Final Project

TRANSITION SCHEME:
REDUCING EMISSIONS
by 2050

Hannah Lee, Emi Kolde, Samantha Lieberman, and Emi Eckey

EE 299, Payman Arabshahi
September 22, 2019
 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. ​ABSTRACT 2

II. ​CURRENT SITUATION 3

III. ​EMISSION CONTRIBUTORS 4

IV. ​REDUCING NET CONSUMPTION 5

V. ​ADDING UP THE REQUIREMENTS 10

VI. ​NUCLEAR 12

VII. ​CARBON CAPTURE 15

VIII. ​MAJOR RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY 17

IX. ​BUDGET AND POLICY 26

X. ​CONCLUSION 28

XI. ​REFERENCES 29
 2

I. ABSTRACT

There have been many proposals brought forward to combat increasing greenhouse gas
emissions in an increasingly industrialized, consumer-driven world. However, most of these
plans are neither economically or socially feasible. In order to move forward with new policies
and regulations for emissions and energy usage, the citizens’ will must be considered. The
United States cannot immediately shut down an industry if it means losing millions of jobs -
there must be a transitional plan for those workers that will allow them to reintegrate into the
workforce, either in the replacement industry or in a different sector.

The purpose of this paper is to present a reasonable transition scheme for the United States of
America. With the goal of reducing global climate change to two degrees Celsius in mind, this
plan delineates an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2020 levels by December
31, 2050. This substantial reduction will be achieved through a decrease in energy consumption,
a gradual transition away from transportation fuels, an increase in renewable energies, and the
introduction of new technologies, all brought together by overarching, nationwide policies. By
these methods, this plan aims to minimize the impact on the lives of U.S. citizens while
simultaneously providing the necessary changes that the United States must contribute to the
global, collective efforts of curtailing climate change.

A simplified, four-step plan below delineates the core principles of this plan:

1. Reduce direct emissions by converting transportation sector to depend heavily on

electricity rather than fossil fuels
2. Increase efficiency in commercial, residential, and industry sectors to reduce energy
consumption in the country
3. Cover the reduced energy demand with renewable and zero-emission resources
4. Reach these goals in an efficient and cost-effective manner through the introduction of a
cap-and-trade policy, as well as aggressive new efficiency standards and tax incentives.
 3

II. CURRENT SITUATION

If there is one thing in today’s increasingly polarized political climate that all politicians can
agree on, it is the urgency to reduce carbon emissions and prevent the greenhouse effect from
raising temperatures by two degrees. Unless there is a universal understanding that this requires
a global effort, real change will not occur; every country has to work collectively to reduce their
carbon emissions. The president of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, summed it up well in this
statement, “It is a collective endeavor, it’s collective accountability and it may not be too late.”
However, this issue must take into account the powerful financial factors blocking any progress
in policy within the United States.

Just as Lagarde stated that global emissions reductions must come from a collective endeavor of
many states, the emissions issue in the United States must also stem from a collective effort of
the citizens. In 2017, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (GHG emissions) totaled 6456.1 million
metric tons of CO2 equivalents (CO2eq) (EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks). As this the most recent data that has been released regarding nationwide emissions, it is
assumed in this plan that 2020 levels (the initial levels) are consistent with the previously listed
2017 levels. An 80% reduction then of these levels is as follows:

6456.1 million × 0.2 = 1291.22 million tons

Therefore, this plan calls for a reduction of 5.16488 billion tons of emissions per year starting in
2050; CO2eq emissions must be at 1.291 billion tons or less each year by 2050.
 4

III. EMISSION CONTRIBUTORS

The top major emission contributors are transportation fuels, gas furnaces, electricity
production, and industrial processes. Transportation fuels is 28.9 percent of 2017 greenhouse
gas emissions and includes ​the movement of people and goods by cars, trains, ships, airplanes,
and other vehicles.​ The larger part of greenhouse gases result from ​the combustion of
petroleum-based products in internal combustion engines.​ ​Small amounts of ​methane ​and
nitrous oxide ​are emitted during fuel combustion.

Electricity production is 27.5 percent of 2017 greenhouse gas emissions and this sector ​involves
the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. Large amounts of carbon dioxide
and smaller amounts of methane and nitrous oxide are released during the combustion of fossil
fuels to produce electricity.

Industry is 22.2 percent of 2017 greenhouse gas emissions. G​reenhouse gas emissions from the
industrial processes sector mainly involve fossil fuels burned on site at facilities for energy to
produce raw materials and goods. Direct emissions primarily come from the consumption of
fossil fuels for energy and one third come from leaks from natural gas and petroleum systems.
Burning fossil fuel at a power plant to make electricity produces indirect emissions which is then
used by an industrial facility to power machinery and industrial buildings.

Land-use, forestry, and land-use change is a net sink and offsets approximately 11% of these
greenhouse gas emissions, not included in the graph or in the total emissions given above
(epa.gov). ​As plants grow they absorb ​carbon dioxide ​from the atmosphere and store the carbon
as aboveground and belowground
biomass.
 5

IV. REDUCING NET CONSUMPTION

Transportation

As seen in Section III, transportation fuels are the largest contributors to GHG emissions.
Reducing the net consumption of energy and cutting the emission contributions from
transportation is the largest widespread change that can be made to help reach the goal of 80%
reductions by 2050. This plan calls for a major increase in all-electric vehicles (EVs), plug-in
hybrids (PHEVs), hybrid vehicles, and an increase in fuel economy standards for the country, in
order to best combat the carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide equivalents emitted by standard
cars.

In 2016, the average fuel efficiency of standard gas-fueled cars in the United States was 24.7
miles per gallon (mpg) (Marcacci). According to Forbes, EVs, despite the fact that they are
charged by power grids that may burn fossil fuels (though this can be displaced, as will be seen
in following sections), produce significantly fewer GHG emissions than standard cars, as the
average EV on US roads has approximately the same GHG emissions as a standard car if it were
to have a fuel efficiency of 80 mpg. In order to make EV usage more widespread, the plan
borrows from Norway’s effective measures that have taken place within the last ten years. From
2011 to 2018, EV and PHEV sales in Norway has increased from 1.6% of new sales to 49%
(Plumer). This has been accomplished by a specific set of EV tax incentives, including a taxing
system where tax rates are correlated to the levels of emissions in cars and a “50% rule” where
EV fares on ferries and toll roads cannot be greater than 50% of the cost for standard cars
(“Norwegian EV Policy”). By implementing similar incentives and by placing higher standards
on the fuel efficiency of new cars, trucks, and commercial vehicles, the United States will
drastically decrease the GHG emissions contributed by transportation fuels.

