Wind, Water and Sun Beat Biofuels, Nuclear and Coal for Energy Generation, Study Says
Wind power is the most promising alternative source of energy, according to Mark Jacobson.
by Louis Bergeron, Stanford News Writer
The best ways to improve energy security, mitigate global warming and reduce the number of deaths caused by air pollution are blowing in the wind and rippling in the water, not growing on prairies or glowing inside nuclear power plants, says Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford.

“That is exactly the wrong place to be spending our money. Biofuels are the most damaging choice we could make in our efforts to move away from using fossil fuels. We should be spending to promote energy technologies that cause significant reductions in carbon emissions and air-pollution mortality, not technologies that have either marginal benefits or no benefits at all.”

– Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford
And “clean coal,” which involves capturing carbon emissions and sequestering them in the earth, is not clean at all, he asserts.
Jacobson has conducted the first quantitative, scientific evaluation of the proposed, major, energy-related solutions by assessing not only their potential for delivering energy for electricity and vehicles, but also their impacts on global warming, human health, energy security, water supply, space requirements, wildlife, water pollution, reliability and sustainability. His findings indicate that the options that are getting the most attention are between 25 to 1,000 times more polluting than the best available options. The paper with his findings will be published in the next issue of Energy and Environmental Science and is available online here. Jacobson is also director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford.
“The energy alternatives that are good are not the ones that people have been talking about the most. And some options that have been proposed are just downright awful,” Jacobson said. “Ethanol-based biofuels will actually cause more harm to human health, wildlife, water supply and land use than current fossil fuels.” He added that ethanol may also emit more global-warming pollutants than fossil fuels, according to the latest scientific studies.
The raw energy sources that Jacobson found to be the most promising are, in order, wind, concentrated solar (the use of mirrors to heat a fluid), geothermal, tidal, solar photovoltaics (rooftop solar panels), wave and hydroelectric. He recommends against nuclear, coal with carbon capture and sequestration, corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol, which is made of prairie grass. In fact, he found cellulosic ethanol was worse than corn ethanol because it results in more air pollution, requires more land to produce and causes more damage to wildlife.
To place the various alternatives on an equal footing, Jacobson first made his comparisons among the energy sources by calculating the impacts as if each alternative alone were used to power all the vehicles in the United States, assuming only “new-technology” vehicles were being used. Such vehicles include battery electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and “flex-fuel” vehicles that could run on a high blend of ethanol called E85.
Wind was by far the most promising, Jacobson said, owing to a better-than 99 percent reduction in carbon and air pollution emissions; the consumption of less than 3 square kilometers of land for the turbine footprints to run the entire U.S. vehicle fleet (given the fleet is composed of battery-electric vehicles); the saving of about 15,000 lives per year from premature air-pollution-related deaths from vehicle exhaust in the United States; and virtually no water consumption. By contrast, corn and cellulosic ethanol will continue to cause more than 15,000 air pollution-related deaths in the country per year, Jacobson asserted.
Because the wind turbines would require a modest amount of spacing between them to allow room for the blades to spin, wind farms would occupy about 0.5 percent of all U.S. land, but this amount is more than 30 times less than that required for growing corn or grasses for ethanol. Land between turbines on wind farms would be simultaneously available as farmland or pasture or could be left as open space.
Indeed, a battery-powered U.S. vehicle fleet could be charged by 73,000 to 144,000 5-megawatt wind turbines, fewer than the 300,000 airplanes the U.S. produced during World War II and far easier to build. Additional turbines could provide electricity for other energy needs.
“There is a lot of talk among politicians that we need a massive jobs program to pull the economy out of the current recession,” Jacobson said. “Well, putting people to work building wind turbines, solar plants, geothermal plants, electric vehicles and transmission lines would not only create jobs but would also reduce costs due to health care, crop damage and climate damage from current vehicle and electric power pollution, as well as provide the world with a truly unlimited supply of clean power.”
Jacobson said that while some people are under the impression that wind and wave power are too variable to provide steady amounts of electricity, his research group has already shown in previous research that by properly coordinating the energy output from wind farms in different locations, the potential problem with variability can be overcome and a steady supply of baseline power delivered to users.
