Forecasting and Impacts of our Energy Future/media/Files/Activity Files... · Forecasting and Impacts of our Energy Future ... RCA Solarex UNSW UNSW ARCO UNSW UNSW ... Average Daily

Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory - rael.berkeley.edu

Forecasting and Impacts of our Energy Future

Daniel M. Kammen

Co-Director, Berkeley Institute of the EnvironmentEnergy and Resources Group & Goldman School of Public Policy

Department of Nuclear EngineeringUniversity of California, Berkeley

Materials online at: http://rael.berkeley.edu

NAS/IoM Climate Change and Human Health, San Francisco, CA September 10, 2007

http://rael.berkeley.edu


Assumes Significant Advances:• Energy intensity• Nuclear• Renewables

Assumes Significant Advances:• Energy intensity• Nuclear• Renewables

Gap Technologies:• Carbon capture and storage• H2 novel storage and advanced

transportation• Nano/Bio-technologies• Next generation solar

Gap Technologies:• Carbon capture and storage• H2 novel storage and advanced

transportation• Nano/Bio-technologies• Next generation solar

The “Gap”

Efficiency Improvements and New Technology Vitally Needed, Under-Emphasized

Efficiency Improvements and New Technology Vitally Needed, Under-Emphasized


High and low carbon pathways

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2000 2010 2020 2040 2050

Glo

bal C

arbo

n Em

issi

ons,

GT

2030

2002 IEA reported fossil emissions plus correction for unsustainable biomass & deforestation.


Thanks to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development

WRE 450 (IPCC)

WRE 550 (IPCC)

WRE 1000 (IPCC)

Theoretical carbon emissions profiles published in IPCC 3rd

Assessment Report


Assessment Report

Current coastlineHigh emissions

coastline


High and low carbon pathways

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2000 2010 2020 2040 2050

Glo

bal C

arbo

n Em

issi

ons,

GT

2030

WRE 450 (IPCC)

WRE 550 (IPCC)

WRE 1000 (IPCC)


Assessment Report


Assessment Report



>900 ppm TrajectoryEnergy by 2050:• Coal over 2x, no Carbon

Capture & Storage (CCS), some coal to liquids.

• Oil up 50%• Gas over 2x• Biofuels make up 10% of

vehicle fuel mix.• Electricity 1/3 of final energy.• Modest increase in nuclear.• Renewables provide 1/3 of

electricity generation.• Vehicle efficiency up 50%.

<550 ppm TrajectoryEnergy by 2050:• Coal up 50%, but half of

power stations use CCS.• Oil down 10-15%.• Gas nearly 2-3x (note: adds

volatility)• Biofuels make up 20% of

vehicle fuel mix.• Green Hydrogen in use• Strong shift to electricity as

final energy (~50% final energy).

• Large increase in nuclear.• Renewables provide half of

electricity generation.• Vehicle efficiency up 100%• Sustainable biomass

practices

WRE1000 - we start planning nowWRE 550 - we start acting nowWRE 450 - we started to act in 2000, or …


0

2

4

6

8

10

1950 1990 2030

Global Forecasts, Economics and Energy

Population

0.9%

0.4%

1.1%

OECD

Non-OECD

Billions

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1950 1990 2030

Energy Demand

1.6%

0.7%

2.4%

MBDOE

Average Growth / Yr. 2000 - 2030

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1950 1990 2030

GDP

2.8%

2.2%

Trillion (2000$)

4.7%

Impact ∝ Population x GDP/capita x carbon/GDP

1950 1990 2030 1950 1990 20301950 1990 2030



New Coal by the Decades

0

200

400

600

800

GW

Co

al

Other Developing 43 90 128

India 16 48 79

China 150 168 226

Transition 1 11 19

OECD 12 184 218

2003-2010 2011-2020 2021-2030

Source: IEA, WEO 2004

221

500

670

>$1 trillion in capital


Athabasca basin tar sand mine: 10% bitumen by weight in the soil.~ $30/barrel of energy required to refine

Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory - rael.berkeley.eduCH4 → H2S separation, then H2 & elemental sulfur separation



We are running out of atmosphere much faster than fossil fuels … at all price points

Source: Brandt and Farrell (2006) Environmental Research Letters (erl.iop.org)


