Home | Help | Sign in 

Search Toolkit Search

Clean Energy 2030 Edit this knol Write a knol

Google's Proposal for reducing U.S. dependence on fossil fuels Jeffery

Google's goal in presenting the Clean Energy 2030 proposal is to stimulate debate and we invite you to Greenblatt
take a look and comment - or offer an alternative approach if you disagree. Verified
Energy and Climate
Contents Change at Lawrence
Berkeley National
Summary
Laboratory
Electricity Sector San Francisco Bay
Personal Vehicle Sector Area

Economics
Jobs Contributors
Carbon Dioxide Savings Jay Boren
google.org at Google Inc., San
Google's Role Francisco
Acknowledgments
Chris Busselle
Sources and Further Reading San Francisco, CA

Link Citation Email Print Favorite Collect this page David Bercovich
San Francisco, CA
more
Jacquelline Fuller
Advocacy at Google, Bay Area

Summary Cedric Dupont

Right now we have a real opportunity to transform our economy from one running on fossil fuels to one largely Flying sometimes at Google, San
Francisco, CA
based on clean energy. Technologies and know-how to accomplish this are either available today or are under
development. We can build whole new industries and create millions of new jobs. We can cut energy costs,
both at the gas pump and at home. We can improve our national security. And we can put a big dent in Article rating: 269 Ratings
climate change. With strong leadership we could be moving forward on an aggressive but realistic time-line and Your rating:
an approach that offsets costs with real economic gains. No rating

The energy team at Google has been analyzing how we could greatly reduce fossil fuel use by 2030. Our
proposal - "Clean Energy 2030" - provides a potential path to weaning the U.S. off of coal and oil for electricity Moderated collaboration
generation by 2030 (with some remaining use of natural gas as well as nuclear), and cutting oil use for cars by
Creative Commons Attribution
44%. 3.0 License

President-elect Obama announced his New Energy for America plan this past summer that is similar to ours in Top Viewed Knol Award
several ways, including a strong emphasis on efficiency, renewable electricity and plug-in vehicles. Similarly, Top Pick Knol Award
the Natural Resources Defense Council, McKinsey and Company, and the Electric Power Research Institute
have issued proposals that share all of these same elements. Al Gore has issued a challenge that is even Version: 170
more ambitious - getting us to carbon-free electricity by 2020 - and we hope the American public pushes our Last edited: Jul 14, 2009 9:27 AM. Versions
leaders to embrace it. T. Boone Pickens has weighed in with an interesting plan of his own to massively
deploy wind energy, among other things. Other plans have also been developed in recent years that merit Reviews
attention. Good start, needs s...
by Brent Norris
Google's proposal will benefit the US by increasing energy security, protecting the environment, creating new
Auto use to decline.
jobs, and helping to create the conditions for long-term prosperity. Some of the necessary funds will be public,
by Shem
but much of it will come from the private sector -- a typical approach for infrastructure and high technology
investments. What about heavy tr...
by Brandon Kruger
Our goal in presenting this first iteration of the Clean Energy 2030 proposal is to stimulate debate and we invite
a suggestion for im...
you to take a look and comment - or offer an alternative approach if you disagree. With a new Administration by John Skardon
and Congress - and multiple energy-related imperatives - this is an opportune, perhaps unprecedented,
moment to move from plan to action. Review This Knol

This revised proposal was released on November 20, 2008. Check out Google CEO Eric Schmidt's energy Knol translations
speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on October 1, and his energy speech at the Natural Help translate this knol into your
language.
Resources Defense Council headquarters in New York on November 20.
Other authors have translated this knol
into:
Summary: What's New in Version 2.0 Spanish - español
Croatian - hrvatski
Albanian - shqipe
Since Clean Energy 2030 was first published on October 1, 2008, we have made several changes based on zh-hant - zh-hant
comments from readers and internal feedback, most notably: Estonian - Eesti
l an analysis of job creation in the electricity sector (See all translations)

l an improved vehicle model which results in higher average fleet fuel efficiency (and significantly increased
Search for uses of this page ▼
savings)
l a decrease in the price of gasoline from $4 to $3 per gallon (doubling by 2030), in light of recent economic
changes Categories
alternative energy, automotive, electricity,
Also included:
industries
l a comment on why nuclear power was not expanded beyond the level in the baseline, and why coal with
Based on community consensus.
carbon capture and sequestration technology was not included
 l an analysis of the precedent for rapid capacity build-outs in the natural gas and nuclear industries Sign in to add or vote for categories

l estimates of the required land area for wind and concentrating solar installations, and roof area for solar Learn more about categories
photovoltaics
l an analysis of the age of US coal and natural gas plants when retired under our proposal Activity for this knol
l a more thorough analysis of the impact of accelerating the retirement of older vehicles
This week:
l a summary of the major activities Google is pursuing in the clean energy arena
1864 pageviews
8 comments
Overall, we find a slight increase in vehicle fuel and economy-wide CO2 savings, and despite the decrease in
fuel prices, a net economic savings almost as large as previously calculated, $820 billion over 22 years. Totals:
148441 pageviews
352 comments
Summary: Reductions in Energy Use and Emissions
Our proposal will allow us to reduce from the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) current baseline
for energy use:
Public activity feed
l Fossil fuel-based electricity generation by 88%
Flag inappropriate content
l Vehicle oil consumption by 44%

l Dependence on imported oil (currently 10 million barrels per day) by 37% 
l Electricity-sector CO2 emissions by 95%

l Personal vehicle sector CO2 emissions by 44%

l US CO2 emissions overall by 49% (41% from today's CO2 emission level)

