environmental costs and benefits and oil substitution …...ecofys. feb07 o creating markets for...

Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory - rael.berkeley.edu

Environmental costs and benefits and oil substitution potential

Daniel M. Kammen

Co-Director, Berkeley Institute of the EnvironmentEnergy and Resources Group & Goldman School of Public Policy

Department of Nuclear EngineeringUniversity of California, Berkeley

Materials online at: http://rael.berkeley.eduJune 7/8, OECD Joint Transportation Research Centre, “Biofuels: Linking Support to Performance”


High and low carbon pathways

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2000 2010 2020 2040 2050

Glo

bal C

arbo

n E

mis

sion

s, G

T

2030

2002 IEA reported fossil emissions plus correction for unsustainable biomass & deforestation.


Thanks to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development

WRE 450 (IPCC)

WRE 550 (IPCC)

WRE 1000 (IPCC)

Theoretical carbon emissions profiles published in IPCC 3rd

Assessment Report


Assessment Report

Current coastlineHigh emissions

coastline


High and low carbon pathways

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2000 2010 2020 2040 2050

Glo

bal C

arbo

n E

mis

sion

s, G

T

2030

WRE 450 (IPCC)

WRE 550 (IPCC)

WRE 1000 (IPCC)


Assessment Report


Assessment Report



>900 ppm TrajectoryEnergy by 2050:• Coal over 2x, no Carbon

Capture & Storage (CCS), some coal to liquids.

• Oil up 50%• Gas over 2x• Biofuels make up 10% of

vehicle fuel mix.• Electricity 1/3 of final energy.• Modest increase in nuclear.• Renewables provide 1/3 of

electricity generation.• Vehicle efficiency up 50%.

<550 ppm TrajectoryEnergy by 2050:• Coal up 50%, but half of

power stations use CCS.• Oil down 10-15%.• Gas nearly 2-3x (note: adds

volatility)• Biofuels make up 20% of

vehicle fuel mix.• Hydrogen has arrived (if

green)• Strong shift to electricity as

final energy (~50% final energy).

• Strong increase in nuclear.• Renewables provide half of

electricity generation.• Vehicle efficiency up 100%• Sustainable biomass

practices

WRE1000 - we start planning nowWRE 550 - we start acting nowWRE 450 - we started to act in 2000, or …


We are running out of atmosphere much faster than fossil fuels … at all price points

Source: Brandt and Farrell (2006) Environmental Research Letters (erl.iop.org)


Wedges

20562006

14

7

Billion of Tons of Carbon Emitted per Year

19560

Currently

projected path

Flat path

Historicalemissions

1.9

2106

14 GtC/y

7 GtC/y

Seven “wedges”

O


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

U.S

. GH

G E

mis

sion

s (G

T C

eq.

)

Historic U. S.

emissions

Business as usual (EIA)

Kyoto protocol

Administration intensity target

California AB 32, AB1493& EE 3-05

Scaled from CAto the nation

Climate Stabilization Zone

Kammen, “September 27, 2006 – A day to remember”, San Francisco Chronicle, September 27,

The California commitment - scaled to the nation (rapidly moves beyond planning)


A comprehensive GHG strategy: California

• Overall goalso Executive Order S-3-05 (2005)o Global Warming Solutions Act 2006 (AB32)

• Buildings and applianceso Energy efficiency standards

• Electricity (other large sources) o Carbon Adder (CPUC)o Renewable portfolio standard for electricity (SB 107)o GHG performance standard and cap (CPUC decision, SB1368)

• Transportation o Vehicle GHG performance standard (AB 1493 Pavley)o Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Executive Order S-1-07)o Discussions linking growth and energy use (locality specific)

• Significant state-level energy R&D


The Critical Role of Standards(an energy efficiency example)


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

1947

1949

1951

1953

1955

1957

1959

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

Ave

rage

Ene

rgy

Use

per

Uni

t Sol

d (k

Wh

per y

ear)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Ref

riger

ator

vol

ume

(cub

ic fe

et)

