CEE 176B/276B

100% Clean, Renewable Energy and

Storage for Everything

Chapter 3
Why Some Technologies are Not
Included
Mark Z. Jacobson
Stanford University
Why Not Non-WWS Technologies?
 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) Emissions
CO2e = CO2 + CH4 x GWPCH4 + N2O x GWPN2O + BC x GWPBC

GWP = Global Warming Potential (either 20-yr or 100-yr)

Measure of how much heat radiation 1 kg emissions of a chemical will absorb
over time relative to 1 kg emissions of CO2. The higher the GWP, the greater
the global warming per unit emission.
20-year GWP 100-year GWP Lifetime
(yr)
CO2 1.0 1.0 50-80
CH4 86 34 12.4
N2O 268 298 121
Why Not Natural Gas as a Bridge Fuel?
Sources Natural Gas
Conventional wells
Fracked wells
Uses
Electricity
Open cycle gas turbine (OCGT)
Combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT)
Heat, Transportation
Claim: Gas needed as a “bridge fuel” between coal and renewables
“Because natural gas is cleaner than coal” and is needed to fill in
gaps in supply when wind/solar not available
Are these claims true?
 20-yr Emissions (g-CO2e/kWh-Electricity)
Coal Natural gas CCGT
CO2e upstream 160 100
CH4-leakage 353 255
CO2-stack 905 404
BC+OM stack 141 0.93
NOx-N stack -129 -8.4
SO2-S stack -1,050 -2.1
Total (20-yr CO2e) 380 749
Total (100-yr CO2e) 845 603

 Combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) causes 2x the warming as

coal over 20 years and only 29% less over 100 years

Why Not Natural Gas?
Gas wells Upper Green River Valley, WY
WWS+storage now less
expensive than gas for peaking
60 times the 100-yr CO2e and air
pollution per kWh as wind
Gas mining, transport, +use cause
5000 U.S. premature deaths/yr
3.2 mil. abandoned & 1.3 mil. active
oil& gas wells in U.S. + need 50,000
more each year  devastates land &
creates leaks.
Hydrofracking degrades land & water
and increases leaks more.
 Land Areas Required For Fossil Fuels
California United States
Active oil and gas wells 105,000 1.3 million
Abandoned oil wells 225,000 2.6 million
Abandoned gas wells 48,000 550,000
Coal mines 0 680
Oil refineries 17 135
Kilometers of gas pipeline 180,000 2.6 million
Kilometers of oil pipeline 4,800 258,000
Power plants 39 3,360
Gas stations 10,200 156,000
Gas storage facilities 10 394
% of California or US land 1.2 1.3
Why Not Natural Gas or Coal With
Carbon Capture?
 Carbon Capture From Electric Power Plant
Carbon capture and sequestration
Underground
Saline aquifers
Depleted oil and gas fields
Un-minable coal seams
In the oceans
In building materials

Carbon capture and use

Enhanced oil recovery
Carbon-based fuels
Carbonated water
Why Not “Clean Coal” (With Carbon Capture)?
33-211 times more CO2e emissions
per kWh than wind

100-300 times more air pollutant

emissions per kWh than wind

Requires 25-50% more energy, thus

25-50% more coal or gas mining and
transport and traditional pollution than Clean coal mining with wind
normal coal or gas. turbines obscuring the view:
Jonathan Leake
 Coal Plant With CCU Powered by Natural Gas
Units: kg-CO2e/MWh 20 yr 100
yr
a) Upstream CO2 and leaked CH4 from coal 450 237
b) CO2 from stack 931 931
c) CO2 captured from stack by equipment 516 516
Percent of stack CO2 captured (c/b) 55% 55%

d) CO2e emitted by natural gas mining+combustion 367 283

e) Captured CO2e not returned to air by natgas (c-d) 149 233
Percent CO2e reduction realized e/(a+b) 10.8% 20%

