Transcript Introduction to CMI-15 - Carbon Mitigation Initiative

Introduction to CMI-15:
The fifteenth annual meeting of
the Carbon Mitigation Initiative
Steve Pacala and Robert Socolow
Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI)
Princeton University
April 13, 2016
held for the first time in London
and accompanied by many side meetings
CMI Structure
Research Groups:
Science
Technology
Integration
Co-Directors:
S. Pacala
R. Socolow
BP:
C. Feilding
G. Hill
Advisory Council:
Collaborators (partial list):
GFDL, Princeton NJ
Tsinghua University
Politecnico di Milano
University of Bergen
Climate Central, Princeton NJ
S. Benson, Stanford
D. Burtraw, Resources for the Future
D. Hawkins, Natural Resources Defense
Council
M. Levi, Council on Foreign Relations
D. Schrag, Harvard
CMI has now been extended through 2020.
History
CMI began in 2000, at a time when John Browne sensed
that the world might pass through a discontinuity and
begin to take climate change seriously. He wanted BP to
develop a comfortable relationship with a research
center that would advance climate science and analyze
low-carbon technology.
The following few years were indeed characterized by
greatly increased interest and concern: serious
initiatives in carbon trading and subsidies for lowcarbon energy – including CO2 capture and storage
(CCS). Princeton and BP were leaders in this effort in our
respective domains.
Much has changed and is changing
Low-carbon energy is arriving unevenly: wind, solar, and
vehicle fuel efficiency are being realized at a one-wedge
pace, while hydrogen power, CCS, and nuclear power are
faltering. Innovation in the energy sector has been
dramatically affected by the arrival of shale gas and oil
and low energy prices. In climate science new modeling
capability is enabling forceful, credible statements about
extreme events.
An international regime has emerged in the past year,
based on “nationally determined contributions,” which
engages all sectors and creates strong pressure on the oil
and gas industry to become proactive.
Risks of climate change for BP
The climate problem has the potential to disrupt BP’s core
business in at least three ways:
1. Effective climate policies can emerge that discourage
fossil fuel consumption, that impose environmental
performance standards on production processes, and
that subsidize or otherwise promote efficiency and low
carbon energy.
2. Climate-motivated research can create disruptive new
energy technology.
3. The consequences of climate change can directly disrupt
BP’s investments in energy production infrastructure and
supply chains.
BP supports CMI to help manage risks
1. CMI sharpens BP’s corporate perspective on climate
change. It provides BP with strategic understanding of the
potential physical, biological and human systems impacts.
2. BP benefits when CMI disseminates sound information
that supports effective public policy discussions.
3. BP leverages the much larger research programs of the
CMI investigators.
Agenda and goals
Agenda item
Why included?
THIS AFTERNOON
This talk
Introduces/reintroduces CMI
BP Review
Reports on BP evolution and reengagement
Four research talks
Updates the CMI program
TOMORROW
The Paris Agreement
Identifies Immediate opportunities and challenges
Oil and gas through 2035 Provides a planning horizon that is coincident with BP’s
Energy Outlook
Beyond 2035
Acknowledges that the energy systems of a low-carbon
world will differ greatly from today’s.
The Paris Agreement, Dec. 2015
A fresh start. We are finally all in the same boat.
A voluntary process, with many different credible outcomes.
Two features of “Paris”
For this talk
The science is not doubted.
An update on climate science
A bet on low-carbon
technology
Tame coal via gas, CCS,
wind&solar, biocarbon.
The search for old ice on Greenland
NEEM
Summit
(GISP2 and GRIP)
DYE 3
Million-year ice on Greenland
1992: When this ice was stored in a
Copenhagen freezer, its age was
unknown.
2016: Michael Bender (Princeton),
using an argon-isotope method he
invented, found that this ice is at
least 1 million years old – direct
evidence of an ice sheet in central
Greenland at least that far back.
July 12, 1992, Sigfus Johnsen (University of Copenhagen) with the deepest
section of the GRIP core, at 3029 meters depth, drilled through the ice at
the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet. The brown color is due to
contemporaneous dirt in the ice from soil, lake water, bogs, and mud.
High carbon fixation by Antarctic phytoplankton
The biologically induced gas
disequilibria (“among the
largest ever recorded for a
natural marine system”) and
high carbon fixation in
Antarctic waters are enabled
by the very high cellular
concentration of the carbonfixing enzyme, Rubisco (8%
of biomass here, compared
to 0.6% at 20oC).
