Can the world convert to total renewable energy by 2050?

Can the world convert to total renewable energy by 2050?

In 2009, Stanford University engineering professor Mark Jacobson outlined a plan for the world to get all its energy – including transport and heating fuel and electricity – from wind, water and solar resources by 2050.

Considered radical at the time, the model has been fleshed out to provide details for 139 countries and is now seen as far less extreme than it once was. The conversion would not only eliminate most greenhouse gas emissions, Mr. Jacobson says; it would dramatically improve human health and create millions of new jobs. He spoke recently to The Globe and Mail’s Richard Blackwell.

 

Many people would suggest your proposal is radical and impractical. Is it?

I think it is actually mainstream now. At the Paris conference, they were talking about 100-per-cent renewable energy. In the United States, presidential candidates on the Democratic side have embraced it.

Is converting transport – cars, planes and other vehicles – the most difficult part?

I think it is easier to transform transportation than anything else, because the turnover time of a vehicle is usually around 15 years. The turnover time of a power plant is between 30 and 40 years. The technology is there for ground transportation right now … although less so for long-distance ships and planes. Aircraft are probably the hardest to change. Everything else we could transform within 15 to 20 years.

Why do you not have any nuclear power in your models?

It has disadvantages compared to wind, water and solar, and it is not necessary. It might be better than gas or coal, but it still results in nine to 25 times more carbon emissions and air pollution than wind power, per unit of energy generated.

Also, 1.5 per cent of all nuclear reactors built have melted down seriously. And countries have secretly developed weapons under the guise of civilian programs. Then there are radioactive waste issues that are not resolved. And they cost three to four times more right now than wind power and two to three times more than utility-scale solar. There is really no advantage to using it.

Some people oppose hydro power because of the carbon footprint when large projects drown forests. Is that an issue?

We have zero new hydro. It is all existing hydro, so there is no new footprint of any kind.

What about concerns over materials used in solar panels and wind turbines?

There is an environmental impact for mining [those materials]. But it is a one-time [impact] for each device. With fossil fuels, you need to keep mining continuously. The solar panel footprint is trivial in comparison to the fossil-fuel footprint.

How do you convince countries with big oil and gas industries, like Canada, that this shift is a good idea?

It is [a matter of] information. If people realize that they are going to make and save a lot more money by converting, then the transition would go naturally. If the benefits are clearly laid out, versus the costs, it is a no-brainer for most people.

What about all the people employed in the oil and gas industries who may lose their jobs?

If you convert, you create an additional 22 million jobs worldwide. Sure, you would have to retrain some people, maybe a lot of people in oil and gas, but there are jobs that will be available, both in construction and permanent operation jobs.

Is 2050 still a practical date to achieve that goal?

Our goal is to get to 80 per cent by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2050. It is certainly technically and economically practical. Whether it is politically tractable is a different question…

 

Source: The Globe and Mail

Date: February 2016

Read the article


Tags assigned to this article:
nuclearrenewablessolar powerwaterwind

Related Articles

These will be the biggest climate fights of 2016

It has been quite the year for the climate movement, from the Paris climate agreement to the final rejection of

Obama goes big on climate change

President Obama delivers his last State of the Union Address to Congress and the nation on Tuesday 12 Jan. He’s

Which fossil fuel companies are most responsible for climate change?

All but seven of the 90 companies found to have caused the climate crisis deal in oil, gas and coal – and