Age of Oil

7/12/17, 8(55 PM Print

Page 1 of 13 https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUSCI207.14.2?sections=sec6.3,se…nt=all&clientToken=8b60909c-9db0-c8b7-acf1-271bfabb3ede&np=sec6.3

6.3 Peak Oil

Most people alive today have lived their en1re lives in what is known as the Age of Oil. Not only are we reliant on oil for our cars,

but we depend on this resource in countless other ways. Oil is the raw material for many forms of plas1cs and synthe1c ﬁbers,

and our modern agricultural system could not run without massive inputs of oil for fer1lizer and pes1cide manufacture.

Therefore, the possibility that we will soon pass, or have already passed, a peak in oil produc1on should be a maBer of great

concern. In this reading Richard Heinberg, senior fellow-in-residence at the Post Carbon Ins1tute, argues that "peak oil" could

pose the greatest economic challenge to our way of life since the start of the Industrial Revolu1on. Peak oil is deﬁned in this

reading as the point when petroleum extrac1on globally reaches its maximum and begins an inevitable decline.

The peak oil concept is the subject of much disagreement and debate, mainly because of uncertain1es over just how much oil

remains in the ground and how much of that oil is actually recoverable. While this reading acknowledges that uncertainty and

the diﬃculty of knowing when exactly any peak is reached, it argues that business-as-usual assump1ons of unending oil supplies

are foolish for a number of reasons. First, oil is such a cri1cal resource to our economy and way of life that we should be beBer

prepared for any poten1al disrup1on to its supply. Second, developing countries like China are witnessing sharp increases in

demand for oil and contribu1ng to increases in world oil prices. Third, an increasing trend of producing oil from unconven1onal

sources (e.g., tar sands) is leading to signiﬁcant environmental impacts in produc1on and, in an ominous sign, requiring ever-

increasing use of energy-intensive extrac1on techniques.

A ﬁnal point to consider in the peak oil debate (and with the use of all fossil fuels, for that maBer) has to do with the impact of

consump1on on climate change. Regardless of whether we have already reached a point of peak oil or not, we cannot con1nue

to u1lize fossil fuels without impac1ng the climate. As suggested in the introduc1on to this chapter, even without the climate

change issue, all fossil fuel produc1on and use leads to signiﬁcant environmental impacts. As such, the sugges1ons presented at

the end of this reading for how to reduce oil consump1on could apply to the u1liza1on of all fossil fuels.

By Richard Heinberg

During the past decade a growing chorus of energy analysts has warned of the approach of "peak oil," when the global rate of

petroleum extrac;on will reach its maximum and begin its inevitable decline. While there is some dispute among experts as to

when this will occur, there is none as to whether . The global peak is merely the cumula;ve result of produc;on peaks in

individual oil ﬁelds and in oil-producing na;ons. The most important na;onal peak occurred in the United States in 1970. At that

;me America produced 9.5 million barrels per day (mbd) of oil; the current ﬁgure is less than 6 mbd. While at one ;me the

United States was the world's top oil-expor;ng na;on, it is today the world's top importer.

The U.S. example helps in evalua;ng the prospects for delaying the global peak. AOer 1970, explora;on eﬀorts succeeded in

iden;fying two enormous new American oil provinces—the North Slope of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. Meanwhile biofuels

(principally ethanol) began to supplement crude. Also, improvements in oil recovery technology helped to increase the

propor;on of the oil in exis;ng ﬁelds able to be extracted. These are the strategies (explora;on, subs;tu;on, and technological

improvements) that the energy industry is relying on either to delay the global produc;on peak or to mi;gate its impact. In the

United States, each of these strategies made a diﬀerence—but not enough to reverse, for more than a few years now and then,

a forty-year trend of declining produc;on. The situa;on for the world as a whole is likely to be similar

How near is the global peak? Today most oil-producing na;ons are seeing reduced output. In some instances, these declines are 7/12/17, 8(55 PM Print

Page 2 of 13 https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUSCI207.14.2?sections=sec6.3,se…nt=all&clientToken=8b60909c-9db0-c8b7-acf1-271bfabb3ede&np=sec6.3

An increasing number of energy experts,

including many former geologists from within the

oil industry itself, believe that global oil

produc;on has peaked. Are we approaching the

sunset of the Oil Age?

occurring because of lack of investment in explora;on and produc;on, or domes;c poli;cal problems. But in most instances the

decline results from factors of geology: While older oil ﬁelds con;nue to yield crude, beyond a certain point it becomes

impossible to maintain maximum ﬂow rates. Meanwhile, global rates of discovery of new oil ﬁelds have been declining since

1964.

These two trends—a growing preponderance of past-peak producers and a declining success rate for explora;on—suggest that

the world peak may be near. The consequences of peak oil are likely to be devasta;ng. Petroleum is the world's most important

energy resource. There is no ready subs;tute, and decades will be required to wean socie;es from it. Peak oil could therefore

pose the greatest economic challenge since the dawn of the Industrial Revolu;on. For policy makers, ﬁve ques;ons seem

paramount:

1. How Are the Forecasts Holding Up?

While warnings about the end of oil were voiced in the 1920s and even earlier, the scien;ﬁc study of petroleum deple;on began

with the work of geophysicist M. King Hubbert, who in 1956 forecast that U.S. produc;on would peak within a few years of 1970

(in fact, that was the exact peak year), and who went on to predict that world produc;on would peak close to the year 2000.

