CLEAN REVOLUTION: Breakthroughs in clean energy technology could reduce greenhouse gas emissions and spur economic growth.
Image: russf/Flickr
Clarification appended.
A new study by Google.org projects that breakthroughs in clean energy technologies stemming from aggressive federal and private-sector investment would add $150 billion in additional economic output and 1.1 million new jobs by 2030, with the gains continuing to grow in future years.
The study, "The Impact of Clean Energy Innovation," is based on McKinsey & Co.'s Low Carbon Economics computer modeling. A key assumption is that technology breakthroughs can be made in solar, nuclear, wind and geothermal power, as well as in carbon capture and sequestration and electric vehicle batteries.
Then the model estimates the benefits for consumers and the entire economy as the costs of clean energy options continue to decline and their adoption spreads.
Bill Weihl, Google's "clean energy czar," said his company undertook the study out of a combination of self-interest, commitment to cleaner energy, and frustration with a national energy policy debate that seems to ask a lot of wrong questions.
"We decided to see if we could understand, from a jobs, economic growth and emissions standpoint, what various rates of innovation in key technologies might actually produce," he said. "And we wanted to see how those results might change when you combine technology advances with various policy changes."
The model produces different jobs and growth projections for a business-as-usual scenario with no technology breakthroughs or major new policies, and then generates different outcomes by factoring in new policies such as a national clean energy standards such as proposed by President Obama; increases in corporate average fuel economy standards; tougher environmental controls on coal-fired power generators; extended investment and production tax credits for clean energy sources and an expanded federal energy loan guarantee program.
Key finding: innovation + policy = economic growth
A third scenario includes a $30 per ton price on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, redistributed to taxpayers through proportional tax payments.
"We see a lot of debate about, 'Should you invest in innovation, should you invest in these kinds of tax credits, or this kind of carbon management plan?' We wanted to understand a little better what the impact of the various options would be," Weihl said.
"The study shows pretty clearly that innovation can drive both emissions reductions and economic growth together, and innovation combined with policy can drive much faster emission reductions while still preserving economic growth."
When the model was run assuming only enactment of the clean energy policies, it showed a gain 458,000 net new jobs in 2030, and a small, $37 billion addition to the gross domestic product that year.
If technology advances were modeled without new policies, the economy added $150 billion in output and 1.1 million jobs that year. The combination of technology breakthroughs and the new policies produced 1.9 million more jobs and $244 billion in added output by 2030. Carbon emissions were reduced by 21 percent over the business-as-usual case. Consumer savings from the policy and innovation scenarios averaged $995 per household.
By comparison, the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act was estimated to raise household costs by $160 in 2020.
Google said the study is limited by the decision not to try to project whether the targeted clean energy technology breakthroughs were achievable. "It is a model," Weihl said.
Taking leaps of faith on tech progress
The point, he added, was that if the breakthroughs can be made, the economic and employment gains are potentially massive.
The study projects dramatic economic transformations that could result from quantum gains in the cost and efficiency of batteries for electric vehicles.
"Breakthroughs in battery technology could push EV's [electric vehicles] over cost-performance tipping points, enabling mass adoption. In our model, achieving battery costs of $100 per kilowatt hour (kWh) with vehicle ranges of 300 miles could lead to 90 percent penetration of EVs, Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) and PHEVs [in new vehicle sales in 2030]." That would reduce U.S. oil consumption by 1.1 billion barrels per year by 2030, the study said.
"By replacing high cost gasoline with cheap electricity, battery breakthroughs in our model yielded substantial economic benefits from new manufacturing and consumer savings. GDP increased by $86 billion per year by 2030 and jobs by 560,000. Perhaps most compelling, EV breakthroughs netted savings of $699 per household."
The Energy Department's Vehicle Technologies Office has estimated that large-scale manufacture of electric vehicle batteries with today's lithium-ion technology costs about $800 per kilowatt-hour of energy. The DOE project managers believe that that cost can drop to $300 by 2015. But breakthroughs in battery chemistry and design appear essential in order to hit a $100 per kWh goal, experts say. And no one knows whether those barriers can be scaled.
