A new report issued by the non-profit Gigaton Throwdown provides a sector by sector look at renewable energy and its potential impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. The big hairy audacious goal is to identify what it would take for each of the key sectors of cleantech to achieve a 1 gigaton reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Gigaton Throwdown Report - A Comprehensive Cleantech Study
So what’s a gigaton? Just like it sounds, 1 billion tons – of CO2.
To attain gigaton scale, a single technology must reduce annual emissions of carbon dioxide and equivalent
greenhouse gases (CO2e) by at least 1 billion metric tons — a gigaton — by 2020. For an electricity
generation technology, this is equivalent to an installed capacity of 205 gigawatts (GW) of carbon-free
energy (at 100% capacity) in 2020.
I found the comparative levels of investment in different cleantech technologies needed to achieve the 1 gigaton target very illuminating. Instead of ROI, we could call it ROCI (return on carbon investment). Here is the rank-ordered scorecard for the different sectors. Sectors requiring the least investment deliver the biggest bang (or reduction in carbon emissions) for the buck, so they rank highest:
1. Building Efficiency: $61 billion. This makes a lot of sense. Buildings represent the single largest consumers of energy (around 40%). Most buildings are energy sieves, they account for the vast majority of electricity use, and a significant portion of electricity production is from nasty coal-fired plants.
2. Biofuels: $383 billion. The fact that biofuels ranks second comes as a bit of a surprise to me – albeit a pleasant one given that I am now a principal in a biofuels consulting group called Biomass Advisors. Biofuels have been under a bit of attack lately, both in terms of economics and with the whole indirect land use charge (ILUC) controversy. Fortunately, the recent climate bill compromise has deferred any application of ILUC penalties on biofuels for the next five years. The report uses 150 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol as a benchmark for a gigaton of CO2. The report also points out that, in the case of switchgrass, if electricity cogeneration is included the amount needed to achieve a 1 billion ton reduction in CO2 drops to 76 billion gallons of fuel.
3. Construction Materials: $445 billion. The report estimates worldwide emissions from construction material manufacture at 4 to 4.5 gigatons per year. It cites an example of halving CO2 emissions from concrete by substituting low carbon concrete for half the worldwide production of portland cement. Other practices touted in the report include:
New materials under development include bio-composites, such as polymers grown by microorganisms, and products fashioned out of waste streams (recycled materials). Conservation-minded designs use products with recycled content such as cellulose (recycled newsprint) or cotton (recycled blue jean) insulation as well as salvage materials.
Bio-composites happen to be closely related to the biofuels process. Producing polymers and other materials from biomass is simply another form of carbon manipulation to create more complex carbon chains instead of, or as an adjunct to, biofuels or biogas.
From here, the numbers get a little dicey.
4. Geothermal: $919 billion. The report calls for Enhanced Geothermal (EGS) systems: “in which heat is extracted from the earth by injecting fluid into an artificially created, hydraulically fractured reservoir that attempts to replicate natural hydrothermal conditions.” The report estimates that “An increase of approximately 238 gigawatts (GW) of geothermal electricity capacity over today’s installed base of 10 GW would reduce CO2e emissions by 1 gigaton per year.” It goes on to estimate the cost per Kw installed at $3,900. Unlike solar or wind, geothermal can generate steady power output; making it a viable future source for base load.
5. Nuclear: $1.27 trillion. According to the report, it will take “Approximately 250 new GW-scale nuclear plants would be required by 2020 – a 67% increase in the current nuclear base – to reduce CO2e emissions by 1 gigaton annually.” Note that, unlike geothermal or biofuels, there is little in the way of speculation on emerging renewable energy technologies in the nuclear scenario. Nuclear plants are proven – as long as you’re okay with large-scale creation of radioactive waste – plus, they also generate valuable “base load” or power that is always available, whereas wind and solar depend on climate conditions so they are variable.
6. Wind: $1.38 trillion. Hmm. Sounds like a lot of money. However, the report goes on to make assumptions about improvements in the technology that could bring the figure closer to a cool $827 billion. It goes on to point out that wind could reach the gigaton reduction mark by 2020 handily, even if recent growth rates of 28% per year in installed capacity slow to 14% per year over the next decade.
7. Solar Photovoltaics: $2.1 trillion. The ROCI from solar panels is more than a little abysmal – according to the report. However, unlike it’s concentrating solar brethern below, solar PV is already reaching a critical mass and, with the amount of subsidies in place around the world, poised to grow further. Current installed capacity is estimated at 14 gigawatts.
8. Concentrating Solar Power: $2.24 trillion. The numbers and the assumptions are getting a little (strike that – a lot) more speculative on this one; as worldwide installed capacity would need to go from 502 megawatts today to 492 gigawatts – almost a 1,000 fold increase – over the next decade. I don’t see $2.24 trillion being poured into deserts with no water to generate solar thermal electricity anytime soon. Will more capacity come online with this hot new technology (pun intended)? Sure, but the gigaton bogey seems like a bridge too far.
Here are my simple takeaways in layman’s terms:
First, we need to fix the leaky energy sieves we call buildings – the sooner the better. This, more than anything else – is the quickest way to turn down the planetary stove we’ve created with this sloppy little socio economic thing we call industrialization. Second, as far as renewable energy goes, either the report is way off, or the collective “wisdom of crowds” is quite ignorant. I say this because the level of investment and interest in renewable energy technologies is, approximately, upside down. It appears that the most money is going into the renewable technologies with the worst payback in terms of CO2 emissions reductions. At face value, this report indicates that we are better off investing in biofuel technology and capacity than we are with almost any other renewable energy source.
