Google's Clean Energy 2030

[rhoenix]

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 38%. Al Gore has issued a challenge that is even more ambitious - getting us to carbon-free electricity even sooner - 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.

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.

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 38%
* Dependence on imported oil (currently 10 million barrels per day) by 33%
* Electricity-sector CO2 emissions by 95%
* Personal vehicle sector CO2 emissions by 38%
* US CO2 emissions overall by 48% (40% from today's CO2 emission level)


We can achieve these results in 2030 by:

* Deploying aggressive end-use electrical energy efficiency measures to reduce demand 33%.
o Baseline EIA demand is projected to increase 25% by 2030. In addition, the increase in plug-in vehicles (see below) increases electricity demand another 8%. Thus, our efficiency reductions keep demand flat at the 2008 level.
* Replacing all coal and oil electricity generation, and about half of that from natural gas, with renewable electricity:
o 380 gigawatts (GW) wind: 300 GW onshore + 80 GW offshore
o 250 GW solar: 170 GW photovoltaic (PV) + 80 GW concentrating solar power (CSP)
o 80 GW geothermal: 15 GW conventional + 65 GW enhanced geothermal systems (EGS)
* Increasing plug-in vehicles (hybrids & pure electrics) to 90% of new car sales in 2030, reaching 42% of the total US fleet that year
* Increasing new conventional vehicle fuel efficiency from 31 to 45 mpg in 2030
* Accelerating the turnover of the vehicle fleet from 19 to 13 years (resulting in 25 million new vehicle sales per year in 2030, a 31% increase over the baseline)


Summary: Financial Bottom Line

The financial bottom line: Although the cost of the Clean Energy 2030 proposal is significant (about $4.4 trillion in undiscounted 2008 dollars), savings are even greater ($5.4 trillion), returning a net savings of $1.0 trillion over the 22-year life of the plan.

Summary: Actions Required
A number of actions will be required to realize the Clean Energy 2030 proposal:

* Renewable electricity:
o A long-term national commitment to renewable electricity (e.g. national renewable portfolio standard, carbon price, long-term tax credits and incentives, etc.)
o Adequate transmission capacity (to support about 450 GW targeting mostly Great Plains and coasts for wind, and desert southwest for concentrating solar power)
o Adequate grid resources to manage large-scale intermittent generation
o Public and private renewable energy R&D and investment to achieve cost parity with fossil generation in next several years
* Energy efficiency
o Long-term commitment to energy efficiency by the federal government and states (e.g, national efficiency standard, aggressive appliance standards and building codes, "decoupling" of utility profits from sales, incentives for energy efficiency investments)
o Deployment of a "smart" electricity grid that empowers consumers and businesses to manage their electricity use more effectively
* Personal vehicles:
o Public policies supporting the accelerated deployment of fuel-efficient vehicles, e.g. higher fuel efficiency standards for conventional vehicles, financial incentives to remove older vehicles from the fleet and encourage efficient (especially plug-in) vehicle purchases, special electricity rates for "smart charging", and greater R&D
o Investment in infrastructure necessary to support massive deployment of plug-ins including charging stations and development of new power management hardware and software

All of the above will require a sufficient and well-trained work force and manufacturing capacity to meet projected growth.


Electricity Sector

Currently the US produces half of its electricity from coal, 20% each from natural gas and nuclear energy, with the remainder provided by hydro and other renewables. Very little oil is used to make electricity—only about 1.5%. Electricity generation produces about 2,400 million metric tons of CO2 per year (MMtCO2/yr), about 40% of total US emissions.

In Clean Energy 2030 we transform this sector by: 1) Keeping electricity demand FLAT at the 2008 level, rather than allowing it to grow 25% by 2030, and 2) Eliminating all coal and oil in electricity generation (and about half of natural gas) by 2030 and replacing that generation with renewable energy--primarily wind, solar and geothermal.

