Transcript Climate Change Mitigation: Technology Issues

Climate Change Mitigation:
Technology Issues
Presented to APPA Climate Task Force
October 17, 2006
Doug Carter
(703-772-9976)
1
Mitigation approaches fit into three families
1.
2.
3.
Increased efficiency (generation or end use)
Reduced carbon intensity (nuclear vs fossil)
Storage of generated CO2 (sequestration)
•
Note: “Central” BAU scenario projects global
carbon emissions to double from ~ 7 billion TPY
carbon in 2005, to 14 billion TPY in 2050, to 21
billion TPY in 2100 (IS92a scenario).
2
Socolow expanded the categories into 15
“1 Billion TPY (carbon) wedges”
• 2 billion cars: 30mpg to
60mpg
• Reduce car use 50%
• 25% drop in carbon use by
buildings and appliances
• Improve coal PP efficiency
from 40% to 60% (2x today’s
generation)
• Replace 1400 GW of coal PP
with NG PP
• Sequester 800 GW of coal PP
• Sequester 250 MtH2/year from
coal
• Sequester 30 MM BPD C-T-L
(200 x Sasol facility)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Add 700 GW of nuclear
Install 50 x current Wind
Install 700 x current PV
Add 100 x current Wind for H2
production/auto fuel cells
Use 1/6 of global cropland for
ethanol
Eliminate deforestation AND
double rate of new tree
plantation builds
Increase conservation tillage
by 10-fold.
Do 7 of these by 2050 to
stabilize emissions (not
concentrations).
Source: Pacala & Socolow, Science, 13Aug2004.
3
EIA perspective on power plant costs
Cost of Electricity: Coal is 33% less than others
(Constant 2004 $'s; Cost data from EIA-AEO2006)
120
Capital
Levelized Cost, $/MW-hr
100
1167
TPC, $/kw
VO&M
FO&M
80
Fuel
3014
584
60
1167
575
2065
1443
1249
40
20
-
Pulv
Coal
IGCC
Coal
NGCC
Adv
NGCC
Nuclear
Wind
20%
Wind
30%
IGCC Ccap
4
Adding sequestration to coal units increases
COE by 25-65%
• EPA-2006: IGCC +38%; SCPC +66%
• DOE/EPRI-2000: IGCC +25%; SCPC +65%
• CURC/EPRI Roadmap Projection (2025): No more
costly than current coal PP w/o carbon capture IF
needed RD&D is funded and successful.
• GAPS: Hydrogen turbines, Saline geological storage,
Dirty gas water shift, Sequestration liability/MMV,
Capture for dilute (PC) flue gas, Sequestration sites
(international), Oxycombustion, Cost.
Sources: Environmental Footprints & Costs of Coal-based IGCC and PC
Technologies, EPA, July 2006.
Evaluation of Innovative Fossil Fuel Power Plants with CO2 Removal,
EPRI/USDOE, Dec 2000.
Coal Technology Roadmap, CURC/EPRI, Sep 2006.
5
6
Technology “Issues”
• Technology needs depend on the degree of
reduction needed and timing
• Views vary on the readiness of technology
• Technology solutions must be Global to work
• Technology dictates timing of reductions
• Money is the root of all good
• A successful technology-based strategy must
integrate the above issues
7
It doesn’t matter how you get there if you
don’t know where you’re going
• Framework Convention on Climate Change (Rio – 1992):
Article 2 – “The ultimate objective … is to … prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system.”
• Often equated to doubling of pre-industrial CO2
concentrations (270ppm), or 550ppm
• Environmentalists advocate 450ppm
• US Govt draft scenario discussion, 26Jun2006,
discussed a range of 450 – 750 ppm for evaluation.
• We are currently at ~ 370 ppm.
8
It doesn’t matter how you get there if you
don’t know where you are.
• Projections for
“business as
usual” depend
of future
population, per
capita wealth,
fuel prices –
all are very
uncertain.
IS92a
Source: BAU Scenarios from IPCC, 3rd
Assessment Report, 2001.
9
IPCC analysis shows affect of uncertainty in
future baseline emissions.
Cumulative emissions thru 2100 for IPCC/SRES scenarios.
