# Presentation: 497679

**Strategies for a sustainable, **
**CO****2**** neutral energy economy**
** **
- Daniel M. Kammen
- Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory
- Energy and Resources Group & Goldman School of Public Policy
- University of California, Berkeley
- Solar to Fuel – Future Challenges and Solutions
- Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, March 28, 2005

## Mobilizing for a Low-Carbon Economy

- http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/total.html#IntlCarbon

- The time-scale of the Greenhouse problem (and opportunity) is ~ 5 decades.
- Doubling the pre-industrial CO2 level in the atmosphere is *roughly* the* *boundary between altered and unsafe; without action this be crossed within *roughly *50-75 years. (This is *not* a prescription to wait, but a call for dramatic action *now*.)
- Unconventional oil and gas, and coal, *are abundant*. With *15 times* or more of these resources than oil, action on climate won’t be initiated significantly by resource depletion (i.e. I disagree with *Hubbert’s Peak)*
- A portfolio approach is essential.  The most basic lesson of our energy past is that diversity is our greatest ally (and the one we abandon most rapidly in a crisis).  Basic research and policy analysis leading to action are *both* needed to open new opportunities for a low-carbon economy.
- Bottom line: Despite some important successes, a *seed change* is needed

## World Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption of Fossil Fuels, 1980-2000

- http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/total.html#IntlCarbon

- Climate-carbon connection:
- 2.1 Gt(C) = 1 ppm(v)

## Modeled Response to Natural & Anthropogenic Climate Forcings 

**Modeled Response to Natural & Anthropogenic Climate Forcings**** **

***Global Circulation Model (GCM) results; summarized in IPCC 2001***

- GCM: Natural forcings only	         GCM: human + natural forcings

** ****Philosophical changes require motivation:**
**Yet we have both local and global**
** ‘****smoking guns’**

## The ‘slice’ heuristic:

- Ecological CO2 ‘target’

- Doubled CO2 ‘target’

- Expected path (BAU)

- 18

- Gt(C)/yr

- 12

- 6

- 0

**2000**

**2050**

**2100**

- Socolow and Pacala (2004)

## 15 “slices”

- 18

- 12

- 6

- 0

- Gt(C)/yr

**2000**

**2050**

**2100**

-                    50 year pathways to evolve 1.0 Gt(C)/yr carbon offsets

- Socolow and Pacala (2004)

## A. Capturing SolarEnergy in space(Peter Glaser et al., 1970s)

- A. Capturing SolarEnergy in space(Peter Glaser et al., 1970s)

-  B. Global       Superconducting
-      Transmission Grid
-     (Buckminster Fuller,
-              1970s)

- A View of our energy system as unlikely
- to make sufficient progress
- toward a low-carbon future without revolutions

- Hoffert *et al.* (2003)

## Between you and me, I am rather dismayed by the responses.

**We have done too little to move beyond ‘solving’ the (easy) boundary value problems... which are the ones we *****want***** to hear**

## Residential Electricity Use

- Energy Star Home

- Average Dane

- Average in Berkeley

**Residential Electricity Use**
**(kWh/capita, 1960 - 2000)**

## Energy

**Source: Kammen & Ling, in press**

**Energy**
**Efficiency**
**Futures**

- Conclusions:
-  **Moderate path**:
- 1.5% annual improvement
- Emissions growth halted at a savings
- B) **Aggressive path**:
- 2.9% annual improvement
- Meet Kyoto levels by efficiency alone & facilitate clean energy market development

