Ken Silverstein | Dec 20, 2010

Can the Courts Order Carbon Cuts

Various sources have estimated that approximately one half to two thirds of annual anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are removed from the atmosphere by natural processes, primarily by absorption into the world's oceans. Some have suggested that global annual anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions would therefore have to be reduced by roughly one third to one half to halt the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. However, the history of the increase in global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations suggests that the percentage reduction in global annual carbon dioxide emissions would have to be far greater, arguably total, to halt the accumulation of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Others have reached similar conclusions based on modeling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

For example, if natural processes remove half of anthropogenic emissions at current rates and would continue to do so at reduced emissions rates, all other things being held equal, then a 50 percent global annual emissions reduction would directly match the natural removal rate, stabilizing the atmospheric concentration at the concentration which existed when the 50 percent reduction was achieved. However, that logic would also suggest that the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration should have remained unchanged through history until the global annual emissions rate reached 50 percent of the current global annual emissions rate, at which point the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration would have increased far more rapidly than the historic record indicates, until it achieved the current concentration. Since global annual emissions have approximately doubled since 1950, that would suggest that the proxy record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration should have recorded no concentration increase until around 1950, followed by a rapid ramp-up to current concentrations. That is clearly not the case, as both the proxy records and the instrumental records indicate.

Rather, the proxy record suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations began increasing in approximately 1750, when global annual emissions were approximately 0.05 percent of current emissions levels. That then suggests a process controlled by the concentration difference between the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and the concentration in the natural systems, such as the oceans, which absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The significance of such a process is that, as global annual carbon dioxide emissions decreased, the percentage of the annual anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions absorbed through natural processes would remain at or near 50 percent in this example. Therefore, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations would not stabilize until incremental annual carbon dioxide emissions ceased, although the rate of growth would be progressively diminished.

There was a lot of interest and enthusiasm after COP15 in Copenhagen regarding the proposal by China to reduce the carbon intensity of its development by ~50 percent. However, reducing carbon intensity by 50 percent in a rapidly growing economy which already produces ~24 percent of global carbon emissions would not lead to the elimination of global carbon emissions.

The estimated investment required to reduce global (excluding China) annual carbon emissions to zero is on the order of $100 trillion. The estimated investment for the US alone is on the order of $30 trillion. It is extremely unlikely that the US and the other nations of the world would chose to invest at these levels to partially offset the growing emissions produced by China, even assuming that China actually did reduce the carbon intensity of its energy development by 50 percent.

The recent COP16 in Cancun, Mexico does not appear to have advanced the cause of reducing global annual carbon emissions to zero to any significant degree. China continues to refuse to agree to specific emissions reduction targets, while continuing to assert that it will reduce the rate of growth of its emissions. The new coal-fired power generating facilities currently being built in China would be expected to operate for 40-60 years, so any reductions in carbon emissions by China appear to be decades in the future.

Edward Reid
President
Fire to Ice, Inc.
Chapel Hill, NC

Republican Energy Priorities

It was Pliny the Elder who is said to have first muttered words to the effect of "There is nothing more conservative than --to conserve," and, strangely enough, the late Ronald Reagan who said in 1984 "What is a conservative after all but one who conserves?" While the Gipper did not follow much of his own advice, it is about times these so-called conservatives get back to basics. Whether they do or do not think (not the word "believe") climate change is occurring is not the question entirely BUT the the same precautions to prevent that --energy efficiency and renewables--enhances our national security.

Unfortunately some GOP opinion makers like Geo. Will even denigrate the new subsidies to promote electric vehicles as he did in a recent column. Will missed one of the big headlines the last few months on how 12 fuel tanker trucks in Afghanistan were destroyed. Maybe he has not read the Deloitte report on "Energy Security: America's Best Defense" where it shows that in many months the majority of troop fatalities in both Iraq and Afghanistan were due to IEDs aimed against convoys transporting conventional fuel. While Will sees electric vehicles as a a boondoggle, some others, like General Chuck Wald (USAF-ret.) connected with that Deloitte report, may welcome alternatives to making troops easy targets. Electric vehicles may offer one such solution and while still in early stages like the Volt,  technology advancement as we have seen in cellphones, PV and now electric cars may provide the technology to eventually mitigate the need to transport those large amounts of fuel and offer terrorists easy targets. Will's attitude is just one example of misplaced conservatism.

Joel Gordes
 
Your article comprehensively captures the conventional wisdom regarding Republican and Democratic "posturing" on energy issues. Unfortunately, the reality does not seem to correlate well with the political posturing.

Under the Republican's beginning in 2005 wind power ramped rapidly to unprecedented installation levels in the USA. Under the Democrats (complete legislative control) since 2008, installations have fallen dramatically and will be down a devastating 70% this year (to 2005 levels). Who is more successfully increasing renewables penetrations?

The evidence suggests that the Democrats policy begins (and ends) with fighting the religious battles of global warming and cap and trade, while the Republican's have quietly found the money and passed the bills to get the job done. Populist rhetoric does not keep the momentum needed for the decades-long power generation updates we need going; a steady consistent hand is far more effective.

Thomas Conroy

Natural Gas May Undercut Coal

Credit Suisse and Deutche Banks' assumption that natural gas prices will range from $4-6/MMBTU is contradicted by the Energy Information Administration's AEO 2010 who projects a gas price in 2036 of $8 per MMBTU.
 
At present, approximately 60 Bcf/day of natural gas is drawn from existing supply basins where gas is produced to theend-users who will burn it -  using 300,000 miles of natural gas transmission pipelines and associated facilities that provide 130 Bcf per day interregional transfer capability. Nearly half this was built after the industry achieved its previous peak demand of 22+ Tcf in 1972. The new capacity was needed in part to increase flexibility and to serve shifting regional markets, but primarily it was needed because old supply areas depleted and new ones were developed in other regions. Based on projected increased use of natural gas, estimates of new pipeline capacity required range from $106 Billion to $163 Billion.
 