For energy efficiency, there is ample proof in several states and from research studies [1] that growth in electricity demand can be kept flat or even made to decline (nationally demand is otherwise projected to grow by about 1% per year). This can be done using a combination of strategies, including energy efficiency targets, appliance standards, building codes, R&D investment, financial incentives, "decoupling" of utility profits from sales, and voluntary programs.

Keeping demand flat would reduce fossil fuel-based generation by 30% in 2030. The question is how we would meet remaining electricity needs without fossil fuels. The “business-as-usual” scenario developed by the EIA has very modest growth projections for renewables: about the same hydropower capacity as today (7%), and an expansion from 2% to 7% for other renewables (mostly biomass). Under the EIA view most of our remaining electricity requirements would still be met by fossil fuels.

We propose something radically different. Onshore and offshore wind could grow from about 20 GW today to 380 GW, generating 29% of 2030 demand. Solar, both photovoltaic and concentrating solar power (CSP), could grow from about 1 GW today to 250 GW, generating 12% of demand. Geothermal, both conventional and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS; see below), could grow from 2.4 GW today to 80 GW, generating 15% of demand. Together with modest projected expansion of other non-fossil energy sources, including nuclear (115 GW), hydro (78 GW), and biomass and municipal waste (23 GW), about 90% of demand could be met.[2]

Such rapid build-ups of electric generating capacity are not without precedent in the US. Between 1998 and 2006, over 200 GW of natural gas capacity were added to the US grid, representing a 115% increase. At its peak in 2002, 60 GW of natural gas generating capacity (24%) was brought online in one year (link). A similar story exists for nuclear energy, where 100 GW were built from essentially zero capacity in the 1970s and 1980s, with peak growth of almost 10 GW/yr and year-on-year growth after 1969 in excess of 60%.

The remaining demand would be supplied by natural gas (250 GW), which is likely necessary for shoring up imbalances between generation and demand, particularly with large amounts of intermittent renewables on the grid. Some capacity would also be provided by hydro resources, while distributed demand management (scheduling of large devices such as washing machines, dryers and plug-in vehicles, and making loads such as air conditioning interruptible) and energy storage (both distributed and centralized) would help make optimal economic use of intermittent generation.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) just completed a study looking at deploying 300 GW of wind by 2030, and concluded that the wind resource was ample for the task, and the impact on manufacturing was measurable but not overwhelming. Solar photovoltaics have been growing very strongly in recent years, topping 50%, but this technology still has a very small market share because of its cost. Concentrating solar power may break through this cost barrier faster, and could deliver massive amounts of power.

Geothermal energy is perhaps the sleeping giant. Conventional hydrothermal resources have been quietly growing in recent years, with 4 GW in the pipeline and likely 15 GW developed by 2030. Last month we announced a significant initiative in enhanced geothermal energy systems (EGS). EGS, which has the potential to provide significant baseload power on a broad-scale basis, promises extremely rapid growth if key technologies can be proven in the next few years.

For wind and solar, where the lion's share of resources are located in the Great Plains and desert southwest - far from population centers - the biggest challenge is providing adequate transmission capacity to get the power to market. Extrapolating from the DOE study, about 20,000 miles of new transmission capacity would be required to support 380 GW of onshore wind and concentrating solar power generation in the Clean Energy 2030 proposal. About 200,000 miles of high-voltage transmission now exist in the US. By contrast, offshore wind is located close to cities on both coasts, solar PV is typically highly distributed near where electricity is consumed, and there are significant potential EGS resources from border to border and coast to coast.

In summary, if we achieve the above electricity targets in the Clean Energy 2030 proposal, it would eliminate 88% of fossil fuel use and reduce CO2 emissions by 95% relative to the 2030 baseline, or about 2,800 MMtCO2/yr.


Personal Vehicle Sector

According to the Energy Information Administration, transportation-related energy use accounts for 70% of the 21 million barrels per day (mbd) of liquid fuels consumed in the US. By 2030, the sector will consume 17 mbd and emit 2,200 million metric tons of CO2 per year (MMtCO2/yr), about 1/3 of projected total US energy-related CO2 emissions.