 CCU attached to coal plant reduces only 11-20% of CO2e it is

 Coal Plant With CCU Powered by Wind
Units: kg-CO2e/MWh 20 yr 100
yr
a) Upstream CO2 and leaked CH4 from coal 450 237
b) CO2 from stack 931 931
c) CO2 captured from stack by equipment 516 516
Percent of stack CO2 captured (c/b) 55% 55%

d) CO2e emitted by wind to power CCU 0 0

e) Captured CO2e not returned to air (c-d) 516 516

Percent CO2e reduction realized e/(a+b) 37.4%

44.2%
 Replacing 49.7% of Coal Plant w/Wind (no CCU)
Units: kg-CO2e/MWh 20 yr 100
yr
a) Upstream coal CO2e before replacing w/wind 450 237
b) Stack CO2 coal before replacing with wind 931 931
c) Total before replacing with wind (a+b) 1,381 1,168
d) Upstream coal CO2e after replacing w/wind 227 119
e) Stack CO2 coal after replacing with wind 468 468
f) Total after replacing with wind (d+e) 695 587

e) CO2e reduction due to wind (c-f) 686 581

Percent CO2e reduction realized e/c 49.7%

 Summary of CCS/U
Using natural gas to run coal-CCU reduces CO2e only 11.8-
20% over 20-100 years while increasing air pollution and
mining 25% and incurring a CCU equipment cost.

Using wind to run coal-CCU reduces CO2e only 34-44% while

keeping air pollution+mining the same & incurring equip cost.

Using same wind to replace coal reduces coal emissions, air

pollution, and mining 49.7% and has no equipment cost.
 Total CO2e Emissions of an Energy Technology

Lifecycle emissions
Opportunity cost emissions
Anthropogenic heat emissions
Anthropogenic water vapor emissions
Emissions from CCS leakage
Emissions from nuclear weapons risk
Loss of CO2 from soil/vegetation by covering ground
 Opportunity Cost Emissions
EOC = EBR,H - EBR,L

EBR,H = Background emissions due to technology with longer delays

EBR,L = Background emissions due to technology with shorter delays

EBR = EG × ([TPO + (Y – TPO) × TR / (L+TR)] / Y

EG = Emission intensity of background grid (g-CO2e/kWh)

TPO = Time (years) between planning and operation of a technology
Y = Number of years of interest (e.g., 100 y)
 Opportunity Cost Emissions Example
Find opportunity cost emissions over Y = 100 y if EG = 550 g-CO2e/kWh

Plant A Plant B
TPO 15 y 3y
L 40 y 30 y
TR 3y 1y

EBR,H=550 g-CO2e/kWh × [15 y + (100 y–15 y) × 3 y/43 y)] / 100 y = 115 g-CO2e/kWh

EBR,L=550 g-CO2e/kWh × [3 y + (100 y-3 y) × 1 y/31 y)] / 100 y = 33.7 g-CO2e/kWh

E =E -E = 81.3 g-CO e/kWh

 Anthropogenic Heat Emissions
CO2 equivalent emissions (g-CO2e/kWh) due to heat release

H = ECO2 × Ah / (FCO2 × Gelec)

ECO2 = Equilibrium global anthropogenic emission rate of CO2 (g-

CO2/y) that gives CO2 anthropogenic mixing ratio cCO2
= cCO2C/tCO2
C = 8.0055×1015 g-CO2 / ppmv-CO2
tCO2 = CO2 lifetime (50 y in 2019)
FCO2 = Direct radiative forcing (W/m2) of CO2 at mixing ratio cCO2
 Anthropogenic Heat Emissions, Example
Ah = 0.027 W/m2 for all anthropogenic heat worldwide
= 4.87% from coal; 1.55% from nuclear
Gelec = 8.622×1012 kWh/y from coal; 2.64×1012 kWh/y from nuclear
FCO2 = 1.82 W/m2
cCO2 = 113 ppmv -->
ECO2 = cCO2C/tCO2 = 1.809×1016 g-CO2/y

H = ECO2 × Ah / (FCO2 × Gelec)

= 1.52 g-CO2e/kWh for coal
= 1.57 g-CO2e/kWh for nuclear
 Anthropogenic Water Vapor Emissions
CO2 equivalent emissions (g-CO2e/kWh) due to moisture from source

M = ECO2 × Am / (FCO2 × Gelec)

Am = Anthropogenic moisture flux (W/m2) due to technology

= V × Le × Gelec / (S × Ae)

V = Water vapor flux per unit energy (kg-H2O/kWh)

Le = Latent heat of evaporation (2.465×106 J/kg-H2O)
S =3.1536×107 seconds per year
14 2
 Anthropogenic Moisture Emissions, Example
Am = 0.00268 W/m2 from natural gas plants worldwide
Gelec = 7.208×1012 kWh/y from natural gas
FCO2 = 1.82 W/m2
cCO2 = 113 ppmv -->
ECO2 = cCO2C/tCO2 = 1.809×1016 g-CO2/y