Weihl agrees that the technology progress assumed in the study represents huge stretches. "Those breakthroughs might come from funding R&D in universities and national labs. They might come from startups. They might come from the natural learnings that happen as people deploy more and more stuff.
"We didn't try to model which path would lead to the breakthroughs or what the likelihoods were. What we were trying to show was what were the benefits if you could achieve this. Then -- if the results seemed really beneficial -- what could we do now to make it more likely that we get them."
'We'd like much cleaner options'
Google's study asserts that the longer clean energy breakthroughs are delayed the more the future economic and climate benefits shrink.
The company did not reveal what it spent on the project, but its spending on clean energy ventures is big and growing. Google has invested $157 million in the Alta Wind Energy Center in Tehachapi, Calif., which will generate 1,550 megawatts of peak wind power when completed. It is committed to supply major backing for the proposed multibillion-dollar Atlantic Wind Connection, which hopes to deploy an offshore backbone transmission system to deliver energy from wind farms into mid-Atlantic states. Google's total green energy investments now total more than $780 million, the company said.
"We've been interested in innovation and innovation in clean energy particularly, and in how to move our overall economy to a cleaner energy infrastructure," Weihl said. "One, we use a lot of energy. We're connected to the same grid as everybody else ... and we'd like much cleaner options than we have. And second, sustainability really is a core value of the company. We'd like to help ourselves and we'd like to help the rest of the world in the process."
"We don't intend to be engaged in the details of this bill versus that bill," Weihl said. But the study has a message: "First of all, don't cut R&D. You need to invest in R&D to continue to get the scientific and technology improvements that we need to drive progress.
"Second, clean energy depends on stable markets. If the policy that helps insure those markets exist changes year to year, that makes it much harder for the companies in those industries to survive. We need to have consistent policies.
"You need to invest directly in science and engineering to drive innovation, but you also need to actually deploy what you've got, and drive iterative learning that way," he said.
Clarification: Google issued a report on June 28 entitled, "The Impact of Clean Energy Innovation." A previous version of this story cited an earlier title from a draft of the report supplied by Google. The final report also eliminates from the draft a reference to Iran's 2009 oil production that had been included in the story.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
22 Comments
Add CommentThe only clean energy investment worthwhile is in new nuclear technology. Every dime spent on wind and solar outside of R&D labs is not only wasted but is a worthless distraction from the fast approaching global warming/peak oil crisis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA $2500B clean energy investment in 2500 new mass produced nukes scattered around the US financed by the $800B paid every year into the coffers of Big Oil/Coal for their deadly products would carry all US energy needs. The overall final nationwide return on investment would be 35%.
With 1/60 the steel and concrete requirements of wind and solar per kwh , and with the experience of rapid factory prodced Asian builds nuclear capacity can be built far faster than any renewable.
The Repug's with the cooperation of the Obama admin will be adding nuclear to a 25% clean energy mandate making a massive nuclear build a certainty. No doubt the Repug's will also end solar/wind subsidy.
The Repug's are also going to eliminate the moronic Greenpeace lobbied NRC rules that require 4 years of environmental hearings to replace a existing filthy coal plant or add to an existing nuclear complex with a zero environmental impact clean and green nuclear unit that has passed NRC licensing and is already operating in another jurisdiction. This will reduce nuclear construction times from 8 years to 4 years and costs by more than 30%.
It's obvious nuclear will be the power option of choice in the USA Thankfully we will only have the hunks of the worthless wind and solar projects left to remind us of the danger in letting greenie deniers and corrupt politicians run a country.
"The only clean energy investment worthwhile is in new nuclear technology..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny you should call nuclear clean, the spent fuel certainly is not. It is also a huge problem right now - without hundreds of times more reactors.
Most nuclear reactors are near water, presenting flooding issues - as we graphically saw in Japan.
Chernobyl and Fukushima x 1200 each, anyone??
Not to mention 2500 targets for terrorists.
