Clean Energy 2030 - Google

[kristopher]

Clean energy 2030
10/01/2008 10:44:00 AM
Right now the U.S. has a very real opportunity to transform our economy from one running on fossil fuels to one largely based on clean energy. We are developing the technologies and know-how to accomplish this. We can build whole new industries and create millions of new jobs. We can reduce energy costs, both at the gas pump and at home. We can improve our national security. And we can put a big dent in climate change. With strong leadership we could be moving forward on an aggressive but realistic timeline and an approach that balances costs with real economic gains.

The energy team at Google has been crunching the numbers to see how we could greatly reduce fossil fuel use by 2030. Our analysis, led by Jeffery Greenblatt, suggests a potential path to weaning the U.S. off of coal and oil for electricity generation by 2030 (with some remaining use of natural gas as well as nuclear), and cutting oil use for cars by 40%. Al Gore has issued a challenge that is even more ambitious, getting us to carbon-free electricity even sooner. We hope the American public pushes our leaders to embrace it. T. Boone Pickens has weighed in with an interesting plan of his own to massively deploy wind energy, among other things. Other plans have also been developed in recent years that merit attention.

Our goal in presenting this first iteration of the Clean Energy 2030 proposal is to stimulate debate and we invite you to take a look and comment -- or offer an alternative approach if you disagree. With a new Administration and Congress -- and multiple energy-related imperatives -- this is an opportune, perhaps unprecedented, moment to move from plan to action.

Over 22 years this plan could generate billions of dollars in savings and help create millions of green jobs. Many of these high quality, good-paying jobs will be in today's coal and oil producing states.

To get there we need to move immediately on three fronts:

(1) Reduce demand by doing more with less

We should start with the low-hanging fruit by reducing energy demand through energy efficiency -- adopting technologies and practices that allow us to do more with less. ...
Government can have a big impact on achieving greater efficiency. California's aggressive building codes, efficiency standards and utility programs have helped the state keep per-capita energy use flat for years, while consumption in much of the rest of the country has grown significantly. Enacting similar policies at the national level would help even more.

We also need to give the American people opportunities to be more efficient. The way we buy electricity today is like going to a store without seeing prices: we pick what we want, and receive an unintelligible bill at the end of the month. When homes are equipped with smart meters and real-time pricing, research shows that energy use typically drops. Google is looking at ways that we can use our information technology and our reach to help increase awareness and bring better, real-time information to consumers.

(2) Develop renewable energy that is cheaper than coal (RE<C)

Google’s data centers draw from a U.S. electricity grid that relies on coal for 50% of its power. We want to help catalyze the development of renewable energy that is price-competitive with coal. At least three technologies show tremendous promise: wind, solar thermal, and advanced geothermal. Each of these is abundant and, when combined, could supply energy in virtually every region of the U.S.

This year Google has invested more than $45 million in startup companies with breakthrough wind, solar and geothermal technologies through our Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal initiative (RE<C), but that is a drop when we need a flood. We need to ...
We also must work both sides of the RE<C equation. Progress will accelerate when the price of carbon reflects its true costs to society. Putting a price on carbon through cap-and-trade or a carbon tax would help address this.

(3) Electrify transportation and re-invent our electric grid

Imagine driving a car that uses no gas and is less expensive to recharge than buying a latte. A "smart grid" allows you to charge when electricity is cheap, and maybe even make some money by selling unused power back to the grid when it's needed. Plug-in cars are on their way, with GM, Toyota and other manufacturers planning introductions in the next two years. At Google ...

We see a huge opportunity for the nation to confront our energy challenges. In the process we will stimulate investment, create jobs, empower consumers and, by the way, help address climate change.

Posted by Dan Reicher, Director, Climate Change and Energy Initiatives, and Jeffery Greenblatt, Climate and Energy Technology Manager, Google.org
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/clean-energy-2030.html



Analysis


Clean Energy 2030
Google's Proposal for reducing U.S. dependence on fossil fuels

Contents

* Summary
* Summary: What's New in Version 2.0
* Summary: Reductions in Energy Use and Emissions
* Summary: Financial Bottom Line
* Summary: Actions Required
* Electricity Sector
* Personal Vehicle Sector
* Economics
* Jobs
* Carbon Dioxide Savings
* Google's Role
* Acknowledgments
* Sources and Further Reading
* How to Contact Us

Summary
Right now we have a real opportunity to transform our economy from one running on fossil fuels to one largely based on clean energy. Technologies and know-how to accomplish this are either available today or are under development. We can build whole new industries and create millions of new jobs. We can cut energy costs, both at the gas pump and at home. We can improve our national security. And we can put a big dent in climate change. With strong leadership we could be moving forward on an aggressive but realistic time-line and an approach that offsets costs with real economic gains.