Placing a standard of averaging 60 mpg for all new passenger cars and trucks by 2025 (slightly
more aggressive than the 54.5 mpg Obama-era standard), the plan will avert over 570 million
metric tons of GHG emissions by 2030, or more than 140 typical coal-fired power plants
running for one year (Irfan). By the following data points (according to the EPA) and
calculations:

CO2 Emissions (99% of GHG emissions from cars) from a gallon of gasoline: 8,887
grams CO2/gallon

Total number of registered passenger cars and trucks (Bureau of Transportation

Statistics):
250,553,248

Average mpg of standard vehicles in US in 2016: 24.7 mpg

 6

Taking an average travel distance of 11,000 miles/year per vehicle:

11,000 miles/yr
24.7 miles per gallon = 445.344 gallons/yr

0.000001 metric tons

445.344 gallons/yr × 8, 887 grams CO2/gallon × 1 gram = 3.96 tons CO2/yr

One vehicle produces 3.96 tons of CO2 emissions per year.

3.96 tons CO2/car × 250, 553, 248 cars = 991632661.5 tons CO2/year

In the US, highway vehicles account for approximately 992 million tons of CO2 emissions each
year.

It would be impractical and unreasonable to assume or to expect a rapid transition to these new,
much more efficient cars, as most citizens would not be able to afford such a drastic lifestyle
change within the next few years. However, assuming that vehicle turnover is approximately
fifteen years (and this is at most vehicle’s largest lifespan; turnover may be much less than this),
it can be safely assumed that the 60mpg standard will be seen for all cars by 2040. The actual
average mpg for all passenger cars and light trucks may be higher than 60mpg by 2050, since
technologies will improve, but with a safe assumption of 60mpg:

11,000 miles/yr
60 miles per gallon = 183.33 gallons/yr

0.000001 metric tons

183.33 gallons/yr × 8, 887 grams CO2/gallon × 1 gram = 1.629283 tons CO2/yr

One vehicle under the new standards will produce 1.63 tons of CO2 emissions per year.

With tax incentives and government policies, it is also expected that the push towards EVs to be
great. Allowing for the introduction of new infrastructure (mainly, charging stations and the
charging capability of a high volume of plug in vehicles) and the vehicle turnover for citizens to
transition to electric vehicles, the plan calls for 75% of all passenger cars and light trucks to be
all-electric by 2050. In addition, the plan sets it up so that by 2050, the electricity that will be
required to charge these vehicles to be sourced from renewables and zero-emission energy (see
Sections VI-VIII).

250, 553, 248 cars × 0.25 = 62, 638, 312 gas − f ueled and hybrid cars & trucks

1.63 tons CO2/car × 62, 638, 312 vehicles = 102, 100, 448.6 metric tons CO2/year

Under the new standard, gas-fueled and hybrid passenger cars and trucks will account for
approximately 102 million tons of CO2 emissions each year.
 7

991632661.5 metric tons CO2 − 102100448.6 metric tons CO2 ≈ 889.5 million metric tons CO2

The new 60mpg standard, combined with the increase in electric vehicle presence, saves
approximately 889.5 million metric tons of CO2 emissions a year. From the estimated 2020
levels of 6,456.1 million metric tons of CO2eq emitted each year:

889.5 million tonnes of CO2

6,456.1 million tonnes of CO2eq = 0.1378 or ≈ 13.78% of GHG emissions saved

The cost of this transition towards EVs, PHEVs, and increased fuel efficiency is one that cannot
be ignored. Though the plan calls for these changes rather than an overhaul of the public
transportation system in an effort to limit the lifestyle changes American citizens would have to
face, keeping the cost of comfort and ease low for the people, the policies that would be put into
place in order to reach these goals do impose a financial cost. The budget and feasibility of this
will be covered more thoroughly in Section IX.

Although passenger vehicles and light trucks make up the vast majority of highway vehicles and
transportation in the United States, public transportation can also play a role in minimizing
GHG emissions. This plan requires, by 2050 (to allow for vehicle turnover and for funding to be
acquired), that all public school district buses and all transit buses to be all-electric.

Currently, approximately 95% of American school buses run on diesel. In addition, more than
60% of the ~70,000 transit buses nationwide also run on diesel, while 18% run on natural gas
and only 0.2% of transit buses are all-electric. According to the US Public Interest Research
Group, replacing all of the American school buses with electric buses will displace an estimated
5.3 million tons of GHG emissions each year. Replacing all of the diesel-powered transit buses
will approximately 2 million tons of emissions each year.

Although electric buses, over time, will save school districts approximately $6,400 or more per
bus each year in fuel and maintenance and electric transit buses can save cities an estimated
$25,000 in fuel per bus each year, The greatest obstacles with transitioning to all-electric buses
currently are the upfront costs of electric buses and the charging capabilities that must be
installed for the buses (US PIRG). This is why the deadline to replace buses is at the end of the
timeline. The thirty year period is sufficient to plan for the transition and to acquire funds for
the upfront costs and the changes in systems that are necessary for the all-electric fleets to be
functional.

In total:

889.5 M M T CO2 (cars & light trucks) + 5.3 M M T CO2 (school buses) + 2 M M T CO2 (transit)
= 896.8 M M T CO2 emissions saved by transportation
 8

896.8 million tons of CO2

6,456.1 million tons of CO2eq = 0.1389 or ≈ 13.89% of GHG emissions saved

In order to calculate the reduction in not just emissions but in energy consumption due to these
new standards, the following calculations are executed:

445.344 gallons/year f or previous × 250553248 cars = 1.116 × 1011 gallons of gas previously

183.33 gallons/year with new standard x 62638312 cars = 1.15 × 1010 gallons of gas

1.116 × 1011 gallons − 1.15 × 1010 gallons ≈ 1 × 1011 gallons saved per year

1 × 1011 gallons × 3.79 Liters

1 gallon × 10 kW h
1 Liter ≈ 3793.75 T W h of energy saved

By these calculations, the plan’s new standards saves nearly 4,000 TWh of energy a
year by 2050 by increasing fuel efficiency and transitioning to electric vehicles.