Energy Use per Unit

Refrigerator Size (cubic feet)

1978 Cal Standard

1990 Federal Standard

1987 Cal Standard

1980 Cal Standard

1993 Federal Standard

2001 FederalStandard

United States Refrigerator Use versus TimeAnnual drop from 1974 to 2001 = 5% per year


Per Capita Electricity ConsumptionkWh/person

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

US w/out Cal and NYUS without CalUnited StatesNew YorkCalifornia

Documented savings largerThan imports from the Middle East

Savings:Energy, $, carbon

Danishaverage


Open access, online, biofuel calculator tools: http://rael.berkeley.edu/ebamm


Net energy and greenhouse gases

-

25

50

75

100

125

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24Net Energy (MJ / L)

Net

GHG

(gC

O2e

/ M

J-et

hano

l)

Pimentel

Patzek

Shapouri

Wang

Graboski

Gasoline

de Oliveira

Published values Commensurate values Gasoline EBAMM cases

Farrell, Plevin, Turner, Jones, O’Hare & Kammen, “Ethanol can contribute to energyand environmental goals,” Science, 311, 506 (2006).


Net energy and greenhouse gases

-

25

50

75

100

125

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24Net Energy (MJ / L)

Net

GHG

(gC

O2e

/ M

J-et

hano

l)

Pimentel

Patzek

Shapouri

Wang

Graboski

Gasoline

de Oliveira

TodayCO 2 Intensive

Cellulosic




Net energy and petroleum use

-

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24Net Energy (MJ / L)

Pet

rol.

Inpu

t (M

J-pe

trol.

/ MJ-

etha

nol) Gasoline

PimentelPatzek

de Oliveira

GraboskiShapouri

Wang




Net energy and petroleum use

-

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24Net Energy (MJ / L)

Pet

rol.

Inpu

t (M

J-pe

trol.

/ MJ-

etha

nol) Gasoline

Pimentel

Patzek

de Oliveira

GraboskiShapouri

WangCellulosic

Today

CO 2 Intensive




An Alternative Fuel is Not Necessarily a Low-Carbon Fuel, but it can be

FT (Coa

l)

Gasoli

ne (S

hale)

Gasoli

ne (T

ar San

ds)

FT (Coa

l CCD)

Gasoli

neEtha

nol (C

orn C

oal)

Ethano

l (Tod

ay)

Ethano

l (Corn

NG)

Biodies

elEtha

nol (C

orn Biom

ass)

Ethano

l (Cell

ulose

)

Ethano

l (Corn

Biomas

s CCD)

Ethano

l (Cell

ulose

CCD)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1

lbs

CO

2/ga

l gas

olin

e eq

uiva

lent

FT (Coal)Gasoline (Shale)Gasoline (Tar Sands)FT (Coal CCD)GasolineEthanol (Corn Coal)Ethanol (Today)Ethanol (Corn NG)BiodieselEthanol (Corn Biomass)Ethanol (Cellulose)Ethanol (Corn Biomass CCD)Ethanol (Cellulose CCD)


Gasoline example(courtesy Alex Farrell, UCB)

91.1Weighted Total

51.5CA corn NG dry mill wet DDGS (Et74)3.7%Ethanol

92.796.3%GasolineOpt-in

92.796.3%GasolineDefault

93.5Weighted Total

114.0Midwest corn dry mill (Et2)3.7%Ethanol

92.0Weighted Total

75.9Midwest average (Et1)3.7%Ethanol

92.796.3%GasolineBaseline

91.1-1% target

CIEnergyInput

Note: The uncertainty and variability in these values is large but rarely acknowledged. Our report highlights this issue and discusses some possible ways to manage this uncertainty, and research needs.