## Annual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP 

**Annual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP **
**for the United States**

**-6%**

**-5%**

**-4%**

**-3%**

**-2%**

**-1%**

**0%**

**1%**

**2%**

**1981**

**1982**

**1983**

**1984**

**1985**

**1986**

**1987**

**1988**

**1989**

**1990**

**1991**

**1992**

**1993**

**1994**

**1995**

**1996**

**1997**

**1998**

**1999**

**2000**

**2001**

- IEA data

- EIA data

**- 2.7%**

**Average = - 0.7%**

**- 3.4%**

- Rosenfeld, CEC, LBL

**Notes:**
The next five figures  illustrate annual rates of change in energy intensity data provided by the United States Energy Information Agency and the International Energy Agency.  Figures are provided for the United States, the state of California, Western Europe, China and the entire World.  Recent changes (from 1997 onward) look to me (and to Joe Romm) to be making a permanent change in the rate of decrease of our energy intensity (E/GDP).  The vertical lines divide the time period (1981 to 2001) into three eras.  Era 1 covers the latter years of high OPEC oil prices.  Era 2 starts soon after the collapse of OPEC and the consequent stagnation of CAFE  (Corporate Automobile Fuel Economy) standards.  Era 3 begins with the significant impact of information technologies on business and the economy.  The numbers written above each era reflect the average rate of change in E/GDP (EIA data) for that era. Compare for example, in the United States trend in Era 2 of only – 0.7% per year to the more sudden – 2.7% per year in Era 3

## Source: T. J. Berniard, NREL

## World PV Module Shipments (Megawatts)(25% annual growth for 10+ years)

**         ****2003 Annual growth: 34%; 50% in 2004 (to 1200 MW)**
**Today: global PV production is equivalent (MW) to one large fossil-fuel power plant/year**

## 6 Boxes at 3.3 TW Each = 20 TWe

**6 Boxes at 3.3 TW Each = 20 TWe**

**A useful (?) heuristic, or an example of stagnant thinking**

**Notes:**
The old view! Not appropriate in today’s world for a whole lot of reasons, but makes the point that it would be relatively “easy” to do a lot better with Solar than we do today.

Talk about passive solar as well.

## Solar Across Scales

**Solar Across Scales**
- Moscone Center: 675,000 W

- Kenyan PV market:
- Average system: 18W

- Kammen home: 2400 W

## Performance Results for a-Si PV Modules

## Learning Curve for PV Modules (crystalline silicon) 

- Today PV electricity costs about $0.20 - 0.25/kWh,
- Which can be compared with $0.32/kWh PG&E charges for TOU customers during peak time (noon-6pm)

**Notes:**
And because of the present market size it is now much more difficult to beat crystalline silicon than it was 15 years ago. 
And any new technology that wants to keep and even increase its market share has to grow faster and learn faster (that is bring production cost down faster) than this.
And I can see no signs yet in a slowing of the learning rate of crystalline silicon solar modules.
I am therefore very optimistic that these milestones here can be reached with crystalline silicon.  

## Slide 18

## Biomass – in Sub Saharan Africa(500 million tons/yr)

**Biomass accounts for :**
- 70% of total energy use
- 90% of household use
*Compared with 3% for OECD countries*
**Of harvested wood :**
- ~ 75% used for cooking
- ~ 15% used to make charcoal
**Charcoal use is:**
- Growing faster than woodfuel
- Mainly commercial urban fuel
- Attributed main blame for unsustainable forest use

**Bailis, Ezzati and Kammen (2005)**

**Notes:**
Start with some basic background about biomass energy in Africa

## World Wind Electricity Capacity (Megawatts)(20%+ annual growth for over a decade!)

_**Global leaders**_**: Germany, Denmark, Spain, US, UK, China, India (> 85 of global market)**
**US *****was***** a global leader, today we are a player, but not the leader.**

**Megawatts**

## State Renewables Portfolio Standards and Mandates – 16 States

- Renewable energy “goals” established in Illinois and Minnesota
- RPS being considered in many other states (e.g., VT, WA); potentially revised in others (ME, PA, WI); and national RPS is being discussed (by some)

**HI: 20% by 2020**

**CA: 20% by 2017                              **

**11/2/04**

**NY: 25% by 2020**

- R. Wiser, LBL

## http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html

**http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html**

**Report **
**available**
**at:**

- Study reviews:
-  13 studies of
-   job creation
-  Message:
-   energy
-   efficiency and
-   renewables
-   create large
-   numbers of
-   high quality
-   jobs

## New SUV Models Coming Soon

**The Kenworth Grand** **Dominator**
**     ****- Extra high roof/cathedral ceilings**
**     ****- Power expandable sides**
**     ****- Full lavatory**

**The Peterbuilt Crusader**
**All Sport Denali**
**The worlds first two story high **
**performance sport brute**
**Crusader-E Edition: includes elevator**