However, the introduced energy consumption of charging electric vehicles must also be
considered as they become more prevalent. In order to do this, the average energy
consumption for electric vehicles was found (17 kWh per 100 km), and the following
calculations were carried out:

17 kW h 1 km
100 km × 0.621371 miles = 0.2735885646 kW h/mi ≈ 0.27 kW h/mi

Keeping the assumptions that passenger vehicles travel 11,000 miles each year, and that
75% of all cars and light trucks will be electric by 2050:

250553248 passenger vehicles × 0.75 = 187914636 all − electric vehicles

0.27 kW h 11,000 miles 1 TWh

187914636 all − electric vehicles × mile × vehicle * year × 109 kW h
≈ 558.107 T W h

Therefore, the introduced cost of charging electric vehicles will be 558.107 TWh.

Since accurate data regarding the distance traveled by buses or the total fuel consumption of the
vehicles could not be found, the reductions and introduced energy consumptions switching to
all-electric buses would create were not explicitly calculated. However, it is expected that the
numbers to be in accordance to the data found for passenger vehicles, and since the reduction in
energy was much greater than the introduced cost, it is suspected that leaving the calculations
out for buses will create an over-compensation of how much total energy consumption that must
be replaced with renewable and zero-carbon sources.
 9

Buildings & New Codes

According to the US Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, an estimated 75% of U.S.
buildings will be new or renovated by 2035. Currently, there are 114 million households and 4.7
million commercial buildings in the United States that collectively contribute approximately 40
quadrillion BTus a year, or 11,722.84 TWh (“Energy Efficiency Trends”). The plan is based off of
the California building standards of 2016, with which the California Energy Commission
calculated that the stricter codes would reduce energy-use intensity by 29% for residents and
13% for commercial buildings.

Due to a lack of accurate and recent data, in addition to there not having been nation-wide
attempts at major building standards, a few assumptions have been made for the plan. First, it is
assumed that by 2050, the requirement of all U.S. buildings to be new or renovated will be met.
Second, it is assumed that the average reduction in energy usage across the households with
residents and the commercial buildings is 22%, factoring in the knowledge that there are many
more households but that commercial buildings are larger. With these assumptions, it is
calculated that the energy consumption of buildings with the new standards will be:

11722.84 T W h × 0.78 = 9, 143.8152 T W h

And therefore, the new standards will save 2,579.0248 TWh per year by the year 2050.

These changes to the transportation and building sectors, as stated previously, will be guided by
a strict set of policies. This will both directly force changes (such as the increased fuel efficiency
of new car models) and indirectly cause changes, as it is expected that increasing energy costs
(for consumers) and the pressure from the cap and trade system (on the companies) will drive
consumers and companies to make energy-efficient transitions on their own, ahead of the given
timeline.
 10

V. ADDING UP THE REQUIREMENTS

According to the EIA, in 2018, the total energy consumption of the United States was 101.3
quadrillion BTus, or 29,688.1 TWh. As this is the most recent data, it is assumed that the 2020
energy consumption is the same.

Currently, out of the 101.3 quadrillion BTus consumed in 2018, 11% of the energy was sourced
from renewable energy, and 8% of the energy was made up by nuclear electric power. With
conversions:

T otal Energy : 29, 688.1 T W h

29, 688.1 T W h × 0.11 = 3265.691 T W h of Renewable Energy

3268.691 T W h × 0.02 (geothermal) = 65.374 T W h geothermal

3268.691 T W h × 0.08 (solar) = 261.495 T W h solar
3268.691 T W h × 0.22 (wind) = 719.112 T W h wind
3268.691 T W h × 0.45 (biomass) = 1470.911 T W h biomass
3268.691 T W h × 0.23 (hydroelectric) = 751.799 T W h hydroelectric

29, 688.1 T W h × 0.08 = 2375.048 T W h of N uclear Electric P ower

29668.1 T W h (total) − 3265.691 T W h (renewable) − 2375.048 T W h (nuclear)

= 24027.361 T W h energy consumption (excluding renewables and zero emission)

Factoring in calculations from Section IV, the updated consumption is as follows:

24027.361 T W h initial consumption

− 2, 579.0248 T W h saved f rom residential and commercial building codes
− 3, 793.75 T W h saved f rom transitioning away f rom gas − f ueled cars
+ 558.107 T W h introduced consumption of charging electric vehicles

≈ 18, 212.7 T W h updated consumption per year in 2050

By the year 2050, approximately 18,000 TWh of energy must be replaced by renewable and zero
emission sources. Section VI & VII will explore the different resources that this plan will
consider to accomplish this. Since renewable and zero-emission sources will not contribute to
GHG emissions, this will cut GHG emissions by 62%. This figure was calculated by considering
the percentage of GHG emissions each sector is currently contributing (12% Residential and
Commercial, 22% Industry, and 28% Electricity), since the primary emission contributing factor
of sourcing energy (burning fossil fuels) for these sectors has successfully been removed. With
 11

the reduced consumption and the introduction of new energy sources, this plan effectively saves
approximately 76% (62% + 14%). To cover the rough 4% to reach 80% reductions, this plan
relies on new technologies and minimal lifestyle changes, as mentioned in Section IV and to be
presented in Section VI.
 12

VI. NUCLEAR

Social Reality
Nuclear power is a virtually untapped well of clean energy with vast potential to combat rising
levels of greenhouse gases. From a scientific standpoint, it is a clean cut answer to aiding in
fossil fuel reduction. The issue arises both in the economic and social arenas, as the connotation
surrounding the world nuclear immediately quells any momentum this technology gains.
People’s lack of scientific understanding of nuclear energy - and how it is different than nuclear
proliferation - has created many obstacles in the exploration of its potential, causing it to remain
an expensive alternative to fossil fuels. However, if the United States plans to reduce their CO2e
emissions by at least 80% over the next three decades, nuclear energy will need to play a large
role in making that a regality.