Jacobson’s research is particularly timely in light of the growing push to develop biofuels, which he calculated to be the worst of the available alternatives. In their effort to obtain a federal bailout, the Big Three Detroit automakers are increasingly touting their efforts and programs in the biofuels realm, and federal research dollars have been supporting a growing number of biofuel-research efforts.
“That is exactly the wrong place to be spending our money. Biofuels are the most damaging choice we could make in our efforts to move away from using fossil fuels,” Jacobson said. “We should be spending to promote energy technologies that cause significant reductions in carbon emissions and air-pollution mortality, not technologies that have either marginal benefits or no benefits at all.”
“Obviously, wind alone isn’t the solution,” Jacobson said. “It’s got to be a package deal, with energy also being produced by other sources such as solar, tidal, wave and geothermal power.”
During the recent presidential campaign, nuclear power and clean coal were often touted as energy solutions that should be pursued, but nuclear power and coal with carbon capture and sequestration were Jacobson’s lowest-ranked choices after biofuels. “Coal with carbon sequestration emits 60- to 110-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy, and nuclear emits about 25-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy,” Jacobson said. Although carbon-capture equipment reduces 85-90 percent of the carbon exhaust from a coal-fired power plant, it has no impact on the carbon resulting from the mining or transport of the coal or on the exhaust of other air pollutants. In fact, because carbon capture requires a roughly 25-percent increase in energy from the coal plant, about 25 percent more coal is needed, increasing mountaintop removal and increasing non-carbon air pollution from power plants, he said.
Nuclear power poses other risks. Jacobson said it is likely that if the United States were to move more heavily into nuclear power, then other nations would demand to be able to use that option.
“Once you have a nuclear energy facility, it’s straightforward to start refining uranium in that facility, which is what Iran is doing and Venezuela is planning to do,” Jacobson said. “The potential for terrorists to obtain a nuclear weapon or for states to develop nuclear weapons that could be used in limited regional wars will certainly increase with an increase in the number of nuclear energy facilities worldwide.” Jacobson calculated that if one small nuclear bomb exploded, the carbon emissions from the burning of a large city would be modest, but the death rate for one such event would be twice as large as the current vehicle air pollution death rate summed over 30 years.
Finally, both coal and nuclear energy plants take much longer to plan, permit and construct than do most of the other new energy sources that Jacobson’s study recommends. The result would be even more emissions from existing nuclear and coal power sources as people continue to use comparatively “dirty” electricity while waiting for the new energy sources to come online, Jacobson said.
Jacobson received no funding from any interest group, company or government agency.
Energy and vehicle options, from best to worst, according to Jacobson’s calculations:
Best to worst electric power sources:
1. Wind power 2. concentrated solar power (CSP) 3. geothermal power 4. tidal power 5. solar photovoltaics (PV) 6. wave power 7. hydroelectric power 8. a tie between nuclear power and coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).
Best to worst vehicle options:
1. Wind-BEVs (battery electric vehicles) 2. wind-HFCVs (hydrogen fuel cell vehicles) 3.CSP-BEVs 4. geothermal-BEVs 5. tidal-BEVs 6. solar PV-BEVs 7. Wave-BEVs 8.hydroelectric-BEVs 9. a tie between nuclear-BEVs and coal-CCS-BEVs 11. corn-E85 12.cellulosic-E85.
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were examined only when powered by wind energy, but they could be combined with other electric power sources. Although HFCVs require about three times more energy than do BEVs (BEVs are very efficient), HFCVs are still very clean and more efficient than pure gasoline, and wind-HFCVs still resulted in the second-highest overall ranking. HFCVs have an advantage in that they can be refueled faster than can BEVs (although BEV charging is getting faster). Thus, HFCVs may be useful for long trips (more than 250 miles) while BEVs more useful for trips less than 250 miles. An ideal combination may be a BEV-HFCV hybrid.
Louis Bergeron is a science writer for Stanford University News Service covering earth sciences, biology, chemistry and environmental science. He has written on research findings as varied as the importance of circadian rhythm to learning retention in Siberian hamsters, energy transfer in near-collisions at the molecular scale, and tagging and tracking studies of bluefin tuna, white sharks and leatherback turtles. Before joining the News Service he worked as a freelance science writer and editor, contributing to print and online publications such as New Scientist, ScienceNOW, Exploratorium Magazine, PC World, SWARA (the magazine of the East African Wild Life Society) and Stanford Medicine. He earned a bachelor’s degree in geology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a master’s degree in earth sciences from the University of California-Santa Cruz.