The energy team at Google has been analyzing how we could greatly reduce fossil fuel use by 2030. Our proposal - "Clean Energy 2030" - provides a potential path to weaning the U.S. off of coal and oil for electricity generation by 2030 (with some remaining use of natural gas as well as nuclear), and cutting oil use for cars by 44%.

President-elect Obama announced his New Energy for America plan this past summer that is similar to ours in several ways, including a strong emphasis on efficiency, renewable electricity and plug-in vehicles. Similarly, the Natural Resources Defense Council, McKinsey and Company, and the Electric Power Research Institute have issued proposals that share all of these same elements. Al Gore has issued a challenge that is even more ambitious - getting us to carbon-free electricity by 2020 - and we hope the American public pushes our leaders to embrace it. T. Boone Pickens has weighed in with an interesting plan of his own to massively deploy wind energy, among other things. Other plans have also been developed in recent years that merit attention.

Google's proposal will benefit the US by increasing energy security, protecting the environment, creating new jobs, and helping to create the conditions for long-term prosperity. Some of the necessary funds will be public, but much of it will come from the private sector -- a typical approach for infrastructure and high technology investments.

Our goal in presenting this first iteration of the Clean Energy 2030 proposal is to stimulate debate and we invite you to take a look and comment - or offer an alternative approach if you disagree. With a new Administration and Congress - and multiple energy-related imperatives - this is an opportune, perhaps unprecedented, moment to move from plan to action.


http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/15x31uzlqeo5n/1#

[kristopher]

1. The Natural Resources Defense Council: A Responsible Energy Plan for America

The Natural Resources Defense Council works to protect wildlife and wild places and to ensure a healthy environment for all life on earth.

Executive Summary

Reliable energy has helped propel America's impressive technological advances and comfortable way of life. Thanks to this ready supply, we can heat our homes and our businesses, power our computers and telephone systems, drive our automobiles and aircraft, and run our manufacturing plants and hospitals.

Yet America still depends on energy technologies of the past, and this dependence threatens our nation's economy, our health, and our security. We import nearly 60 percent of our oil, much of it from unstable regions in the world. We use oil in part to fuel cars and trucks whose average gas mileage is at its lowest in 20 years. Burning fossil fuels creates 70 percent of our electricity. Yet burning fossil fuels in our power plants, cars, and factories accounts for more than 60,000 premature deaths in the United States each year. And drilling for oil and gas industrializes some of our most prized wild places, denying future generations the last remnants of our natural heritage.

These wasteful, outdated approaches are contributing to the most urgent environmental and public health crisis of our time: global warming. Americans are already feeling the effects of intense heat waves, prolonged droughts, and rampant wildfires. Yet scientists predict that if we continue to burn fossil fuels unchecked, our children will face far more dangerous threats from coastal flooding, water shortages, and polluted air.

The good news is that solutions exist for curbing global warming and for supplying America with the energy we need to thrive. Using innovative, clean technologies available today, we can move beyond our reliance on dirty and unsafe energy sources and our dependence on unstable regions of the world. We can provide reliable transportation, comfortable buildings, and productive industry at the minimum cost to our society. Indeed, 21st century energy solutions can help America's economy prosper, secure our nation, increase jobs, and protect our health.

America has the vision, ingenuity, and ability to harness clean, efficient energy here at home, and NRDC has drafted a plan to realize this vision. With this plan, we can:

* Enhance our national security by reducing our dependence on oil

* Promote the use of cleaner energy resources that save money while reducing air and water pollution that threaten public health

* Exert American leadership in curbing global warming pollution

* Protect the public's wildlands and wildlife from destructive energy development

* Create jobs and support American farmers by investing in homegrown technologies and fuels.

