Effects of Biofuels vs. Other New Vehicle Technologies on Air Pollution, Global Warming, Land Use, and Water

Transcription

1 Effects of Biofuels vs. Other New Vehicle Technologies on Air Pollution, Global Warming, Land Use, and Water Mark Z. Jacobson Atmosphere/Energy Program Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering Stanford University Biofuels in the Midwest September 5-7, 2008, Chicago, Illinois

2 Temperature Change Since 1750 ( o C) Causes of Global Warming Greenhouse gases Fossilfuel + biofuel soot particles Urban heat island Cooling particles Net observed global warming M.Z. Jacobson

3 Comparison of Energy Solutions to Global Warming Electricity Sources Vehicle Technologies Wind turbines Battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) Solar photovoltaics (PV) Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs) Geothermal power plants Flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) Tidal turbines Wave devices Concentrated solar power (CSP) Hydroelectric power plants Nuclear power plants Coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) Liquid Fuel Sources Corn ethanol (E85) Cellulosic ethanol (E85)

4 Percent Change in U.S. CO 2 From Converting to BEVs, HFCVs, or E85

5 Potential Effects of E85 vs. Gas: Emission Differences From Data Percent change E85 minus gas Cert data (2006) Jacobson (2007) NMOG +45% +19.6% NO x -29.7% -30% Whitney (2007) Jacobson (2007) Benzene -64% -79% 1,3-butadiene -66% -10% Acetaldehyde +4500% +2000% Formaldehyde +200% +60%

6 Effect in 2020 of E85 vs. Gasoline on Ethanol and Acetaldehyde

7 Effect in 2020 of E85 vs. Gasoline on 1,3-Butadiene and Benzene

8 Ozone isopleth NO x (g) (ppmv) = O 3 (g), ppmv ROG (ppmc)

9 Effect in 2020 of E85 vs. Gasoline on Ozone and Health in Los Angeles Increased ozone deaths/yr: Changes in cancer/yr : +120 (+9%) (47-140) -3.5 to +0.3

10 2020 U.S. Effects of E85 vs. Gasoline appleappleozone deaths/yr: +185 (72-213) appleapplecancer/yr +3 to -29

11 Upstream Lifecycle Emissions Gasoline, Corn-E90, Cellulosic-E90 Upstream Lifecycle Emissions (g/million-btu-fuel) 1000 RFG Corn-E90 Cel-E CO NMOC NO 2 SO 2 N 2 O CH 4 BC DeLucchi, 2006

12 Low/High U.S. Air Pollution Deaths For 2020 BEVs, HFCVs, E85, Gasoline 2020 U.S. Vehicle Exhaust+Lifecycle+Nuc Deaths/Year Nuc-BEV , Wind-BEV Wind-HFCV CSP-BEV PV-BEV Geo-BEV Tidal-BEV Wave-BEV Hydro-BEV CCS-BEV Corn-E85 15,000-15,930 Cel-E85 15,000-16,305 Gasoline 15,000

13 Ratio of Footprint Area of Technology to Wind-BEVs for Running U.S. Vehicles Ratio of Footprint Area of Energy Technology to Wind-BEV for Running U.S. Onroad Vehicles Low ratio High ratio Wind-BEV 1-1:1 Wind-HFCV :1 CSP-BEV 12,160-13,220 PV-BEV :1 Geo-BEV :1 Tidal-BEV :1 Wave-BEV :1 Hydro-BEV 84, ,000:1 Nuc-BEV :1 CCS-BEV :1 Corn-E85 571, ,000:1 Cel-E85 470,000-1,150,000:1 California 143, ,000:1 Rhode Island :1

14 Percent of U.S. (50 states) for Footprint + Spacing to Run U.S. Vehicles 40 Percent of U.S. land For Technology Spacing to Power U.S. Vehicles Wind-BEV Wind-HFCV CSP-BEV PV-BEV Geo-BEV Tidal-BEV Wave-BEV Hydro-BEV Nuc-BEV CCS-BEV Corn-E Cel-E California 4.41 Rhode Island

15 Area to Power 100% of U.S. Onroad Vehicles Cellulosic E % (low-industry est. high-data) Solar PV-BEV % Wind-BEV Footprint km 2 Wind-BEV turbine spacing % Corn E % Map:

16 Water Consumption to Run U.S. Water consumption (Ggal/year) to run U.S. vehicles Vehicles Corn-E85 12,200-17, Hydro-BEV ,200 Wind-BEV 1-2 Wind-HFCV CSP-BEV PV-BEV Geo-BEV Tidal-BEV 1-2 Wave-BEV 1-2 Nuc-BEV CCS-BEV Cel-E U.S. water demand = 150,000 Ggal/yr

17 Overall Score (Lowest is Best) and Ranking of Technology Combinations Overall Score of Technology Combination Wind-BEV 2.09 Wind-HFCV 3.22 CSP-BEV 4.28 Geo-BEV 4.60 Tidal-BEV 4.97 PV-BEV 5.26 Wave-BEV 6.11 Hydro-BEV 8.40 CCS-BEV 8.47 Nuc-BEV 8.50 Corn-E Cel-E

18 Number of 5 MW Wind Turbines in m/s winds to Eliminate All U.S. CO Other ( ) Onroad vehicles (battery) (73-144) Coal electricity ( ) Natural gas electricity (53-81) Oil electricity C (3-5) Total (2005)

19 Mean 80-m Wind Speed in North America Archer and Jacobson (2005)

20 Summary Among many vehicle options, wind-bevs and wind-hfcvs have the greatest benefit and least impact in terms of solving climate, pollution, landuse, water supply problems. Wind requires 2-6 orders of magnitude less land footprint than any other option. CSP-, hydro-, geothermal-, PV-, tidal-, wave-bevs also extremely beneficial. Hydro-BEVs recommended due to load balancing ability. Nuclear-BEVs, coal-ccs-bevs less beneficial options for addressing climate/air pollution. Corn-E85, cellulosic-e85 detrimental to climate, air quality, land, water, undernutrition compared with other technologies. Should not be included in policy options to address climate or air pollution. More at