---
Take the same $$$ you propose and pour it into research - fusion, solar, wind, geothermal, etc. We would be off of oil just as quickly and much better off in the long run.
Nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere do you get your $1B per nuclear reactor figure from? REAL reactor construction costs are MUCH higher and this was before the Fukushima incident and the safety issues it highlighted:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://energyeconomyonline.com/uploads/Business_Risks_and_Costs_of_New_Nuclear_Power_Reprint_-_Jan_2__2009_Craig_A._Severance.pdf
Oh, and considering historic reactor construction had a NEGATIVE rate of return for many utilities because of the many cancellations and writedowns, the 35% return figure is also dubious. Here's some eye-opening info on historic reactor construction:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/04/06/207833/does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve/
Since solar power doesn't even need steel or concrete, I don't know where you get the 1/60 requirements figure. A link to your data would be helpful.
Nuclear power is a failed attempt by nuclear scientists to compensate for the destruction caused by nuclear weapons. While the enthusiasm generated by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and the Atomic Energy Commission faded after Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl, and most knowledgeable nuclear scientists no longer feel the need to assuage their guilt by furnishing a more expensive way of heating water, the nuclear power industry and its engineers still feel the need to profit from their broken promises. While the Fukushima nuclear reactor accident is highly improbable, as was Three-Mile Island according to the best engineering calculations at the time, the industry and its insurers know better, and rely heavily upon federal subsidies and liability limits in the Price-Anderson Act in order to feign economic feasibility for the future of nuclear power, having followed the issue for years I cannot believe that the cost/benefit analysis proffered by those whose pecuniary interests are at stake can been taken seriously. While many are easily persuaded that we can profit from plutonium while leaving it for our descendants to dispose of as best they can, intergenerational justice demands that we consider means of alleviating the dangers of radioactive waste before we proceed with the development of nuclear waste.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIncreasing taxation on contaminating industries reduces their financial ability to correct the emissions problem. Perhaps a more sound approach would be tax reductions for plants that reduce their emissions in a measurable level, or implement efficacious energy-sparing measures in their procedures or facilities. Taxation worsens the problem, moving money from the private hands to the government is just a change of power, but doesn't represent an approach to the issue, not even just to understand the nature and ways of solving the fault.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd what happened with the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://challenge.ecomagination.com/ideas/OCEANOGENIC-POWER-Up-to-16000GW-of-Energ" target="_blank">OCEANOGENIC POWER</a> and Ocean Power?<br>
Not may be that in the 21st century we are unable to innovate from anachronistic postures.<br>
At least anachronistic jealousy must be defeated by the anachronistic love to the beauty of Truth.
And what happened with the oceanogenic power (http://challenge.ecomagination.com/ideas/OCEANOGENIC-POWER-Up-to-16000GW-of-Energ) and Ocean Power?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot may be that in the 21st century we are unable to innovate from anachronistic postures.
At least anachronistic jealousy must be defeated by the anachronistic love to the beauty of truth.
The Google study lists phantastic figures on new jobs and business opportunities concerning renewable energies. It is probably one of those econometric models, with all kinds of assumptions – which may or may not be valid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me include some figures from Germany .
First on costs :
The latest nuclear plant – an EPR-3 – is just being built in Finland (Olkiluoto) , which will go on the net by 2013. It has 1,6 Gwatt with a capacity factor beyond 90%
The costs were planned to be 3 billion €, the actual costs now are 6 billion € ( about 8,2 billion $ ). Well – that's quite a lot.
Now let's see the costs of Wind energy :
Most of the coming wind farms here are planned off-shore. The latest offshore platform, which went on the net is Baltic 1 (you find it in Wikipedia).
The rated power is 49 Megawatt , the avarage power per year is 20,5 Megawatt.
The overall construction costs were 300 Million €.
Now – the Olkiluoto nuclear facility delivers 1440 Mwatt on a yearly basis – that is 70 times the power delivery of the Baltic wind farm.
In other words – I need 70 Baltic wind farms in order to get the Olkiluoto power.
These 70 Baltic wind farms would cost 70 x 300 = 21000 Million = 21 Billion € (28.3 billion $).