Calculations
As of 2018, the country’s nuclear reactors produced 2,375 TWh in nuclear electric power, which
comprises about 8% of total energy consumption (eia.gov). This energy comes from the 97
nuclear power reactors in 59 plants operating in 29 states (world-nuclear.org). In order to
produce the necessary amount of clean energy, nuclear as a zero-carbon option will need to be
expanded. Nuclear energy facilities have small area footprints, requiring only about 1.3 square
miles per 1,000 megawatts of installed capacity. This figure is based on the median land area of
the 59 nuclear plant sites in the United States. In addition, nuclear energy facilities have a
typical generating capacity of 3000 MW (nei.org). Using these numbers it was calculated, in
TWh, the quantity of additional energy that could be conserved and the consequential reduction
in emissions.

days
3000M W × 24 hours
day
× 365 year × 1000 kW
1 MW
= 2.628 × 1010 kW h/year f rom one power plant operating f ull time

2.628 × 1010 kW h 11 kW h
year × 35 plants = 9.198 × 10 year ×
1 TWh
1×109 kW h
= 919.8 T W h/year f or 35 plants

2.628 × 1010 kW h 12 kW h
year × 40 plants = 1.0512 × 10 year ×
1 TWh
1×109 kW h
= 1051.2 T W h/year f or 40 plants

2.628 × 1010 kW h
year × 45 plants = 1.1826 × 10
12 kW h
year × 1 TWh
1×109 kW h
= 1182.6 T W h/year f or 45 plants

30 × 3.9 mi2 = 136.5 mi2 land space required to build 35 new reactors

40 × 3.9 mi2 = 156 mi2 land space required to build 40 new reactors

45 × 3.9 mi2 = 175.5 mi2 land space required to build 45 new reactors
 13

Cost Analysis and Incentives

Due to the importance of implementing nuclear energy, and the substantial price tag that
accompanies its production - the government introduced a production tax credit (PTC) of 1.8
cents per kilowatt hour of electricity produced by nuclear plants for up to 6,000 MWh. This tax
initially only applied to plants in service before the end of 2020, but was extended so that credits
could be claimed even after 2020. The PTC is an essential part of constructing new plants. Other
incentives will also be important in encouraging the transition, such as subsidies.

The World Economic Forum calculates $96 per megawatt hour (MWh), most of which involves
capital construction costs (weforum.org).

1000000 M W h
$96/M W h × 1 TWh = $96, 000, 000/T W h

9.6 × 107 dollars

T W h × 919.8 T W h = $88, 300, 800, 000 f or 35 reactors

9.6 × 107 dollars

T W h × 1051.2 T W h = $100, 815, 200, 000 f or 40 reactors

9.6 × 107 dollars

T W h × 1182.6 T W h = $113, 529, 600, 000 f or 45 reactors

About 80% of this cost is the capital cost of construction. The real cost of nuclear power is the
initial money that is required to implement a plant, but not keep it running.

$88, 300, 800, 000 × .80 = $70, 640, 640, 000 capital cost f or 35 reactors

$100, 815, 200, 000 × .80 = $80, 652, 160, 000 capital cost f or 40 reactors

$113, 529, 600, 000 × .80 = $90, 823, 680, 000 capital cost f or 45 reactors

The economic impact beyond the construction and operating costs is also an important factor.
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, each nuclear reactor employs between 400 and 700
skilled workers, has a payroll of about $40 million, and contributes $470 million to the local
economy ( Devashree Saha). This means that nuclear can accomodate for jobs lost in the fossil
fuel industry in the United States. According to the numbers from current plants in the U.S.,
each plant has an average of 2 reactors in operation. Using these numbers:

2 reactors
35 plants × plant = 70 reactors , 35 plants could provide between 28,000 - 49,000 jobs for skilled
workers

2 reactors
40 plants × plant = 80 reactors , 40 plants could provide between 32,000 - 56,000 jobs for skilled
workers
 14

2 reactors
45 plants × plant = 90 reactors , 45 plants could provide between 36,000 - 63,000 jobs for skilled
workers

These numbers do not account for the jobs created for engineers, professionals, and technicians,
which means that the plant itself would create even more jobs. Additionally, according to the
Nuclear Energy Institute, for every 100 power plant jobs, 66 jobs are created in the local
community (nei.org). This would mean that the number of total jobs created in communities
near nuclear power plants would be exponentially more.

For the purposes of this plan, the calculations and data for implementing 40 new power plants
will be utilized - including the cost and area projections.
 15

VII. CARBON CAPTURE

Analysis and Calculations

The Congressional Budget Office wrote a report estimating that the US has the potential to offset
about a decade’s worth of carbon equivalent emissions through biological sequestration and a
few hundred year’s worth through carbon capture and storage (cbo.gov). Presently, there are six
methods for removing carbon from the atmosphere, those including: forests by photosynthesis,
farms by natural soil carbon storage, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS),
direct air capture, seawater capture, and enhanced weathering. Current land use and forestry
practices have the net effect of capturing and removing the equivalent 11.1 percent of greenhouse
gas emissions.

The IPCC, which considers soil carbon sequestration to have the ability to reduce carbon dioxide
at the lowest cost - $0-$100 per ton - estimates that this method could remove between 2-5
gigatons annually by 2050. The IPCC also estimates that BECCS could remove between 0.5 and
5 gigatons of carbon a year by 2050 as well (columbia.edu). Proposing this technology to be in
place by 2030:

GT
2.5 year × (2040 − 2030) = 25 GT
GT
5.0 year × (2050 − 2040) = 50 GT
GT
1.5 year × (2040 − 2030) = 15 GT
GT
5.0 year × (2050 − 2040) = 50 GT

GT
140 year × 1000000000 metric tons
1 GT = 1.4 × 1011 metric tons removed f rom 2030 − 2050

​Assuming these methods to be fully operational by 2050, the yearly capture of emissions would
be:

10 GT
year × 1000000000 metric tons
1 GT × 1 kW h
7×10−4 metric tons
= 1.428571429 × 1013 kW h
year

1.428571429 × 1013 kW h
year ×
1 TWh
1×109 kW h
= 14, 285.71429 T W h/year

GT
10 year × 1000000000 metric tons
1 GT = 1 × 1010 metric tons/year

However, the reality of these methods operating at max capacity and on this scale by 2050 is
less-than-likely. Taking a percentage of these, 40% and 15% respectively, produces a clearer
picture of the impact carbon capture can have - not even accounting for some other methods
that could be put into operation.
1 × 1010 metric
year
tons
× .40 = 4, 000, 000, 000 or 4 × 109 metric tons/year

1 × 1010 metric
year
tons
× .15 = 1, 500, 000, 000 or 1.5 × 109 metric tons/year
 16

The IPCC estimates that the BECCS cost range from $60-$250 per ton of CO2.