- Source: http://poseur.4x4.org/futuresuv.html

## Greenhouse Comparison:FCVs, ICEs and Hybrid Vehicles

- Source: Bevilacqua-Knight, 2001

## Carbon-Free Power by 2050(Berry and Lamont) 

**U.S. Population****	****400 million people****	****(up 40%)**
**Electricity Use****	****3 kWe/capita ****	****	****(up 37%)**
**Wind ****	****	****300,000 5 MW Turbines (All the wind-****	**
**	****	****	****	****power available from the Dakotas)****	****	****	****	**
**Solar PV****	****	****150 million 25 kW roofs (Every roof top **
**	****	****	****	****in the United States)**
**Biomass****	****	****Not included, but could be > 10% of total**
**Advanced Fission****	****300 1 GWe nuclear plants (50% efficient)**
**	****	****	**
**100% H****2**** Vehicles****	****“80 mpg”  average for cars and SUV’s                                       ****	****	****	****3 million H****2**** trucks, 5000 LH****2**** airliners**

## So, What are We Doing About All This?

- Well, ....

## Federal R&D Investments, 1955 - 2004

**Federal R&D Investments, 1955 - 2004**

## Private Sector R&D Investment in Health and Energy

**Private Sector R&D Investment in Health and Energy**

**Kammen qnd Nemet, 2005**

## Federal R&D Policy Can be Very Effective(All sectors of the U. S. Economy)

- Federal R&D Policy Can be Very Effective(All sectors of the U. S. Economy)

**Margolis and Kammen (1999)**

**Patents Granted (thousands)**

**R&D Spending (billions)**

## The Same Funding-Patent Correlation ...But Now for Energy Only

**The Same Funding-Patent Correlation ...****But Now for Energy Only**

**Patents Granted (thousands)**

**R&D Spending (billions)**

**Margolis and Kammen (1999)**

## Kammen and Nemet (2005) in review

**Kammen and Nemet (2005) in review**

## Some Critical Needs for Research

** ****Drivers: funding; technology diversity; markets**
** ****Low cost energy storage**
**H****2****, flywheels, compressed air, pumped hydro, ...**
** ****Biomass gassification across scales of application**
** ****Power electronics for mini-grids, distributed systems **
** ****Carbon sequestration**
** ****Nano energy and wireless systems to initiate a second **
**  ‘****wave’ of energy efficiency increases**
** ****Understanding and action on the economics of carbon   **
**  ****(and pollutants generally)**

**Some Critical Needs for Research**

## Opportunities for Policy Action

** ****Support Solar Home bills (build clean energy markets)**
** ****& renewable energy/energy efficient mortgages**
** ****Accelerate the CA Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard**
** ****Enact carbon cap & trade: work with western states, **
**  ****northeast US (RGGI), UK**
** ****Get serious about Kyoto and *****a ***_***carbon tax***_

**Opportunities for Policy Action**

## To Address Climate Change, we must utilize renewable energy

**Carbon/kWh for atmospheric stabilization at 450, 550 ppm**

- kg (carbon)/kWh of Electricity

- Advanced coal
-  technologies

- Atmospheric CO2 concentration in 1850: 265 ppm
- Atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2000: 370 ppm

**Notes:**
Emissions estimates are based on heat rates of 10000, 8350, 7200, and 6200 Btu/kWh for coal steam, IGCC, AIGCC, and Gas CC plants, respectively, and carbon contents of 24.4 and 13.6 kg per GJ for coal and gas, respectively. The horizontal lines roughly indicate the average global emissions level in the year 2100 per kWh to keep atmospheric carbon levels at two times the preindustrial level (550 ppmv) and 1.6 times preindustrial levels (450 ppmv). Sequestration will be required or a substantial fraction of electricity will have to come from nuclear an d renewable energy to reach these average per kWh emissions levels. Estimated year 2100 carbon emissions for 550 ppmv assume a carbon trajectory rising from 6 PgC/yr in 2100 and continuing to fall thereafter. I f world per capita electricity consumption in  2100 is 6.3 times 1990 levels of a net 10,400 billion kWh, or 65 billion kWh, as depicted in the IPCC IS92a reference scenario, and if electricity accounts for 1/3 of carbon emissions across the entire global economy, then 2 PgC divided by 65 billion kwh gives an average emission level of .031 kg carbon per kWh. At 450 ppmv, the result is .021 kg carbon per kWh.  Carbon trajectories are drawn from Edmonds et al. (1996).
Source: Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the Twenty-First Century. Report of the Energy Research and Development Panel, The President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. November 1997.

