#PowerToX PART V: What are the consequences if we could transfer global energy supply to Power-to-X
1. Re-Cap
Throughout the preceding four parts of our blog series, we have explained why climate change is real, how it actually works and what could be done to counter it and its expected negative effects. We also investigated the concrete use case of mobility, the second largest global emitter.
Storing energy in the form of hydrogen or related derivates (hydrocarbon gases like methane, etc.) and using this as a source for energy represents a mighty chance for the realization of an emission-free energy supply.
If we think this technology, Power-to-X, a bit further, what would be the consequences?
2. The need for renewable energy
As explained in detail in the parts before, the production of molecular hydrogen is a very energy-intensive process. If today’s energy mix would be used, it would include and waste large quantities of fossil fuels and therefore emit CO2E (CO2 equivalent).
So, one basic prerequisite for emission-free Power-to-X supply would be the availability of 100% renewable energy as source for its production process.
And in this space, in contrast to innovative mobility and platform concepts, Germany can consider itself a global leader with about 46% of its energy coming from renewable sources in 2019 — compared to about 27% in 2015 and about 7% in 2005, one decade ago (Source).
But 46% is still far away from 100%, especially because all willing individuals believing in the need for change have already converted their homes into emission-free energy consumers or have even become energy “prosumers” (Consumers, who also produce excess energy for sale on top of their own consumption needs).
And that’s Germany only, so how the heck should the whole world go renewable?
That’s a question that Stanford professor Mark Jacobson and other have already investigated back in 2009 (Source).
Their finding in short: From a technological standpoint, it would have been possible for Planet Earth to convert its energy usage in all sectors to renewable energy sources by 2030 — if one had seriously started tackling the issue back around 2010.
The authors defined renewable energy as energy coming from enticing sources: wind, which also produces waves; water, which includes hydroelectric, tidal and geothermal energy and sun, which includes photovoltaics and solar power plants that focus sunlight to heat a fluid that drives a turbine to generate electricity.
As already depicted earlier in our blog series, theoretical supply is already more than sufficient:
Additionally, energy efficiency would be increased because, in most cases, electrification is a more efficient way to use energy than fossil variants.
Right. But would we not have to cover the whole planet with turbines and solar panels and thus also ruin it injust another way?
In the author’s model, wind supplies 51 percent of the demand, provided by 3.8 million large wind turbines (each rated at five megawatts) worldwide.
Another 40 percent of the power would come from photovoltaics and concentrated solar plants, with about 30 percent of the photovoltaic output from roof- top panels on homes and commercial buildings. About 89,000 photovoltaic and concentrated solar power plants, averaging 300 megawatts apiece, would be needed. Also, their mix includes 900 hydroelectric stations worldwide, 70 percent of which are already in place.
A possibility to use the needed space twice would be to install the solar panels on sticks, so that the soil can still be used for growing food or livestock. This is currently being piloted in Germany as well (Source). If installed in about 8 meters height, even a tractor can be operated below it.
The worldwide footprint of the 3,8 million turbines would be less than 50 square kilometers (smaller than Manhattan Island), although one must obey the needed space between them what then results in a coverage of about 1 percent of the earth’s land, but the empty space among turbines could again be used for agriculture or livestock ranching for example.
Roughly another 0,33 percent of the planet’s land would be needed for concentrated solar plants.
Haha! These are ridiculous quantities.
Not really, if you compare them with for example the number of cars and light trucks being built every year: 73 million (as of 2009).
And remember that if we stick to fossil fuels, demand by 2030 is expected to 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.
A rather possible obstacle may be the -economically affordable- availability of some needed materials like rare earth or Lithium, but that is rather an economic and technological barrier and substitutes have become available as well as recycling process have and will increase their share of contribution.
Alright. And who do you think should orchestrate such a global revamp? The secret & all-embracing world administration that has been cited so often during the actual COVID19-crisis?
3. The human factor
That is — unfortunately — an excellent point. I was referring about the technical feasibility of transforming the planet to 100% renewable energy.
The human and political factors are of course a different story. As with climate change we are facing a global challenge, a solution must also be largely global, and all nations will need to move along in the end.