M = ECO2 × Am / (FCO2 × Gelec)

= 3.69 g-CO2e/kWh
Evaluation of Nuclear Power
 Nuclear Reactors
Light water reactors – once through reactors
Boiling water reactor
Water boiled directly; steam drives turbine/generator
Pressurized water reactor
High pressure to increase boiling point
Heat transferred to adjacent water

Breeder reactor
Uses reprocessed uranium, extending uranium life
Can be optimized to produce plutonium for weapons

Small modular reactor

 Nuclear Fission

Neutron + 235U  92Kr + 141Ba + 3 neutrons + gamma rays

 Issues With Nuclear
1) Produces 9-37 times more CO2e & pollution per kWh than wind
2) Takes 10-19 yrs between planning & operation vs 2-5 yrs for
wind/solar
3) Costs 3-5 x that of onshore wind/utility PV
4)  Takes 2-10 times longer to obtain 1/3rd to 1/5th the CO2 savings per
dollar than wind/solar.
5) IPCC 2014: P. 517. “Robust evidence, high agreement” that
increased use of nuclear leads to more
(a) Weapons proliferation risk
(b) Meltdown risk
(c) Waste risk
(d) Mining risk
 Time Between Planning & Operation
Nuclear 10-19 yr (lifetime 40 yr before refurbishing)
Site permit: 3.5-6 yr
Construction permit approval and issue 2.5-4 yr
Construction time 4-9 yr
Coal-CCS 6-11 yr (30-35 yr)
Biomass 4-9 yr (30-35 yr)

Hydroelectric 8-16 yr (80 yr)

Geothermal 3-6 yr (30-40 yr)
Wind 2-5 yr (30 yr)
CSP 2-5 yr (30 yr)
Utility PV 2-5 yr (30 yr)
Roof PV 0.5-2 yr (30 yr)
 Nuclear Planning-to-Operation Times

Construction Time Plan-to-Operation Time

(Years) (Years)
Olkiluoto 3 (Finland) 21
Hinkley Point (UK) 17-19
Vogtle 3 and 4 (US) 8.5-9 15-16
Flamanville (France) 16 19
Haiyang 1 and 2 (China) 9 13-14
Taishan 1 and 2 (China) 10-11 12-13
Ringhals (Sweden) 10-18
 Nuclear Versus Wind CO2e Emissions
Nuclear Onshore wind
(g-CO2e/kWh) (g-CO2e/kWh)
Lifecycle 9-70 7-10.8
Opportunity cost 64-102 0
Anthropogenic heat 1.6 -1.7 to -0.7
Anthropogenic water vapor 2.8 -0.5 to -1.5
Weapons proliferation risk 0-1.4 0
Covering land 0.17-0.28 0.0003
Total 78-178 4.8-8.6

Ratio of nuclear to wind 9-37:1

 Why Impossible for Nuclear to Solve Warming
1) Can allow 350-575 GT-CO2 after 2015 to stay below 1.5 oC warming

2) Eliminating 80% emiss. by 2030; 100% by 2050 emits ~415 GT CO2

3) This requires reducing today’s emissions ~5.3%/year for 15 years.

4) A new nuclear plant proposed today requires 10-19 yrs until it operates
Wind/solar need 2-5 years.
5)  Impossible for nuclear to avoid 1.5 oC warming; possible for WWS.
Why Not Biomass For Electricity or Heat?
 Sources of Biomass Energy
Agricultural residues – e.g., straw, livestock waste
Forestry residues – e.g., bark, woodchips, forest thinning logs
Energy crops
Dry wood crops – e.g., willow
Herbaceous crops – e.g., switchgrass
Oil energy crops – e.g., sugar beet
Starch energy crops – e.g., corn
Wood, food industry residues – e.g., sawdust
Park and garden waste – e.g., grass
Contaminated waste – e.g., municipal waste
 Biomass Versus Wind CO2e Emissions
Biomass Onshore wind
(g-CO2e/kWh) (g-CO2e/kWh)
Lifecycle 43-1,730 7-10.8
Opportunity cost 36-51 0
Anthropogenic heat 3.4 -1.7 to -0.7
Anthropogenic water vapor 3.2 -0.5 to -1.5
Covering land 0.09-0.5 0.0003
Total 86-1,788 4.8-8.6

