A Sustainable Energy Road Map?

Shankar Sastry and Costas SpanosDean and Associate Dean for Research

College of EngineeringhUC Berkeley

The Goal:100MMT CO2 E/yr in 2050

California GHG Emissions (MMTCO2E/yr)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Historical with electricity importsHistorical, no electricity importsForecast baseline emissionsGoals (with imports)

Soil N2O

ODS subst.

Aviation CO2

Resid. CO2

Comm. CO2

All other

Diesel CO2

In-State Elect. CO2

Imported Elect. CO2

Industrial CO2

Gasoline CO2

Why A Road Map Now?• Leadership is needed

– Voluntary methods are inadequate to the challenge– We must demonstrate that it is possible to both control GHGs and have economic growth, and its

commitment to doing so.

• Meeting the 2020 goals can be accomplished at moderate costs– Energy efficiency strategies speed growth and raise employment– Existing policies (RPS, AB1493, etc.) will help significantly– Flexible, economically efficient policies complete the framework

• 2050 Goals will need new technology innovation and policy

• Two tasks, which require new, coordinated policies– Control GHG emissions to meet the 2020 goals efficiently

• Cap-and-trade for all feasible sectors• Sector-specific policies where monitoring/administration is too costly

– Support technological innovation and policy to meet the 2050 goals• “Innovation compatible” emission control policies• Policies to promote innovation directly

Source: Hanemann and Farrell (2006)

http://calclimate.berkeley.edu

Sample Successful Roadmap

• ITRS (International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors) forecasts the technology improvements needed in the semiconductor industry over time so that we have ~2x performance increase every two years.– Many processes are used to create transistors (lithography, etching, depositions…)

– All have to improve so that transistors get smaller, and more of them can fit on a chip.

– More transistors -> more performance!

• This is the underpinning of Moore’s Law

ITRS Summary History• Activities started in 1992

• Concept was very controversial among the research community

• It has been proven to be an extremely useful reference document

• It started as a Sematech (US only) activity, and it is now sponsored by the – European Semiconductor Industry Association (ESIA)

– Japan Electronics and Information Technology Industries Association (JEITA)

– Korean Semiconductor Industry Association (KSIA)

– Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Association (TSIA)

– United States Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA).

Socolow/Pacala Wedges for Road Map?

1. Energy Efficiency– Power-Aware Buildings– Fuel Efficiency– Sustainable Transportation

2. Alternative Energy– Alternative Fuels Bio fuels– Renewables

• Wind • Solar• Thermal• Thermoelectric• …

3. Nuclear Energy

4. Coal to Gas Substitution

5. Carbon Capture & Storage

1. Energy Efficiency– Power-Aware Buildings– Fuel Efficiency– Sustainable Transportation

2. Alternative Energy– Alternative Fuels Bio fuels– Renewables

• Wind • Solar• Thermal• Thermoelectric• …

3. Nuclear Energy

4. Coal to Gas Substitution

5. Carbon Capture & Storage

Possible Research Roadmap to 100MMT CO2 E/yr in 2050

California GHG Emissions (MMTCO2E/yr)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Historical with electricity importsHistorical, no electricity importsForecast baseline emissionsGoals (with imports)

Step 1:Step 1:•• Research Program aResearch Program a•• Research Program b Research Program b •• Research Program cResearch Program c

Step 2Step 2Step (n)Step (n)

Step (x)Step (x)

2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

90.000

Emission

s (M

tCO2yr

‐1)

Emissions to theatmosphere

Parallels to the Semiconductor Roadmap

Actual Contributors to achieving Goal (slices)

– Conservation and Energy Efficiency• Buildings • Fuel Efficiency• Sustainable Transportation

– Renewable Energy• Solar• Wind• Thermoelectrics

– Batteries

– Nuclear Energy

– Coal to Gas substitution

– Carbon Sequestration

Actual contributors to achieving Goal (“slices”)

Feature size

Wafer size

Overall Equipment Efficiency

Facilities Cost of Ownership

“Time to yield”

Final yield

Ability to second source

Ability to manage IC design complexity

Interface Efficiency between fables and foundries

Actual Benchmark: Global Carbon Footprint Symbolic Benchmark: Feature size

Actual Goal:

Improve Climate Impact Outlook (needs to be quantified further)

Actual Goal:

2x performance/cost improvement every ~18 months

Controlling Greenhouse Emissions

Legislative Reduction Goals

Semiconductor Paradigm

Moore’s Law (proven tack record)

Multiple Axes for a Roadmap?