Full details and downloadable PDF at:
http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/rep/execsum.asp

[The2ndWheel]

5. "Yet America still depends on energy technologies of the past"

Won't future energy technologies be the energy technologies of the past at some point? Weren't past energy technologies the energy technologies of the future at some point? Unless future energy technologies are going to be the last energy technologies(even though they will be the technologies of the past after the future gets here), then it won't solve anything. Seems to me we'll just go through the process again, and again, and again, and again.

[kristopher]

8. Just a bunch of disruptive nonsense.

[The2ndWheel]

10. Yeah, it's easier to not think about the future becoming the past

That way, oil and coal aren't alternative forms of energy. Then the idea that 21st century alternative forms of energy will save us is much easier to sell.

[kristopher]

11. You need to give the bong a rest...

[The2ndWheel]

2. "Reduce demand by doing more with less"

That will only reduce total demand when everyone everywhere is doing the same amount with the same amount. Until that day, increasing efficiency will lead only to increased demand.

We're always finding new ways to use energy. So the energy that would be saved by doing more with less would result in more ways of using the energy that we didn't need to do more. To do otherwise would be inefficient, as it would be a waste of the energy that was used to extract and harness the energy, and also a waste of the energy that was extracted and harnessed.

[kristopher]

3. Is that why California has such a lower average rate of consumption? nt

[The2ndWheel]

4. California is not the whole of humanity

When every place on the planet is no different than California, then increasing efficiency could do the job. Although at that point, what would be the point of increasing efficiency? The whole point of increasing efficiency has always been so that more people are able to take advantage of this or that product. When everyone has everything they need, we won't have to continue to increase the efficiency of anything. However, as soon as we stop doing that, physical reality begins catching up.

So California can have 100% efficiency in every activity it does. If the rest of the planet is even at 99% efficiency, demand will go up.

[GliderGuider]

6. Oh goody, another Jevons bunfight!

I'm on your side in this one. Rebound effects must be factored in when dealing with increasing efficiency in a global marketplace.

[The2ndWheel]

7. The price to pay for globalization

6.5+ billion variables. Then we have to worry about all the other life on the planet too(except what we don't find conducive to productive efforts), and somehow make that equation work so that it equals zero.

[kristopher]

9. Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?

Executive summary
Consensus is growing among scientists, policy makers and business leaders that concerted
action will be needed to address rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The discussion is
now turning to the practical challenges of where and how emissions reductions can best be
achieved, at what costs, and over what periods of time.

Starting in early 2007, a research team from McKinsey &Company worked with leading
companies, industry experts, academics, and environmental NGOs to develop a detailed,
consistent fact base estimating costs and potentials of different options to reduce or prevent
GHG emissions within the United States over a 25-year period. The team analyzed more than
250 options, encompassing efficiency gains, shifts to lower-carbon energy sources, and
expanded carbon sinks.

THE CENTRAL CONCLUSION OF THIS PROJECT
The United States could reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 by 3.0 to 4.5gigatons of CO2e
using tested approaches and high-potential emerging technologies.1 These reductions would
involve pursuing a wide array of abatement options available at marginal costs less than $50 per
ton, with the average net cost to the economy being far lower if the nation can capture sizable
gains from energy efficiency. Achieving these reductions at the lowest cost to the economy,
however, will require strong, coordinated, economy-wide action that begins in the near future.
Although our research suggests the net cost of achieving these levels of GHG abatement could
be quite low on a societal basis, issues of timing and allocation would likely lead various
stakeholders to perceive the costs very differently -- particularly during the transition to a lower
carbon economy. Costs will tend to concentrate more in some sectors than others, and involve
“real” up-front outlays that would be offset by “avoided” future outlays. Given the timing of
investments relative to savings, the economy might well encounter periods of significant visible
costs, with the costs and benefits shared unequally among stakeholders. Nonetheless, a
concerted, nationwide effort to reduce GHG emissions would almost certainly stimulate
economic forces and create business opportunities that we cannot foresee today and that may
accelerate the rate of abatement the nation can achieve, thereby reducing the overall cost.
We hope that the fact base provided in this report will help policymakers, business leaders,
academics and other interested parties make better informed decisions and develop
economically sensible strategies to address the nation’s rising GHG emissions.