## To Address Climate Change, we must utilize renewable energy

**Carbon/kWh for atmospheric stabilization at 450, 550 ppm**

- kg (carbon)/kWh of Electricity

- Advanced coal
-  technologies

- Atmospheric CO2 concentration in 1850: 265 ppm
- Atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2000: 370 ppm

****** ****= -1%/yr**

- To Address Climate Change, we must utilize renewable energy

**Notes:**
Emissions estimates are based on heat rates of 10000, 8350, 7200, and 6200 Btu/kWh for coal steam, IGCC, AIGCC, and Gas CC plants, respectively, and carbon contents of 24.4 and 13.6 kg per GJ for coal and gas, respectively. The horizontal lines roughly indicate the average global emissions level in the year 2100 per kWh to keep atmospheric carbon levels at two times the preindustrial level (550 ppmv) and 1.6 times preindustrial levels (450 ppmv). Sequestration will be required or a substantial fraction of electricity will have to come from nuclear an d renewable energy to reach these average per kWh emissions levels. Estimated year 2100 carbon emissions for 550 ppmv assume a carbon trajectory rising from 6 PgC/yr in 2100 and continuing to fall thereafter. I f world per capita electricity consumption in  2100 is 6.3 times 1990 levels of a net 10,400 billion kWh, or 65 billion kWh, as depicted in the IPCC IS92a reference scenario, and if electricity accounts for 1/3 of carbon emissions across the entire global economy, then 2 PgC divided by 65 billion kwh gives an average emission level of .031 kg carbon per kWh. At 450 ppmv, the result is .021 kg carbon per kWh.  Carbon trajectories are drawn from Edmonds et al. (1996).
Source: Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the Twenty-First Century. Report of the Energy Research and Development Panel, The President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. November 1997.

## Potential 1 Gt Carbon Industries in 2050 (p.1 of 2)

**Potential 1 Gt Carbon Industries in 2050 **(p.1 of 2)
- View of energy system as available solutions (Socolow & Pacala, 2004)

| Mitigation
Measure | 1 Gt(C)/yr Global Business | Risk, Impact |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Coal plant: CO2 stored, not vented | 700 1GW plants | CO2 leakage |
| Nuclear displaces average plant | 1500 1 GW plants (5 x current) | Nuclear proliferation and terrorism, nuclear waste |
| Wind displaces average plant | 150 x current   | NIMBY, new transmission needed |
| Solar PV displaces average plant | 2000 x current; 5x106 ha | Minimal impact, cost  |
| Hydrogen fuel | 1 billion H2 cars (CO2-emission-free H2) displace 1 billion 30 mpg gasoline/diesel | H2 infrastructure; cost, H2 storage |
| Efficiency, overall | 8% of 2050 “expected” fossil C extraction | Minimal |
| Efficiency, vehicles only | 2 billion gasoline and diesel cars at 60 mpg instead of 30 mpg (or, at 30 mpg, going 6,000 rather than 12,000 miles per year). | Lifestyle (car size and power)
Urban design |

**Notes:**
NOTES OF DECEMBER 17, 2002

1 Gt(C) /yr “business” means either: 1) actual flow of carbon or 2) carbon flow displaced in assumed 2050 electricity system

Coal gasification: 40% efficiency (elec out/total fuel in) with capture/sequestration included; 80% capacity factor; 24 kg(C)coal/GJ  1.5 Mt(C)/GWe-yr.

Nuclear, Wind, Solar PV: Assume same 80% capacity factor as in fossil carbon electricity displaced. Assume the displacement of kWh generated by a mix of 50% coal [50% efficiency without capture, 24 kg(C)coal/GJ]; 10% gas (60% efficiency, 13.5 kg(C)gasl/GJ ), and 40% non-carbon [0 kg(C) l/GJ]  94.2 g(C) per kWh.  But 0.8  GW-yr = 7x109 kWh. So displacing 1 GW of output-averaged electric capacity displaces 0.66 Mt(C) /yr. Thus, to displace 1 Gt(C)/yr requires the displacement of 1500 GW.