• Carbon is one axis for a roadmap

• Air Quality: Other Green House Gases are equally important

• Capital Outlays

• Job Growth/Creation

• Diversity of Energy Sources

• Innovation and Venture Activity

Road Mapping Functions: A Navigator

• Consensus Building– Technical Working Groups (Industry, Research, Venture, Stake

Holders, Government)

– Workshops and Planning Meetings

– Technology + Policy (T + P) Recommendations and Time Lines

• Planning to Replan– Dynamic Road Map: On-going Process

– Continuous Assessment of Effectiveness of research and T + P recommendations

• Economic and Social Benefits– Investment Strategy for Venture, Industry, Stake Holders

– (Continuing) Education + Training for students + workforce

– “Trusted Advisor” role for policy makers

ENERGY FREE HOMESZero Net Energy+ Zero Net Cost

Shankar Sastry and Costas SpanosDean and Associate Dean for Research

UC Berkeley

12Confidential

The Challenge:

Build an Energy Free Home

Founding Partners

13Confidential

Tsinghua University

Buildings Use Significant Energy

$370 BillionTotal U.S. Annual Energy Costs

200%Increase in U.S. Electricity Consumption Since 1990

40%Total U.S. Energy Consumption for Buildlings

72%Total U.S. Electricity Consumption for Buildings

55%Total U.S. Natural Gas Consumption for Buildings

14Confidential

Source: U.S. Department of Energy 2007 Building Energy Data Book. Sept 2007

The Challenge

The Challenge: Build an Energy Free Home

Zero Net Cost

Costs no more to own and operate in year 1 than a traditional home

100% Scalable

Uses technologies and solutions relevant for  millions of homes

Zero Net Energy

Produces enough renewable energy to cover all it’s energy use

100% Practical

Requires no major changes in lifestyle. It’s light, warm, comfortable.

15Confidential

$10,000,000 Grand prize

$ 1,000,000 Gold Prizes (10 Awards)

$20 Million Prize Purse

16Confidential

Two Phase Challenge

Build PhaseDesign Phase

100 + Homes Built

Contestant Teams Design Homes

10 Winning Home Designs

Built

10 Homes Monitored

10 Design Winners

Ten $1 million awards

Grand Prize Winner

One $10 million award

17Confidential

Challenges: History of ResultsChallenges Catalyze Exploration and Innovation: 1492-2008

2004Ansari X PrizeSpace Flight

1492 Spanish Crown,

ColumbusDiscovery of New World

1795Napoleon Bonaparte

Food Preservation

1714British

ParliamentLongitude, Navigation

1919-1927Orteig PrizeFirst Trans-

Atlantic Flight

1927Dole Air

RaceFirst CA to HI Flight

18Confidential

Issues that need to be addressed • Climate Zones

• Cost Definition in Competition Design

• Competition Criteria

• Setting the Bar

• Timing and Innovation

Climate

Issue All experts agree that each climate zone has distinct challenges requiring different design and technology solutions.

RecommendationThree climates: hot-dry, hot-humid and cold(OR Single location, with stated intent to repeat)

Rationale• Need credibility with experts• Builders, regulators and general public discount results if not

in their climate• Will generate more entrants due to parochial nature of

builders, architects in highly fragmented industry

The Challenge uses the homeowner’s annual energy bill as the metric for zero energy.

Contestant homes are expected to have an annual energy bill of zero. In other words, the home needs to produce energy with a financial value at least equivalent to the financial value of energy consumed.

Measure

The winning home will produce at least as much energy as it consumes.

Aspiration

Net Zero Energy

Definition – Net Zero Energy

The Challenge will look at:

Net Cost = Annual Incremental Mortgage Payment + Incremental Operating Costs - Annual Energy Bill Avoided

Incremental costs in this equation are those costs that are incurred to deliver the zero energy benefits. Incremental mortgage payment is the amount by which the annual mortgage bill increases to pay for up front costs incurred to deliver the zero energy benefit.

Measure

Homeowners will not pay one additional dollar for the benefit of having a net zero energy bill. The energy cost savings will be sufficient to pay for any increased costs to build and operate the equipment and materials that deliver net zero energy.

Aspiration

Net Zero Cost

Definition – Net Zero Cost

The Challenge will look at how well the contestant home meets typical lifestyle and safety considerations in the U.S. market.