Global Energy Supply by Fuel

Fossil Energy

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1980 2005 2030

1.6%

1.6%

1.3%

1.7%

1.6%

Oil

Gas

Coal

Other

MBDOEAverage Growth / Yr. 2000 - 2030

Other Energy

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1980 2005 2030

1.6%

1.0%

2.2%

Nuclear

Hydro/Geo

Biomass / Other

MBDOE

Wind & Solar20.5%

1.4%

Biofuels 7.2%

Wind, Solar & Biofuels

0

1

2

3

4

5

1980 2005 2030

8.8%

12.5%

7.2%

Wind

Biofuels

MBDOE

8.4%Solar


50

100

150

200

1970 1976 1982 1988 1994 2000 2006

Ene

rgy

Serv

ices

in Q

uads

• Since 1970, energy efficiency has met 77% of new energy service demands in the U.S, while new energy supplies have contributed only 23% of new energy service demands.

• This could be just the beginning

Energy Service Demand

Energy Supply

The Energy Efficiency Big Picture (United States)


The Many Values of Efficiency:

$400,000 saved per year with new lights

Old Incandescent Lights

New T-5 Lights

Inside the San Francisco Moscone Center

0

50

100

150

200

250

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

primary energy consumption

(quadrillion BTU/year)

"hard path" projected by industry and government around 1975

"soft path" proposed by Lovins in 1976

soft technologies(which do not include big hydro or nuclear)

oil and gas

coal

renewablesnuclear

coal

oil and gas

actual total consumptionreported by USEIA

US energy use/$ GDP already cut 40%, to very nearly the 1976 “Soft Energy Pat1976h”

Amory Lovins’ Soft Energy Path: 1976


Per Capita Electricity ConsumptionkWh/person

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

US w/out Cal and NYUS without CalUnited StatesNew YorkCalifornia

Documented savings largerThan imports from the Middle East

Savings:Energy, $, carbon

Danishaverage


Best ResearchBest Research--Cell EfficienciesCell EfficienciesEf

ficien

cy (%

)

Universityof Maine

Boeing

Boeing

Boeing

BoeingARCO

NREL

Boeing

Euro-CIS

200019951990198519801975

NREL/Spectrolab

NRELNREL

JapanEnergy

Spire

No. CarolinaState University

Multijunction ConcentratorsThree-junction (2-terminal, monolithic)Two-junction (2-terminal, monolithic)

Crystalline Si CellsSingle crystalMulticrystalline

Thin Film TechnologiesCu(In,Ga)Se2CdTeAmorphous Si:H (stabilized)

Emerging PVDye cellsOrganic cells(various technologies)

Varian

RCA

Solarex

UNSW

UNSW

ARCO

UNSWUNSW

UNSWSpire Stanford

Westing-house

UNSWGeorgia TechGeorgia Tech Sharp NREL

Spectrolab

NREL

MasushitaMonosolar Kodak

Kodak

AMETEK

Photon Energy

UniversitySo. Florida

NREL

NREL

NRELCu(In,Ga)Se2

14x concentration

NREL

United Solar

United Solar

RCA

RCARCA

RCA RCARCA

Spectrolab

Solarex12

8

4

0

16

20

24

28

32

36

University ofLausanne

University ofLausanne

Siemens

2005

Kodak UCSBCambridge

Groningen

University LinzBerkeley

Princeton

UniversityLinz

DOE/NREL Solar Energy Workshop, 2005


Solar Energy for Many Applications

Moscone Center, SF: 675,000 W

Kenyan PV market: Average system: 18WLargest penetration rate of any nation

Residential Solar: 1000 - 4000 Watts/homeCA Solar Initiative/Million Solar Roofs:

3,000 - 10,000 MW of solar to be built

California Japan2005 Annual PV Installations 50 MW 290 MWAverage Cost for Residential System $8.8/Wac $7.4/WacAverage Cost Reduction from 99-04 5.2%/year 8.9%/year


Actual Growth vs. Historic Forecasts

Actual market

development


Japanese “Sunshine” Program


Roll on PV cells.

Solar photovoltaic installations of thin film cells, in Germany


Open access, online, biofuel calculator tools: http://rael.berkeley.edu/ebamm

http://rael.berkeley.edu/ebamm


An Alternative Fuel is Not Necessarily a Low-Carbon Fuel, but it can be

FT (Coal)

Gasolin

e (Shale)

Gasolin

e (Tar S

ands)

FT (Coal C

CD)

Gasolin

e

Ethanol (Corn

Coal)

Ethanol (Today)

Ethanol (Corn N

G)

Biodiesel

Ethanol (Corn B

iomass)

Ethanol (Cellu

lose)

Ethanol (Corn B

iomass C

CD)