Shortly aOer Hubbert's death in 1989, other scien;sts issued their

own forecasts for the global peak. Foremost among these were

petroleum geologists Colin J. Campbell and Jean Laherrère, whose

ar;cle "The End of Cheap Oil," published in Scien1ﬁc American in

March 1998, sparked the contemporary peak oil discussion. In the

following decade, publica;ons proliferated, including dozens of

books, many peer-reviewed ar;cles, websites, and ﬁlm

documentaries.

Most of the global peaking dates forecast by energy experts in the

past few years have fallen within the decade from 2005 to 2015.

Running counter to these forecasts, IHS CERA, a prominent energy

consul;ng ﬁrm, has issued reports foreseeing no peak before 2030.

Are events unfolding in such a way as to support near-peak or the

far-peak forecasts? According to the Interna;onal Energy Agency,

the past seven years have seen essen;ally ﬂat produc;on levels.

These years have also seen extremely high oil prices, which should have provided a powerful incen;ve to increase produc;on.

The fact that actual crude oil produc;on has not substan;ally increased during this period strongly suggests that the oil industry

is near or has reached its capacity limits. It will be impossible to say with certainty that global oil produc;on has peaked un;l

several years aOer the fact. But the no;on that it may already have reached its eﬀec;ve maximum must be taken seriously by

policy makers.

2. What About Other Hydrocarbon Energy Sources?

If oil is becoming more scarce and less aﬀordable, it would make sense to replace it with other energy sources, star;ng with

those with similar characteris;cs—such as alterna;ve hydrocarbons. There are very large amounts of total hydrocarbon 7/12/17, 8(55 PM Print

Page 3 of 13 https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUSCI207.14.2?sections=sec6.3,se…nt=all&clientToken=8b60909c-9db0-c8b7-acf1-271bfabb3ede&np=sec6.3

resources; however, each is constrained by limits of various kinds. Bitumen (oOen called "oil sands" or "tar sands"), kerogen

(some;mes referred to as "oil shale"), and shale oil (oil in low-porosity rocks that requires horizontal drilling and hydraulic

fracturing for recovery) do not have the economic characteris;cs of regular crude oil, being more expensive to produce,

delivering much lower energy return on investment, and entailing heavier environmental risks. Produc;on from these sources

may increase, but is not likely to oﬀset declines in conven;onal crude over ;me.

Coal is commonly assumed to exist in nearly inexhaus;ble quan;;es. It could be used to produce large new amounts of

electricity (with electric transport replacing oil-fueled cars, trucks, and trains), and it can be made into a liquid fuel. However,

recent studies have shown that world coal reserves have been severely overes;mated. Meanwhile, China's spectacular coal

consump;on growth virtually guarantees higher coal prices globally, making coal-to-liquids projects imprac;cal.

Natural gas is oOen touted as a poten;al replacement for both oil and coal. However, conven;onal gas produc;on in the United

States is in decline. Unconven;onal gas produc;on via hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") is increasing supplies over the short term,

but this new produc;on method is expensive and entails serious environmental risks; also, fracked gas wells deplete quickly,

necessita;ng very high drilling rates.

Thus, while in principle there are several alterna;ve hydrocarbon sources capable of subs;tu;ng for conven;onal crude oil, all

suﬀer from problems of quality and/or cost.

3. What Might Happen in the Next Decades Absent Policies to Address Peak Oil?

The likely consequences of peak oil were analyzed at some length in the report, "Peaking of World Oil Produc;on: Impacts,

Mi;ga;on, and Risk Management" (also known as the Hirsch Report), commissioned for the U.S. Department of Energy and

published in 2005. That report forecast "unprecedented" social, economic, and poli;cal impacts if eﬀorts are not undertaken, at

a "crash program" scale, and beginning at least a decade in advance of the peak, to reduce demand for oil and ini;ate the large-

scale produc;on of alterna;ve fuels.

Clearly, the level of impact will depend partly on factors that can be inﬂuenced by policy. One factor that may not be suscep;ble

to policy inﬂuence is the rapidity of the post-peak rate of decline in global oil produc;on. The Hirsch Report simply assumed a 2

percent per year decline. In the ﬁrst few years aOer peak, the actual decline may be smaller. That rate may increase as declines

from exis;ng ﬁelds accumulate and accelerate.

However, for some na;ons the situa;on may be much worse, since available oil export capacity will almost certainly contract

faster than total oil produc;on. Every oil-expor;ng na;on also consumes oil, and domes;c demand is typically sa;sﬁed before

oil is exported. Domes;c oil demand is growing in most oil-producing na;ons; thus the net amount available for export is

declining even in some countries with steady overall produc;on. Na;ons that are major oil importers, such as the United States,

China, and many European na;ons, will feel strongly the eﬀects of sharp declines in the amount of oil available on the export

market.

High prices and actual shortages will drama;cally impact na;onal economies in several ways. The global transport system is

almost en;rely dependent on oil—not just private passenger automobiles, but trucks, ships, diesel locomo;ves, and the en;re

passenger and freight airline industry. High fuel prices will thus aﬀect en;re economies as travel becomes more expensive and

manufacturers and retailers are forced to absorb higher transport costs. 7/12/17, 8(55 PM Print

Page 4 of 13 https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUSCI207.14.2?sections=sec6.3,se…nt=all&clientToken=8b60909c-9db0-c8b7-acf1-271bfabb3ede&np=sec6.3

Consider This

What are some of the most important and worrisome impacts

of a poten;al decline in the availability of oil in our modern

economy?

