Ram To Offer Natural-Gas HD Pickup Trucks...
Hydrogen Aston Martin Rapide Completes First...
Could The 2015 Toyota Fuel-Cell Vehicle Cost...
We approach energy policy with care here, since GreenCarReports is largely about ... well, cars.
But a recent article claims it could take just 40 years to convert the bulk of the world's global energy usage from fossil fuels to renewable energy, primarily wind and solar power.
That's not only vehicle fuel, but also electric-power generation, home heating, and the many other global activities that rely on the remarkably high energy density of the hydrocarbon molecules in coal, oil, and natural gas.
Researchers from Stanford University and the University of California-Davis published their analysis in the journal Energy Policy.
Measuring costs vs benefits
The main challenges, say the authors, will be summoning the global will to make the conversion. "There are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources," said author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford professor, saying it is only a question of "whether we have the societal and political will."
Another challenge: accurately accounting for both the costs (which are comparatively easy to tally and project) and the benefits (which are tougher).
When looking at the cost of junking half a century's worth of existing power plants, for example, how can electric utilities benefit from the tens of billions of dollars in public health costs that will be avoided in the future once those emissions are no longer being generated?
Those public-health benefits might include saving 2.5 to 3 million lives each year.
And then there's the benefit of halting climate change, not to mention reductions in water pollution, and increased energy security as more of each nation's energy is generated from within its own borders.
Step One: New generation from renewables
The authors assessed the costs, benefits, and materials requirements necessary to convert the bulk of the world's energy usage to renewable sources.
Just as it will do over the next few decades for cars, electricity will play an increasingly large role, with 90 percent from wind turbines and various forms of solar generation.
Hydroelectric and geothermal sources would each provide about 4 percent of the total, with another 2 percent from wave and tidal power.
Vehicles would run either on electricity provided by the power grid, or hydrogen stored under high pressure and converted to electricity in a fuel cell. Airplanes would be fueled with liquid hydrogen. But, crucially, the hydrogen would all be produced electrically, with the electricity coming from those same renewable sources: wind, sun, and water.
The analysis shows that the land and raw materials needed won't pose a problem. What will be needed is a much more robust electrical grid. By 2030, say the authors, all new generating capacity can be provided by renewable sources, with no further fossil-fuel plants built globally.
Step Two: Shutting down the old stuff
Then comes the second stage: starting to convert existing generating plants from fossil fuels to renewables. That, say the authors, will take another two decades.
End game: By 2050, fossil fuels will have been replaced for more than 90 percent of global energy use. The world's citizens will do more things electrically, from heating their homes to commuting to work, and the carbon footprint of industry, transportation, and other sectors will be approaching zero.
Have an opinion?
cdspeed Posted: 2/17/2011 7:55am PST
Tony H Posted: 2/17/2011 4:32pm PST
David Collyer Posted: 2/18/2011 5:06am PST
Jim Posted: 2/18/2011 5:25am PST
Scott Posted: 2/18/2011 5:37am PST
waitingGuy Posted: 2/18/2011 6:08am PST
waitingGuy Posted: 2/18/2011 6:09am PST
Paul Posted: 2/18/2011 6:10am PST
I suppose it CAN be done by 2050 -- a WHOLE generation away! But I just don't see the world's governments having the "political will" to do so.
GG Posted: 2/18/2011 6:36am PST
A guy Posted: 2/18/2011 6:50am PST
dell Posted: 2/18/2011 6:56am PST
cdspeed Posted: 2/18/2011 7:35am PST
AC Posted: 2/18/2011 7:36am PST
Darren Posted: 2/18/2011 7:40am PST
http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/17/biofuels-biodiesel-boeing-intelligent-technology-biofuels.html
Cherax Posted: 2/18/2011 7:41am PST
scareduck Posted: 2/18/2011 8:03am PST
"There are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources," said author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford professor, saying it is only a question of "whether we have the societal and political will."
ThundrNeon Posted: 2/18/2011 10:56am PST
Reddy Kilowatt Posted: 2/18/2011 1:17pm PST
From the Proceedings of the IEEE (including introductory articles):
"Keeping the Energy Debate Clean: How Do We Supply the World's Energy Needs?"
http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/personal/dabbott/publications/PIE_abbott2010.pdf
-Regards.
jimh Posted: 2/18/2011 2:13pm PST
Good luck with that one.
eye Posted: 2/18/2011 3:19pm PST
charles Posted: 2/18/2011 9:59pm PST
This is the missing link for part 2
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf
Go and see David Mackay's work if you want to read a self contained and consistent document about energy transition scenarios. http://www.withouthotair.com/
Ralph Posted: 2/19/2011 3:42am PST
If people wish to see a large part of their population freeze during the winter months, than yeah it's a great idea. Ask Scotland how green energy worked for them this winter.
Paul Posted: 2/19/2011 7:59am PST
Hydrogen is not realistic. Decreasing oil supply will dramatically alter humanity and many will starve. Try and feed eight to ten billion people with no oil. That would be a miracle.
Sherwood Botsford Posted: 2/19/2011 5:54pm PST
Converting surplus energy to gasoline may be an option. It makes sense as we have the infra-structure to handle gasoline.
Ethanol from food crops is just stupid. Ethanol from cellulose shows promise, but it will be a niche market. Coal gas (CO + H2 CH3OH + assorted hydrocarbons) from ag waste, with the carbon going back to the soil is also a possibility at least for ag regions.
Methanol makes the most sense as a direct fuel replacement for gasoline. Much safer to handle, can be moved around in pipes. Many engines can use it with either no or minor modifications.
At present it we get more bang for our buck by reducing energy use, than we get by developing new energy sources.
Some of this is social engineering: If we encourage firms to developing housing onsite or near by, we potentially can reduce the commute of many people. Smaller cars use less fuel.
Some of it is building standards: In Canada we use as much energy for heating as we do for transport, and we use a lot for both, being a large cold nation.
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!