Ethanol (Cellu

lose C

CD)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1

lbs

CO

2/ga

l gas

olin

e eq

uiva

lent

FT (Coal)Gasoline (Shale)Gasoline (Tar Sands)FT (Coal CCD)GasolineEthanol (Corn Coal)Ethanol (Today)Ethanol (Corn NG)BiodieselEthanol (Corn Biomass)Ethanol (Cellulose)Ethanol (Corn Biomass CCD)Ethanol (Cellulose CCD)


Low Carbon Fuel developments worldwide

• Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)o United States: double biofuel use by 2012 to ~6% of gasoline.o UK Renewable Transportation Fuel Obligation (RTFO): 5% by 2010

• Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)o California: regulations to be in effect 2010o Federal bills: Boxer, Feinstein, Obama, Inslee, etc.o European Union: monitoring in 2009, reductions start in 2011o United Kingdom: RTFO requires GHG monitoring, pilot in 2007o Others: BC, WA, OR, AZ, NM, MN, and…?

• Current and forthcoming analysiso Draft Carbon Reporting Methodology under the RTFO. E4Tech. Dec06o Sustainability Reporting within the RTFO. ECOFYS. Feb07o Creating Markets for Green Biofuels. UC Berkeley study. April07o AB1007 Well-to-Wheels Analysis. CEC/CARB study. May07o Low Carbon Fuel Standard for California. UC Berkeley/Davis. May07


Pro

babi

lity

(AR

I)

Average Daily Exposure (µg / m3)

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

Charcoal

Ceramic Wood Stoves3-Stone Fire

Illness Reduction Observed in Kenya(ARI = acute respiratory infection)

All ARI

ALRI, Lower respiratoryInfections only


Sub-Saharan Africa’s wood-energy consumption is the highest in the world

Source: Bailis,Ezzati & Kammen, Science (2005)

3.2Latin America

Source: IEA, 2003

8.4India

8.9China

10.2Sub Saharan Africa

Primary production of biomass energy in 2000 (1018 Joules)

Charcoal is not just an African issue


0

200

400

600

800

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Year

BAU C

F RC

RF

Expected Annual Deaths: Leading Causes for African Child and Women

Millions of avoidable deaths; biofuels can be comparable to fossil fuels

University of California, Berkeley • Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory • http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael

BAU = business as usualC = charcoal

F = fossil fuelsR=RAPID

Bailis, Ezzati & Kammen (2005) Science

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael

Plug In Partners / e.g.CalCars.org


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

R&

D (b

illio

n 20

02$s

)DefenseSpaceHealthEnergyGeneral ScienceOther

Federal R&D Investments, 1955 - 2004

Margolis & Kammen, Science, 1999


If you think US public sector energy R&D funding is doing poorly …

Kammen and Nemet (2005) “Reversing the incredible shrinking energy R&D budget,” Issues in Science & Technology, Fall, 84 – 88.

-

2

4

6

8

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

R&

D (2

002

$b)

Public energy R&DPrivate energy R&D

Kammen and Nemet (2005) “Reversing the incredible shrinking energy R&D budget,” Issues in Science & Technology, Fall, 84 – 88.

And Nemet, dissertation, 2007

Patents and R&D Funding Correlated


Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards

23 states + DC, and counting

State Goal

PA: 18%¹ by 2020NJ: 22.5% by 2021

CT: 10% by 2010

MA: 4% by 2009 + 1% annual increase

WI: requirement varies by utility; 10% by 2015 Goal

IA: 105 MW

MN: 10% by 2015 Goal +Xcel mandate of

1,125 MW wind by 2010

TX: 5,880 MW by 2015

*NM: 10% by 2011AZ: 15% by 2025

CA: 20% by 2010

NV: 20% by 2015

ME: 30% by 2000;10% by 2017 goal - new RE

State RPS

*MD: 7.5% by 2019

* Increased credit for solar or other customer-sited renewablesPA: 8% Tier I (renewables)

HI: 20% by 2020

RI: 15% by 2020

CO: 10% by 2015

DC: 11% by 2022

NY: 24% by 2013

MT: 15% by 2015

*DE: 10% by 2019

IL: 8% by 2013

VT: RE meets load growth by 2012

Solar water heating eligible

*WA: 15% by 2020


Solar & Distributed GenerationProvisions in RPS Policies

PA: 0.5% solar PV by 2020

TX: 500 MW non-wind

NM: triple credit for solar electric

AZ: 4.5% DG by 2025

NV: 1% solar by 2015;2.4 to 2.45 multiplier for PV

MD: double credit for solar electric

CO: 0.4% solar electric by 2015

DC: 0.386% solar electric by 2022

NY: 0.1542% customer-sited by 2013

DE: triple credit for solar electric

Solar water heating counts towards solar set-aside

WA: double credit for DG

DG: Distributed Generation

NJ: 2.12% solar electric by 2021

CA: 3,000 MW or more via SB1 & Million solar roofs


Gasoline

Air travel

Gasoline

Automanufacturing

Auto services

public trans.

airlinespublic trans.