LCFS developments worldwide• Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)

o United States: double biofuel use by 2012 to ~6% of gasoline.o UK Renewable Transportation Fuel Obligation (RTFO): 5% by 2010

• Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)o California: regulations to be in effect 2010o Federal bills: Boxer, Feinstein, Obama, Inslee, etc.o European Union: monitoring in 2009, reductions start in 2011o United Kingdom: RTFO requires GHG monitoring, pilot in 2007o British Columbia (May, 2007), WA, OR, AZ, NM, MN, and…?

• Current and forthcoming analysiso Draft Carbon Reporting Methodology under the RTFO. E4Tech. Dec06o Sustainability Reporting within the RTFO. ECOFYS. Feb07o Creating Markets for Green Biofuels. UC Berkeley study. April07o AB1007 Well-to-Wheels Analysis. CEC/CARB study. May07o Low Carbon Fuel Standard for California. UC Berkeley/Davis. May07


Sub-Saharan Africa’s wood-energy consumption is the highest in the world

Source: Bailis,Ezzati & Kammen, Science (2005)

3.2Latin America

Source: IEA, 2003

8.4India

8.9China

10.2Sub Saharan Africa

Primary production of biomass energy in 2000 (1018 Joules)

Charcoal is not just an African issue


The Developing Country Context: Africa Example

Social-ecological Impacts:o Over 200,000 people employed in Kenya

o ~ $300 million in annual revenue (equivalent to tourism)

o Extensive but poorly characterized supply chains

o Ambiguous and inconsistent regulations

o Strong association with environmental degradation


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

South

Africa

Gabon

Nigeria

Zimba

bwe

Angola

Kenya

Sudan

Camero

onTan

zania

Mozam

bique

Côte d’

Ivoire

Ghana

DR Con

goEthi

opia

Seneg

alZam

biaBen

inTog

oCon

goNam

ibia

Biomass

Hydro

Nuclear fuels

Gaseous fuels

Liquid fuels

Coal

World average

Annual per capita energy consumption(GJ per person - 1999)

Even countries with major endowments of petroleum rely heavily on biomass.

Equivalent to burning just over 1 lb. of wood every day for a year


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22

Hour

Syst

em L

oad

(MW

)

10 Million PHEVs 5 Million PHEVs 1 Million PHEVs

August 3, 1999 March 2, 1999

Daily load curves for optimal charging scenario with compact cars


Envisioning a R&D Plan for Sustainable Biofuels


A sectoral approach(courtesy Alex Farrell, UCB)

• An economy-wide approach fails to meet other goalso At a “low” price (<$25/tonne), little would happeno At $25-$50 per tonne, electricity would start to decarbonize significantly

while little would happen in buildings and transport— Innovation would be narrowly focused (goal #2), maybe not dynamically efficient— The “side benefits” of cutting petroleum use are lost (goals #3, #4)

o Prices high enough to cause transportation to decarbonize might force disruptive change in the electricity sector

• Costs and fuel-on-fuel competition (@ $1/tonne CO2)o Nuclear + Renewables $0.0/MWho Integrated gasification combined cycle with $0.1/MWh

carbon capture and storage (IGCC+CCS)o Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) $0.5/MWho Pulverized coal (PC) $0.8/MWho Gasoline $0.01/gallon


$0.01

$0.10

$1.00

$10.00

$100.00

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000

Cumulative Capacity Installed (MW)

PV1975-03

Wind1981-01

Sol. ThermalElec. 1985-91

NOx controls1974-03

Ethanol 1978-96


Actual Growth vs. Historic Forecasts

Actual market

development


Japanese “Sunshine” Program


If you think US public sector energy R&D funding is doing poorly …

Kammen and Nemet (2005) “Reversing the incredible shrinking energy R&D budget,” Issues in Science & Technology, Fall, 84 – 88.