Ratio of biomass to wind 10-373

 Bioenergy With Carbon Capture & Storage
BECCS

Requires 25 to 50 percent more energy

 25 to 50 percent more air pollution
Air pollution already high from biomass combustion
Few storage locations available
 Coupled with enhanced oil recovery
Increases fertilizer use by removing agricultural residues
High cost  opportunity cost
Why Not Liquid Biofuels For
Transportation?
 Types of Biofuels

Ethanol (E10, E85, E100)

Corn
Sugarcane
Cellulosic
Butanol
Biodiesel (B100)
Soy
Algae
 CO2 Emissions and Air Pollution Deaths
BE/HFC Vehicles Versus E85 Vehicles
Percent change in all U.S. CO e emissions

40 Maximum possible

Cel-E85
reduction is 40.3%
30
Wind-HFCV
Wind-BEV

20 CSP-BEV
2

PV-BEV
10
0
-10 Corn-E85

-20
-30
-40
Spacing Area For BE/HFC Vehicles Versus E85
Vehicles
 Area to Power 100% of U.S. Onroad Vehicles

Wind-BEV
Footprint 1-2.8 km2
Turbine spacing
0.35-0.7% of US
Nuclear-BEV
0.05-0.062%
Cellulosic E85 Footprint 33%
4.7-35.4% of US of total; the rest is
buffer

Corn E85
9.8-17.6% of
US Geoth BEV
0.006-0.008%

Solar PV-BEV
0.077-0.18%
Why Not Synthetic Direct Air Carbon
Capture and Storage?
 Synthetic Direct Air Capture and Storage

Removes CO2 from air by chemical reaction

CO2 + Ca(OH)2 CaCO3 + H2O

CaCO3 + heat  CO2 + CaO
CaO + H2O  Ca(OH)2

Needs continuous source of energy

 Opportunity Cost of SDACCS
WWS energy technologies do the same thing as SDACCS
Prevent carbon from getting into air rather than remove it

But WWS also eliminates or reduces

a) non-CO2 air pollutants from fossil combustion
b) upstream fuel mining and pollution
c) pipeline, refinery, gas station, etc. infrastructure
d) oil spills, oil fires, gas leaks, gas explosions
e) International conflicts over energy
 Direct Air Capture Powered by Natural Gas
Units: kg-CO2e/MWh 20 yr 100
yr
a) CO2 removed from air 825 825
b) CO2e returned to air to natural gas upstream 334 165
c) CO2 returned to air natural gas combustion 404 404
d) Net CO2e reduced due to natural gas (a-b-c) 87 256
Percent of removed CO2e that stays removed (d/a) 11% 31%

 Natural gas-powered DAC reduces a net of only 11-31% of CO2e that

is captured over 20-100 years.
 Direct Air Capture Powered by Wind
Units: kg-CO2e/MWh 20 yr 100
yr
a) CO2 removed from air 825 825
b) CO2 returned to air due to running equipment 0 0
c) CO2e reduction due to wind (a-b) 825 825
Percent of removed CO2e that stays removed (c/a) 100% 100%

 Wind-powered DAC reduces 825 kg-CO2e/MWh, but it does not

reduce air pollution or mining of coal, and it incurs both a DAC
equipment and wind equipment cost.
 Replacing 100% of Coal Plant w/Wind (no DAC)
Units: kg-CO2e/MWh 20 yr 100
yr
a) Upstream+stack coal CO2e before replacing 1,381 1,168
b) Upstream+stack coal CO2 after replacing 0 0
c) CO2e reduction due to wind (a-b) 1,381 1,168

Percent CO2e reduction realized c/a 100% 100%

 Replacing coal with wind reduces more CO2e (1,381 to 1,168 versus
825 kg-CO2e/MWh) than using DAC powered by wind and also reduces
coal air pollution and mining at no DAC equipment cost (same wind
cost).
 Change in CO2e and Social Cost in 3 DAC Cases

1st case: no change; 2nd: Use SDACCU powered by natural gas;

3rd : Use SDACCU powered by wind; 4th: replace coal with wind
Why Not Geoengineering?
 Types of Geoengineering
Carbon capture

Solar radiation management

Inject reflective aerosol particles into stratosphere
Inject fine sea spray particles just above ocean
Install white roofs or roads

Unintended consequences and opportunity cost