QUEENSLAND households will have to find an extra $230 to pay for their power bills next year.

The Queensland Competition Authority has announced in a draft decision that electricity prices will increase by 13.63 per cent next financial year.

The increase is the third since the Government promised there would be downward pressure on prices with its decision to deregulate the electricity market.

further price hike could also be imminent with suppliers AGL and Origin fighting in the courts against previous QCA increases they claim were too small.

Previous price increases have been 5 per cent and 11 per cent.

The QCA said prices would have to rise because of a 15.8 per cent in energy costs, due to rising fuel and capital costs and an increase in the transmission and distribution costs of 12.3 per cent.

Queensland Energy Minister Geoff Wilson said he would now examine the proposal.
“I recognise that it’s a blow for Queenslanders struggling on tight budgets,” Mr Wilson said.
“I’ve directed my department to closely scrutinise that decision to ensure that that proposal by the Queensland Competition Authority provides nothing other than for the genuine increases in prices for electricity over the last 12 months.”

THE Federal Government has today ruled out a deep cut to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions before 2020, believing the world will not get its act together on climate change soon.

The Government has set an absolute maximum cut to emissions of 15 per cent by 2020 - if the world signs an effective climate pact - in its greenhouse plan released today.

If no pact is signed, Australia will go with an unconditional 5 per cent cut in emissions.

These targets fly in the face of calls from scientists for countries to slash their emissions by 25 to 40 per cent to avert catastrophic climate change.

The Government says it’s unlikely the world can forge a strong greenhouse agreement so its targets are realistic.

“A fair and effective global agreement delivering deep cuts in emissions … would be in Australia’s interests,” the plan says.

“Achieving global commitment to emissions reductions of this order appears unlikely in the next commitment period.”

The Full White document can be viewed at: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/whitepaper/index.html

The Queensland Government Solar Bonus Scheme pays households and other small customers for the surplus electricity generated from roof-top solar photovoltaic (PV) panel systems, that is exported to the Queensland electricity grid. The scheme is designed to make solar power more affordable for Queenslanders, stimulate the solar power industry and encourage energy efficiency.

The scheme rewards customers whenever they generate more electricity than they are using - not just the balance at the end of the quarter, but whenever generation exceeds consumption during the day.

The scheme is designed to boost the state’s use of renewable energy, encourage energy efficiency and stimulate the solar power industry in Queensland.

The Solar Bonus Scheme commenced on 1 July 2008. Customers wishing to claim the solar bonus should contact the electricity retailer that supplies them with grid-connected electricity.

How much will consumers be paid?

Customers participating in the scheme will be paid 44 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for surplus electricity fed into the grid—around three times the current general domestic use tariff of 16.29c/kWh (inc GST as at 1 July 2008).

The average consumer operating a 1 kilowatt (kW) solar system could save up to 25 per cent on their electricity bill by using electricity generated by the PV system and from payments received from the Solar Bonus Scheme.

The amount of electricity a customer returns to the grid will depend on how much energy is being consumed while the solar panels are generating power. Customers may be able to maximise their solar bonus by improving the energy efficiency of their home to export more electricity to the grid. This could be achieved by reducing standby power consumption, shifting some tasks to the evening and minimising the use of air-conditioners. Visit the EnergyWise tips section for simple ways to make your home more energy-efficient.

Who is eligible to receive the bonus?