Personal vehicles (also known as “light-duty” vehicles, e.g. cars, sport-utility vehicles, and light trucks), account for approximately 60% of transportation sector fuel consumption and CO2 emissions; the remainder comes primarily from freight trucks and airplanes, with appreciable contributions from other sources (buses, trains, ships, etc.). The Clean Energy 2030 proposal focuses on the personal vehicle subtotal, because we think this can be transformed by plug-in electric vehicles and higher efficiency conventional vehicles.

Although the average fuel efficiency of new conventional vehicles, currently 22 mpg, is projected to increase to 31 mpg by 2030,[3] plug-in vehicles can already achieve significantly higher fuel efficiency because they drive on electricity for a significant fraction of their yearly miles. A plug-in hybrid with a 40-mile electric range drives on electricity for about half of its yearly miles, so it consumes half the gasoline of its conventional cousin. And switching to an all-electric vehicle of course consumes no gasoline.

The Clean Energy 2030 plan rapidly ramps up sales of plug-in vehicles, starting with 100,000 in 2010 (annual US vehicle sales today are roughly 15 million), and increasing to 3.7 million annual vehicle sales in 2020 and 22 million in 2030. Seventy percent of these vehicles would be plug-in hybrids, with the remainder being all-electric vehicles.

In addition to rapidly deploying plug-in vehicles, the Clean Energy 2030 proposal assumes that conventional (e.g. non-plug-in) vehicle efficiency can increase as well. We have consulted with industry experts and determined that it is possible to push average conventional vehicle efficiency to 40-50 mpg in 2030, and assume 45 mpg in our proposal. In Europe, this average fuel efficiency target is mandated by 2012.

Finally, the average vehicle in the US operates for almost 20 years, meaning that many older, inefficient vehicles continue to consume large amounts of fuel with increasing maintenance cost. To accelerate both the adoption of plug-in vehicles as well as more efficient conventional vehicles, we propose a program to accelerate the retirement of older vehicles. There are a number of mechanisms that might be considered such as "feebates" and consumer and manufacturer incentives for efficient vehicles. As will be seen below, the higher up-front cost of a more efficient vehicle is quickly made up by much lower fuel costs. The impact of such a program would be an increase in new vehicle sales, rising to 6.2 million additional vehicles (31%) in 2030.

These three strategies (more plug-in vehicles, higher efficiency conventional vehicles, and accelerated vehicle turnover) would together reduce oil consumption (and CO2 emissions) by 38% relative to the baseline, or 56 billion gallons per year.


Economics
We made the following economic assumptions in calculating the cost of the Clean Energy 2030 proposal:

Efficiency:
* Efficiency capital cost of 25 cents per kWh annual savings (one-time cost)
* Savings from efficiency of 10 cents per kWh (average electricity price)

Renewable energy:
* Renewable electricity capital costs:
o Onshore wind: $2 per watt (W) falling to $1.5/W in 2030
o Offshore wind: $2.5/W falling to $2/W in 2030
o Solar PV: $6/W falling to $2/W in 2030
o Solar CSP: $3.5/W falling to $2/W in 2030
o Conventional geothermal: $3.5/W flat through 2030
o Enhanced geothermal systems: $5/W falling to $3.5/W in 2030
* Intermittency cost of $20/MWh (applied to wind and solar)
* Avoided fossil capital costs (for plants planned in baseline but not built in our proposal because of efficiency and renewables):
o Coal: $2/W constant
o Natural gas and oil: $1/W constant
* Saved fossil fuel cost (that is not already counted as efficiency savings):
o Coal: $2/MBtu constant
o Natural gas and oil: $10/MBtu constant
* No write-down cost for retiring coal plants (all plants assumed to be older than 40 years when retired), no decommissioning cost or salvage value for plants
* Transmission infrastructure cost: $0.30/W for wind (including offshore) and solar CSP