Electricity

Naturalgas

Other fuels

Construction

Financingwater & sewage

electricitynatural gasother fuels

Meat

Eating out

Fruit & veg.

Snack food

cereals

DairyAlcohol & tobacco

ClothingHousehold equip.

entertainment.cleaning supplies.

furniture.

healthcaregiving

education

Transportation Housing Food Goods Services

Summary of GHG Emissions for Typical U.S. Household (LEAPS Results) 50 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent gases

IndirectDirect44%

56%

05

101520253035404550

Total


Greenhouse Gas Emissions:Lifecycles & Lifestyle Sources

(Jones, Horvath & Kammen, in press)

furniture

clothing & shoes

appl/equip milk and related products

tools & supplies

butter

cheese

fish

sausage & otherprepared meats

beef, pork, lamb

chicken

eggs

breadsrice

flour & mil l products

tree nuts

oatspet food

corn sweeteners

motor vehicles

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500gCO2 equivalent / $

gC e

quiv

alen

t / g

Prod

uct key

meatdairyfruit & veggiessnack & othercereals & bakerydrinksgoods

area of ciricle= % of annual average U.S. household consumption


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

U.S

. GH

G E

mis

sion

s (G

T C

eq.

)

Historic U. S.

emissions

Business as usual (EIA)

Kyoto protocol

Administration intensity target

California AB 32, AB1493& EE 3-05

Scaled from CAto the nation

Climate Stabilization Zone

Kammen, “September 27, 2006 – A day to remember”, San Francisco Chronicle, September 27,

The California commitment - scaled to the nation

Solar roofing & off-site wind purchases

All materials from reclaimed former building


The Path Ahead

• Clean energy sources today are evolving rapidly, butare a small component of our overall energy system

• Rapid growth of the clean energy sector will require a coordinated commitment to technology push and demand pullo Aggressive R&D will need to be coupled with strong

support for clean energy market expansiono Business and consumer involvement is vital

• Pricing carbon/greenhouse gas emissions is vital to moving from sector support strategies to long-term sustainability policies


Boiling Water ReactorPressurized Water Reactor

Reactor Type

A 1: Westinghouse <700 MWe 2: Westinghouse 700–1000 MWW 3: Westinghouse >1000 MWf 4: Babcock & Wilcox^ 5: Combustion EngineeringG 6: GE <700 MWk 7: GE 700–1000 MW] 8: GE > 1000 MW

Reactor Cohort

0 25 50 75 100Cost Rank

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14

Life

time

leve

lized

ele

ctric

ity c

ost (

2004

$ p

er k

Wh)

k] ] k k ]

]G

k k kG

G

]

]W ]

]] ]

] ]

]]

k

] ]

Gk

k

Fitzpatrick

Susquehanna 1

Perry Columbia

River Bend

Fermi Hope Creek

Nine Mile Pt 2

Clinton

Shoreham

f f e A e Aff

AA ^ e WA e ^ e W e ^ ^f W WW

e e ^ f e e We WWWWW ^ f ^^ ^ ^ e

WWW

f W^ ^

WW W

We WWW

We

^W

W

e

W

Oconee 1 Oconee 2

Surry 1 Turkey Pt 3

Surry 2 Turkey Pt 4

Oconee 3

Arkansas 1

Diablo Canyon 2 Vogtle 2

Shearon Harris South Texas 1 South Texas 2 Diablo Canyon 1 Comanche Pk. 2

Rancho Seco Seabrook 1 Millstone 3 Watts Bar 1

Beaver Valley 2

Comanche Pk 1

Hultman, Koomey & Kammen (2007) ES&T, in press

The Cost of Nuclear Power from the U. S. Civilian Reactor Fleet

Documents

Forecasting and Impacts of our Energy Future/media/Files/Activity Files... · Forecasting and Impacts of our Energy Future ... RCA Solarex UNSW UNSW ARCO UNSW UNSW ... Average Daily