Conven;onal industrial agriculture is also overwhelmingly dependent on oil, as modern farm machinery runs on petroleum

products and oil is needed for the transport of farm inputs and outputs. Oil also provides the feedstock for making pes;cides.

According to one study, approximately seven calories of fossil fuel energy are needed to produce each delivered calorie of food

energy in modern industrial food systems. With the global prolifera;on of the industrial-chemical agriculture system, the

products of that system are now also traded globally, enabling regions to host human popula;ons larger than local resources

alone could support. Those systems of global distribu;on and trade also rely on oil. Within the United States, the mean distance

for food transport is now es;mated at 1,546 miles. High fuel prices and fuel shortages therefore translate to increasing food

prices and poten;al food shortages.

A small but crucial por;on of oil consumed globally goes

into the making of plas;cs and chemicals. Some of the

more common petrochemical building blocks of our

industrial world are ethylene, propylene, and butadiene.

Further processing of just these three chemicals

produces products as common and diverse as

disinfectants, solvents, an;freezes, coolants, lubricants,

heat transfer ﬂuids, and of course plas;cs, which are

used in everything from building materials to packaging, clothing, and toys. Future oil supply problems will aﬀect the en;re chain

of industrial products that incorporates petrochemicals.

Economic impacts to transport, trade, manufacturing, and agriculture will in turn lead to internal social tensions within

impor;ng countries. In expor;ng countries the increasing value of remaining oil reserves will exacerbate rivalries between

poli;cal fac;ons vying to control this source of wealth. Increased compe;;on between consuming na;ons for control of export

ﬂows, and between impor;ng na;ons and exporters over contracts and pipelines, may lead to interna;onal conﬂict. None of

these eﬀects is likely to be transitory. The crisis of peak oil will not be solved in months, or even years. Decades will be required

to reengineer modern economies to func;on with a perpetually declining supply of oil.

4. How Is the World Responding?

In 1998, policy makers had virtually no awareness of peak oil as an issue. Now there are peak oil groups within the U.S. Congress

and the Bri;sh Parliament, and individual members of government in many other countries are keenly aware of the situa;on.

Government reports have been issued in several na;ons. Some ci;es have undertaken assessments of petroleum supply

vulnerabili;es and begun eﬀorts to reduce their exposure. A few nongovernmental organiza;ons (NGOs) have been formed for

the purpose of aler;ng government at all levels to the problem and helping develop sensible policy responses—notably, the

Associa;on for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) and the Post Carbon Ins;tute. And grassroots eﬀorts in several countries

have organized "Transi;on Ini;a;ves" wherein ci;zens par;cipate in the development of local strategies to deal with the likely

consequences of peak oil.

Unfortunately, this response is woefully insuﬃcient given the scale of the challenge. Moreover, policies that are being

undertaken are oOen ineﬀectual. Eﬀorts to develop renewable sources of electricity are necessary to deal with climate change;

however, they will do linle to address the peak oil crisis, since very linle of the transport sector currently relies on electricity that

could be supplied from solar, wind, or other new electricity sources. Biofuels are the subject of increasing controversy having to

do with ecological problems, the displacement of food produc;on, and low energy eﬃciency; even in the best instance, they are 7/12/17, 8(55 PM Print

Page 5 of 13 https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUSCI207.14.2?sections=sec6.3,se…nt=all&clientToken=8b60909c-9db0-c8b7-acf1-271bfabb3ede&np=sec6.3

Consider This

What are the major challenges to achieving a reduc;on in oil

use in the transporta;on, agriculture, and materials and

chemicals sector described above?

unlikely to oﬀset more than a small percentage of current oil consump;on.

5. What Would Be an EﬀecPve Response?

One way to avert or ameliorate the impacts of peak oil would be to implement a global agreement to proac;vely reduce the use

of oil (eﬀec;vely, a reduc;on in demand ) ahead of actual scarcity. Seong a bold but realis;c mandatory target for demand

restraint would reduce price vola;lity, aid with prepara;on and planning, and reduce interna;onal compe;;on for remaining

supplies. A proposal along these lines was put forward by physicist Albert Bartlen in 1986, and a similar one by petroleum

geologist Colin Campbell in 1998; Campbell's proposal was the subject of the book The Oil Deple1on Protocol: A Plan to Avert Oil

Wars, Terrorism and Economic Collapse . In order to enlist public support for such eﬀorts, governments would need to devote

signiﬁcant resources to educa;on campaigns. In addi;on, planning and public investment would be needed in transporta;on,

agriculture, and chemicals-materials industries. For each of these there are two main strategic pathways.

Transporta1on

Design communi;es to reduce the need for transporta;on (localize produc;on and distribu;on of goods including food,

while designing or redesigning urban areas for density and diversity);

Promote alterna;ves to the private automobile and to air- and truck-based freight transport (by broadening public

transport op;ons, crea;ng incen;ves for use of public transporta;on, and crea;ng disincen;ves for automobile use).

First priority should go to electriﬁed transport op;ons, as these are most eﬃcient, then to alterna;ve-fueled transport

op;ons, and ﬁnally to more-eﬃcient petroleum-fueled transport op;ons.

Agriculture

Maximize local produc;on of food in order to reduce the vulnerability implied by a fossil fuel–based food delivery

system;

Promote forms of agriculture that rely on fewer fossil fuel inputs.

Materials and Chemicals

Iden;fy alterna;ve materials from renewable sources to replace petrochemical– based materials;

Devise ways to reduce the amount of materials consumed.