Gotta go. Gotta biofuels consultancy to help start up.
cg
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Subscribe via RSS
9 Jul
Gigaton Throwdown Podium: Gold – Building Efficiency, Silver – Biofuels, Bronze – Construction Materials
Posted July 9, 2009 by Chet Geschickter in biofuels, commentary. Tagged: biofuels, climate change, efficiency, funding, geothermal, GHG, solar, wiind. Leave a Comment
A new report issued by the non-profit Gigaton Throwdown provides a sector by sector look at renewable energy and its potential impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. The big hairy audacious goal is to identify what it would take for each of the key sectors of cleantech to achieve a 1 gigaton reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Gigaton Throwdown Report - A Comprehensive Cleantech Study
So what’s a gigaton? Just like it sounds, 1 billion tons – of CO2.
To attain gigaton scale, a single technology must reduce annual emissions of carbon dioxide and equivalent
greenhouse gases (CO2e) by at least 1 billion metric tons — a gigaton — by 2020. For an electricity
generation technology, this is equivalent to an installed capacity of 205 gigawatts (GW) of carbon-free
energy (at 100% capacity) in 2020.
I found the comparative levels of investment in different cleantech technologies needed to achieve the 1 gigaton target very illuminating. Instead of ROI, we could call it ROCI (return on carbon investment). Here is the rank-ordered scorecard for the different sectors. Sectors requiring the least investment deliver the biggest bang (or reduction in carbon emissions) for the buck, so they rank highest:
1. Building Efficiency: $61 billion. This makes a lot of sense. Buildings represent the single largest consumers of energy (around 40%). Most buildings are energy sieves, they account for the vast majority of electricity use, and a significant portion of electricity production is from nasty coal-fired plants.
2. Biofuels: $383 billion. The fact that biofuels ranks second comes as a bit of a surprise to me – albeit a pleasant one given that I am now a principal in a biofuels consulting group called Biomass Advisors. Biofuels have been under a bit of attack lately, both in terms of economics and with the whole indirect land use charge (ILUC) controversy. Fortunately, the recent climate bill compromise has deferred any application of ILUC penalties on biofuels for the next five years. The report uses 150 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol as a benchmark for a gigaton of CO2. The report also points out that, in the case of switchgrass, if electricity cogeneration is included the amount needed to achieve a 1 billion ton reduction in CO2 drops to 76 billion gallons of fuel.
3. Construction Materials: $445 billion. The report estimates worldwide emissions from construction material manufacture at 4 to 4.5 gigatons per year. It cites an example of halving CO2 emissions from concrete by substituting low carbon concrete for half the worldwide production of portland cement. Other practices touted in the report include:
Bio-composites happen to be closely related to the biofuels process. Producing polymers and other materials from biomass is simply another form of carbon manipulation to create more complex carbon chains instead of, or as an adjunct to, biofuels or biogas.
From here, the numbers get a little dicey.
4. Geothermal: $919 billion. The report calls for Enhanced Geothermal (EGS) systems: “in which heat is extracted from the earth by injecting fluid into an artificially created, hydraulically fractured reservoir that attempts to replicate natural hydrothermal conditions.” The report estimates that “An increase of approximately 238 gigawatts (GW) of geothermal electricity capacity over today’s installed base of 10 GW would reduce CO2e emissions by 1 gigaton per year.” It goes on to estimate the cost per Kw installed at $3,900. Unlike solar or wind, geothermal can generate steady power output; making it a viable future source for base load.
5. Nuclear: $1.27 trillion. According to the report, it will take “Approximately 250 new GW-scale nuclear plants would be required by 2020 – a 67% increase in the current nuclear base – to reduce CO2e emissions by 1 gigaton annually.” Note that, unlike geothermal or biofuels, there is little in the way of speculation on emerging renewable energy technologies in the nuclear scenario. Nuclear plants are proven – as long as you’re okay with large-scale creation of radioactive waste – plus, they also generate valuable “base load” or power that is always available, whereas wind and solar depend on climate conditions so they are variable.
6. Wind: $1.38 trillion. Hmm. Sounds like a lot of money. However, the report goes on to make assumptions about improvements in the technology that could bring the figure closer to a cool $827 billion. It goes on to point out that wind could reach the gigaton reduction mark by 2020 handily, even if recent growth rates of 28% per year in installed capacity slow to 14% per year over the next decade.
7. Solar Photovoltaics: $2.1 trillion. The ROCI from solar panels is more than a little abysmal – according to the report. However, unlike it’s concentrating solar brethern below, solar PV is already reaching a critical mass and, with the amount of subsidies in place around the world, poised to grow further. Current installed capacity is estimated at 14 gigawatts.
8. Concentrating Solar Power: $2.24 trillion. The numbers and the assumptions are getting a little (strike that – a lot) more speculative on this one; as worldwide installed capacity would need to go from 502 megawatts today to 492 gigawatts – almost a 1,000 fold increase – over the next decade. I don’t see $2.24 trillion being poured into deserts with no water to generate solar thermal electricity anytime soon. Will more capacity come online with this hot new technology (pun intended)? Sure, but the gigaton bogey seems like a bridge too far.
Here are my simple takeaways in layman’s terms:
First, we need to fix the leaky energy sieves we call buildings – the sooner the better. This, more than anything else – is the quickest way to turn down the planetary stove we’ve created with this sloppy little socio economic thing we call industrialization. Second, as far as renewable energy goes, either the report is way off, or the collective “wisdom of crowds” is quite ignorant. I say this because the level of investment and interest in renewable energy technologies is, approximately, upside down. It appears that the most money is going into the renewable technologies with the worst payback in terms of CO2 emissions reductions. At face value, this report indicates that we are better off investing in biofuel technology and capacity than we are with almost any other renewable energy source.
Gotta go. Gotta biofuels consultancy to help start up.
cg
Like this: