Jacobson and Selucchi reported 10 years ago in 2011 that climate change, pollution, and energy insecurity are among the greatest problems of that time. Addressing them requires major changes in our energy infrastructure. The authors analyzed the feasibility of providing worldwide energy for all purposes (electric power, transportation, heating/cooling, etc.) from wind, water, and sunlight (WWS). In Part I, the authors discussed WWS energy system characteristics, current and future energy demand, availability of WWS resources, numbers of WWS devices, and area and material requirements.
Such a WWS infrastructure reduces world power demand by 30% and requires only 0.41% and 0.59% more of the world’s land for footprint and spacing, respectively. We suggest producing all new energy with WWS by 2030 and replacing the pre-existing energy by 2050. Barriers to the plan are primarily social and political, not technological or economic. The energy cost in a WWS world should be similar to that today.
This is Part I of a study to examine the feasibility of providing all energy for all purposes (electric power, transportation, heating/ cooling, etc.) worldwide from wind, water, and the sun (WWS). The main technical findings of this analysis are as follows:
- Converting to a WWS energy infrastructure will reduce 2030 world power demand by 30%, primarily due to the efficiency of electricity compared with internal combustion.
- The amount of wind power plus solar power available in likely developable locations over land outside of Antarctica worldwide to power the world for all purposes exceeds projected world power demand by more than an order of magnitude.
One scenario for powering the world with a WWS system includes:
- 3.8 million 5 MW wind turbines (supplying 50% of projected total global power demand in 2030),
- 49,000 300 MW CSP power plants (supplying 20% of demand),
- 40,000 solar PV power plants (14%),
- 1.7 3 kW rooftop PV systems (6%),
- 5,350,100 MW geothermal power plants (4%),
- 900 1,300 MW hydroelectric power plants, of which 70% are already in place (4%),
- 720,000 0.75 MW wave devices (1%), and
- 490,000 1 MW tidal turbines (1%).
The equivalent footprint area on the ground for the sum of WWS devices needed to power the world is 0.74% of global land area; the spacing area is 1.16% of global land area. Spacing area can be used for multiple purposes, including agriculture, ranching, and open space. However, if one-half of the wind devices are placed over water, if we consider wave and tidal devices are in water, and if we consider that 70% of hydroelectric is already developed and rooftop solar areas are already developed, the additional footprint and spacing of devices on land required are only 0.41% and 0.59% of the world land area, respectively.
The development of WWS power systems is not likely to be constrained by the availability of bulk materials, such as steel and concrete. In a global WWS system, some of the rarer materials, such as neodymium (in electric motors and generators), platinum (in fuel cells), and lithium (in batteries), will have to be recycled or eventually replaced with less-scarce materials unless additional resources are located. The cost of recycling or replacing neodymium or platinum is not likely to affect noticeably the economics of WWS systems, but the cost of large-scale recycling of lithium batteries is unknown.
Part I also made 102 references to nuclear power, especially in Appendix A - The Economics of Nuclear Power
The economics of nuclear power are discussed in:
Kessides (2010),
Grubler (2010),
Joskow and Parsons (2009),
Feiveson (2009),
Koomey and Hultman (2007),
Hultman et al. (2007),
Hultman and Koomey (2007),
Harding (2007), and
Deutch et al. (2003, 2009).
Kessides (2010) and Joskow and Parsons (2009) discuss at length the issues that affect the economics of nuclear power.
Feiveson (2009) reviews recent escalation in capital costs.
Grubler (2010) argues that the real costs of nuclear power can increase with an expansion of capacity (and in fact did increase in France) because of ever-increasing complexity in the design, construction, operation, management, and regulatory oversight of nuclear systems.
Koomey and Hultman (2007) estimate that the total levelized busbar costs of 99 US reactors, including capital costs amortized at 6%/year, range from $0.03/kWh to $0.14/kWh (2004 USD), with the 50% percentile falling between $0.05/kWh and $0.06/kWh.
Hultman et al. (2007) argue that costs at the upper end of the $0.03–0.14/kWh range are driven in part by unanticipated factors, and
Hultman and Koomey (2007) argue that the possibility of such ‘‘cost surprises’’ should be incorporated formally into cost estimates for nuclear power.
Koomey and Hultman (2007) argue that standardization of design, improvements in construction management, computer-assisted design, and other factors might tend to drive costs down, but that the special conditions that attend each nuclear job site, and the possibility of cost ‘‘surprises,’’ tend to drive costs up.
Deutch et al. (2003) estimate that the real levelized cost of nuclear power using an ‘‘open’’ or ‘‘once-through’’ fuel cycle (in which spent fuel is treated as waste, rather than recycled back to the reactor) ranges from $0.04 to $0.08/kWh (2002 USD) (with an effective interest rate of 11.5%), depending on assumptions regarding the capacity factor, the plant lifetime, construction costs, and construction time.
Deutch et al. (2009) and Du and Parsons (2009) estimate that since the Deutch et al. (2003) report, construction costs have escalated substantially, resulting in a doubling of capital costs and an increase in the estimated median levelized cost from $0.067/kWh in the 2003 study (2002 USD) to $0.084/kWh in the 2009 update (2007 USD) (see also Joskow and Parsons, 2009).
Harding (2007) estimates even higher levelized costs of $0.09–0.12/kWh (2007 USD).
In summary, the costs of nuclear power are estimated to cover a very wide range, depending on a number of variables that are difficult to project: the costs of new, untested designs; construction times; interest rates; the impact of unforeseen events; regulatory requirements; the potential for economies of scale; site- and job-specific design and construction requirements; the availability of specialty labor and materials; bottlenecks in the supply chains; the potential for standardization; and so on...?
In Part II, the authors addressed variability, economics, and policy of WWS energy that could power a 2030 WWS world that uses electricity and electrolytic hydrogen for all purposes.
[It should be noted that many of the assumptions made favoring renewables have been shown to be false or exaggerated. Issues related the nuclear power economics have also changed (more), especially with the development and introduction of the SMRs later this decade post 2022.]
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