Oil deple;on presents a unique set of vulnerabili;es and

risks. If policy makers fail to understand these, na;ons

will be mired in both internal economic turmoil and

external conﬂict caused by fuel shortages. Policy makers

may assume that, in addressing the dilemma of global

climate change via carbon caps and trades, they would

also be doing what is needed to deal with the problem

of dependence on deple;ng petroleum. This could be a

dangerously misleading assump;on.

Fossil fuels have delivered enormous economic beneﬁts to modern socie;es, but we are now becoming aware of the burgeoning

costs of our dependence on these fuels. Humanity's central task for the coming decades must be the undoing of its dependence

on oil, coal, and natural gas in order to deal with the twin crises of resource deple;on and climate change. It is surely fair to say 7/12/17, 8(55 PM Print

Page 6 of 13 https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUSCI207.14.2?sections=sec6.3,se…nt=all&clientToken=8b60909c-9db0-c8b7-acf1-271bfabb3ede&np=sec6.3

that fossil fuel dependency cons;tutes a systemic problem of a kind and scale that no society has ever had to address before. If

we are to deal with this challenge successfully, we must engage in systemic thinking that leads to sustained, bold ac;on.

Adapted from Heinberg, Richard. (2012). The View from Oil's Peak. The Post Carbon Ins;tute . hRp://energy-reality .org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/08_The-View-from-Oils-

Peak_R1_040713.pdf (h$p://energy-reality .org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/08_The-View-from-Oils-Peak_R1_040713.pdf) . Reprinted with permission.

Apply Your Knowledge

The term "peak oil" is meant to deﬁne the moment in ;me when worldwide oil produc;on will reach its peak and

begin to decline. Adherents of the peak oil theory believe that most of the easy-to-exploit oil reserves have already

been depleted and that what remains will be increasingly diﬃcult and costly to extract. Cri;cs of the theory point to

earlier ﬂawed predic;ons of an oil produc;on peak and argue that advances in technology will make available new

supplies of oil in the future. To get a sense of this debate, ﬁrst visit the websites of the Post Carbon InsPtute

(hRp://www.postcarbon.org) and the AssociaPon for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (hRp://www.peakoil.net/) (ASPO).

Read some of the pos;ngs and other informa;on on this page. Next, read these two ar;cles from the Guardian

newspaper (hRp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/16/peak-oil-theories-groundless-bp

(hRp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/16/peak-oil-theories-groundless-bp) and

hRp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/nov/12/iea-report-peak-oil

(hRp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/nov/12/iea-report-peak-oil) ). What are the primary

points of diﬀerence between the proponents of the peak oil theory and the experts and oﬃcials cited in the two

news stories? Why does the second news ar;cle say that even though the peak oil idea is misleading, we should s;ll

leave most of that oil in the ground? What is your sense of the peak oil debate? Based on this, what should

American energy policy focus on in the years and decades ahead? 7/12/17, 8(55 PM Print

Page 7 of 13 https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUSCI207.14.2?sections=sec6.3,se…nt=all&clientToken=8b60909c-9db0-c8b7-acf1-271bfabb3ede&np=sec6.3

8.1 Powering the World With Renewable Energy

Chapter 7 made clear that if we are to avoid the worst consequences of global climate change, we will soon need to shi^ away

from a reliance on fossil fuels and move toward renewable energy sources. However, fossil fuel industries and their supporters

o^en claim that renewable energy is expensive, unreliable, and unable to meet the bulk of our energy needs for the foreseeable

future. In this ar1cle environmental scien1sts Mark Jacobson and Mark Delucchi challenge that claim and describe their plan for

how the world can shi^ to renewable energy for 100 percent of its power needs by 2030. Speciﬁcally, Jacobson and Delucchi focus

on a combina1on of wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) renewable energy systems to achieve this goal. Renewable energy sources

oﬀer numerous beneﬁts, including that they can be produced domes1cally, they never "run out," and they are virtually pollu1on

free .

One major beneﬁt of renewable solar energy is that it can be u1lized in a number of diﬀerent ways. Passive solar energy uses

sunlight directly without any mechanical devices, such as when sunlight is used to illuminate or heat interior spaces. Ac1ve solar

energy captures sunlight using mechanical devices and then converts it to useful heat or electric power. Solar photovoltaic or PV

panels convert sunlight to electricity, which is the most common form of ac1ve solar energy. You can ﬁnd PV panels on solar

calculators, roo^ops, and streetlights and traﬃc signs. Another way to generate electricity using solar energy is through solar

thermal or concentra1ng solar power (CSP) systems. These systems use mirrors to concentrate the sun's rays on a tank or pipe

ﬁlled with ﬂuid. The heated ﬂuid can then be used to produce steam used to spin a turbine to generate electricity .

Wind turbines are mechanical devices that convert the kine1c energy of the wind into electric power. Wind power development

has been accelera1ng in recent years in such countries as Germany, Spain, the United States, and China. In terms of percentage

share of total energy, Denmark is the world leader with more than 20 percent of their electricity needs produced from wind

power. Denmark uses wind turbines located both on land and in oﬀshore regions near the coast. Such oﬀshore areas have

stronger and more consistent winds but are also more expensive to develop .