1) 1 CO2e, or "carbon dioxide equivalent," is a standardized measure of GHG emissions designed to account for the differing global warming potentials of GHGs. Emissions are measured in metric tons CO2e per year, i.e., millions of tons (megatons) or billions of tons (gigatons). All emissions values in this report are per-year CO2e amounts, unless specifically noted otherwise. To be consistent with U.S. government forecasts, the team used the 100-year global warming potentials listed in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Second Assessment Report (1995).


RISING EMISSIONS POSE AN INCREASING CHALLENGE
Annual GHG emissions in the U.S. are projected to rise from 7.2 gigatons CO2e in 2005 to 9.7
gigatons in 2030– an increase of 35 percent – according to an analysis of U.S. government
reference forecasts.2

http://eec1.ucdavis.edu/education/EEC-classes/eeclimate/class-readings/McKinsey%20carbon%20supply%20curve%202007.pdf/view

[GliderGuider]

12. The sheer Herculean nature of the effort described by Google is awe-inspiring...

According to the core study by Greenblatt, here's what a capital outlay of $4 trillion dollars gets the USA:

Summary: Reductions in Energy Use and Emissions
Our proposal will allow us to reduce from the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) current baseline for energy use:

* Fossil fuel-based electricity generation by 88%
* Vehicle oil consumption by 44%
* Dependence on imported oil (currently 10 million barrels per day) by 37%
* Electricity-sector CO2 emissions by 95%
* Personal vehicle sector CO2 emissions by 44%
* US CO2 emissions overall by 49% (41% from today's CO2 emission level)

And yes, I know Greenblatt figures we'll offset the cost and end up making a tidy profit on the deal, but there's a lot of capital that needs to get laid out first.

Unfortunately, this still leaves the USA with rising CO2 levels, when according to James Hansen, we need an outright reduction in atmospheric CO2 (to about 40 ppm below current levels) to avoid catastrophe.

Let's try to get there. For starters, lets say the USA could get to a CO2-negative point by tripling the proposed capital outlay to $12 trillion (I figure getting rid of that last 56% of CO2 emissions will be more expensive than getting rid of the first 44%). It's all spent over 20+ years, after all, so that should be doable -- especially if the population has a few more Katrina-like "Oh-shit!" moments. It's just a bank bailout a year for 20 years after all, and Greenblatt promised us we'll make a profit on it anyway...

But that's just the USA, and we need to consider the rest of the world too. After all, the USA produces only one-fifth of the world's CO2. If we're generous and figure that the rest of the world can reduce CO2 production for the same capital cost as the USA, that points to a cost of $60 trillion, or $3 trillion a year. Stiff, but doable -- especially if Greenblatt is right about all those yummy profits.

Of course, alongside all the technical inconveniences we also have to deal with the prickly problems of human nature: the Prisoner's Dilemma, the Tragedy of the Commons and humanity's penchant to play Beggar-Thy-Neigbour whenever there's a compelling reason to do so. Following a plan like this either requires all of humanity to catch the Deep Ecology religion at the same time, or it requires totally effective international sanctions for what will surely be draconian energy policies. I see no other way that such an outcome could be assured, and both those options look implausible to me.

Remember, doing all this gets us to a slightly carbon negative situation in 20 years or so. Unfortunately, there's a growing suspicion we may need to do it in 10...

There is one thing that would bring about a massive reduction in human carbon emissions. It requires no planning, no capital outlay, and is virtually guaranteed to work. Unfortunately it requires the involuntary collapse of industrial civilization, and I suspect most here would not be in favour of such an outcome...

[kristopher]

13. That isn't the way the money works.

The government funds are seed money that develops a system where private funds already being spent to purchase energy are diverted from fossil fuels to the new technologies. The real loss that is going to occur will be the value of fossil fuel related assets that become worthless mush more rapidly than their investors expected at time of purchase. This means that the entire "cost" that is being forecast is a result of perhaps $750B in public funds.

It is also very hard to predict the pace of technological change. In 1980, who could have accurately predicted the rate of advancement in computer technology as a result of synergistic improvements? One of our biggest obstacles, (IMO) to accurate financial forecasting is just how strongly will the market respond to aggressive policy support for renewables. It is something that hasn't happened before and we just don't know how much innovation is actually bottled up.