We can achieve these results in 2030 by:

l Deploying aggressive end-use electrical energy efficiency measures to reduce demand 33%.
¡ Baseline EIA demand is projected to increase 25% by 2030.  In addition, the increase in plug-in
vehicles (see below) increases electricity demand another 8%. Thus, our efficiency reductions keep
demand flat at the 2008 level.

l Replacing all coal and oil electricity generation, and about half of that from natural gas, with renewable
electricity:
¡ 380 gigawatts (GW) wind: 300 GW onshore + 80 GW offshore

¡ 250 GW solar: 170 GW photovoltaic (PV) + 80 GW concentrating solar power (CSP)        

¡ 80 GW geothermal: 15 GW conventional + 65 GW enhanced geothermal systems (EGS)

l Increasing plug-in vehicles (hybrids & pure electrics) to 90% of new car sales in 2030, reaching 41% of
the total US fleet that year
l Increasing new conventional vehicle fuel efficiency from 31 to 45 mpg in 2030
Optionally,
l Accelerating the turnover of the vehicle fleet, resulting in maximum new vehicle sales of 21.5 million
per year in 2020, a 30% increase over the baseline, and boosting fleet average fuel efficiency by 7.5 mpg. 

Summary: Financial Bottom Line

The financial bottom line: Although the cost of the Clean Energy 2030 proposal is significant (about $3.86
trillion in undiscounted 2008 dollars), savings are even greater ($4.68 trillion), returning a net savings of $820
billion over the 22-year life of the plan.

Summary: Actions Required

A number of actions will be required to realize the Clean Energy 2030 proposal.
l Renewable electricity

¡ A long-term national commitment to renewable electricity (e.g. national renewable portfolio standard,
carbon price, long-term tax credits and incentives, etc.)
¡ Adequate transmission capacity (to support about 450 GW targeting mostly Great Plains and coasts 
for wind, and desert southwest for concentrating solar power)
¡ Adequate grid resources to manage large-scale intermittent generation

¡ Public and private renewable energy R&D and investment to achieve

cost parity with fossil generation in next several years

l Energy efficiency
¡ Long-term commitment to energy efficiency by the federal government and states (e.g, national
efficiency standard, aggressive appliance standards and building codes, "decoupling" of utility profits
from sales, incentives for energy efficiency investments)
¡ Deployment of a "smart" electricity grid that empowers consumers and businesses to manage their
electricity use more effectively 

l Personal vehicles 
¡ Public policies supporting the deployment of fuel-efficient vehicles, e.g. higher
fuel efficiency standards for conventional vehicles, financial incentives to encourage efficient 
(especially plug-in) vehicle purchases, special electricity rates for "smart charging", and greater R&D
¡ Investment in infrastructure necessary to support massive deployment of plug-ins including charging
stations and development of new power management hardware and software
All of the above will require a sufficient and well-trained work force and manufacturing capacity to meet
projected growth.

Electricity Sector
Currently the US produces half of its electricity from coal, 20% each from natural gas and nuclear energy, with
the remainder provided by hydro and other renewables. Very little oil is used to make electricity—only about
1.5%. Electricity generation produces about 2,400 million metric tons of CO2 per year (MMtCO2/yr), about 
40% of total US emissions.

In Clean Energy 2030 we transform this sector by: 1) Keeping electricity demand FLAT at the 2008 level, rather
than allowing it to grow 25% by 2030, and 2) Eliminating all coal and oil in electricity generation (and about half
of natural gas) by 2030 and replacing that generation with renewable energy--primarily wind, solar and
geothermal.

For energy efficiency, there is ample proof in several states and from research studies [1] that growth in 

electricity demand can be kept flat or even made to decline (nationally demand is otherwise projected to grow
by about 1% per year). This can be done using a combination of strategies, including energy efficiency targets,
appliance standards, building codes, R&D investment, financial incentives, "decoupling" of utility profits from 
sales, and voluntary programs (a list of simple things individuals can do was recently highlighted on Google's 
home page). Providing detailed information about one's energy use can also help consumers lower energy 
consumption, and Google PowerMeter is one proposed tool that aims to do just that.

Keeping demand flat would reduce fossil fuel-based generation by 30% in 2030, assuming no reduction in other
generation. The question is how we would meet remaining electricity needs without fossil fuels. The “business-
as-usual” scenario developed by the EIA has very modest growth projections for renewables: about the same
hydropower capacity as today (7%), and an expansion from 2% to 7% for other renewables (mostly biomass).
Under the EIA view most of our remaining electricity requirements would still be met by fossil fuels.

We propose something radically different. Onshore and offshore wind could grow from about 20 GW today to
380 GW, generating 29% of 2030 demand. Solar, both photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP),
could grow from about 1 GW today to 250 GW, generating 12% of demand. Geothermal, both conventional and
enhanced geothermal systems (EGS; see below), could grow from 2.4 GW today to 80 GW, generating 15%
of demand. Together with modest projected expansion of other non-fossil energy sources, including nuclear
(115 GW), hydro (78 GW), and biomass and municipal waste (23 GW), about 90% of demand could be met.[2]

Such rapid build-ups of electric generating capacity are not without precedent in the US. Between 1998 and
2006, over 200 GW of natural gas capacity were added to the US grid, representing a 115% increase. At its
peak in 2002, 60 GW of natural gas generating capacity was brought online in one year, a 24% annual
increase. A similar story exists for nuclear energy, where 100 GW were built in the 1970s and 1980s from 
essentially zero capacity, with peak growth of almost 10 GW/yr and year-on-year growth after 1969 in excess 
of 60%.
The remaining demand would be supplied by natural gas (290 GW),[3] which is likely necessary for shoring up
imbalances between generation and demand, particularly with large amounts of intermittent renewables on the
grid. Some capacity would also be provided by hydro resources, while distributed demand management
(scheduling of large devices such as washing machines, dryers and plug-in vehicles, and making loads such
as air conditioning interruptible) and energy storage (both distributed and centralized) would help make optimal 
economic use of intermittent generation.