Jacobson and Delucchi's plan calls for over 90 percent of our energy needs to be met through solar and wind power sources. The

remainder can be met by a mix of water-based and geothermal sources. Tradi1onal hydroelectric power and geothermal energy

are described in more detail in the next sec1on, but it's worth men1oning here what is meant by wave and 1dal power. Wave

power is essen1ally another form of wind power since it is designed to harness the energy of waves, which are driven by the

winds. Tidal power takes advantage of diﬀerences in 1des and the power of water moving with those 1dal changes to also

generate electricity. You can learn more about how wave and 1dal power work by examining these sources (

hRp://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/how-hydrokinePc-energy-works.html

(hRp://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/how-hydrokinePc-energy-works.html) and

hRp://science.howstuﬀworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/wave-energy1.htm

(hRp://science.howstuﬀworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/wave-energy1.htm) ) and others listed in the Addi;onal

Resources sec1on at the end of the chapter .

Finally, it's important to point out the role that economics and poli1cs play in a transi1on to renewable energy. Jacobson and

Delucchi make clear that when you factor in the externality costs —the monetary value of health and environmental damage—of

using fossil fuels, these sources of energy are o^en more expensive than they ﬁrst appear. Combine that with the rapid rate of

decline in the costs of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind and it becomes apparent that there are sound economic

arguments in favor of a renewable energy system. While the economics are increasingly favorable for renewable energy, it is the

lack of poli1cal will to implement these sources and strong lobbying of poli1cians by the fossil fuel industry that most impede 7/12/17, 8(55 PM Print

Page 8 of 13 https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUSCI207.14.2?sections=sec6.3,se…nt=all&clientToken=8b60909c-9db0-c8b7-acf1-271bfabb3ede&np=sec6.3

Consider This

The main factor that determines whether a banery-electric car

is "greener" than a gasoline-powered vehicle is how electricity is

produced in a speciﬁc area. If a signiﬁcant por;on of the

electricity comes from renewable and clean sources like solar

and wind, then a banery-electric car can be very green.

However, in areas where electricity comes mainly from coal, a

gasoline-powered car might actually be "greener" than a

banery-electric vehicle.

First read this ar;cle located here

(hRp://www.nyPmes.com/2012/04/15/automobiles/how-green-are-

electric-cars-depends-on-where-you-plug-in.html) .

Next, explore the resources at this Union of Concerned

ScienPsts site (hRp://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-

transportaPon-soluPons/advanced-vehicle-technologies/electric-

cars/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html) and determine

how green a switch to a banery-electric vehicle would be in

your area.

their development. Ironically, fossil fuels are already among the most heavily subsidized industries in the world, especially in the

United States. This reading calls for an elimina1on of those subsidies and the implementa1on of incen1ves to promote the

development of renewable energy alterna1ves. Such a policy approach makes both economic and environmental sense but will

require a change in our current poli1cal approach to energy issues.

By Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi

In December [2009] leaders from around the world will meet in Copenhagen to try to agree on cuong back greenhouse gas

emissions for decades to come. The most eﬀec;ve step to implement that goal would be a massive shiO away from fossil fuels to

clean, renewable energy sources. If leaders can have conﬁdence that such a transforma;on is possible, they might commit to an

historic agreement. We think they can. A year ago former vice president Al Gore threw down a gauntlet: to repower America

with 100 percent carbon-free electricity within 10 years. As the two of us started to evaluate the feasibility of such a change, we

took on an even larger challenge: to determine how 100 percent of the world's energy, for all purposes, could be supplied by

wind, water and solar resources, by as early as 2030. Our plan is presented here.

Scien;sts have been building to this moment for at least a decade, analyzing various pieces of the challenge. Most recently, a

2009 Stanford University study ranked energy systems according to their impacts on global warming, pollu;on, water supply,

land use, wildlife and other concerns. The very best op;ons were wind, solar, geothermal, ;dal and hydroelectric power—all of

which are driven by wind, water or sunlight (referred to as WWS). Nuclear power, coal with carbon capture, and ethanol were all

poorer op;ons, as were oil and natural gas. The study also found that banery-electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles

recharged by WWS op;ons would largely eliminate pollu;on from the transporta;on sector.

Our plan calls for millions of wind turbines, water

machines and solar installa;ons. The numbers are large,

but the scale is not an insurmountable hurdle; society

has achieved massive transforma;ons before. During

World War II, the U.S. retooled automobile factories to

produce 300,000 aircraO, and other countries produced

486,000 more. In 1956 the U.S. began building the

Interstate Highway System, which aOer 35 years

extended for 47,000 miles, changing commerce and

society.

Is it feasible to transform the world's energy systems?

Could it be accomplished in two decades? The answers

depend on the technologies chosen, the availability of

cri;cal materials, and economic and poli;cal factors.

Clean Technologies Only

Renewable energy comes from en;cing sources: wind,

which also produces waves; water, which includes

hydroelectric, ;dal and geothermal energy (water

heated by hot underground rock); and sun, which 7/12/17, 8(55 PM Print

Page 9 of 13 https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUSCI207.14.2?sections=sec6.3,se…nt=all&clientToken=8b60909c-9db0-c8b7-acf1-271bfabb3ede&np=sec6.3

includes photovoltaics and solar power plants that focus

sunlight to heat a ﬂuid that drives a turbine to generate

electricity. Our plan includes only technologies that work or are close to working today on a large scale, rather than those that

may exist 20 or 30 years from now.