Spring phytoplankton bloom
Data are from waters adjacent to
Palmer Station, West Antarctic
Peninsula, 6 meter depth, 2012-13.
Source: Tortell, P.D., et al., (2014), Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 6803–6810.
Fossil fuels
Natural gas leakage and the global CH4 cycle
Source: Global Carbon Project 2013; Figure based on Kirschke et al. 2013, Nature Geoscience
Sources and sinks of methane (approx.)
300
Natural
sources
Anthropogenic
sources
300
million
tons/yr
million
tons/yr
5000
million tons
Chemical destruction,
mostly in the atmosphere
600
million
tons/yr
Includes 100 Mt/yr
from natural gas
(about the same as
cattle)
Methane Global Warming Potential
120
120
Because methane has a shorter residence 100
time in the atmosphere than CO2, but is
~120 times more potent as a GHG than an
80
equal mass of CO2, its GWP (the ratio of the
cumulative radiative forcing of equal
60
masses) depends on the time horizon.
100
120
Methane GWP
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
00
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Time Horizon (years)
70
80
90
100
Barnett Region methane emissions
Top-down and
bottom-up estimates
all agree, so no
sources have been
missed.
EPA Barnett emissions too low
Barnett production, processing and local
distribution leaks ~1.3% of production.
This is roughly TWICE the EPA estimate.
Zavala-Araiza et al. PNAS 2015
Barnett gas beats coal
Gas
Warms
Less
Than
Coal
Below
This
Line
Texas electricity produced
with Barnett gas is better for
the climate than coal.
Barnett Campaign
25%
Only
5%
of
production
site
emissions
50%of
ofproduction
emissions
fromsites
100emit
of are
from
over
10%
sites of
leaking
production
over 10% of
~20,000
facilities
production
Barnett Campaign conclusions
1.3% of natural gas production in the Barnett is emitted
into the atmosphere. A gas-fired power plant fueled from
the Barnett has a lower warming potential than a
pulverized coal plant over all time horizons.
The > 50,000 kg/hr of methane leaking from the Barnett is
dominated by what look to be simple mistakes (i.e. a valve
left open).
EDF US Methane Project conclusions
downwind
upwind
Emissions from gas and oil production, processing and distribution
are one of two major US sources. Emissions from cities with old
gas grids is the other. Boston leaks ~2.5% of total fossil methane.
Source: S. Wofsy, Harvard University.
We can measure CH4 emissions from space
With new demonstrated technology, satellites could now
measure CH4 emissions at a “neighborhood” or “production
field” or “facility,” much as the OCO-2 satellite measures CO2.
Measurements of the
CO2 concentration in
Los Angeles from
multiple passes of the
OCO-2 satellite
operating in “target”
mode.
Satellite instruments for observing methane
Instrumentt
Agency
Data period
Pixel
[km2]
Low Earth Orbitf
Solar backscatter
SCIAMACHY
GOSAT
TROPOMI
GHGSat
GOSAT-2
CarbonSat
MethaneSat1
ESA
JAXA
ESA
GHGSat, Inc.
JAXA
ESA
concept
2003-2012
2009201620162018proposed
2-3 years
DLR/CNES
NASA
NASA
Active (lidar)
MERLIN
Geostationary[2]
GEO-CAPE2
geoCARB2
1Global
Coverage
Precision
30x60
10x10
7x7
0.05x0.05
10x10
2x2
1x1
6 days global
3 days global
1 day global
Targets 1-10 km
3 daysi
5-10 days
targets 200 km
1.5 %g
0.6 %
0.6%
1-10%
0.3%
0.4%
0.1—0.2%
2020-
50x50
along track
1.0%k
proposed
proposed
4x4
4x5
hourly
8 hours
1.0%
1.0%
coverage for 200x200km targets (production, urban areas)
2Not global, 3 platforms needed to cover all continents
A new NAS report on “attribution”
“It is now often possible to make
and defend quantitative
statements about the extent to
which human-induced climate
change …has influenced either
the magnitude or the probability
of occurrence of specific types of
events or event classes.
NAS: National Academy of Sciences (U.S.)
Source: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21852/attribution-ofextreme-weather-events-in-the-context-of-climate-change.
Scorecard: Attributable events
Hand-off to Rob
The Paris Agreement, Dec. 2015
A fresh start. We are finally all in the same boat.
A voluntary process, with many different credible outcomes.
Two features of “Paris”
For this talk
The science is not doubted.
An update on climate science
A bet on low-carbon
technology
Tame coal via gas, CCS,
wind&solar, biocarbon.