Figure 1.

(Note that numbers in parentheses above denote maximum generation capacities in 2030. Average capacities, 

proportional to the annual amount of electricity generated in TWh/yr as shown in the figure, are smaller and
vary with resource type. See footnote [2] for more information).

The projected increase in nuclear generation (about a 15% increase over today's capacity) is unchanged from
the EIA's projection, which assumes about 20 GW of new capacity offset by 5 GW of retirements in 2030. We
did not pursue a more aggressive expansion of nuclear because of our concerns over cost, waste disposal and
proliferation risk. Going forward, however, we are keen to explore all types of cutting-edge renewable sources of
electricity including, perhaps, clean nuclear technology.
Another technology that is conspicuously absent from our proposal is coal with CO2 capture and sequestration
(CCS). This technology has the potential to allow coal to be burned with minimal greenhouse gas emissions
(about 10% of conventional coal plants), but the technical and legal challenges of storing billions of tons of
CO2 underground have yet to be solved. If these issues can be overcome at reasonable cost, CCS would be a
welcomed additional low-carbon energy solution.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) just completed a study looking at deploying 300 GW of wind by 2030,
and concluded that the wind resource was ample for the task, and the impact on manufacturing was
measurable but not overwhelming. An earlier study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory explored
more rapid scale-ups of wind capacity, and found that up to about 600 GW by 2030 was feasible. Our target,
380 GW in 2030, is therefore not at all unrealistic. This level of wind energy deployment would occupy about
170 x 170 square miles, or 10% of the land area of Texas, but less than 2% of that area (24 x 24 square miles,
less than a quarter of the land area of Delaware) would be occupied by towers, roads and other equipment; the
rest of the land would still be available for farming, ranching, etc.

Solar photovoltaics (PV) have been growing very strongly in recent years, topping 50% per year, but this
technology still has a very small market share because of its cost. Concentrating solar power (CSP) may
break through this cost barrier faster, and could deliver massive amounts of power. Studies by Navigant
Consulting and Clean Edge indicate that capacities at least as high as envisioned in our proposal are possible.
Our proposal would require a 20 x 20 square mile area to be installed with CSP technology, 34 million home
roofs (25% of total) to be installed with solar PV, and a similar PV capacity installed on commercial building
rooftops.[4]

Geothermal energy is perhaps the sleeping giant. Conventional hydrothermal resources have been quietly
growing in recent years, with 4 GW in the pipeline and likely 15 GW developed by 2030. Last month we
announced a significant initiative in enhanced geothermal energy systems (EGS). This technology, which has 
the potential to provide significant baseload power on a broad-scale basis, promises extremely rapid growth if
key technologies can be proven in the next few years.

For wind and solar, where the lion's share of resources are located in the Great Plains and desert southwest -
far from population centers - the biggest challenge is providing adequate transmission capacity to get the
power to market. Extrapolating from the DOE study, about 20,000 miles of new transmission capacity would
be required to support 300 GW of onshore wind and 80 GW of concentrating solar power generation in the
Clean Energy 2030 proposal. About 200,000 miles of high-voltage transmission now exist in the US. By
contrast, offshore wind is located close to cities on both coasts, solar PV is typically highly distributed near
where electricity is consumed, and there are significant potential EGS resources from border to border and 
coast to coast.

In summary, if we achieve the above electricity targets in the Clean Energy 2030 proposal, it would eliminate
88% of fossil fuel use and reduce CO2 emissions by 95% relative to the 2030 baseline, or about 2,800
MMtCO2/yr.

Table 1. Electricity sector summary.

2007 2010 2020 2030

Wind-total 16 GW 41 GW 176 GW 380 GW

(offshore) (0 GW) (0.5 GW) (18 GW) (80 GW)
Solar-total 1.0 GW 3.1 GW 69 GW 250 GW
(CSP) (0.5 GW) (1.3 GW) (20 GW) (80 GW)
Geothermal- 2.9 GW 7.2 GW 32 GW 80 GW
total (EGS) (0.0 GW) (0.1 GW) (20 GW) (65 GW)
Reduced demand
0.0% 3.0% 18% 33%
from efficiency
(per capita
(13.7 MWh) (13.4 MWh) (11.8 MWh) (11.4 MWh)
demand)
Increased demand
from plug-in 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 8.0%
vehicles
Fraction of CO2
0.0% 8.0% 52% 95%
saved

One might ask whether retiring all coal generation and one-half of natural gas generation (roughly one-third of
standing capacity) would have an adverse financial impact, due to the premature retirement of undepreciated
capital. The reality is that the the US fossil plant fleet is already fairly old, with half of coal capacity and a
quarter of natural gas capacity built before 1973. Assuming the oldest plants are retired first, we calculate that
a roughly linear progression of retired capacity would result in retiring 95% of coal and 100% of natural gas
plants when they are at least 40 years old (see figure below). Forty years (or smaller) is the typical loan period
for financing of fossil electric generation capital, so virtually all plants would be fully depreciated when they
retire.

Figure 2.
 Personal Vehicle Sector
According to the Energy Information Administration, transportation-related energy use accounts for 70% of the
21 million barrels per day (mbd) of liquid fuels consumed in the US. By 2030, the sector will consume 17 mbd 
and emit 2,200 million metric tons of CO2 per year (MMtCO2/yr), about 1/3 of projected total US energy-
related CO2 emissions.

Personal vehicles (also known as “light-duty” vehicles, e.g. cars, sport-utility vehicles, and light trucks),
account for approximately 60% of transportation sector fuel consumption and CO2 emissions; the remainder 
comes primarily from freight trucks and airplanes, with appreciable contributions from other sources (buses,
trains, ships, etc.). The Clean Energy 2030 proposal focuses on the personal vehicle subtotal, because we
think this can be transformed by plug-in electric vehicles and higher efficiency conventional vehicles.