To ensure that our system remains clean, we consider only technologies that have near-zero emissions of greenhouse gases and

air pollutants over their en;re life cycle, including construc;on, opera;on and decommissioning. For example, when burned in

vehicles, even the most ecologically acceptable sources of ethanol create air pollu;on that will cause the same mortality level as

when gasoline is burned. Nuclear power results in up to 25 ;mes more carbon emissions than wind energy, when reactor

construc;on and uranium reﬁning and transport are considered. Carbon capture and sequestra;on technology can reduce

carbon dioxide emissions from coal-ﬁred power plants but will increase air pollutants and will extend all the other deleterious

eﬀects of coal mining, transport and processing, because more coal must be burned to power the capture and storage steps.

Similarly, we consider only technologies that do not present signiﬁcant waste disposal or terrorism risks.

In our plan, WWS will supply electric power for hea;ng and transporta;on—industries that will have to revamp if the world has

any hope of slowing climate change. We have assumed that most fossil-fuel hea;ng (as well as ovens and stoves) can be

replaced by electric systems and that most fossil-fuel transporta;on can be replaced by banery and fuel-cell vehicles. Hydrogen,

produced by using WWS electricity to split water (electrolysis), would power fuel cells and be burned in airplanes and by

industry.

Plenty of Supply

To d a y the maximum power consumed worldwide at any given moment is about 12.5 trillion wans (terawans, or TW), according

to the U.S. Energy Informa;on Administra;on. The agency projects that in 2030 the world will require 16.9 TW of power as

global popula;on and living standards rise, with about 2.8 TW in the U.S. The mix of sources is similar to today's, heavily

dependent on fossil fuels. If, however, the planet were powered en;rely by WWS, with no fossil-fuel or biomass combus;on, an

intriguing savings would occur. Global power demand would be only 11.5 TW, and U.S. demand would be 1.8 TW. That decline

occurs because, in most cases, electriﬁca;on is a more eﬃcient way to use energy. For example, only 17 to 20 percent of the

energy in gasoline is used to move a vehicle (the rest is wasted as heat), whereas 75 to 86 percent of the electricity delivered to

an electric vehicle goes into mo;on.

Even if demand did rise to 16.9 TW, WWS sources could provide far more power. Detailed studies by us and others indicate that

energy from the wind, worldwide, is about 1,700 TW. Solar, alone, oﬀers 6,500 TW. Of course, wind and sun out in the open seas,

over high mountains and across protected regions would not be available. If we subtract these and low-wind areas not likely to

be developed, we are s;ll leO with 40 to 85 TW for wind and 580 TW for solar, each far beyond future human demand. Yet

currently we generate only 0.02 TW of wind power and 0.008 TW of solar. These sources hold an incredible amount of untapped

poten;al.

The other WWS technologies will help create a ﬂexible range of op;ons. Although all the sources can expand greatly, for

prac;cal reasons, wave power can be extracted only near coastal areas. Many geothermal sources are too deep to be tapped

economically. And even though hydroelectric power now exceeds all other WWS sources, most of the suitable large reservoirs

are already in use. 7/12/17, 8(55 PM Print

Page 10 of 13 https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUSCI207.14.2?sections=sec6.3,s…nt=all&clientToken=8b60909c-9db0-c8b7-acf1-271bfabb3ede&np=sec6.3

Consider This

These short Energy 101 videos from the U.S. Department of

Energy provide easy-to-understand explana;ons of how

renewable energy technologies actually work:

Wind: hRp://energy.gov/videos/energy-101-wind-

turbines (hRp://energy.gov/videos/energy-101-wind-

turbines)

Solar photovoltaics: hRp://energy.gov/videos/energy-

101-solar-pv (hRp://energy.gov/videos/energy-101-solar-pv)

Concentra;ng solar power:

hRp://energy.gov/videos/energy-101-concentraPng-

solar-power (hRp://energy.gov/videos/energy-101-

concentraPng-solar-power)

Energy demands can be more eﬀec;vely met by

diversifying the use of renewable energy sources,

The Plan: Power Plants Required

Clearly, enough renewable energy exists. How, then, would we transi;on to a new infrastructure to provide the world with 11.5

TW? We have chosen a mix of technologies emphasizing wind and solar, with about 9 percent of demand met by mature water-

related methods. (Other combina;ons of wind and solar could be as successful.)

Wind supplies 51 percent of the demand, provided by

3.8 million large wind turbines (each rated at ﬁve

megawans) worldwide. Although that quan;ty may

sound enormous, it is interes;ng to note that the world

manufactures 73 million cars and light trucks every year .

Another 40 percent of the power comes from

photovoltaics and concentrated solar plants, with about

30 percent of the photovoltaic output from rooOop

panels on homes and commercial buildings. About

89,000 photovoltaic and concentrated solar power

plants, averaging 300 megawans apiece, would be

needed. Our mix also includes 900 hydroelectric sta;ons

worldwide, 70 percent of which are already in place.

Only about 0.8 percent of the wind base is installed

today. The worldwide footprint of the 3.8 million

turbines would be less than 50 square kilometers

(smaller than Manhanan). When the needed spacing

between them is ﬁgured, they would occupy about 1 percent of the earth's land, but the empty space among turbines could be

used for agriculture or ranching or as open land or ocean. The nonrooOop photovoltaics and concentrated solar plants would

occupy about 0.33 percent of the planet's land. Building such an extensive infrastructure will take ;me. But so did the current

power plant network. And remember that if we s;ck with fossil fuels, demand by 2030 will rise to 16.9 TW, requiring about

13,000 large new coal plants, which themselves would occupy a lot more land, as would the mining to supply them.