To be eligible to receive the solar bonus, customers must:

• consume no more than 100 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity a year (the average household uses 10 MWh a year)
• purchase and install a new solar power (photovoltaic) system (not solar hot water system) or operate an existing system that is connected to the Queensland electricity grid
• generate surplus electricity that is fed into the Queensland electricity grid
• have an agreement in place with their electricity distributor (Ergon Energy or Energex) and have appropriate metering installed
• have solar PV systems with a capacity of up to 10kVA for single phase power and 30kVA for three-phase power
• hold an electricity account with an electricity retailer.

How will customers receive the solar bonus?

The solar bonus of 44c/kWh will be paid for electricity fed into the grid at times when the solar system generates more electricity than the household or business is using at any instant.

When the meter reader visits a customer’s home or business at the end of the quarter, the total amount of electricity exported to the grid and the total amount imported from the grid will be read and passed onto the retailer to calculate the bill.

The customer’s quarterly solar bonus payment for this excess electricity exported to the grid will be deducted from their total grid-connected electricity consumption charge on their electricity bill.

The customer’s grid-connected electricity consumption will also be lower (than without a solar system) as a result of the household or business consuming a portion of its electricity directly from the solar system.

If the solar bonus payments are greater than the total grid-connected electricity consumption charges over a 12-month period, the customer is entitled to have this balance refunded, rather than maintaining an ongoing credit. 

When can consumers start claiming the solar bonus?

The Solar Bonus Scheme has now commenced. Customers wishing to participate in the scheme should contact the electricity retailer that supplies them with grid-connected electricity.

For customers participating in scheme, the solar bonus of 44 cents will be offered until 2028, but is to  be reviewed after 10 years or when 8 megawatts of solar systems are  installed (equal to 8,000 systems of 1 kW capacity), whichever occurs first. 

How will the electricity metering operate?

The electricity generated by the solar power system is fed into the customer’s electricity load to help power the home or business in the first instance. It is also connected to the electricity grid via a meter (or meters) which record both electricity imported from the grid and exported to the grid. When the electricity produced by the solar power system exceeds the customer’s demand for electricity, this excess electricity is fed into the grid via the appropriate ‘export’ register of the meter.

The meter records the amount of electricity exported to the grid rather than the total amount of electricity generated by the solar system.

When the customer uses more electricity than is being produced by the solar PV system, the balance of electricity required is taken from the electricity grid via the appropriate ‘import’ register of the meter.

What electricity metering is required?

Customers wishing to claim the solar bonus will need electricity metering that separately records electricity imports and exports.

If required, the installation of new or additional meters will need to be arranged with the electricity distributor by your electricity retailer and costs met by the individual customer.

Customers with an existing solar PV system wired in a ‘gross’ metering configuration will need to rewire their system to a ‘net’ configuration, in order to participate in the scheme. Customers wishing to change their metering arrangements will need to consult with their electricity retailer.

NSW households who own and operate grid connect solar power systems will be paid up to sixty (60) cents per kilowatt hour generated. The move, initiated by the Rees Government yesterday, is designed to encourage the uptake of grid connect solar panels in order to meet the 2020 target whereby 20% of all power consumed will be supplied from renewable energy.

In a statement made by NSW Environment Minister Carmel Tebbutt “A feed-in tariff makes solar panels more affordable because people are paid for the clean electricity they produce.”

The taskforce has been established and will report back to government in January, with the scheme expected to be implemented by mid-2009.

A report commissioned by the Federal Government in September 2008 has found that grid connect solar panels are the most inefficient way of tackling climate change. Roger Wilkins, former head of the NSW cabinet office who championed the report, has concluded that solar grid technology costs $400 for each tonne of carbon dioxide abated which he says is higher than any feasible market price on carbon emissions.

The main focus on the Roger Wilkins report is on carbon dioxide abatement rather than incorporating the entire spectrum of challenges our world is facing. Hence, energy generation and conservation of energy need to be included in any rational debate facing our country in terms of both energy security and CO2 reductions.