1.10 dollars
1 euro × 35 euro = $38.5/metric ton

1.10 dollars
1 euro × 50 euro = $55.0/metric ton

1.5 × 109 metric

year
tons
÷ 2 = 7.5 × 108 metric tons/year by each method

15%: (7.5 × 108 ) × $60 = $45, 000, 000, 000 low-end of range for BECCS
15%: (7.5 × 108 ) × $250 = $187, 500, 000, 000 high-end of range for BECCS

15%: (7.5 × 108 ) × $38.5 = $28, 875, 000, 000 low-end of range for CCS
15%: (7.5 × 108 ) × $55.0 = $41, 250, 000, 000 high-end of range for CCS

15% low-end of range total:

$45, 000, 000, 000 + $28, 875, 000, 000 = $73, 875, 000, 000
15% high-end of range total:
$187, 500, 000, 000 + $41, 250, 000, 000 = $228, 750, 000, 000
 17

VIII. MAJOR RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY

The United States is incredibly large and diverse in its landscape, resources, and inhabitants.
Despite a multitude of sustainable options and technologies, any plan to use more energy
efficient options must be nuanced and curated to specific areas throughout the country. This
section aims to present the best sustainable options and where they can function at maximum
efficiency, realistically. After factoring in zero-emission nuclear, the total amount of energy that
needs to be covered by renewables is 16,500 TWh/year.

Wind

The first major sustainable energy option is wind. Although already in use, the United States
could increase its use of wind energy across the country. According to ​NREL​, wind produces
about 82,000 MW of energy per year.

365 days
82, 000 M W × 1000 kW
1 MW × 24 hours
1 day × 1 year = 7.0 × 1011 kW h/year = 700 T W h/year

These wind farms are located in these regions of the United States:

Additionally, wind speeds in the United States are as follows:

 18

The ideal wind speed for wind turbines is between 4 meters/second and 16 meters/second.
Based on the map, ideal locations include the Great Plains, Midwest, and select areas on the
coasts. However, for maximum benefit, most wind power should be concentrated in the center
of the country, and already is. However, theoretically increasing the number of wind farms could
add to the amount of energy produced, especially in areas like tornado alley where the
population density is relatively low. Based on the map and the locations of wind farms in the
United States, there seems to be room for more to be added. Reasonably, the United States could
triple its wind farms, mainly increasing their prevalence in the Great Plains and across the
Midwest. Therefore, wind energy could produce up to 2100 TWh/year of energy.

This means that this plan accounts for an additional 1400 TWh of wind energy each year.

According to Bergey Windpower Co., wind farms cost about $50,000/10 kW to install. In
TWh/year, that’s:

1 TW 24 hour 365 days

10 kW × 1000000000 kW × 1 day × 1 year = 0.00009 T W h/year

$50,000 for every 0.00009 TWh/year

1400 T W h/year
0.00009 T W H/year × 50, 0000 = $380, 000, 000, 000

Total installations, therefore, would cost $380,000,000,000.

Solar
 19

Energy from the sun can also be used in the form of solar heating and photovoltaic (PV) farms.
According to ​NBC News,​ coveted “personal” PV systems are not a completely sustainable option.
Not only are they expensive, but they produce almost a negligible amount of energy. Rather,
large PV farms (miles of area covered in solar panels) are a more cost-effective, high producing
option (Harris). These farms could function best in California, North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada,
New Jersey, and other states with large unpopulated sunny areas (“Which States are Best for
Solar Power?”). Currently in the United States, “Solar Star,” located just outside of Los Angeles,
is the largest PV farm. Solar Star has the potential to produce 579 MW of energy from 1.7 million
solar panels, and displaces 570,000 tonnes of carbon (Becker, Whitlock).

A farm the size of Solar Star (13 km​2​) produces:

365 days 9
579 M W × 1000 kW 24 hours
1 M W × 1 day × 1 year = 5.07 × 10 kW h/year = 5.07 T W h/year

Building more farms like Solar Star has the potential to produce massive amounts of energy in
the United States, ideally in places with a low population density and a large amounts of
sunlight, in other words, deserts. Fortunately, the Great Basin, Mojave, Sonoran, and
Chihuahuan Deserts are all located in the United States. Together, they cover an area of 603,000
km​2​. In other words, about the area of 4600 Solar Stars.

The total potential energy is 23,322 TWh/year.

However, this number assumes that every last meter of desert will be covered in solar panels,
which is impossible. Many of these desert regions are covered in rocks, are populated, or simply
too remote for workers to travel to for their jobs. More realistically, it can be assumed that about
half of this energy potential is viable, so about 11,661 TWh/year.

As mentioned in Section V, solar energy currently produces approximately 261.495 TWh each
year. This means that with the 50% of maximum potential that this plan calls for:

11611 T W h/year − 261.495 T W h/year = 11349.5 T W h/year

The introduction of new solar farms covering a large proportion of the deserts in the United
States provides us with an additional 11349.5 TWh/yr.
 20

Left: the current diversity of the solar workforce; there is room for improvement and inclusion. Right:
opportunity zones in the United States are often in solar friendly areas.

According to ​Energy Central,​ a large scale solar farm costs about $1 million/MW to install
(Vickery). Therefore, each PV farm the size of Solar Star would cost $579,000,000 to install. The
total construction project to cover 60% of the United States’ energy would cost roughly 1 trillion
U.S. dollars. However, farms of this scale create 650 jobs for the duration of construction, 15
full-time on site positions, and 40 maintenance jobs. According to ​NREL,​ jobs like these have
the potential to help impoverished communities prosper. “Opportunity Zones,” or economically
distressed areas where new investments could earn preferential tax treatment, are located in
prime areas for solar panels. Therefore, investment in the solar industries for these areas could
be hugely beneficial for the economy. Solar also has the potential to increase diversity and
provide jobs for marginalized groups in the workforce.

Although massive farms like Solar Star are, at present, the most innovative technologies in use,
Japan is currently working on an orbital solar farm. This farm would orbit the Earth with the
sun, removing the issue of night and collecting solar energy 24 hours every day (Harris). Despite
its potential, this project would require massive funding and is not a realistic option in the
United States.