Smart Mix for Reliability

A new infrastructure must provide energy on demand at least as

reliably as the exis;ng infrastructure. WWS technologies generally

suﬀer less down;me than tradi;onal sources. The average U.S. coal

plant is oﬄine 12.5 percent of the year for scheduled and

unscheduled maintenance. Modern wind turbines have a down

;me of less than 2 percent on land and less than 5 percent at sea.

Photovoltaic systems are also at less than 2 percent. Moreover,

when an individual wind, solar or wave device is down, only a small

frac;on of produc;on is aﬀected; when a coal, nuclear or natural

gas plant goes oﬄine, a large chunk of genera;on is lost. 7/12/17, 8(55 PM Print

Page 11 of 13 https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUSCI207.14.2?sections=sec6.3,s…nt=all&clientToken=8b60909c-9db0-c8b7-acf1-271bfabb3ede&np=sec6.3

like wind and solar. The main WWS challenge is that the wind does not always blow and

the sun does not always shine in a given loca;on. Interminency

problems can be mi;gated by a smart balance of sources, such as genera;ng a base supply from steady geothermal or ;dal

power, relying on wind at night when it is oOen plen;ful, using solar by day and turning to a reliable source such as hydroelectric

that can be turned on and oﬀ quickly to smooth out supply or meet peak demand. For example, interconnec;ng wind farms that

are only 100 to 200 miles apart can compensate for hours of zero power at any one farm should the wind not be blowing there.

Also helpful is interconnec;ng geographically dispersed sources so they can back up one another, installing smart electric meters

in homes that automa;cally recharge electric vehicles when demand is low and building facili;es that store power for later use.

Because the wind oOen blows during stormy condi;ons when the sun does not shine and the sun oOen shines on calm days with

linle wind, combining wind and solar can go a long way toward mee;ng demand, especially when geothermal provides a steady

base and hydroelectric can be called on to ﬁll in the gaps.

Apply Your Knowledge

One of the most common cri;cisms of wind power is that wind turbines are a major cause of bird and bat deaths.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service es;mates that collisions with wind turbine blades kill close to 500,000 birds

annually. However, this is a rela;vely small number compared to es;mated bird deaths from other sources such as

domes;c cats and collisions with buildings, cell phone towers, and transmission lines. Combined, these sources

could be responsible for over one billion bird deaths annually. Nevertheless, the wind power industry is exploring

ways to bener locate and construct wind turbines in order to minimize bird and bat mortality. Start by reviewing

these readings on the subject:

A detailed fact sheet on wind turbine interac;ons with birds and bats: hRp://naPonalwind.org/wp-

content/uploads/assets/publicaPons/Birds_and_Bats_Fact_Sheet_.pdf (hRp://naPonalwind.org/wp-

content/uploads/assets/publicaPons/Birds_and_Bats_Fact_Sheet_.pdf)

An ar;cle on how researchers are seeking ways to reduce wind turbine-related bird and bat mortality:

hRp://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.10849!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeiColumn/pdf/486310a.pdf

(hRp://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.10849!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeiColumn/pdf/486310a.pdf)

A handful of short ar;cles and graphics showing common causes of bird mortality:

hRp://www.nyPmes.com/2011/03/21/science/21birds.html

(hRp://www.nyPmes.com/2011/03/21/science/21birds.html) ,

hRp://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/BirdMortality.pdf (hRp://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/BirdMortality.pdf) , and

hRp://www.fws.gov/birds/mortality-fact-sheet.pdf (hRp://www.fws.gov/birds/mortality-fact-sheet.pdf)

AOer you review this informa;on, consider the following scenario. Suppose a new wind farm consis;ng of 80–100

new wind turbines is being proposed for development in a rural area near you, and that you've been asked to

complete a wildlife impact assessment for this project. Where would you start? What might you do to try to

determine whether this wind farm would pose a serious threat to birds and bats in the area? Suppose the wind

power developer informed you that they had a new device that they planned to anach to wind turbines to deter

birds before they can collide with the structure. How might you design a scien;ﬁc experiment to test the

eﬀec;veness of such a device? 7/12/17, 8(55 PM Print

Page 12 of 13 https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUSCI207.14.2?sections=sec6.3,s…nt=all&clientToken=8b60909c-9db0-c8b7-acf1-271bfabb3ede&np=sec6.3

As Cheap as Coal

The mix of WWS sources in our plan can reliably supply the residen;al, commercial, industrial and transporta;on sectors. The

logical next ques;on is whether the power would be aﬀordable. For each technology, we calculated how much it would cost a

producer to generate power and transmit it across the grid. We included the annualized cost of capital, land, opera;ons,

maintenance, energy storage to help oﬀset interminent supply, and transmission. Today the cost of wind, geothermal and

hydroelectric are all less than seven cents a kilowan-hour (¢/kWh); wave and solar are higher. But by 2020 and beyond wind,

wave and hydro are expected to be 4¢/kWh or less.

For comparison, the average cost in the U.S. in 2007 of conven;onal power genera;on and transmission was about 7¢/kWh, and

it is projected to be 8¢/kWh in 2020. Power from wind turbines, for example, already costs about the same or less than it does

from a new coal or natural gas plant, and in the future wind power is expected to be the least costly of all op;ons. The

compe;;ve cost of wind has made it the second-largest source of new electric power genera;on in the U.S. for the past three

years, behind natural gas and ahead of coal.