Mankind’s rapid success, only 100 Years after the Industrial Revolution, has come about due to the abundance of cheap fossil fuel. For at least the next 100 years there is unlikely to be any cheap substitute for delivering the 10 terawatts of electricity the world currently needs each year to maintain its current level of economic activity, not to mention the many other uses fossil fuels have other than the main role it plays in transport, fuel and electricity generation.

By now you may be asking about nuclear. If all the world’s fossil fuelled power stations were replaced with nuclear stations, the world would run out of uranium within 15 years. At best nuclear power stations could only provide a bridging role in the transition.

Our current economy’s energy needs are met using ancient solar energy. This MUST be replaced with energy which has recently arrived on earth from the sun. When looking for solutions, there is no quick fix. No silver bullet. However, Solar Grid Systems will have to provide a vital role. Firstly, the power they produce is used onsite or in close proximity to the home where it was produced (saving transmission costs). Secondly, Solar Grid Systems provide reliable electricity when it is needed most - during peak sun hours.

The other hidden benefit that Solar Grid Systems provide to our economy is generation of power for electric vehicles. The average Australian home uses 16 kW hours of energy per day. If that same house were to plug in an electric car (the equivalent in size to a Ford Falcon) the energy required for the electric vehicle’s batteries would be around 40 kW hours.  This is a massive increase in energy consumption for that home. Eventually, with mass volumes, Australia’s electrical grid will become overwhelmed by the energy demand which is already 7 years away from needing urgent attention (and that’s WITHOUT electric vehicles).

Since the transmission and storage of electricity is the critical element, solar panels on the home can significantly address this challenge as we adapt to new processes and technologies.

SolarGen has just been informed of the latest figures from Canberra relating to quantities of grid connect solar rebates received each week and processed

The table also identifies the number of grid connect solar installation reports received (this happens after the system is commissioned) and paid.

The report also details which week period in each Australian State the Government is processing for grid connect solar rebate pre approvals.

To view the solar panel grid report, please click on the table below.

Dr Paul Sidwell became yet another Australian resident to seek the highly popular solar panel rebate this Year. “My main objective was to make a highly visible statement to my neighborhood that I was prepared to invest in a better future, and successfully encourage others to do the same”.

On the issue of climate change, Dr Sidwell believes there will eventually be a significant impact felt here in Australia. “…We already live with climatic consequences such as water shortages, damage to buildings through loss of ground moisture, and the changing seasonal effects on things such as food production, hay fever and wildlife.

Dr Sidwell does not feel that climate can be stopped anytime soon, “mankind will have to adopt to a new climate, but its severity could be diminished. The effects will vary from place to place, from moderate to extreme. We need to apply precautionary principles, just as we take out insurance in our everyday lives”.

Concerning green power, Dr Sidwell has decided that option was not a suitable choice “I don’t buy green power, because in the ACT it is largely hydro, which I believe is defiantly not ‘green’. I have seen the devastating environmental effects of hydro (e.g. diverting hundreds of little streams in the alpine park area by the snow scheme has devastated the park environments, and the diversion of water inland has ruined the snowy river and salivated the inland) which has motivated me to adopt solar.

The Sidwell residence uses around 1000 kW hours of electricity per Month which accounts for heating, hot water and cooking for six (6) people.

Generally speaking the grid solar system has performed to Dr Sidwell’s satisfaction. “…my only gripe is that when there is partial overshadowing of the panels the output drops disproportionately, for example, if one panel out of six is shaded, output drops from maybe 700 watts to 150 watts”. This is due to the fact that solar panel performance drops significantly if when even a small area of panels becomes shaded. Amorphous solar modules are shade tolerant however its worth noting here that it would be most desirable to install solar modules on a roof which has no shading issues.

The Sidwell grid solar panel installation has generated significant interest from their neighbors nearby. “…within a couple of Months our next door neighbors installed a 1kW system, and another family a street away installed a 4kW system.

The Sidwell family have raised their awareness to their energy consumption after having their solar power system installed “…we have turned down our heating thermostat and actually removed the heater from the bathroom, and fitted a solar water heater to boost our electric storage heater”.

The Sidwell family would install a new solar panel grid system if they ever moved into another house with the idea of implementing a better layout/design.