Let that percolate a bit...

[GliderGuider]

14. How about the way human beings work?

Not everything in the human experience marches to the drummers of reason and technology.

To the issues I mentioned (the Prisoner's Dilemma, the Tragedy of the Commons and our penchant to play Beggar-Thy-Neigbour) could be added the questions of:

• inclusive fitness (essentially the evolutionary description of beggar-they-neighbour);
• our biological tendency to make decisions unconsciously and then dress them up later with rationalizations to make them appear reasoned and acceptable;
• the human herding instinct that makes us vulnerable to strong emotions expressed by others who may have their own agenda (viz the fear-driven jingoistic response to 9-11, its aftermath, The War On Terror or the Rwandan genocide); and
• the global cultural growth paradigm that encourages us to seek material growth by whatever means.

What this tells me is that if one nation undertakes a decarbonization program, other nations will have both a tremendous incentive and the ability not to follow along. Oil will become cheaper and more available, because producers still want to sell it. The leaders of nations not committed to decarbonization will see this as an economic opportunity, and will have the behavioural tools at their disposal to convince their citizens that sticking with oil is in their best interest.

For me human behaviour is the crucial issue to address in any campaign against global climate change. It's fairly easy to demonstrate, as you have done, that we have technical tools that can address the problem (at least to some extent), and even that the economic costs wouldn't kill us. But until we can crack the nut of human behaviour, and do so on a global level, any mitigation will remain a forlorn hope.

[kristopher]

15. IF climate change recognized political boundaries...

There would be more substance to your speculation. There is some merit in what you say if the developed world retains an attitude of indifference to the developing nations. The first order of business is to get the technology into production and working as a unified national infrastructure here. With that experience in hand, then global initiatives can be more productive, i.e. when a tax on carbon is proposed at the place of production it would be accepted if the most affected knew there was a viable alternative for them to turn to.

Survival of the fittest more often favors cooperative behavior than dog-eat-dog behavior.

[GliderGuider]

16. The fact that climate change does not recognize borders is a big part of the problem.

The acts of sovereign nations influence the climate in other countries. That's what makes the whole cluster of behaviours so crucial to the issue.

Regarding cooperation vs. competition, I don't think your understanding of evolutionary psychology is quite sophisticated enough. It's not a simple question of altruism vs. competition. The idea behind inclusive fitness is that an organism's actions are most altruistic to those closest to it (i,.e. its immediate family). Altruism progressively diminishes and is displaced by competition as the relationships grow more distant.

With humans the "closeness" doesn't have to be entirely biological, as we can be educated to see kinship in more abstract terms. This is the underlying goal of the "One interdependent biosphere" meme promoted by ecologists -- to cast the net of perceived kinship wider, and so take advantage of our programming for inclusive fitness.

[kristopher]

17. Actually I do.

I also have an understanding of how international law is crafted and the type of policy proposals that are likely to be put on the table for implementation.

Your basic thesis was that less wealthy nations would be motivated by immediate economic concerns to disregard action on CC. That presumes no cooperative action at the international level. Given the history of efforts in that realm and our part as a force of obstruction, there is good reason to believe your premise of "every country for itself" is not the path that is most probable.

[GliderGuider]

18. I hope you're right

Certainly Obama's actions since he took office give enormous cause for hope.

My biggest concerns on the international stage are China and Russia. Neither nation is accessible to diplomacy in the same way as, for example, France and Australia. There is widespread belief that if China's economic growth falls below 5% pa there will be massive civil unrest. Since China's leaders fear that prospect much more than international pressure they are likely candidates to chart their own course, regardless of whether it leads into more polluted waters. Likewise, Russia's leadership has both recently and historically shown evidence of overwhelming self-interest. If those two nations go their own ways, surrounding countries may feel great pressure to throw in their lot with them as opposed to joining with the enlightened West. That could leave all of Asia out of a potential Western ecological alliance. Sort of a reprise of the Cold War, but with rising sea levels.

I hope I'm wrong, and BHO looks like the man who could prove me wrong, but I'll wait until I've eaten a bit more of the pudding before changing my tune.