As the cost of renewable energy production and transportation — once installed — is expected to be less than the cost of today’s fossil fuel, I don’t see any economic long-term obstacle.
Rather, the transformation must be financed and orchestrated.
This would need to include conveying a perspective to all people who are fully dependent on fossil fuels today — be it indirectly or even directly because they make a living in connected industries.
For the German example of the Lausitz, this was so far not successfully handled by the politicians and still remains to be solved (see following photo).
And there are more examples of humans acting for their own individual benefit instead of thinking globally. Take the recent developments in Brazil for example: Amazonas deforestation has increased by 50% (Source) now covered up by the COVID19 crisis. And of course, there are always reasons and individual justifications.
But in total, as Mark Diesendorf and Ben Elliston from University of New South Wales in Australia also underline, the principal barriers to 100 percent renewable electricity systems are neither technological nor economic, but are primarily political, institutional and cultural instead.
How it might look if humans act irresponsibly can be evaluated under the “burning glass” looking at the example of the Easter Island.
The island located in the southeastern Pacific Ocean is well known for the stone-carved statues that its former inhabitants have produced in large quantities.
Archeological record shows that at the time of the initial settlement the island was home to many species of trees and had a prosperous ecosystem.
As you can see on below picture, Easter island today looks rather like a volcanic wasteland. It is common believe among historians that the inhabitants, the Rapa Nui, significantly contributed to the transformation of the island -besides over-harvesting, over-hunting, and climate change- by deforesting all trees available for housing and especially for building and transporting the many statues to the coast line where they can mostly still be found today.
So, the continued pursuit of some religious cult in the end promoted the well-known chain of deforestation, soil erosion, food supply extinction and ultimately death tolls.
You may judge for yourself how comparable the Rapa Nuis’ religious cult and today’s predominant cult of unlimited economic growth are, but the example definitely shows what happens if a human society stretches the usage of natural resources too far.
4. The right mix
But if we applied a very optimistic attitude and believe that the human factor can somehow be overcome, we can look at some facts cheering us up regarding reliability.
One usual counterargument towards renewable energy is availability.
Indeed. Yeah, what if the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine?
A solution to this often-cited obstacle can be based on two pillars. First, an appropriate mixture of renewable energy sources should be set up. You can explain that imperative very basically: Usually if there is a big storm and wind energy production peaks, the sun does not shine and vice versa. So, both technologies taken together can establish a certain balance and when combined with geothermal and hydro sources, a full typical July day in 2020 for example in California could be supplied with renewables only. (Source: Graeme Hoste of Stanford University).
And second, ways of storing the energy produced for example as liquid hydrogen would allow to use and transport stored energy during low production phases.
Well, this input is based largely on one Stanford study from 2009. Its 2020 now. Has there been no progress?
Well, as you know the immediate global shift to renewable energy has unfortunately not been ignited back in 2010.
But the authors have come back to their theories last year and calculated the impacts of Green New Deal Energy Plans on Grid Stability, Costs, Jobs, Health, and Climate in 143 Countries, representing 99.7% of world’s CO2 emissions. (Source)
In short, it is still believed that 80% renewables in 2030 and 100% in 2050 are possible to establish what would also allow to stay below 1,5 degree warming.
Additionally, the authors believe that renewables require less energy, cost less, and create more jobs than a simple continuation of business-as-usual.
Take a look on our final blog part 6 which we will publish in about a week to see what you can maybe contribute personally or ignite at your company alternatively.
I will. But after that, it’s really been enough theoretical input!
Indeed. After the final part, it’s time for action!
This blog is a part of a six part series highlighting a possible solution for fighting climate change and still meeting our energy demand.
The series is based on known scientific facts and is broken down as follows:
1. Why climate change is real, and why it matters
2. How greenhouse gases get into the atmosphere and who is responsible
3. An exemplary sector use case: Mobility could be run on non-fossil fuels
4. The disadvantages of hydrogen mobility and how we solve those
5. What are the consequences if we could transfer global energy supply to Power-to-X
6. What is likely to happen and what can we each contribute personally