Vehicles:

* Plug-in vehicle premiums: $5000 per plug-in hybrid vehicle (PHEV), $10,000 per pure-electric vehicle (EV), plus $1000 per vehicle for charging infrastructure
* Higher-efficiency conventional vehicle premium $3000 for 45 mpg (pro-rated for lower mpg, down to zero cost for 22 mpg today)
* Fuel cost: $4/gallon gasoline today, doubling to $8/gallon by 2030
* Plug-in electricity cost: 7 cents per kWh (discounted due to flexible smart-charging price)
* Older vehicle buy-back cost: $5000 per vehicle

Carbon (not counted in net savings):

* Carbon credit for CO2 not emitted (relative to baseline): $20/ton CO2, doubling to $40/ton in 2030 (applied to both electricity and vehicles)

Bottom line: undiscounted savings exceed costs by $994 billion over the 22 years of the scenario, or if carbon credits are included, $2,128 billion.


Economic variants:

* Making gasoline significantly more or less expensive changes the cost of the scenario relative to the baseline, and here the change can have a sizable impact on net savings. If gasoline rises to $12/gallon in 2030 rather than $8, an additional $1,189 billion in undiscounted savings are realized. If gasoline remains constant at $4/gallon in 2030, an additional cost of $1,317 billion is incurred, changing the balance to a net cost of $323 billion.


Jobs
Transforming our energy economy as laid out in this proposal will create large numbers of new jobs. Here are a few studies on renewable energy job creation. Please note that the amount of renewable energy generation in these studies is smaller than in our proposal, so job creation could be larger under Clean Energy 2030.

According to the US Department of Energy, an additional 293 GW of of wind in 2030 will provide 476,000 jobs in the US (equivalent in size to about 25 Googles):

* 259,000 construction jobs each year
* 217,000 permanent operations jobs
* Broken down as:
o 150,000 direct employees
o 100,000 jobs in associated industries (e.g., accountants, lawyers, steel workers, and electrical manufacturing)
o 220,000 jobs through economic expansion based on local spending


Navigant Consulting examined the impact of expanding solar generation to 28 GW (PV and CSP) in 2016, and found it would provide 440,000 jobs in the US:

* 110,000 direct
* 130,000 indirect (response as supplying industries increase output)
* 200,000 induced (spending of households who benefit from the additional wages and business income they earn through all of the direct and indirect activity)

The Geothermal Energy Association finds that manufacturing and construction jobs typically create 6.4 person-year jobs per MW of capacity, as well as 0.74 permanent full-time jobs per MW of capacity directly related to power plant operation and maintenance.

We don't yet have job estimates related to efficiency installations or the plug-in vehicle market, but we note that the 6.2 million/year increase in vehicle sales by 2030 would result in many new jobs in the vehicle manufacturing sector.


Carbon Dioxide Savings
The Clean Energy 2030 proposal only focuses on two sectors--electricity and personal vehicles--yet together, aggressive changes in these sectors can reduce overall US CO2 emissions by 48% in 2030 relative to the EIA baseline. Compared to today's emission level of 6,000 MMtCO2/yr (about 20% of global energy-related CO2 emissions; see Marland), the proposal would reduce CO2 emissions by 40%, about halfway to the 80% reduction target by 2050 called for by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

More reductions would be possible if other sectors were pursued similarly aggressively. We have chosen to focus on the electricity and personal vehicle sectors because these are areas where we currently are working. There are additional areas for fossil fuel and CO2 savings that are important to recognize, and may be added to our proposal in the future:

* Transport:
o Reduced vehicle usage (mass transit, carpooling, telecommuting, etc.)
o Low-carbon biofuels for transportation
o Improved efficiency in freight trucks and airplanes
* Buildings and industry:
o Improved efficiency of heating fuel use
o Use of low-carbon biofuels or hydrogen as a heating fuel
o Shift away from fuels and toward electricity (including use of combined heat and power systems)
o Management of non-CO2 greenhouse gases including methane and halocarbon gases
* Agriculture and forestry:
o Forest and grassland management
o Methane management from animals and landfills