-

2

4

6

8

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

R&

D (2

002

$b)

Public energy R&DPrivate energy R&D

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

R&

D (2

002

$m)

0

50

100

150

200

Pate

nts

Public R&D $mPatents

Nuclear Fission

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

R&

D (2

002

$m)

0

10

20

30

40

Pate

nts

Public R&D $mPatents

Nuclear Fusion

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

R&

D (2

002

$m)

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

Pate

ntsPublic R&D $m

Patents

PV

-20406080

100120140160180

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

R&

D (2

002

$m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Pate

ntsPublic R&D $

Patents

Wind

Kammen and Nemet (2005) “Reversing the incredible shrinking energy R&D budget,” Issues in Science & Technology, Fall, 84 – 88.


Quantifying the benefits of R&DR&D Funding → Technological change → Cost reductions

0%

10%

20%

30%

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Effi

cien

cy

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

R&

D (m

200

3 $s

)

Highest LaboratoryEfficiency

Global Govt PV R&D

Nemet, G. F. (2006) Energy Policy 34(17): 3218 - 3232.

…efficiency improvements account for 30% of the cost reductions in PV over the past two decades.

50% increase in PVefficiency occurs immediately afterunprecedented >$1b global investment in PVR&D (1978-85)…


Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards23 states + DC, and counting

State Goal

PA: 18%¹ by 2020NJ: 22.5% by 2021

CT: 10% by 2010

MA: 4% by 2009 + 1% annual increase

WI: requirement varies by utility; 10% by 2015 Goal

IA: 105 MW

MN: 10% by 2015 Goal +Xcel mandate of

1,125 MW wind by 2010

TX: 5,880 MW by 2015

*NM: 10% by 2011AZ: 15% by 2025

CA: 20% by 2010

NV: 20% by 2015

ME: 30% by 2000;10% by 2017 goal - new RE

State RPS

*MD: 7.5% by 2019

* Increased credit for solar or other customer-sited renewablesPA: 8% Tier I (renewables)

HI: 20% by 2020

RI: 15% by 2020

CO: 10% by 2015

DC: 11% by 2022

NY: 24% by 2013

MT: 15% by 2015

*DE: 10% by 2019

IL: 8% by 2013

VT: RE meets load growth by 2012

Solar water heating eligible

*WA: 15% by 2020


Solar & Distributed GenerationProvisions in RPS Policies

PA: 0.5% solar PV by 2020

TX: 500 MW non-wind

NM: triple credit for solar electric

AZ: 4.5% DG by 2025

NV: 1% solar by 2015;2.4 to 2.45 multiplier for PV

MD: double credit for solar electric

CO: 0.4% solar electric by 2015

DC: 0.386% solar electric by 2022

NY: 0.1542% customer-sited by 2013

DE: triple credit for solar electric

Solar water heating counts towards solar set-aside

WA: double credit for DG

DG: Distributed Generation

NJ: 2.12% solar electric by 2021

CA: 3,000 MW or more via SB1 & Million solar roofs


• Raise our expectations, and investments, in clean energy• We now must have ‘one California’ per year … for decades

• Recognize the sectoral differences between transportationand stationary power and the linkages

• Examine the range of options under a Low Carbon FuelStandard (LCFS)

•Plan beyond the important first step of the LCFS to aSustainable Fuels research program

Opportunities for Action


Extra Materials - addendums


Continued example for gasoline

92.793.3%Gasoline

Opt-in 3

23.6MW corn stover dry mill wet DDGS 6.7%EthanolE10 and

90.0

23.6

92.7

91.1

51.5

92.7

93.5

114.0

92.7

CI

-2.1%

-1%

+1.6%

% change

Weighted TotalPractice

MW corn stover dry mill wet DDGS (Et6)

3.7%EthanolBest

96.3%Gasoline

Opt-in 2

96.3%Gasoline

Opt-in 1

Weighted TotalPractice

CA corn NG dry mill wet DDGS (Et74)

3.7%EthanolGood

Weighted TotalCommon

Midwest corn dry mill (Et2)3.7%EthanolWorst

96.3%Gasoline

Default

EnergyInput

environmental costs and benefits and oil substitution …...ecofys. feb07 o creating markets for...

Documents