https://cleantechnica.com/2017/08/23/100-renewable-energy-job-growth-139-nations-detailed-new-stanford-report/
[links and images in on-line article]
100% Renewable Energy For 139 Nations Detailed In New Stanford Report
August 23rd, 2017 by Steve Hanley
Mark Z. Jacobson, the famed professor at the Stanford School of Earth,
Energy, and Environmental Sciences, and 26 of his colleagues have
compiled a report that shows exactly how 139 nations could transition to
100% renewable energy by 2050 without throwing millions of people out of
work. In fact, they contend that the changeover would actually spur job
growth while dramatically reducing carbon emissions.
Charting The Pathway To 100% Renewable Energy
The new report is an outgrowth of a similar project from 2015 that laid
out the steps all 50 states in the US would need to take in order to
transition to 100% renewable energy. Why 139 countries? Because that
group is responsible for 99% of all global carbon emissions. The report
was published August 23 by Joule, an online resource that focuses on
news about renewable energy.
Changing conventional wisdom is hard, but it can be done. People laughed
at the Wright Brothers and their silly idea that we could fly from place
to place. Today, there are more than 100,000 commercial airline flights
a day worldwide. Television? Forget it. Smartphones with more computing
power than an Apollo mission? Will never happen.
Change happens very slowly, but when it gets started, it builds momentum
with amazing speed.
Jacobson’s group developed roadmaps that assess the renewable energy
resources available to each country; the number of wind, water, and
solar energy generators needed to get to 80% renewable energy by 2030
and 100% by 2050; how much land and how many rooftops these power
sources would require; and how the proposals for each country would
reduce energy demand and cost when compared to a business-as-usual scenario.
“Both individuals and governments can lead this change. Policymakers
don’t usually want to commit to doing something unless there’s some
reasonable science that can show it’s possible and that’s what we’re
trying to do,” says Jacobson, who is also a member of the board for the
Solutions Project, a US-based nonprofit that works to educate the public
and policymakers about a transition to 100% clean, renewable energy.
“There are other scenarios. We’re not saying there’s only one way we can
do this, but having a scenario gives people direction.”
By the way, due to the progressive and influential work Jacobson has
been leading, he is in one camp with Elon Musk — he’s getting trolled by
anti-renewable forces on the interwebs and in the flesh. Also see these
two articles:
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/22/100-clean-renewable-energy-possible-setting-record-straight/
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/23/attacks-cleantech-leaders-begun-expect/
The researchers examined several aspects of each country’s economy,
including its electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, industrial,
and agriculture/forestry/fishing sectors. Their analysis revealed that
those countries with lots of available land will find the transition to
renewable energy the easiest. Countries like Singapore, which has little
open land and is surrounded by oceans, may need to look to offshore wind
energy to meet its goals.
Moving away from fossil fuels will bring with it ancillary benefits. For
example, eliminating the use of oil, gas will cut about 13% from the
world’s energy budget because mining, transporting, and refining those
fuels are all energy-intensive activities. The greater efficiency of
electric motors versus internal combustion engines could reduce global
energy demand by another 23%.
Some benefits are hard to quantify, but less international squabbling
over access to fossil fuels will definitely be a plus for all concerned.
The authors also suggest that making the transition from fossils fuels
to renewables will result in a net gain of 24 million employment
opportunities worldwide.
“Aside from eliminating emissions and avoiding 1.5º C global warming and
beginning the process of scrubbing carbon dioxide from Earth’s
atmosphere, transitioning eliminates 4 to 7 million air pollution deaths
each year and creates over 24 million long-term, full time jobs by these
plans,” Jacobson says. “What’s different between this study and other
studies that have proposed solutions is that we’re not just trying to
examine the climate benefits of reducing carbon but also the air
pollution benefits, jobs benefits, and cost benefits.”
Responding To Critics
Critics of the report point out that the recommendations ignore the
potential of nuclear power, as well as so-called clean coal and
biofuels. The authors respond that nuclear plants take 15 to 20 years to
design and build and bring with them “robust evidence” of a risk of
weapons proliferation risk, meltdown risk, and waste management risks,
according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Clean coal
has been condemned recently as a myth, and the production of biofuels
creates 50 times as much carbon pollution as renewables, according to
the report.
Jacobson and his colleagues highlight the inherent efficiency advantage
of electric motors compared to internal combustion engines as the
foundation of their recommendations. By their calculations, ICEs are
less then 7% efficient by the time the costs of finding and extracting
fossil fuels, transporting them, distributing them, and burning them are
totaled and compared to the total amount of work produced. They go on to
advocate for underground heat storage for homes and businesses, pointing
to Denmark, where such technology is common. They also presume that
electric airplanes will become commonplace in the future as more and
more companies invest in that technology.
Cuanto Cuesta?
So how much is all this going to cost? Trillions. But Jacobson and his
colleagues say keeping the existing fossil-based economy will cost 4
times as much, particularly when the economic value of better health and
longer lifetimes is factored in. Over time, those benefits will more
than equal the initial investment needed to go 100% renewable. In the
final analysis, how do you put a price on preserving a world that is fit
for human habitation?
In a preview of the report, Mark Dyson of the Rocky Mountain Institute
writes, “This paper helps push forward a conversation within and between
the scientific, policy, and business communities about how to envision
and plan for a decarbonized economy. The scientific community’s growing
body of work on global low carbon energy transition pathways provides
robust evidence that such a transition can be accomplished, and a
growing understanding of the specific levers that need to be pulled to
do so. Jacobson et al.’s present study provides sharper focus on one
scenario, and refines a set of priorities for near-term action to enable
it.”
In other words, an actual plan as opposed to political rhetoric or
dogma. Combined with the suggestions made by the authors of the new book
Drawdown, the Jacobson report marks the end of hand wringing and the
beginning of actual strategies to address the most serious existential
threat humanity has faced since The Flood.