Although the average fuel efficiency of new conventional vehicles, currently 22 mpg, is projected to increase to
31 mpg by 2030,[5] plug-in vehicles can already achieve significantly higher fuel efficiency because they drive
on electricity for a significant fraction of their yearly miles (see, for instance, Google's recently-
published RechargeIt driving experiment). A plug-in hybrid with a 40-mile electric range drives on electricity for 
about half of its yearly miles, so it consumes half the gasoline of its conventional cousin. And switching to an 
all-electric vehicle of course consumes no gasoline.

The Clean Energy 2030 plan rapidly ramps up sales of plug-in vehicles, starting with 100,000 in 2010 (annual
US vehicle sales in 2007 were roughly 15 million), and increasing to 3.2 million annual vehicle sales in 2020 
and 16.5 million in 2030. Seventy percent of these vehicles would be plug-in hybrids, with the remainder being
all-electric vehicles.

In addition to rapidly deploying plug-in vehicles, the Clean Energy 2030 proposal assumes that conventional
(e.g. non-plug-in) vehicle efficiency can increase as well. We have consulted with industry experts and
determined that it is possible to push average conventional vehicle efficiency to 40-50 mpg in 2030, and
assume 45 mpg in our proposal. In Europe, this average fuel efficiency target is mandated by 2012.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.
Figure 5.

Finally, the average vehicle age in the US is about 8 years (and vehicles remain on the road for more than 20
years), meaning that many older, inefficient vehicles continue to consume large amounts of fuel with increasing
maintenance cost. Our new model more accurately represents the turnover of vehicles by using a realistic
survival function based on vehicle age (see figure below); the original model assumed a simple exponential
decay irrespective of age. Also, the new model reduces the number of annual miles driven according to vehicle
age. The result of these changes is a higher average fuel efficiency in 2030 (51 mpg) than in our original model
(45 mpg), resulting in greater fuel savings, and an accurate depiction of the distribution of vehicle ages in the
US fleet.

Figure 6.

                                                                                Vehicle age

Accelerating the turnover of old vehicles would boost fuel efficiency even more, and increase the adoption of
plug-in vehicles. There are a number of mechanisms that might be considered to accomplish this, such as
"feebates," consumer and manufacturer incentives for efficient vehicles, and cash incentives (or vouchers) for
retiring old vehicles. The "accelerated turnover" sales curve in Figure 3 assumes a gradual ramp-up in turnover
through 2025, following the blue curve in Figure 6 above, followed by a decline back toward the 2008 level. The
net effect of such a program by 2030 would be to reduce the future average vehicle age temporarily from 9 to 7
years, resulting in an additional 6% plug-in penetration, 7% fuel saved, and 7.5 mpg fleet average efficiency.

Taken together, these strategies (more plug-in vehicles and higher efficiency conventional vehicles) would
reduce oil consumption (and CO2 emissions) by 44% relative to the baseline, or 63 billion gallons per year.
With accelerated vehicle turnover included, savings would increase to 51% or 73 billion gallons per year.

Table 2. Personal vehicle sector summary.

2007 2010 2020 2030

Conventional new
21.6 mpg 23.0 mpg 34.0 mpg 45.0 mpg
vehicle efficiency

Overall fleet efficiency 20.2 mpg 20.7 mpg 27.0 mpg 51.3 mpg
Plug-in fraction of
0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 41%
fleet (annual
(0.0%) (0.7%) (20%) (90%)
sales)

Fraction of fuel or
0.0% 0.3% 10.8% 44%
CO2

Economics
We made the following economic assumptions in calculating the cost of the Clean Energy 2030 proposal:

Efficiency:
l Efficiency capital cost of 25 cents per kWh annual savings (one-time cost)

l Savings from efficiency of 10 cents per kWh (average electricity price)

Renewable energy:
l Renewable electricity capital costs:

¡ Onshore wind: $2 per watt (W) falling to $1.5/W in 2030

¡ Offshore wind: $3/W falling to $2/W in 2030

¡ Solar PV: $6/W falling to $2/W in 2030

¡ Solar CSP: $3.5/W falling to $2/W in 2030

¡ Conventional geothermal: $3.5/W flat through 2030

¡ Enhanced geothermal systems: $5/W falling to $3.5/W in 2030      

l Intermittency cost of $20/MWh (applied to wind and solar)

l Avoided fossil capital costs (for plants planned in baseline but not built in our proposal 
because of efficiency and renewables):
¡ Coal: $2/W constant

¡ Natural gas and oil: $1/W constant

l Carrying charge for financing capital cost: 12%/yr for 20 years

l Saved fossil fuel cost (that is not already counted as efficiency savings):
¡ Coal: $2/MBtu constant

¡ Natural gas and oil: $10/MBtu constant

l No write-down cost for retiring coal plants (all plants assumed to be older than 40 years when retired), no
decommissioning cost or salvage value for plants
l Transmission infrastructure cost: $0.30/W for wind (including offshore) and solar CSP
Vehicles:
l Plug-in vehicle premiums: $5000 per plug-in hybrid vehicle (PHEV), $10,000 per pure-electric vehicle (EV),
plus $1000 per vehicle for charging infrastructure
l Higher-efficiency conventional vehicle premium $3000 for 45 mpg (pro-rated for lower mpg, down to zero
cost for 22 mpg today)
l Fuel cost: $3/gallon gasoline today, doubling to $6/gallon by 2030

l Plug-in electricity cost: 7 cents per kWh (discounted due to flexible smart-charging price)

l Additional vehicle purchase cost (accelerated vehicle turnover scenario, not part of base case): $20,000
per vehicle (base cost; premiums for higher mpg vehicles covered separately above)
Carbon (not counted in net savings):
l Carbon credit for CO2 not emitted (relative to baseline): $20/ton CO2, doubling to $40/ton in 2030 (applied
to both electricity and vehicles) 

Some minor changes were made to the electricity sector model, including subtracting the cost of providing
electricity for plug-in vehicles, since this is already counted in the vehicle sector. The other major change to
the economic model was reducing the gasoline cost from $4 to $3 per gallon (doubling by 2030), and removing
accelerated vehicle turnover from the base case.