Solar power is rela;vely expensive now but should be compe;;ve as early as 2020. A careful analysis by Vasilis Fthenakis of

Brookhaven Na;onal Laboratory indicates that within 10 years, photovoltaic system costs could drop to about 10¢/kWh,

including long-distance transmission and the cost of compressed-air storage of power for use at night. The same analysis

es;mates that concentrated solar power systems with enough thermal storage to generate electricity 24 hours a day in spring,

summer and fall could deliver electricity at 10¢/kWh or less.

Transporta;on in a WWS world will be driven by baneries or fuel cells, so we should compare the economics of these electric

vehicles with that of internal-combus;on-engine vehicles. Detailed analyses by one of us (Delucchi) and Tim Lipman of the

University of California, Berkeley, have indicated that mass-produced electric vehicles with advanced lithium-ion or nickel metal-

hydride baneries could have a full life;me cost per mile (including banery replacements) that is comparable with that of a

gasoline vehicle, when gasoline sells for more than $2 a gallon.

When the so-called externality costs (the monetary value of damages to human health, the environment and climate) of fossil-

fuel genera;on are taken into account, WWS technologies become even more cost-compe;;ve.

Overall construc;on cost for a WWS system might be on the order of $100 trillion worldwide, over 20 years, not including

transmission. But this is not money handed out by governments or consumers. It is investment that is paid back through the sale

of electricity and energy. And again, relying on tradi;onal sources would raise output from 12.5 to 16.9 TW, requiring thousands

more of those plants, cos;ng roughly $10 trillion, not to men;on tens of trillions of dollars more in health, environmental and

security costs. The WWS plan gives the world a new, clean, eﬃcient energy system rather than an old, dirty, ineﬃcient one.

PoliPcal Will

Our analyses strongly suggest that the costs of WWS will become compe;;ve with tradi;onal sources. In the interim, however,

certain forms of WWS power will be signiﬁcantly more costly than fossil power. Some combina;on of WWS subsidies and carbon

taxes would thus be needed for a ;me. A feed-in tariﬀ (FIT) program to cover the diﬀerence between genera;on cost and

wholesale electricity prices is especially eﬀec;ve at scaling-up new technologies. Combining FITs with a so-called declining clock

auc;on, in which the right to sell power to the grid goes to the lowest bidders, provides con;nuing incen;ve for WWS 7/12/17, 8(55 PM Print

Page 13 of 13 https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUSCI207.14.2?sections=sec6.3,s…nt=all&clientToken=8b60909c-9db0-c8b7-acf1-271bfabb3ede&np=sec6.3

Consider This

A far more detailed descrip;on of the 100 percent renewable

energy plan described in this reading can be found in this two-

part ar;cle by the same authors:

hRp://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/ArPcles/I/

JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf

(hRp://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/ArPcles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf)

hRp://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/ArPcles/I/

DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf

(hRp://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/ArPcles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf)

developers to lower costs. As that happens, FITs can be phased out. FITs have been implemented in a number of European

countries and a few U.S. states and have been quite successful in s;mula;ng solar power in Germany.

Ta x i n g fossil fuels or their use to reﬂect their environmental damages also makes sense. But at a minimum, exis;ng subsidies for

fossil energy, such as tax beneﬁts for explora;on and extrac;on, should be eliminated to level the playing ﬁeld. Misguided

promo;on of alterna;ves that are less desirable than WWS power, such as farm and produc;on subsidies for biofuels, should

also be ended, because it delays deployment of cleaner systems. For their part, legislators craOing policy must ﬁnd ways to resist

lobbying by the entrenched energy industries.

Finally, each na;on needs to be willing to invest in a robust, long-distance transmission system that can carry large quan;;es of

WWS power from remote regions where it is oOen greatest—such as the Great Plains for wind and the desert Southwest for

solar in the U.S.—to centers of consump;on, typically ci;es. Reducing consumer demand during peak usage periods also

requires a smart grid that gives generators and consumers much more control over electricity usage hour by hour.

A large-scale wind, water and solar energy system can

reliably supply the world's needs, signiﬁcantly beneﬁ;ng

climate, air quality, water quality, ecology and energy

security. As we have shown, the obstacles are primarily

poli;cal, not technical. A combina;on of feed-in tariﬀs

plus incen;ves for providers to reduce costs, elimina;on

of fossil subsidies and an intelligently expanded grid

could be enough to ensure rapid deployment. Of course,

changes in the real-world power and transporta;on

industries will have to overcome sunk investments in

exis;ng infrastructure. But with sensible policies, na;ons

could set a goal of genera;ng 25 percent of their new

energy supply with WWS sources in 10 to 15 years and

almost 100 percent of new supply in 20 to 30 years. With

extremely aggressive policies, all exis;ng fossil-fuel

capacity could theore;cally be re;red and replaced in the same period, but with more modest and likely policies full

replacement may take 40 to 50 years. Either way, clear leadership is needed, or else na;ons will keep trying technologies

promoted by industries rather than vened by scien;sts.

A decade ago it was not clear that a global WWS system would be technically or economically feasible. Having shown that it is,

we hope global leaders can ﬁgure out how to make WWS power poli;cally feasible as well. They can start by commiong to

meaningful climate and renewable energy goals now.

Source: Jacobson, M. Z., & Delucchi, M. A. (2009 October). A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables. Scien1ﬁc American. Retrieved from

hRp://www.scienPﬁcamerican.com/arPcle.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030 (h$p://www.scienLﬁcamerican.com/arLcle.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030) Reproduced with