Acknowledgments
Authored by Jeffery Greenblatt, Ph.D., Climate and Energy Technology Manager, Google.org

We are indebted to many contributors from both inside and outside Google. These people include: Adhi Kesarla, Alec Brooks, Alec Proudfoot, Bill Weihl, Charles Baron, Chris Busselle, David Bercovich, Dan Reicher, Greg Miller, Jacquelline Fuller, Jay Boren, John Fitch, Kevin Chen, Luis Arbulu, Megan Smith, Michael Terrell, Rick Needham, Rolf Schreiber, Ross Koningstein, and Wilson Tsai. Outside experts include Mark Mehos, Maureen Hand and Nate Blair of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, John "Skip" Laitner and Steve Nadel of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and Luke Tonachel, Nathanael Greene, Rick Duke and Roland Hwang of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

From what I was able to understand, this energy plan requires a $4 trillion investment, with a return of $5 trillion. So in exchange for being almost completely independent of foreign oil sources, we'd make back an extra trillion. Not bad.

[Winston Blake]

From what I was able to understand, this energy plan requires a $4 trillion investment, with a return of $5 trillion. So in exchange for being almost completely independent of foreign oil sources, we'd make back an extra trillion. Not bad.

I read it as still being 67% dependent on foreign oil. Impressive but not that impressive.

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 38%
* Dependence on imported oil (currently 10 million barrels per day) by 33%
* Electricity-sector CO2 emissions by 95%
* Personal vehicle sector CO2 emissions by 38%
* US CO2 emissions overall by 48% (40% from today's CO2 emission level)

[Zixinus]

For the most part, it seems sane but I haven't the idea how to run the numbers. What I did notice, that while it did mention nuclear energy as part of the plan, there is very few mention of it. I think this may be more of a wet dream.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The sources described are way to variable to make up that large of a part of the system. Though the installation of heat-sumps in all houses in the country (replacing the heater, A/C and hot water heater all in one, with just a very small electrical usage since most of the energy comes from the ground) would, for example, reduce overall energy consumption, and vastly reduce the amount of natural gas and oil we use, while increasing our electrical demands, but would be a good thing. And things like that, and the regularity of supply to the grid, demand even more investment in nuclear power. Which, incidentally, would be cheaper, too.

Mass producing nuclear powerplants could eliminate fossil fuel production of electricity, could eliminate fossil fuel use in railroading (by being combined with the electrification of the entire railroad network), and could eliminate fossil fuel use in home heating and cooking (by eliminating oil heaters and gas heaters/stoves) 100% in all cases. And then we'd be standardized on two models of plant (a huge one producing 1.5 GW - 2 GW rated capacity per reactor, with several reactors in a plant), and a tiny reactor for remote rural areas, getting the DOE to authorize them on a type-approval basis, and then just mass producing them and installing them wherever they're needed. That would however need us to build large new reprocessing facilities and start nuclear fuel reprocessing, and at the same time open Yucca Mountain. And also, ideally, have the House and Senate pass enabling legislation to prevent lawsuits based on the Supreme Court ruling permitting extensive use of Eminent Domain.

But all of that could be potentially done simply with the money which has now already been spent bailing out Wallstreet, or about 1.5 - 1.6 trillion in all, so it might turn out even cheaper than this, because of the type standardization it would involve, and therefore economies of scale.

[Sea Skimmer]

Expecting to flat line electric demand while adding millions of plug in electric cars, plus supporting a growing population and the ever wider proliferation of consumer electronics is not very realistic. I’d REALLY like to see the numbers they actually ran on that, because somehow I don’t think they really did.

But anyway, I’m glad to see energy planning that has realistic timeframes like 2030, instead of the democrats nonsensical claim they can eliminate oil use in just 10 years. That’s just going to lead to a lot of poorly convinced plans that wont work.