These costs do not yet include the additional costs for the grid extensions.
Why those grid extensions ? The wind farms are offshore in northern Germany.
But the the main industries depending on this electricity are situated in western and southern Germany.
Now to photovoltaics : Since 1995 the installation of photovoltaics was supported by the government via feed-in tariffs. Up to 2010 these subsidies ran up the fantastic figure of
85,4 billion € ( 115,3 billion $ ). And the result is, that photovoltaic provides just 1.9% of the total electricity generated in Germany.
Another result is, that the price of the kwh in Germany is about the highest among all other EU countries.
Concerning the jobs this creates here : The majority of the photovoltaic modules are now imported from China. So – our subsidy system actually supports the creation of jobs in China.
Some remarks concerning the flow of material :
An offshore windfarm requires for each windmill a really large concrete tripod.
Depending on the depth of the sea and on the size of the windmill it amounts to 800 to 1000 m3 of concrete.
The Baltic 1 windfarm consists of 21 windmills.
This is 21 x 800 = 16 800 m3 of concrete
To compare it with Olkiluoto these 70 Baltic 1 windfarms would need
16 800 x 70 = nearly 1,2 Million m3 of concrete.
The Olkiluoto ERP-3 will use 0.3 Million m3 concrete or somewhat less.
Another bottleneck for wind farms is the rare earth metal neodym.
Each generator in the windmill contains between 100 and 150 kg of Neodym.
For the Baltic 1 windfarm this amounts to 21 x 100 = 2,1 tons
For the assumed 70 Baltic windfarms this would amount to 147 tons.
And the use of this metal competes with hybrid cars and the forthcoming electric cars.
And right now – China supplies 95% of this rare earth metal.
To sum up : Bearing these figures in mind I fail to see the bright new future for renewables.
The Oceanogenic power goes from 14 to 98 billions and from 4 to 38 Gw. And more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGunt- also the life span for a turbine is only 20 years, plus the gear boxes need to be replaced every five years. Adding these expenses in drastically increases the overall costs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-turbine-gearbox-technologies/
thanks for this information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis means that in 20 years the windmills existing to-day are just a pile of scrap.
Nuke for safety reasons has been excluded from the logic of market.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRecent polluting events have shown that it has always needed public justification which makes very convenient promote some solutions for renewable energy that although they are somewhat absurd, precisely can not satisfy the base load of any major market.
Until the discovery of Oceanogenic Power was not expected any clean energy solution that could compete with the nuclear solution for the base load.
So no wonder that in my third world country, these ignorant powers of the truth persecute me sure of their impunity. As a millionaires prima donnas are also willing to pay for any technology, that although can only meet part of peak demand, they are good propaganda to justify the dangerous existence of his guilty ignorance turned in pride.
They do not know what they do, but precisely this is ignorance.
Ochar - could you enlighten me on what this oceanogenic power is. Where can I find Info on this ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this kind of a vision or is some industrial background available on this ?
Gunt: In this link you can find enough details, in
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPage 12 is the economic aspect.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B650oxtezmd9Y2EwNGZmMzEtZTkyNC00ZWUyLWE0YjUtYjdiNTE5MTIwZjJl&hl=en_US
Feel free to any questions.
Ochar , I looked up the info concerning this oceanogenic power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to confesss that I did not understand all the details.
Basically it is a scientific proposal on how to untilize the latent energy in the oceans.
But this is , like fusion energy , something for the second half of the 21. century.
However, on fusion energy there is a lot of research going on.
This oceanogenic energy thing with all its geoengineering involved is just what I would call a vision.
My problem is : How do we get the energy for our engineers trying to replace oil by hydrogen or by synthesizing hydro carbons directly from CO2 and, worldwide, for the fast growing population.
And this is required by 2020 and 2030.
Gunt:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're right, you don't understand me, it is very likely due to my English, which is surely worse than your Spanish.
If GOOGLE and too many others are released of anachronistic elitisms in 5 years would be built the first Oceanogenic Power plant. And this time nothing would be to research looking for a miracle such as nuclear fusion.