Efficiency: cars go 10,000 miles/yr, using 333 vs 167 gals/yr, at 3 kg(C)/gallon, a saving of 500 kg(C)/car-yr.

Wind: Current deployment 30 GWpeak, equal to 10 GW at 80% capacity factor.

Solar PV: Current deployment 2 GW, equal to 0.7 GW 80% capacity factor. At 10% conversion (all land included), 300 Wav/m2 incident solar gives 300 kWav/ha PV output

Biomass fuels at 10 t(C)/ha-yr yield, 25 kg(C)biomass/GJ. Then 2 biomass-C displaces 1 fossil-C in the electricity system (biomass and coal have about the same carbon/energy, and system is about half coal, half non-fossil). Biomass will replacfossil fuels as source for secondary fuels more nearly 1:1. Dedicated land exceeds land planted. Some contribution can be from residues.

Storage: land devoted to sustained (~100 yr) growth at 2 t(C)/ha-yr. Example: Plant 10 Mha/yr for 50 years, enjoy the full 1 G t(C) /yr added storage from 500 Mha during years 51 through 100.

## Achieving stabilization, slice by slice (p.2 of 2)

| Mitigation
Measure
 | 1 Gt(C)/yr Global Business
 | Risk, Impact |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Geological seq’n | 3500 Sleipners, at 1 Mt( CO2)/year | Global and local leakage  |
| Land sink | Now 1.5 Gt(C)/yr, sink becomes 2.0 Gt(C)/yr, rather than 1.0 Gt(C)/yr | Current estimate for 2050 sink is several times more uncertain |
| Biomass fuels from plantations | 100x106 ha, growing @ 10 t(C)/ha-yr | Biodiversity, competing land use
(200x106 ha = US agricultural area) |
| Storage in new forest | 500x106 ha, growing @ 2 t(C)/ha-yr | Biodiversity, competing land use |

- Achieving stabilization, slice by slice (p.2 of 2)

**Notes:**
NOTES OF DECEMBER 17, 2002

1 Gt(C) /yr “business” means either: 1) actual flow of carbon or 2) carbon flow displaced in assumed 2050 electricity system

Coal gasification: 40% efficiency (elec out/total fuel in) with capture/sequestration included; 80% capacity factor; 24 kg(C)coal/GJ  1.5 Mt(C)/GWe-yr.

Nuclear, Wind, Solar PV: Assume same 80% capacity factor as in fossil carbon electricity displaced. Assume the displacement of kWh generated by a mix of 50% coal [50% efficiency without capture, 24 kg(C)coal/GJ]; 10% gas (60% efficiency, 13.5 kg(C)gasl/GJ ), and 40% non-carbon [0 kg(C) l/GJ]  94.2 g(C) per kWh.  But 0.8  GW-yr = 7x109 kWh. So displacing 1 GW of output-averaged electric capacity displaces 0.66 Mt(C) /yr. Thus, to displace 1 Gt(C)/yr requires the displacement of 1500 GW.

Efficiency: cars go 10,000 miles/yr, using 333 vs 167 gals/yr, at 3 kg(C)/gallon, a saving of 500 kg(C)/car-yr.

Wind: Current deployment 30 GWpeak, equal to 10 GW at 80% capacity factor.

Solar PV: Current deployment 2 GW, equal to 0.7 GW 80% capacity factor. At 10% conversion (all land included), 300 Wav/m2 incident solar gives 300 kWav/ha PV output

Biomass fuels at 10 t(C)/ha-yr yield, 20 kg(C)biomass/GJ, about the same s petroleum, so biomass-C will replace fossil-C as source for secondary fuels nearly 1:1. In the electricity system, biomass and coal have about the same carbon/energy, and system is about half coal, half non-fossil, so 2 biomass-C displaces 1 fossil-C. Dedicated land exceeds land planted. Some contribution can be from residues.

Storage: land devoted to sustained (~100 yr) growth at 2 t(C)/ha-yr. Example: Plant 10 Mha/yr for 50 years, enjoy the full 1 G t(C) /yr added storage from 500 Mha during years 51 through 100. Total carbon stored increases with t2, Years 0-50, to 25 Gt in Year 50; then linearly to 75 Gt in Year 100, then as {1 – [(150 – t)/100]2} to 100 Gt in Year 150.