Biomass

In countries like Brazil, biomass (or biofuels) are an incredibly valuable resource. The crops that
grow in these regions are ideal for converting into ethanol or other useful, sustainable
compounds. However, in the United States these plants do not flourish. Instead, the United
States grows corn. Although corn can be used to produce ethanol, the process is inefficient and
not environmentally friendly. Thus, it cancels out its own potential.
 21

In the United States, biomass accounts for a fair amount of energy, but not energy that is useful
in addressing the major problems at hand. For example, biomass fails to produce valuable
electricity or fuel.

A portion of this is due to lack of research in the area. More research dollars should be spent on
biomass: it has incredible potential, especially for jet fuel. However, for the present, it’s
contribution is not worth considering in a large-scale climate plan. Instead, other options like
hybrid or electric cars should be emphasized and expanded.

Hydroelectric

The use of hydropower in the United States is best in Washington, Oregon, New York,
California, and Alabama. In 2018, the total potential hydroelectric capacity of the United States
was 80,000,000 kW. If the United States allocated resources and technologies, focused on
sustainability, and continued advancements to reach this maximum potential, thats:

24 hours 365 days

80, 000, 000 kW × day × 1 year = 700 T W h/year

Therefore, producing at a maximum of 700 TWh/year hydropower. As of 2008, the United

States was producing only 282 TWh/year of hydropower. Therefore, the United States could
produce 418 TWh/year more.

Some options for meeting this potential include converting non-powered dams into hydropower
or building new hydropower dams, which is about a $4,000/kW investment per dam and pays
for itself in 4-7 years (“Hydropower Explained”).

1 year 1 day 1000000000 kW

418 T W h/year × 365 days × 24 hours × 1 TW = 47, 716, 895 kW

Therefore, paying $4,000 per kW and producing 47,716,895 kW, the total investment for
hydropower would be $190,867,579,908.
 22

Tide

Tide energy often takes two forms: tidal barrages and tidal turbines. Although tidal barrages
have proven useful in other countries (especially those that are lagoon and bay heavy), the
United States lacks adequate potential. Therefore, this plan mainly considers the use of tidal
turbines.

Tidal turbines are similar to wind turbines, yet they are slightly more expensive to install and
upkeep due to inherent ocean challenges. Areas for tidal power include both the west and east
coast, Alaska, and Hawaii. According to Georgia Tech, tidal power in Alaska could potentially
generate 16 TWh/year of energy. The combined tidal coastlines of the west and east coasts and
Hawaii is roughly equal to that of Alaska, so therefore the total potential tide power for the
United States comes to 32 TWh/year, or only 0.2% of the total energy needed. However, this
number is not entirely negligible. Alaska has a very low population and could, in theory, move
towards self-sufficiency using their tidal power. For the purposes of this proposal, tidal power
will not be considered nationwide nor factored into the budget.

Wave

Wave energy can be utilized off the coasts, for example, California, Washington, Oregon, and
Hawaii. According to the 2011 Technical Report from the Electrical Power Research Institute,
the total available wave energy resource estimate was 2.64 x 10​12​ kWh/year.

2.64 × 1012 kW h/year × 1 TWh

1000000000 kW h = 2640 T W h/year

Updated information for the cost of wave energy is not currently available. However, the cost of
wave power could be compared to that of tidal power, and a rough estimate can be produced.

Geothermal

Geothermal energy, although difficult to extract, has huge potential in the United States. Plants
take up far less space than nuclear or and coal, and can also be designed to blend into the
landscape. Currently the United States produces 65.374 TWh/year in geothermal energy.
The map above shows the power plants representing this number. However, the United States
still has many favorable, untapped areas.
 23

Looking at the map, geothermal power plants could reasonably triple in frequency.

Therefore, new geothermal plants could produce 131 TWh/year of energy.

However, cost must also be considered. According to ​ENERGY.GOV,​ geothermal power plant
costs $2500/kW to install.

1000000000 kW h 1 year 1 day

131 T W h/year × 1 TWh × 365 days × 24 hours = 1, 495, 433 kW

At $2500/kW, the total cost to install geothermal power is $3,740,000,000.

Offshore Wind

As the United States has a large number of coastal states, offshore wind, though not yet a
feasible source of energy, is a renewable that must be considered. According to the U.S.
Department of Energy 2016 National Offshore Wind Strategy, there is a technical potential of
2058 GW of offshore wind resource capacity that is accessible in the U.S. using existing
technology, or approximately 7200 TWh per year of energy output.

1 TW 24 hrs 365 days

2058 GW × 1000 GW × 1 day × 1 year = 18028.08 T W h potential

7200 T W h energy output

18028.08 T W h potential = 0.399 ≈ 39.9% energy ef f iciency in converting

Even though offshore wind has been successful in Europe and Asia, since the technologies are
relatively new and costly, as well as the maintenance factor being an unknown as the saline
environment of the oceans and the long-term costs not having been explored yet, it is not
reasonable to expect a large proportion of the maximum 7200 TWh output potential. Instead,
the plan finds it reasonable to plan for 350 GW of offshore wind. This would provide us:
 24

1 TW 24 hours 365 days

350 GW × 1000 GW × 1 day × 1 year × 0.399 ef f iciency = 1223.334 T W h/year

Implementing 350 GW of offshore wind by 2050 would only employ 17% of the technical
potential, so it is evident that offshore wind could play a major role in renewable energy after the
plan has been executed. However, within the thirty year time frame given for this plan, it is
expected that 1223.334 TWh produced in the year 2050 is both reasonable technologically (in
terms of existing technology), as well as financially (less than twenty percent of the total
potential area will be utilized).

Again, since large-scale offshore wind farms are relatively new and are not existent in the United
States, there is a lack of accessible and accurate data regarding the cost of offshore wind.
However, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency, in 2010, the installed cost
for offshore wind turbines in Europe was approximately $4000 - $4500 per kilowatt. In
addition, the operations and maintenance cost was $0.027 - $0.o48 per kWh. The levelized cost
of energy was at $0.14-$0.19 per kWh, assuming a 10% cost of capital.