Measure

The Energy Free Home is practical to live in for an average American family. It does not demand major lifestyle changes on the part of the occupants to realize its energy-free potential and is safe and comfortable to live in.

AspirationPractical – No Lifestyle Trade-offs Required

The Challenge will look at the consumer appeal of the home design, both inside and out. A panel of consumers will rate contestant homes on a scale of 1 (highly undesirable) to 5 (highly desirable).

Measure

Potential home buyers will find the energy free home very aesthetically pleasing.

AspirationPractical – People Like It

Definition - Practical

Comment – what does “practical”mean?• There are two perspectives to the "practical" or "marketable"

issue. These have to be homes that (1) BUYERS want to buy and enjoy living in and (2) BUILDERS know they can sell and that will not have problems down the line. Obviously these are inter-related.

• We may state these elements as the aspiration. These could be rated in terms of how "Attractive", "Livable", "Safe", and "Durable“ the home is. The first two will appeal to most buyers; the second two are essential for builders and for some buyers.

• We could add "Healthy" to include air quality. This is a bigger issue in EU rather than US, but this is likely to change.

The Challenge will look at the degree to which the technologies and designs that deliver the zero energy benefit for each home can be replicated or applied very widely to new home construction around the world and can be beneficial in retrofitting existing homes.

Measure

The Energy Free Home should become the best-practice example that inspires others to build zero energy homes.

Its key components must be relevant for millions of homes around the world; technologies or designs that can be used in only a small set of locations will not be sufficient.

AspirationScalable – Relevant for Millions of Locations

Definition - Scalable

Principles, Rules & Guidelines

Guiding Principles

Design Submission Rules

Design Evaluation Guidelines

Build Rules

Test Rules

Final Evaluation Guidelines

All these documents are public.

Guiding Principles define the objectives and can be used to resolve ambiguities at any time.

Rules are meant for contestants.

Guidelines are meant for judges.

Setting the Bar

Issue: Where should we set the bar on zero cost? 30 year payback? 10 year payback? Zero year payback?

– Set bar too high -- knowledgeable competitors will not enter and will be dismissive (will not pass the “laughable bar”)

– Set bar too low – will not achieve contest objectives

Three steps to get to a recommendation:1. State of the industry today: Determine how close we are to zero

cost over 30 years today. 2. Estimate what state of industry will be in 12-18 months, when

entrants are due (based on projected changes in energy prices and PV costs & understanding of any near-to-market new technologies and how they might change the equation)

3. “How High” Judgment -- Make a judgment call about how far we want to be above high above the “natural” bar expected to exist in 12-18 months.

Setting the Bar – Data

Florida Solar Energy Center summary for National Academy of Sciences

• Zero (30 year @7%) cost for average home energy bill of $1596/year allows for $20k up front spending, half of current best practice

• Still hard to get zero energy, at any price

• Occupant behavior important to both heating/cooling and plug loads

• We need to calculate payback time for each of these homes

Best practice for ZEH requires $40k to $50k up front cost

Setting the Bar

To bring point 4 down in cost we need new technologies in the following areas:1. Onsite generation2. Windows3. Onsite energy storage4. Limiting/addressing plug loads

that dominate for ZEH, 5. Making energy efficient

features insensitive to occupant behavior

Current state-of-art is 50% savings at zero net cost today (cash flow)However, rising energy prices may effectively SHORTEN payback time –how do we capture that?

Timing and Innovation• EFH has two major elements: reduced demand and on-site

supply/generation.

• There are no silver bullets to reduce demand. Innovations can help and are needed, but there will still be a need to do lots of little things better than standard practice.

• Generation side is conducive to game-changing innovations and there are already very powerful market incentives spurring innovation in this area.

Guiding Principles

• This is a high-level outline of the critical rules that will guide the judges in picking a winner.

• Key assumptions:– Two phases: That there will be a design phase and a build phase

of the Challenge.

– One / Few Build Location(s): That a small set of homes that win the design phase of the competition will be built in one location (TBD) selected by the EFHF.

– Utility pays for electricity sold back to the grid – The Challenge site will be assumed to be in a location where the local utility will allow homeowners to put excess electrical energy back into the grid and will compensate them for that energy.

– Incremental energy “income” for excess electricity sold to the grid can offset other energy costs (e.g. gas or propane) if contestants build using homes that use those fuels.

BACK UPS