Table 3. Economic summary (billions of 2008 US dollars).

Costs Undiscounted total Net present value*

Electrical efficiency
$346 $174
investment
Renewable capacity
$1,694 $603
investment
Transmission capacity
$131 $56
investment
Intermittency cost $328 $120
Coal plant write-down,
decommissioning and $0 $0
salvage
Plug-in vehicle premium $980 $306
Plug-in electricity cost $120 $35
Higher efficiency conventional
$261 $122
vehicle premium
Additional vehicle purchase
$0 $0
cost
Subtotal $3,859 $1,417
Savings
Electrical efficiency savings $1,593 $618
Avoided fossil fuel generation
$269 $97
capacity savings
Avoided fossil fuel savings $438 $162
Plug-in fuel savings $1,300 $371
Conventional fuel savings $1,079 $379
Subtotal $4,679 $1,627
Net savings $820 $211

Carbon credits $1,117 $387

Net savings with carbon
$1,937 $598
credits
* Discount rate of 7%/year used for net present value calculations.

We see in the below two figures that the cost of making electrical efficiency improvements and renewable
capacity is approximately offset each year by accumulated energy savings. In the vehicles sector, savings
accrue very quickly, with net positive cash flow beginning in 2014 and annual savings of over $50 billion
beginning in 2025.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Bottom line: undiscounted savings exceed costs by $820 billion over the 22 years of the scenario, or
if carbon credits are included, $1,937 billion.

Economic variants:
l In our first release of Clean Energy 2030, we assumed gasoline cost $4/gallon and would double to
$8/gallon by 2030. We noted at the time that making gasoline less expensive reduces the net savings by
a significant amount. Recent economic conditions have now plunged gasoline prices below $3/gallon, so
we have changed our baseline assumption to reflect this reality (we now assume prices will double to
$6/gallon by 2030). However, because our improved model removes older, inefficient vehicles more quickly,
the fleet average efficiency is now significantly higher. Therefore, making gasoline cheaper still results in a
net savings of $820 billion. Increasing gasoline prices to $4/gallon again (doubling to $8/gallon in 2030)
would increase savings to $1,613 billion.
l Accelerated vehicle turnover: including a program (discussed above in the vehicles section) to accelerate
the removal of old, inefficient vehicles and replace them with higher-efficiency new conventional and plug-in
 vehicles would cost an additional $1,302 billion in extra vehicle purchases and save $666 billion in lower
fuel costs. Including the additional carbon benefit (1,280 million metric tons CO2) saves an additional $42
billion. In the short term, such a program may be valuable to a US economy struggling to increase
domestic spending.[6]

Jobs
Transforming our energy economy as laid out in this proposal will create large numbers of new jobs.  By our
estimates, Clean Energy 2030 will create 9 million net new jobs in the electrical efficiency and renewable
energy sectors alone (the vehicles sector was not considered because of insufficient data--please help us
obtain it!).

Figure 9.

Table 4. Job estimates.

Average
Cumulative new jobs Construction Operations Job scaling
new jobs per year jobs per jobs per factor in Reference
(2009-2030) (2009- TWh TWh 2030*
2030)

Efficiency 5,750,000 261,000 4150 0 100% ACEEE

Operations
Construction
jobs per
jobs per GW
GW

6,740,000 306,000 75%

(onshore) (onshore) (onshore)
Wind 21,200 739 US DOE
1,590,000 72,300 67%
(offshore) (offshore) (offshore)

Navigant
Solar PV 5,480,000 249,000 66,140 0 34%
Consulting

Solar CSP 2,870,000 130,000 40,720 1742 57% NREL

100% Geothermal
Geothermal 790,000 36,000 6400 740 (conventional) Energy
70% (EGS) Association

Subtotal 23,210,000 1,055,000

Coal -9,020,000 -410,000 20,464 1681 100% NREL

Natural gas -5,440,000 -247,000 5826 2278 100% NREL

Net total 8,750,000 398,000

*Scaling factor indicates modeled decline in jobs per GW due to projected productivity improvements
(proportional to decline in unit capital cost).

Note that the estimates include direct jobs (construction and operations of the power plants) as well as
"indirect" jobs in associated industries (e.g., accountants, lawyers, steel workers, and electrical
manufacturing) and "induced" jobs through economic expansion based on local spending. (However, for
geothermal energy, only direct job estimates were available, so the contribution from this sector is
disproportionately lower). The estimates are conservative in that they assume a declining job rate in future 
years due to productivity improvements which might not be realized (the scaling factor mentioned above). Also,
some of the estimates are based on state-level scale-ups, which do not include additional jobs that might be
created at the national level.

Carbon Dioxide Savings

The Clean Energy 2030 proposal only focuses on two sectors--electricity and personal vehicles--yet together,
aggressive changes in these sectors can reduce overall US CO2 emissions by 49% in 2030 relative to the EIA
baseline. Compared to today's emission level of 6,000 MMtCO2/yr (about 20% of global energy-related CO2
emissions; see Marland), the proposal would reduce CO2 emissions by 41%, about halfway to the 80%
reduction target by 2050 called for by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Figure 10.