If the offshore wind farms that the plan calls for were to be built with the 2010 costs, the
finances would be as follows:

$4000−$4500 1000000 kW
kW × GW × 350 GW = $1, 400, 000, 000, 000 to $1, 575, 000, 000, 000 installation

$0.14−$0.19 1223.334 T W h 1000000000 kW h

kW h × year × TWh ≈ $171, 300, 000, 000 to $232, 400, 000, 000 O&M

According to Mike O’Boyle, the Energy Innovation’s Director of Electricity Policy, the cost of
offshore wind projects in the United States has fallen by 75% since 2014. A more conservative
estimate of the cost of offshore wind projects, both in installation and in operations and
maintenance, will be approximately 50% of what it was in 2010. This would bring us to:

Installation cost:
($1, 400, 000, 000, 000 to $1, 575, 000, 000, 000) × 0.5 = 700 Billion to 787.5 Billion U SD

Annual operations and maintenance cost:

($171, 300, 000, 000 to $232, 400, 000, 000) × 0.5 = 85.7 M illion to 116.2 M illion U SD

The 350 GW of offshore wind by 2050 that this plan calls for will provide an additional
1,223.334 TWh of energy each year once the farms are completely installed, and will come at an
upfront cost of approximately 750 Billion USD with an additional estimated 100 Million USD
annually to cover operations and maintenance.

Final Calculations
 25

To meet the 74% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States from the residential
& commercial, industry, and electricity sectors, this plan calculates:

18, 212.7 T W h/yr required to be transitioned to renewables and zero − emission sources
− 1400 T W h/yr converted to wind energy (tripling current f arms)
− 11349.5 T W h/yr converted to solar energy (~ 50% of desert covered)
− 1051.2 T W h/yr converted to nuclear power with 40 new power plants
− 418 T W h/yr converted to hydroelectric power
− 32 T W h/yr converted to tidal energy
− 2640 T W h/yr converted to wave energy
− 131 T W h/yr converted to geothermal energy (tripling current power plants)
− 1223.334 T W h/yr converted to of f shore wind f arms
= − 32.334 T W h/yr

Therefore, the new power plants and farms that the plan implements source 18245.034
TWh/year by the year 2050 in renewable and zero-emission resources. This is greater than the
calculated 18212.7 TWh/year that must be converted to renewable and zero-emission resources,
which effectively replaces the energy required for many of the sectors, which in turn cuts
approximately all greenhouse gas emissions from these sectors. With the 14% of the emissions
cut by transportation changes and the 62% from these sectors, 76% of all greenhouse gas
emissions according to the assumed 2020 emission levels will be cut. The additional 4% of
emissions that must be covered to reach the 80% requirement will be met by the introduction of
carbon capture systems, which, as seen in Section VII, has the potential to remove much more
than 4% of emissions (4% is 258.244 million metric tons).

The cost of introducing each part of this plan is as follows:

$380, 000, 000, 000 (wind)

+ $1, 000, 000, 000, 000 (solar)
+ $191, 000, 000, 000 (hydroelectric)
+ $3, 700, 000, 000 (geothermal)
+ $750, 000, 000, 000 (of f shore)
+ $101, 000, 000, 000 (nuclear)
= $2, 425, 700, 000, 000 cost

The total cost of installing all new power plants and farms is approximately 2.4 Trillion USD
over the course of the 30 year plan.
 26

IX. BUDGET AND POLICY

Previous sections (III-VIII) have investigated where the emissions are coming from, the
methods to combat the current levels of greenhouse gases, and the basic policies and economics
of this plan. The sections introduce reductions in consumption, and present a steep transition
towards alternative, cleaner sources of energy in order to curb emissions. However, in order to
make these changes a large-scale reality, effective policies will need to be put into place. The cost
factor of cutting emissions is one that cannot be ignored. These funds can come from a
multitude of possible sources, all accompanied by varying consequences.

The proposed plan calls for a combination of these multiple solutions, in order to minimize the
changes imposed on the lifestyles of American citizens. It includes implementing a major
overarching cap-and-trade system, essentially putting a price on carbon. It mimics many
policies already in place, as there are more than 40 governments across the world that have
either directly taxed fossil fuels or adopted cap-and-trade policies to this day, and would bring
both the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the northeastern states of the United States and
the California cap-and-trade system to a national level (Plumer). A cap-and-trade system utilizes
a set cap on the total amount of certain greenhouse gases that can be emitted by a sector (often,
large corporations are targeted) which is reduced over time. The affected corporations can then
receive, buy, or trade emission allowances. Penalties in the form of heavy fines are awarded
annually if a company does not surrender enough allowances to cover their emissions (European
Commission).

The benefit of this system is that it forces clear cuts of emissions over a period of time while it
gives freedom to the companies in how the cuts are achieved. In order to meet the limitations
the cap places on companies, they must transition to alternative sources of energy. Britain serves
as a prime example: Parliament placed a carbon price floor in 2013, essentially putting a $25 tax
per metric ton on carbon. This has encouraged electric utilities to switch from coal to natural gas
(Plumer). Although natural gas is not a renewable source of energy, a similar transition from
coal could also follow from the pressure of a price on carbon. The cap-and-trade system will
work with the implemented plan to introduce new nuclear power plants, solar farms, wind
farms, off-shore wind farms, and increased production of energy from other sectors, as the
cap-and-trade policy incentivizes the use and production of clean energy by large companies and
electricity and energy producing corporations in order to meet the emission cap and to avoid
costs. Historically, renewable technologies have also seen “considerable cost decreases” as a
result of “technology advancements, large-scale production, and commercialization,” so with the
increased demand for clean energy, the cost of these sources will be driven down as well (2016
National Offshore Wind Strategy).

To give a synopsis of the proposed budget for the 2020 fiscal year, the federal budget would be a
record $4.746 trillion. Adding up all of the costs for new renewables, a total of 2.4 trillion dollars
(addition of previously calculated costs, see section VIII) must be spent to install and maintain
 27

all renewables, including the cost of nuclear. The cost of carbon capture must also be
considered, as it is not included in the production cost. Carbon capture is responsible for
covering the damage of past emissions; it’s program will cease to exist after all
previously-released carbon is removed. The cost of carbon capture is about 74 billion dollars.
Assessing the U.S. budget and considering other options, there are several ways to cover these
costs.

1. The United States cuts the defense budget.

The current U.S. budget allocates 989 billion dollars every year to defense. Taking just 16% of
the military budget annually for the 30 year period for energy solutions would cover their
complete cost. Additionally, as a more self-sufficient country, the United States can spend less
on foreign affairs in dealings with natural resources and imports. In an organic way, this could
already contribute to the reduction in defense spending. Defense is also responsible for a large
amount of emissions, which could be reduced on a tighter budget.

2. Cyclical Implementation
Many renewables begin to pay for themselves, and then some, after a few years. The money
coming in after their break-even point can be used to construct additional renewables, or be
poured back into the energy budget. However, this would be contingent on the efficiency of
construction and the reality of alignment with proposed capacity.