From what little I know of Nuke, I understand that in the known universe does not exist fusion chain reaction that will fit in a humane useful space, not even the size of Earth; so perhaps this is the 21st century version of the "elixir of youth" or El Dorado or "convert stones into gold"; myths searched in the centuries 18 and 19. But the hydropower and oceans are on Earth, and both are realities.
Am aware that you need to accept again another discovery, but again is simple: altimetry has revealed in the seas, an hydraulic energy accumulation in Panama, which would cause a massive ocean current if there will be a spillway across the Isthmus. If this flow is handled at the rhythm of tides through a field of hydraulic turbines will produce all the clean power required by the present civilization. Including for the refining of the last drops of petroleum, vegetation (natural synthesis of CO2) and seawater (for hydrogen).
This power is a small portion (1.7 petawatts) of the same energy that moves the oceans, the moon and the earth and it is most likely that its origin is the nearest truly useful nuclear fusion that we know: the sun.
Hey Ochar , your comment :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'If GOOGLE and too many others are released of anachronistic elitisms in 5 years would be built the first Oceanogenic Power plant. And this time nothing would be to research looking for a miracle such as nuclear fusion.'
.... before such maxi-project could be started, all kinds of negotiations between the investors and the state of Panama would have to to take place.
I guess that just these would take more than 10 years !
Gunt:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease excuse my delay and feel free to do the same. Not always have time to post comments.
As for your last comment:
You have and you have no reason, just what you say is based on anachronistic experience. Google and to much others have to innovate from the fact that there are small third world market experts who have never been heard.
I tell you, investing enough money in 1 or 2 years we can begin the 5 years of construction of this project that will save google and the world.
The oceanogenic power is hydropower, super clean, efficient, and now, enough. The same energy that moves the oceans: the earth's rotation around its own axis, and the force of gravity, mainly between the earth and moon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the possibility of loss due to thermodynamic reasons, can we dismiss this, as only the movement of the oceans is causing this type of wear and is many-illions of times larger than the energy used by mankind.
The very nature has allowed us a place to extract this clean energy: Panamá, within 9 degrees north, where the tangential velocity of the earth is greater than 450 meters per second and the bulge of the ocean water, due to the respective centrifugal force, is 22 kilometers high. It is the place that separates all the oceans of the world with 70 kilometers (44 miles) of land, and 300 meters (900 feets) maximum of height, which stops the two daily tsunamis that represent tides.
On the other hand, the tidal amplitude offshore has to move at the same speed of the tsunamis: A little less than 200 meters per second.
Then, when the moon move from Panama to Asia to its 1 km per second and reaches the end of the Pacific, in Panama already is being formed a new high tide.
By the other side, in the Atlantic, the bulge of water is stopped by the Americas, and its onset has to expect the relative path of the moon on Europe, Asia and Africa or six hours.
The roundness of our planet, and the position and direction of motion of the moon relative to Earth, defines, and makes it impossible for the ocean in Cape Horn change its direction of motion, the same as the rotation of our planet.
Therefore, 24 hours a day, every day, the Pacific is exposed to the forces that move the whole mass of water present on earth, and every 6 hours, the exposure is practically alone on it. The Atlantic is never alone in front of these forces, and every 6 hours, it is not exposed to them.
With a simple equation, it demonstrates why altimetry measures the Pacific is 37 cetimeters above the Atlantic. This difference already enables scaling up to 160 GW of continuous power; plus 12 Twh per day to refine cleanly sea water, oil, biomass or whatever. This is enough for five U.S. states like California, with its unquestionable research infrastructures.
After a first project will be possible to research the details to take advantage of the same principles and escalate to serve the whole USA and also the world.
And friends, this is the origin of the Oceanogenic Power, which, along with how take advantage of it, is our discovery.
The OCEANOGENIC POWER and superconducting lines are realities that allow to transmit, from Panamas, all the required clean energy for both: California and China.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut what to do with all the weapons that depend on dirty energy?
Recycle them for computer equipment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this