More reductions would be possible if other sectors were pursued similarly aggressively. We have chosen to 
focus on the electricity and personal vehicle sectors because these are areas where we currently are
working. There are additional areas for fossil fuel and CO2 savings that are important to recognize, and may be
added to our proposal in the future:

l Transport:
¡ Reduced vehicle usage (mass transit, carpooling, telecommuting, per-mile vehicle fees, smart growth,
etc.)
¡ Low-carbon biofuels for transportation

¡ Improved efficiency in freight trucks and airplanes

l Buildings and industry:

¡ Improved efficiency of heating fuel use

¡ Use of low-carbon biofuels or hydrogen as a heating fuel

¡ Substitution of solar energy for fossil fuel combustion in heating water

¡ Shift away from fuels and toward electricity (including use of combined heat and power systems)
¡ Management of non-CO2 greenhouse gases including methane and halocarbon gases        

l Agriculture and forestry:

¡ Forest and grassland management

¡ Methane management from animals and landfills

Google's Role

Google is committed to implementing innovative and responsible environmental practices in every aspect of our
business. To date, we've taken concrete steps to bolster the efficiency of our data centers and reduce the
carbon footprint of our building and office operations. And we're always looking for ways to create innovative
products that help our users "go green." Our philanthropic arm, Google.org, has made $50 million in renewable
energy grants and investments to develop breakthrough technologies such as solar thermal, enhanced
geothermal, and advanced wind. In 2007 we launched our Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal (RE<C)
initiative, flipped the switch on one of the largest corporate solar panel installations in the United States, and
began our plug-in vehicle initiative, RechargeIT. This year we hired our first dedicated renewable energy
engineers, announced a partnership with GE to advance renewable energy and build smart grid infrastructure,
and continued to support public policies to combat climate change. It's going to take the efforts of many to
bring about a clean energy future, and we hope others will continue the hard work they're already doing.

Acknowledgments
Authored by Jeffery Greenblatt, Ph.D., Climate and Energy Technology Manager, Google.org

We are indebted to many contributors from both inside and outside Google. These people include: Adhi
Kesarla, Alec Brooks, Alec Proudfoot, Bill Weihl, Charles Baron, Chris Busselle, David Bercovich, Dan 
Reicher, Greg Miller, Hal Varian, Jacquelline Fuller, Jay Boren, John Fitch, Kevin Chen, Luis Arbulu, Megan 
Smith, Michael Terrell, Micheal Lopez, Rick Needham, Rolf Schreiber, Ross Koningstein, and Wilson Tsai. 
Outside experts include Mark Mehos, Maureen Hand and Nate Blair of the National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory, John "Skip" Laitner and Steve Nadel of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
Marshall Goldberg of MRG and Associates, and Luke Tonachel, Nathanael Greene, Rick Duke and Roland 
Hwang of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
 Sources and Further Reading

Renewable Energy and Efficiency:

l American Wind Energy Association, AWEA 2nd Quarter 2008 Market Report, 
2008: http://awea.org/publications/reports/2Q08.pdf.
l Clean Edge, Utility Solar Assessment Study: Reaching Ten Percent Solar by 2025, 
2008: http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/reports-solarUSA2008.php.
l Energy Information Administration, Table 8.11a Electric Net Summer Capacity: Total (All Sectors),
Selected Years, 1949-2007, Annual Energy Review, US Department of 
Energy, 2007: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_42.pdf.
l Energy Information Administration, Table 9.2, Nuclear Power Plant Operations, 1957-2007, Annual Energy
Review, US Department of Energy, 2007: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/stb0902.xls.
l Energy Information Administration, Existing Electric Generating Units in the United States, 2005, US
Department of Energy, 2007. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/capacity/existingunits2005.xls.
l Geothermal Energy Association, All About Geothermal Energy: Employment: http://www.geo-
energy.org/aboutGE/employment.asp.
l Interlaboratory Working Group, Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, ORNL/CON-476 and LBNL-44029,
2000: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/eere/cef/.
l Krupp, F. and M. Horn, Earth: The Sequel. The Race to Reinvent Energy and Stop Global Warming, New 
York: Norton, 2008: http://earththesequel.edf.org/.
l Laxson, A., M.M. Hand, and N. Blair., High Wind Penetration Impact on U.S. Wind Manufacturing 
Capacity and Critical Resources, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP-500-40482,
2006: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/40482.pdf.
l Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced
Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century, DOE Contract DOE-AC07-
05ID14517, 2007:http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf.
l Nadel, S., Energy Efficiency and Resource Standards: Experience and Recommendations, American 
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Report E063, 2006: http://www.aceee.org/pubs/e063.htm.
l Navigant Consulting, Economic Impacts of Extending Federal Solar Tax Credits, Final Report Prepared for 
the Solar Energy Research and Education Foundation, 2008: http://www.seia.org/galleries/pdf/Navigant%
20Consulting%20Report%209.15.08.pdf.
l National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Job and Economic Development Impact Models, 2008:
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/jedi/.
l Prindle, B., Eldridge, M., Laitner, J. A., Elliott, R. N., and S. Nadel, Assessment of the House Renewable
Electricity Standard and Expanded Clean Energy Scenarios, American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy, Report E079, 2007: http://www.aceee.org/pubs/e079.htm.
l Simons, G. and J. McCabe, California Solar Resources in Support of the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy 
Report, Draft Staff Paper, CEC-500-2005-072-D, 2005: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-
500-2005-072/CEC-500-2005-072-D.PDF.
l US Department of Energy, 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy's Contribution to U.S.
Electricity Supply, DOE/GO-102008-
2567, 2008: http://www.20percentwind.org/20percent_wind_energy_report_05-11-08_wk.pdf.
Vehicles:
l Blinder, Alan S., A Modest Proposal: Eco-Friendly Stimulus, The New York Times, July 27, 2008:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/business/27view.html.
l Godoy, M. CAFE standards: Gas-Sipping Etiquette for Cars, National Public Radio, 
2007: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5448289.
l Neff, J., Lutz says new CAFE standards will increase car price by $6k, Auto Blog Green, 
2008: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/13/lutz-says-new-cafe-standards-will-increase-car-price-by-
6k/.
l Union of Concerned Scientists, Fuel economy 
basics: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/solutions/cleaner_cars_pickups_and_suvs/fuel-economy-
basics.html.
Carbon and General:
l Electric Power Research Institute, The Power to Reduce CO2 Emissions, 2007:
http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/public/DiscussionPaper2007.pdf
l Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook, US Department of Energy,
2008: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/.
l Gore, Al, The Climate for Change (op-ed), The New York Times, November 9, 2008:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/09gore.html.
l Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report, 2007: http://www.ipcc.ch.

l Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and 
Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz, B., O. 
Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. A. Meyer (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 442 pp., 2005: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/srccs.htm.
l Marland, G., T. Boden, and R. J. Andres, Global, Regional, and National Annual CO2
Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Production, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2005, Carbon Dioxide 
Information Analysis Center Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 
2008: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2005.ems.
l McKinsey & Company, Reducing US Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?, 
2007: http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/US_ghg_final_report.pdf.
l Natural Resources Defense Council, A Responsible Energy Plan for America, 2005:
 http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/rep/rep.pdf.
l Obama for America website, New Energy for America, 2008:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy.
l Pacala, S. and R. Socolow, Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with
Current Technologies, Science, 305, 968, 2004: http://www.princeton.edu/wedges/articles/ (other 
"wedges" articles also available via this link).
l Pickens Plan: http://www.pickensplan.com/.

l WeCanSolveIt.org.

References
1. See also a study by McKinsey & Company:
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/US_ghg_final_report.pdf
2. Electricity generation technologies do not all generate the same amount of electricity over a year. The
ratio of average output to maximum output is known as the "capacity factor," and is around 20% for solar
photovoltaics, 30% for concentrating solar, 35-40% for wind, 50% for hydroelectric, and 90% for
geothermal, biomass, nuclear and coal. Natural gas, which is mostly used for "ramping" purposes
(increasing or decreasing output quickly according to changing demand) can run up to 90% but is typically
operated around 20%. Thus, 100 GW of geothermal (with 90% capacity factor) produces the same amount
of electricity in a year as 300 GW of solar (with 30% capacity factor).
3. Attentive readers will note this capacity was 250 GW in the previous version of the proposal. We chose
this higher amount to ensure that all plants would be at least 40 years old when retired; the same amount
of generation is actually implied in the model, by reducing the number of hours per year these plants run
from 20% to 17%.
4. Solar PV and CSP installations based on a California solar study by
Simons and McCabe.
5. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fuel efficiency estimates tend to be inflated by about 20%.
This is because such estimates are done under ideal, rather than real-world, conditions. Therefore,
although the current CAFE standard mandates that fleet average new vehicles must achieve 35 mpg in
2020 and beyond, the actual fuel efficiency is projected by EIA is lower.
6. See article by Blinder:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/business/27view.html

Comments

Sign in to write a comment

Model Manufacturing Competiveness

This may have been mentioned but I would like to see an international manufacturing
company like GE do a competitive manufacturing analysis using Google's model versus
manufacturing in some other country like China that does little of this. I am hoping that this
provides a significant competitive advantage to the US. We cannot afford to lose anymore billbell52
manufacturing jobs and I would like to see a migration of manufacturing back to the US. It
cannot put us in a competitive disadvantage.

Report abusive comment Last edited May 23, 2010 11:48 AM

Post reply to this comment ▼ 0

We have the Tools and Political Will. Go do it now.

It's great to see Google crunching the numbers.

We all know Uranium Plutonium and Crude oil are not sustainable.
Solar_Wind_Utility_Co
Solar, Wind, Wave, Geo thermal Energy to Hydrogen are.

http://www.kobashi.co.uk/environment.shtml

Report abusive comment Last edited May 21, 2010 10:03 AM

Post reply to this comment ▼ 0

Untitled
Let's Get Our "Nuclear" Facts Straight

We need energy that is safe, clean, cheap, and abundant. There are two problems
with this kind of report. One is the assumption that nothing can be better than solar Ron Marshall
energy. The other is the misuse of the term "nuclear". I don't want to burst anyone’s
bubble, but the sun is a nuclear reactor. What you call nuclear is uranium and
plutonium fission reactors. There biggest problem is nuclear proliferation. They also
have a meltdown, and nuclear waste problem. Air cooled reactors with fuel in glass
balls will not meltdown. There are new processes that could reduce radioactive waste.
Putting radioactive waste in geologically stable places is more of a political problem
than a technical problem.
There are other nuclear energy sources we know about. If we do research we may find
still more nuclear energy sources. One source is hot fusion. Hot fusion uses
deuterium, an abundant and non radioactive fuel. The reactor creates a hot plasma
which maybe at 100 million degrees Kelvin. If something happens to the reactor the
process simply shuts down. The replaceable inner wall of the reactor becomes
radioactive, but this is much less of a problem than with fission reactors.

Cold fusion is another possible source. Cold fusion was politically discredited in 1989.
However hundreds of scientists kept experimenting with cold fusion and now there is a
body of experimental evidence that shows that nuclear reactions are going on whether
or not one of the reactions is “cold fusion” of deuterium atoms. The evidence includes
heat, “heat after death”, localized melting of palladium at 1554 degrees Celsius, tritium
and its decay product helium 3, helium 4, nuclear transmutations with unnatural
isotope ratios, and charged particles when a magnetic or electrical field is added. Cold
fusion appears to be a nuclear reaction that produces heat and no discernable
radioactivity. It appears to be the best available energy source that would be cheaper
than solar and have less of an environmental impact since it would require much less
hardware. It would do more to reduce poverty than any other energy source.