Note that under some
scenarios, no climate
specific changes are
needed to meet a 550
ppm cap on CO2
concentrations.
Caps, ppm
Source: IPCC
3rd
Assessment Report, 2001.
10
Opinions vary on technology readiness
• “9. There is no single path to a low emission future and countries
and regions will have to choose their own path. Most model results
indicate that known technological options could achieve a broad
range of atmospheric CO2 stabilization levels, such as 550ppmv,
450ppmv or below over the next 100 years or more, but
implementation would require associated socio-economic and
institutional changes.” (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Working Group III, Climate Change 2001, Mitigation, 2001)
• “Energy sources that can produce 100 to 300% of present world
power consumption without GHG emissions do not exist
operationally or as pilot plants. … the fossil fuel GHG effect is an
energy problem that cannot be simply regulated away.” (Hoffert et
16, Science, 1Nov2002)
• “Humanity can solve the carbon and climate problem in the first half
of this century simply by scaling up what we already know how to
do.” (Pacala & Socolow, Science, 13Aug2004)
• “It (sequestration) seems to look more and more promising all the
time. For the first time, I think the technical feasibility has been
established.” (Dr. Sally Benson, Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, quoted in Science, 13Aug2004)
11
Solutions must be affordable and workable
beyond the US (China)
Energy Use by Region
350
Other
Energy, Quads
300
Nuclear
250
Coal
200
Natural Gas
150
Oil
100
50
0
OECD
EEFSU
ASIA
ALM
2003
Source: EIA AEO-2006
OECD
EEFSU
ASIA
2015
ALM
OECD
EEFSU
ASIA
ALM
2030
12
Sequestration sites may be scarce in China
13
Mitigation costs increase dramatically to achieve
concentrations below 550 ppm
• We could drop emissions
to zero now, if cost did
not matter (simply go
without services).
• Reduced quality of life
equates to 1 additional
death per $10 million
dollars of regulatory cost.
(Mortality Reductions
From Use of Low-cost
Coal-fueled Power, Klein
& Keeney, Dec2002)
– Extrapolation: $10 trillion
equals 1 million excess
deaths.
Source: IPCC
14
Technology impacts the timing of mitigation
measures
• Consider sequestration technologies that would
– Only address emissions from new systems, or
– Include retrofitable technologies for current systems, or
– Allow capture from the atmosphere
• The type of technology obviously has a major impact on when you
must embrace regulation
• Consider the impact of disruptive technologies
– Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles would allow a rapid conversion of urban
transportation to “hydrogen” via sequestered FE power plants.
– The disruptive technology might be advanced batteries, or solid state
electricity storage (capacitor batteries).
• Consider “partial” near-term measures
–
–
–
–
Retrofitted efficiency improvements (NSR policy conflict)
Cofiring biomass with coal (up to 5%)
Partial sequestration
Inclusion of carbon capture “connections” on new plants
15
Money is the root of all good
• If affordability dictates what
we can do, technology
advances dictate
affordability, and funding
dictates technology
advances. We must confront
the reality that there is not
enough money being
committed to GCC research
to meet policy goals.
• A key to solving GCC is
getting funds to reduce
mitigation costs
16
Technology funding options
• Expand existing government programs via higher levels
of appropriations (unlikely).
• Regulate emissions and divert allowance funds or fees
to RD&D (NCEP approach)
• Implement a line charge on electricity and commit
revenues to RD&D
• Impose a fee on fossil energy sales: ½% “tax” would
raise $2 B per year.
– Raises gasoline price 0.6 ¢/gal
– Residential natural gas bills 0.25%
– Cost of coal-based electricity 0.1%
17
In Summary -There are lots of technology issues
• We do not have the technologies needed to solve the
climate problem under most scenarios of the future.
• We need to know where we are and where we are going
to understand what technologies are needed, and by
when.
– Developing technology is cheap; deploying technology is not.
• We need solutions that work for us and for less affluent
nations (cost matters).
• A rational path forward should include an intensive
technology development component (including a source
of money) – recognizing this is awkward for advocates of
immediate emission reductions
18
Background: Emission Data
19
20
21
22