3. Personal Wealth
Additionally, the implementation of a non-profit philanthropy system with a focus on the United
States’ wealthiest citizens could help cover the cost. Billionaires such as Bill Gates (105.8
billion), Elon Musk (20 billion), and Jeff Bezos (113.3 billion), to name a few, could donate
fractions of their wealth and make a considerable dent in the expense of the project. Such
contributors could be rewarded with tax subsidies and nationwide recognition for their efforts.

4. Private Companies
In the case of carbon capture especially, private companies should take initiative to invest in the
technology, as well as promote research, so as to avoid cap-and-trade restrictions and qualify for
tax incentives. Companies like ExxonMobil are already beginning to invest heavily in the
implementation of carbon capture and are an example for others to follow.
 28

X. CONCLUSION

A relatively simple, four-step plan can be implemented to decrease emissions and remedy
climate change in America by 2050:

1. Reduce direct emissions by converting transportation sector to depend heavily on

electricity rather than fossil fuels
2. Increase efficiency in commercial, residential, and industry sectors to reduce energy
consumption in the country
3. Cover the reduced energy demand with renewable and zero-emission resources
4. Reach these goals in an efficient and cost-effective manner through the introduction of a
cap-and-trade policy, as well as aggressive new efficiency standards and tax incentives.

After exploring various options to both decrease total consumption and increase renewable
production, it became clear that an advanced combination of methods must be utilized. Through
the increased production of zero-carbon energy sources and renewables, along with the
implementation of carbon capture technologies to offset construction costs and proactively
remove carbon from the air, the goal of an 80% reduction in emissions is achieved.

However, truly solving the massive issues at hand proves to be a far more complex process,
especially in the social sector. This plan attempts to minimize lifestyle changes for citizens while
still meeting the overall reduction quota for 2050. Realistically, citizens could minimize their
emissions and energy usage. Ideas such as Meatless Mondays, walking or biking to work, and
home-grown or sustainable food, if used nationwide, could have a significant impact.

Requesting that citizens change their lifestyle (purchasing more fuel efficient cars or shopping
local) or increasing the number of windmills in a given area will not necessarily be well-received.
Regardless, the United States public must realize that these actions are essential to future life on
Earth. Americans must unite under a common cause, every member of society contributing to
the goal of building a better, sustainable world for future generations.
 29

XI. REFERENCES

● https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks
Overview of emission sources and current consumption in the US
● https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/&sa=D&
ust=1569144633907000&usg=AFQjCNGPYg5jZyXTkP8zGfXzsuv031xKnQ
● https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/corporate/bt_stateindustry.pdf
Information on US building codes and requirements
● https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/building-energy-codes-program
Analysis of energy efficient trends in US building codes
● https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/
Facts about US emissions and energy consumption
● https://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/content/nuclear-power-and-us-transition-low-carbon-energ
y-future
Economic impact of nuclear energy and information about jobs
● https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/usa-nuclear-
power.aspx
Current nuclear production data in the US
● https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants
Current nuclear power plant logistics and projected number
● https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/us-nuclear-industry.php
Information on US nuclear power plants
● https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/11/27/carbon-dioxide-removal-climate-change/
Data on carbon capture and its potential, a lot of references to IPCC
● https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/09/6-ways-remove-carbon-pollution-sky
Breakdown of carbon capture methods
● https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/09-12-carbonseque
stration.pdf
Government report on the potential and current status of carbon capture in the US
● https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/19/how-americans-see-climate-change-in-5-ch
arts/
Research on current sentiments regarding nuclear in the US
● https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/07/19/wind-turbines-could-rule-tornado-alley/
#1551538ccd3e
Wind energy potential in Tornado Alley
● https://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p25-1137.pdf
Population data on people living in high-energy potential areas
● http://www.bergey.com/wind-school/residential-wind-energy-systems/
Information on wind energy systems
● https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/supersized-solar-farms-are-sprouting-around-world-
maybe-space-too-ncna901666
Information on solar energy
● https://solstice.us/solstice-blog/a-look-into-americas-largest-solar-farm/
Data on Solar Star solar farm
● https://interestingengineering.com/the-10-largest-solar-power-projects-in-the-world
Data on new solar projects
 30

● https://interestingengineering.com/the-10-largest-solar-power-projects-in-the-world
Projections for solar in the US
● https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/73992.pdf
Graphic data and infographics
● https://www.desertusa.com/north-american-deserts.html
Interactive maps for solar research
● https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33872
Biomass information
● https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/biofuels-basics
Research on ethanol in the US
● https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/where-hydropower-is-generated.php
Breakdown of hydropower in the US
● https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/new-vision-united-states-hydropower
Projection of hydropower growth in the US
● https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/National-Offshore-Wind-Strategy-report-
09082016.pdf
Breakdown of offshore power in the US
● https://www.utilitydive.com/news/offshore-wind-prices-have-fallen-75-since-2014-heres-how-to
-de-risk-pro/543384/
Prices for offshore wind
● https://www.irena.org/documentdownloads/publications/re_technologies_cost_analysis-wind_
power.pdf
Cost assessment for offshore wind power
● https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/National-Offshore-Wind-Strategy-report-
09082016.pdf
Government report on offshore wind strategy
● https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/12/f5/mappingandassessment.pdf
Data for US wave energy and geographic information
● https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/tidal-power.php
Information for US tide power
● https://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/mapping-us-tidal-power-potential
Tidal power on the west coast
● http://www.tidalstreampower.gatech.edu
Tidal power in Alaska
● http://lsa.colorado.edu/essence/texts/geothermal.html
Geothermal current position in the US
● https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal-maps
Geothermal infographics
● https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal-faqs
Cost of geothermal
● https://www.nap.edu/read/12091/chapter/9#215
Article on transportation fuels
● https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/05/21/electric-buses-can-save-americas-l
ocal-governments-billions-chinas-showing-us-how-its-done/#5352d7225f78
Turning public transport away from fossil fuels
● https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en
European commission data on climate policy
● http://www.ethicalcorp.com/global-race-put-credible-price-carbon
 31

Exploring the price of carbon on the global stage

● https://www.bts.gov/content/number-us-aircraft-vehicles-vessels-and-other-conveyances
Information on transportation statistics
● https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789
US budget information