CO2 pathways to 2035 in BP’s Energy Outlook
??...?
Source: BP Energy Outlook 2035
Will natural gas really displace coal?
BP thinks so!
Source: BP Energy Outlook 2035
The carbon intensity of global energy: growing!
New coal dominates new gas in power sector
Source: Phil Hannam, from Platts data, Dec. 2015
What will $100/tCO2 bring?
How will various industries respond to a specific economy-wide
carbon price whose objective is to induce new investments?
For the sake of argument, consider $100/tCO2?
• Upstream, the impacts are particularly dramatic upstream. $100/tCO2 is:
$40/barrel of oil
$5/million Btu of natural gas
$200/ton of high-quality coal.
• Downstream, if price-independent distribution costs are added, retail price
increases are smaller, in percent. $100/tCO2 is:
$0.80/U.S. gallon of gasoline
$0.08/kWh electricity from coal
$0.04/kWh electricity from natural gas.
Future coal plant, CO2 captured and stored
Assume:
1000 MW coal plant
10 years of operation
60 m usable, vertically
10% porosity
1/3 of pore space is CO2
Result:
Horizontal footprint is
40 km2.
How long does the CO2 need to stay down?
Excessively strict early rules could thwart CCS.
A new world for EOR at $100/tCO2
Enhanced oil recovery (EOR): EOR at 2 to 3 barrel produced
per ton of CO2 stored (typical) stores roughly one carbon
atom for each carbon atom produced*. At $30 to $50 per
barrel and $100/tCO2, the two revenue streams are equal.
How will EOR be changed by a $100/tCO2 price?
* 1 bbl oil: ̴120 kgC; 1 tCO2: 272 kgC.
Solar and wind are climbing steeply, linearly
375
350
Global Installed Capacity, GWe
325
300
Growth rates, 1996-2014, % per year
Wind: 26.3
PV: 51.7
275
250
225
200
Wind
PV
175
150
125
Linear growth in
capacity recently for
both Wind and PV, at
40 GW/yr!
100
75
50
25
0
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Year
Source: Robert Williams. PV – IEA, "Trends 2015 in Photovoltaic
Applications: Tables and Figures," Paris, 2015. Wind – Global Wind Energy
Council, "Global Wind Report: Annual Market Update 2014," 2015.
“Stranded asset” and investments in new reserves
Step 1: An asset is created by adding value to
something. Investment is necessary, not just
discovery.
Step 2: An asset is stranded. Stranding
requires a) immobility, plus b) an external
imposition that reduces the asset’s value.
(1)
(2)
The next investments that create fossil fuel reserves in
new provinces – and new pipelines and power plants – will
become the scrimmage line for “stranded assets,” because
they are predicated on 20-60 years of “business as usual.”
Rapid Switch (Greig): How fast can change occur?
History is useful: How quickly did automobiles displace
horses, and why neither faster nor slower?
Looking ahead:
How quickly will science provide key insights (how the
earth works, what is toxic)?
How quickly can a technology gain market share?
How will human values change (diet, consumerism)?
What goes wrong when change is attempted too quickly?
A Princeton-led Negative Emissions Initiative
Motivating question: What do we know and what don’t we
know about technical, economic, ecological, and societal
feasibility of negative emissions?
Princeton-led multidisciplinary team:
•Princeton U Energy Systems Analysis Group (Eric Larson, PI)
•MIT Joint Program on Global Change (Adam Schlosser/John
Reilly)
•U Minnesota Ecology Department (David Tilman)
•Climate Central, non-advocacy science communication
Recommendation #1 for BP
Address your core activities.
1. Upstream CO2: Lead in curtailing flaring, promote CCS where
gas is processed, redesign EOR for when CO2 storage
becomes a revenue stream.
2. Upstream fugitive CH4: Demonstrate best practices – minimal
release, fast response to carelessness. Beyond safety.
3. Gas for coal: Work out the limits on how much and how fast,
e.g., to restrain the juggernaut in Asia.
4. Gas for “firming”: Provide dispatchable power via
partnerships where gas backs up intermittent renewables.
Recommendation #2 for BP
Engage policymaking proactively.
1. Be real and helpful about carbon pricing. What should we
expect to see happen at $5/tCO2? What about $100/tCO2,
reached by a ramp that is credible?
2. Identify yourselves with carbon efficiency. Examples:
A. When bringing gas to new cities, assure efficient
buildings/appliances.
B. Help your industrial and power-plant customer to use
your fuel efficiently (the customer’s side of the meter).