The short-term considerations to construct natural gas fired power plants appears like déjà vu all over again - noting that Natural Gas peaked over $10/MMBTU within the last decade and factoring in the cost of additional infrastructure - the cost of electricity could rise significantly.

Dr. Richard W. Goodwin, P.E.
Environmental Engineering
West Palm Beach, FL

I don't have an answer to put under your tree and I don't think any one else has one either.
Which type of pollution do you want-air, ground & water or scenery?
I suspect, but have no way to prove, that cleaning up/keeping clean our environment is cheaper with the fracking process than with carbon capture and sequestration.

Renewables have their problems also, but have a lesser direct effect on health.

 Biomass pollution is similar to coal except the CO2 is recycled rapidly on the surface.  If done on large scale it would cause the same problems with the country side as did the clear cutting in the `80s.  Now many of those papermills have moved off shore taking the jobs with them.

 Wind energy farms "detract" from the landscape around them.  We don't want them where we can see them (ridgelines, etc) where they are most efficient and dependable.  They kill birds and bats which some feel is wrong.  They make too much noise to be located near people.

 Solar PV is a scenery stealer also whether on residential/small commercial or "utility size" installation.  Solar panels may be made of "sand," but it is a process and somebodies' backyard is getting "dirty."  Acres and acres of solar panels or mirrors will surely effect the local environment. CSP will stick out like a sore thumb to some.

 Hydroelectric floods field and forest which changes the environment without a doubt.  It is a great source of power if the weather cooperates.  The west coast has found out that it doesn't always rain/snow enough.

 Geothermal can be pretty clean where it exists, but it can run out of water too.  It can also cause subsidence which really messes with the local environment.

 Nuclear has it pluses and minuses as well.  When will we talk seriously about reprocessing?

Every form of energy alters the environment to some degree.  Electricity reduces to heat no matter how it is generated or used.
On the other hand how would we do without it?  We probably could live quite well with less than we each presently use but not with none.

America has used abundant, cheap energy getting to this point and have shared our knowledge with the rest of the world.  The rest of the world want what we have even if it means burning coal to get there like we did and still do.  Can we blame them?

The citizens of this great nation have to be educated and realize that nothing is the only thing that is free.  We have to pay for clean air and water.  Each of us will have to sacrifice something.  Let's hope it is not our health.  We will have to pay more than we have been which means we can't have something else.  The economy is going to change.
 
Our leaders need to face this and inform their constituents as unpleasant as that may be (not to mention putting their position on the line).
The present economic state is not good.  If we don't change our self centered ways we will only fall further down the economic ladder.
 
We need some truly informed and courageous leaders to step up to the plate, not politicians who just load up their plates.
 
Happy New Year-is it going to be the same old thing or is it going to be interesting and challenging?

David McGee, P.E.

Electric Cars Pull In

The dirty little secret about electric cars is that they are not all that clean since most of the electric energy is produced by coal. Here's an article that points out a bigger problem for electric cars:

http://othellooutlook.com/?p=16009

 

Ron Corso

Vienna, Va.

Cleaner Coal Generation on Front Burner

In today's article "Cleaner Coal Generation on Front Burner", you have referred to 250 years of coal being available. That figure pertains to the United States and is largely not relevant to international decisions on Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) implementation.

The remaining global reserves of economically accessible coal amount to somewhat more than 800 billion metric tons. Since the year 2005, annual consumption has been rising at a rate of about 3.6%. If this pace continues, all the coal available in the world - inlcuding that in the United States - would have been mathematically depleted by the year 2054. If the rate assumed by the EIA of 1.7%/a is applied, the year of depletion is 2072. Equipping all the world's power plants with CCS would exhaust global coal reserves several years sooner.

The United States is likely to become a major coal exporter, particularly if local power plants are increasingly converted to natural gas. It would be uneconomical for the US power industry to respond to gas generation by retofitting any significant number of coal plants with CCS, since the added coal and cooling water requirements would greatly increase the price of electricity. Exporting that same coal to an increasingly lucrative international market would provide immediate and reliable profits. At the same time, countries that import coal will not be inclined to use any significant amount of it for CCS implementation, which effectively diverts energy from the value stream.

The global prospects for CCS implementation therefore are not especially promising. In contrast to the United States, furthermore, property owners in foreign countries will not be receiving royalties for CO2 stored beneath their land. This circumstance eliminates an important motivation factor evident at the FutureGen project.

The uncertainties of long-term sequestration cannot be dismissed. Germany, which was one of the first European countries to promote carbon capture for its domestic lignite industry, has been unable to pass a CO2 storage law due to the reluctance of its federal states to accept the inherent risks.

By the time all of these issues can be sorted out and the required CCS technologies have become commercially competitive, there may not be enough coal to guarantee full operation for the 40 year service life of power plants at many locations in the world.

Jeffrey H. Michel MSc.
Energy Consultant
Hamburg, Germany

OXYO combustion technology sounds like a winner for all.  ...retro fitting will be the fastest way to allow for more investment in now existing plant and equipment...pipeline investors, and conservation areas for sequestering spent carbon..sounds like jobs. jobs. jobs. green green green...What a great country we have.

Bob Schoolfield

EnergyBiz Insider has been named Honorable Mention for Best Online Column by Media Industry News, MIN.

So what do you think? Please share your thoughts by posting a quick comment below, or by sending a longer reply to energybizinsider@energycentral.com.

Follow Ken on www.twitter.com/freehand1200