU HAVE VERY LITTLE
TRANSMISSION AND IT’S RIGHT NEXT
TO WHERE PEOPLE LIVE, OR HAVE WIND THAT’S 2 CENTS
A KILOWATT HOUR IN THE GREAT PLAINS, AND THEN BUILD TRANSMISSION
TO THE EAST COAST? I MEAN, THAT’S THE QUESTION
THAT ARISES. I MEAN, THERE’S ALREADY
A TRANSMISSION GRID ACROSS THE WHOLE U.S. THE QUESTION–YOU’LL PROBABLY
NEED TO ENHANCE IT. AND THAT’S MORE
OF A ZONING ISSUE. A LOT OF PEOPLE JUST DON’T WANT
TO ADD TRANSMISSION. AND SO IT’S NOT A TECHNICAL
OR ECONOMIC ISSUE, BUT IT IS A POLITICAL ISSUE. AND THAT’S ONE OF THE POSSIBLE
BARRIERS TO DOING THIS
ON A LARGE SCALE. – SO PLEASE JOIN ME IN THANKING
DR. MARK JACOBSON FOR AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [applause] [musical tones]
[electronic sounds of data]