My last post: Deconstructing the 100% Fossil Fuel
Free Wind, Water and Sunlight USA paper – Part I Why no nuclear power? introduced my readers to the report
in Energy & Environmental Science titled: 100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) all-sector
energy roadmaps for the 50 United States (100% WWS USA hereafter). In that post I discussed
the confusing decision by the authors (Jacobson, Delucchi et al. at http://thesolutionsproject.org/) to consciously ignore the option of
nuclear power in their vision for a 100% fossil fuel-free future for the USA
and the world. Today’s post will follow-up on my previous post by looking more
closely at some of the assumptions underlying this proposed roadmap for our future.
As I pointed out in my previous post, David Roberts at Vox.com likened any
proposed efforts to achieve a 100% fossil fuel free future based solely on wind, wave and sunlight as requiring a World War II–scale mobilization. My intention in this post is to
demonstrate that the proposed approach cannot be achieved, as designed, even
with a World War II-scale mobilization. Rather, I intend to demonstrate that even
a World War II-scale mobilization by the United States will fail due to an
absence of the raw resources (specifically rare earth metals and
lithium) needed to achieve the 100% WWS USA paper goal.
As discussed in my last blog posting, the most evident
failing of the 100% WWS USA paper is that it lacks the critical data
necessary to demonstrate how they will achieve their goal. That is, they
describe in detail just how much tidal energy they will need to achieve
their goal but they don’t provide any details as to how to ensure that the raw materials necessary to produce the
technologies are available. Instead, like the case with nuclear power, all the critical
details are in Jacobson and Delucchi’s earlier pair of papers titled “Providing all global energy with wind,
water, and solar power”, Part I and Part II (called 100% WWS World Part I and 100%
WWS World Part II hereafter). Thus the 100% WWS USA paper provides a broad
overview (a strategy) but it does not provide a method to achieve that goal
(the logistics). Keeping with the military theme of this post I will remind my
readers of the old military saw: “strategies and tactics win battles but
logistics win wars”. Well Jacobson and Delucchi’s work is strong on strategies
but exceedingly weak on the logistics. So let’s start looking at the logistics.
I really couldn’t go much further in this post without
pointing out my previous post On renewables and compromises Part II
Rare earths in renewable technologies where I discuss rare earth metals (called rare
earths hereafter) and their importance for renewable energy technologies. As I
point out in that post, rare earths are the elements that have allowed us to
develop all these incredible renewable energy technologies. Neodymium (Nd) is
the "magic" ingredient that makes high-power permanent magnets a
reality. Lanthanum (La) and Cerium (Ce) are what make catalytic converters
work. Your cell phone, your LCD screen, your hospital's PET scanner all depend
entirely on the existence of rare earths. To be clear, we are not talking about
traces of the stuff either. A single large wind turbine (rated at about 3.5
megawatts) typically contains 600 kilograms of rare earth metals (ref). European Parliament researchers have established
that major deployment of photovoltaic cells and wind turbines may have a
serious impact on the future demand of 8 significant elements: Gallium (Ga), Indium
(In), Selenium (Se), Tellurium (Te), Dysprosium (Dy), Nd, Praseodymium (Pr) and
Terbium (Tb) (ref - admittedly some of those are not rare earths but
are mined in similar mines/geologic formations).
So ignoring the issues with nuclear power in the 100% WWS USA
paper, another significant problem with the 100% WWS World Part I paper is that
the authors gloss over concerns about supplies of rare earth metals. Instead they appear
to pretend that we have essentially limitless supplies of rare earths or where
supplies are limited that we can easily access the complete planetary resource
of these materials with little effort. In their 100% WWS World Part I paper Jacobson
and Delucchi note that the annual production of Nd oxide (needed for windmill
turbines and anything that needs a permanent magnet) was 22,000 metric tonnes
in 2008. They then point out that their 100% world scenario would require 122,000
metric tonnes/year of Nd oxide. That is quite a shortfall considering we aren’t
making any serious efforts to address that shortfall. While most manufacturers
of electric vehicles rely on Nd in the same paper they wave
away the need for Nd in electric vehicles by stating that we will come up
with an alternative for Nd, like Tesla does using Lithium
(Li). The problem is that by doing so they just punt the ball down the road since
if we are not relying on Nd we are stuck relying on another limiting component Li
(to be discussed later). Going back to Nd, Jacobson and Delucchhi wave their
hands and look at the global Nd reserves. They suggest that the global reserves
can handle their usage numbers for up to 100 years at which point the world
will be out of Nd. The question never answered is whether the entire world is
going to abandon their historic concerns and frantically mine every ounce of Nd
they can find? In my earlier post I point out that any attempt to ramp up mining
capacity will require significant political and ecological compromises which
might turn out to be a bit challenging. Moreover, some nations may decide that
they have other domestic uses for Nd and don’t want the entire planetary supply
used to provide the first world with wind turbines?