The following web sites will provide additional information.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4967330n

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606#

http://www.newenergytimes.com/

http://www.lenr-canr.org/

Report abusive comment Last edited May 20, 2010 12:16 AM

View/post replies (1) to this comment ▼ +1

ERSİN
Thanks for posting about this, I would love to read more about this topic.

<a href="http://www.masavesandalye.com" title="sandalye, masa, mutfak masası"

>sandalye</a> - Anonymous
<a href="http://www.mobilyadekorasyonrehberi.com" title="dekorasyon, mobilya,
aksesuar" >mobilya dekorasyon</a> -
<a href="http://www.onartsomine.com" title="şömine, izmir şömine, şömine hazneleri" 
>şömine</a> -
<a href="http://www.izmirsominemerkezi.com" title="izmir şömine, şömine" >izmir 
şömine</a> -
<a href="http://www.oyun24.com" title="oyun, oyunlar, 0yunlar1" >oyun</a> -
<a href="http://www.filmleri.net" title="film, dizi izle, video izle" >video</a> -
<a href="http://www.ersinakcan.com.tr" title="makale, içerik, orjinal, yazı" >Ersin</a> -
<a href="http://www.sominemodelleri.com" title="şömine, şömine modelleri" 
>şömine</a> -
<a href="http://www.kromtasmakina.com" title="halı yıkama makinaları, halı yıkama
makinesi, halı yıkama makineleri" >halı yıkama makinası</a> -
<a href="http://www.utkutrading.com" title="çinden mal almak, çin ithalat danışmanlık,
çinden mal getirmek" >çin danışmanlık</a> -
<a href="http://www.dekorasyon.com.tr" title="mobilya, dekorasyon" >dekorasyon</a>
-

Report abusive comment Last edited May 10, 2010 10:35 AM

Post reply to this comment ▼ 0

A Excellent Knol Great Suggestions

Hi Jeffery,
Good to read your knol.
It's an Excellent one with lot of good Suggestions to follow to save our earth. But it should
be equally applicable to other nations too. I fully agree with Rob Watson's comment here: P V Ariel
What about the rest of the nations?
We need to have a global thinking on this issue to have a total and profitable
benefits/results to all.

Trees can play a vital role in this serious issue.

I have posted a knol on this line can be read @ http://bit.ly/dx7qR6
Good Wishes
Philip

Report abusive comment Last edited May 9, 2010 12:01 PM

Post reply to this comment ▼ 0

Model stability
 One approach to managing unknown quantities in the modeling motif is to include
uncertainty and use variational methods to evaluate the stability of a model. The
example of the effects of demand and pricing of gasoline (seeming missing from the
model) illuminates the need to solidify the dependencies as well as accommodate the Rob Watson
real variability of the problem and how it influences the models predictive power.

Model stability permits identification of the weak links with significant potential to effect
predictive power. This serves as a metric to identify where best to place resources to
gain control of the uncertainties. Even if dependencies and uncertainties are not well
controlled if the models predictive power remains stable then goals can be achieved in
spite of the model deficiencies.

Report abusive comment Last edited May 6, 2010 10:04 AM

Post reply to this comment ▼ 0

What about the rest of the world?

The growth rates of demand in China and India for power lead to dire predictions for
2030! Viable large scale non-coal/petro power generation must be deployed in these
fast growing high demand areas. A strategy to drive the future of power generation and
usage modalities that can be deployed quickly and economically (or whatever Rob Watson
persuasive reasons) on a global scale needs to be part and parcel of an overall plan to
realize a sustainable solution.

Achievement of independence from foreign oil is fine but does miss the mark in the
larger scheme of a global long term sustainable solution to energy requirement. What
purpose is served if the US is 'saved' but the rest of the world goes to hell in a
handbasket?

Report abusive comment Last edited May 6, 2010 9:50 AM

Post reply to this comment ▼ 0

Storage
Storage will always be a primary component to a long term solution that includes
intrinsically transient generative sources. This spans many scales from batteries used
in light duty vehicles to household and even to neighborhood and city levels ( e.g. 1.6
GW elevated water storage). Rob Watson

Even a 100% nuclear solution would benefit from storage systems to buffer
demand/usage fluctuations. Off peak capacity used to generate hydrogen for fuel cells
(or ther uses) provides an alternative to fully electrified light duty vehicle power needs.

Resources spent working on better storage options will many reap benefits.

Report abusive comment Last edited May 7, 2010 9:24 AM

View/post replies (1) to this comment ▼ +1

Transients
The sun goes down and the wind blows not all the time. Seasonal variations are not to
be discounted either. The neighbors washer/dryer/fridge kicking on/off has an effect,
too. Transients across all time scales require due consideration in realistic solutions.
Stable, reliable and available on demand power is critical. Our current grid technology Rob Watson
has tremendous vulnerabilities to transients and phase variations that need to be
resolved before scaling generative sources that exacerbate the transients and phase
concerns.

Report abusive comment Last edited May 6, 2010 1:33 AM

Post reply to this comment ▼ +1

Planes, trains and ships?

A significant amount of fuel is used in aviation, shipping and heavy freight (schlepped
by trains mostly). These transportation modes will continue to grow and cry out for
consideration in the overall solution to a renewable option.
Rob Watson

Report abusive comment Last edited May 6, 2010 1:21 AM

Post reply to this comment ▼ +1

1 - 10 of 216   Older comments »

Home  |  Terms of Service  |  Privacy Policy  |  Content Policy  |  Help

©2009 Google

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com