Having talked about the big name rare earth (Nd) let’s talk
about some of the lesser known but equally important ones. Many of my readers
will remember that old quotation attributed to Benjamin Franklin that told of “how for want of a horse-shoe nail a
kingdom was lost”.
Well in the world of renewables that horse-shoe nail is likely the rare earth
element Dysprosium (Dy). I will venture a guess that 99.99% of my readers could
not place this element on a blank periodic table (I couldn’t and I once had to
memorize the periodic table to pass an undergraduate chemistry course). Dy is a critical component of the permanent magnets used in wind turbines
and electric vehicle engines and unlike Nd it appears in rare earth deposits in
very low concentrations (ref). Over 99% of the world supply of Dy comes from
Chinese sources (ref) and under current use scenarios China estimates it
has about a 15-25 year supply of Dy (ref note this ref is a pdf file that needs to open on
your computer). Because of this, the compound is the top rare earth metal on
the US Energy Critical Materials Strategy list (ref)
close behind are Nd, Europium (Eu), Te and Yttrium (Yt). Given its importance,
and limited supply Dy alone has the potential to upset Jacobson and Delucchi’s
version of a clean energy future. Certainly, if necessary, alternatives to Dy
will be identified. But it is unlikely that any alternative will provide the
efficiency that Dy does in permanent magnets which means that magnets without
Dy will be less efficient and thus will not able to produce energy at the rate
required to meet their future use scenario. Did you see how that worked? for
want of Dy a permanent magnet was lost...for want of a magnet all turbines were
lost, for want of all turbines a future scenario was lost. For those of you
interested, I strongly advise reading how the US Department of energy is
planning to deal with future shortages of these critical rare earths (ref). As I note above, Dy is not the only critical rare
earth that is not being produced in any reasonable volumes in the Western
world. Eu, Te and Y are also critical components of most of our major energy
plans and at this time we simply lack any reasonable supply for them outside of
China. What every environmentalist must understand is that any serious effort to move to a 100% renewable future can only be achieved if we
make a conscious and concentrated effort to locate, mine and refine rare earth
metals in the Western world.
Having discussed rare earth metals, let’s consider the major
alternative presented by Jacobson and Delucchi: lithium. As any follower of
modern tech trends will point out, Tesla is staking its battery business on lithium
and cobalt cathodes and NCA ( nickel -cobalt- aluminum oxide) cathodes (ref). This is pretty much what Jacobson and Delucchi
suggest will be one solution to the shortage of Nd. The problem is that each battery pack can
contain a lot of Li. While Tesla has kept their numbers under wraps it has been
estimated that each battery pack in one of those Tesla S 7000 powerwalls uses
about 21.4 kg of Li (ref). In 100% WWS World Part I Jacobson and Delucchi estimated
that the production of only 26 million electric vehicles would require 260,000
metric tonnes of Li. They point out that at that consumption level we would
exhaust the current world reserves of Li in less than 50 years. While 26 million
electric vehicles seems like a lot that is only half of the vehicles produced
in the world on a yearly basis. Under their 100% WWS USA scenario Jacobson and
Delucchi talk about electrifying virtually every mode of land transportation.
That would mean a lot more than 260,000 metric tonnes of Li a year and that is
only for electric vehicles. It completely ignores any other battery (like the
Tesla wall units or even rechargeable AA’s) that might be used to help store
all that solar energy that is being collected during the daytime but intended for use once the sun goes down. Jacobson and Delucchi point out that we can always
extract Li from seawater; but they also point out that seawater extraction is a
very energy intensive process. That energy has not been included in any of
their energy budgets. So you see once again the picture looks fine from a
distance but once you look up closely you see all these little flaws and like a
knitted sweater, once you start pulling at the loose strings things start
falling apart.
Well once again a post has got away from me. I was going to
go on to discuss platinum but at this point that would simply be overkill. Rare
earth metals and lithium form what we in chemistry call a rate-limiting step in
the movement towards a 100% fossil fuel free future. Unless and until we can
figure out some way to speed up or go around that rate-limiting step the
grandest of plans is going to come crashing down to earth in the cold, hard light
of day.
I am really embarrassed to admit that a legislator in New York actually submitted a bill to make New York State 100% fossil fuel free based on the NY WWS study. Fortunately the legislation did not go anywhere but any thoughts on what percentage of a renewable future is possible with the rate earth limits in place now?
ReplyDeleteIt depends on the renewable technology. Evidently a hydropower plant on the Congo River uses different amounts of rare earths per energy unit delivered per year.
DeleteThe answer also depends on the country and location. Are you referring to the USA, or to what´s left of humanity in 100 years? I think by then we should have exhausted most of the fossil fuels we are using, so the global warming issue will be very far down the list of critical needs. By then, if we haven´t figured out something, human population will be a lot smaller.
These are in fact wonderful ideas in concerning blogging.
ReplyDeleteYou have touched some good factors here. Any way keep up writing.
메이저사이트
온라인경마