09 September 2010

Twenty-Five Wedges or More

In a perspective just out in Science commenting on a new paper (Davis et al.) that shows another way to explain the decarbonization challenge, Marty Hoffert of NYU explains how the magnitude of the challenge of stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at a low level has been underestimated:
Pacala and Socolow (8) analyzed a scenario that envisioned stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at 500 ppm within 50 years. They found that reaching that goal required the deployment of seven existing or nearly existing groups of technologies, such as more fuel-efficient vehicles, to remove seven “wedges” of predicted future emissions (the wedge image coming from the shape created by graphing each increment of avoided future emissions). Those seven wedges, each of which represents 25 gigatons of avoided carbon emissions by 2054, are cited by some as sufficient to “solve” climate change for 50 years (9).

Unfortunately, the original wedges approach greatly underestimates needed reductions. In part, that is because Pacala and Socolow built their scenario on a business as usual (BAU) emissions baseline based on assumptions that do not appear to be coming true. For instance, the scenario assumes that a shift in the mix of fossil fuels will reduce the amount of carbon released per unit of energy. This carbon-to-energy ratio did decline during prior shifts from coal to oil, and then from oil to natural gas. Now, however, the ratio is increasing as natural gas and oil approach peak production, coal production rises, and new coal-fi red power plants are built in China, India, and the United States (10).

The enormous challenge of making the transition to carbon-neutral power sources becomes even clearer when emissions-reduction scenarios are based on arguably more realistic baselines, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “frozen technology” scenario ( 11, 12). Capturing all alternate energy technologies, including those assumed within this BAU scenario, means that a total of ~18 of Pacala and Socolow’s wedges would be needed to curb emissions (13) (see the figure). And to keep future warming below 2°C, even under the Davis et al. age-out scenario, an additional 7 wedges of emissions reductions would be needed— for a total of 25 wedges (see the figure).
The total is even more than 25 wedges if you want to avoid using the oceans as a store of carbon dioxide or reduce emissions below 2010 levels.. The numbers that Hoffert presents in his perspective are the same as those that I present in The Climate Fix, under a similar analysis. However you do the math, the challenge is huge and making progress will take decades of effort.

17 comments:

Christopher said...

Natural gas has a supply glut due to technological developments for the foreseeable future and has become very competitive with coal.

eric144 said...

CO2 ppm targets are very clever. They conveniently ignore the logarithmic relationship to temperature and the (not so settled as we are lead to believe) feedback effects required to scare the public.

One of the debating tactics used by AGW proponents is that the science is simple. It's surprising they don't employ an army of 12 year old after schoolers with pocket calulators rather than multi million dollar computer models.

Len Ornstein said...

Roger:

I believe your definition of a wedge is incorrect:

A wedge is about 1 GtC/yr or 3.67 GtCO2/yr.

2054 - 2010 = 44 yrs

So it's about 44 GtC or about 161.5 GtCO2 "not 25 gigatons of avoided carbon emissions by 2054".

But for 8 to 13 GtC/yr (8 to 13 wedges/yr). of sustainable 'new' sequestration, see:

http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9626-y

http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9625-z

Roger Pielke, Jr. said...

-3-Len Ornstein

Thanks, but the definition of a wedge comes straight from Pacala/Socolow and is as described by Hoffert in the excerpt above.

The 2054 refers to the 50 year period starting in 2004. In the current Hoffert perspective he speak of 50 years to 2060, as in the figure.

Ron Broberg said...

A year ago, Romm pointed out the insufficiency of 7 wedges.

We probably need more than 14 wedges starting in 2010 to stay below 450 ppm, and we currently don’t have the political will to do more than 2 or 3. In particular, the policies needed to achieve most of the wedges are currently anathema to most conservatives, even the relatively few who actually believe the climate problem warrants strong government action.
Is 450 ppm (or less) politically possible? Part 1

And part 2:
Is 450 ppm (or less) politically possible? Part 2: The Solution

And an update:
How the world can (and will) stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm: The full global warming solution

Frontiers of Faith and Science said...

So now we know that not only is decarbonization pointless, it is also nearly impossible.
How about we now move our efforts to doing things that are not only possible but also worthwhile?

Roger Pielke, Jr. said...

-5-Ron Broberg

Romm has been consistently wrong on this point.

From the post you link: "If we could do the 12-14 wedges in four decades, we should be able to keep CO2 concentrations to under 450 ppm."

Romm is almost half right;-)

Romm wrote in Nature Reports Climate Change:

"Although it has recently been argued that "enormous advances in energy technology will be needed to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at acceptable levels", on the contrary it would seem that "humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century.""

Wrong.

Roger Pielke, Jr. said...

A reader reminds me of this extended debate (!) with Joe Romm on this issue, in this comment and thread:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/23/is-450-ppm-politically-possible-part-25-the-fuzzy-math-of-the-stabilization-wedges/

That was of course before I was banned from commenting there. If you read the thread you'll understand why I was banned ;-)

Len Ornstein said...

Roger:

Sorry! From Pacala & Sokolow's Science paper:

"A wedge represents an activity that reduces emissions to the atmosphere that starts at zero today and increases linearly until it accounts for 1 GtC/year of reduced carbon emissions in 50 years. It thus represents a cumulative total of 25 GtC of reduced emissions over 50 years."

I stand corrected ;-)

Harrywr2 said...

"Now, however, the ratio is increasing as natural gas and oil approach peak production, coal production rises, and new coal-fired power plants are built in China, India, and the United States (10)."


Unless of course 'Peak Coal' occurs as well.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.02.009

"The resulting base-case is significantly below 36 of the 40 carbon emission scenarios from the IPCC. The global peak of coal production from existing coalfields is predicted to occur close to the year 2011. The peak coal production rate is 160 EJ/y, and the peak carbon emissions from coal burning are 4.0 Gt C (15 Gt CO2) per year. After 2011, the production rates of coal and CO2 decline, reaching 1990 levels by the year 2037, and reaching 50% of the peak value in the year 2047."

heyworth said...

What evidence is there that natural gas is approaching peak production?

Harrywr2 said...

heyworth said... 11

"What evidence is there that natural gas is approaching peak production?"

Price

US Henry Hub Natural gas prices bounced around near $2/Million Btu for most of the 1980's and 1990's then jumping to $4/MBtu in 2000 rising to $8+/Million Btu by 2005.

With the advent of horizontal hydro-fracking the price has since dropped back and has been bouncing around near $4/Million Btu for the last 2 years.

Oil,Gas and Coal production doesn't ever 'peak' in a geological sense. They 'peak' in an economic sense, I.E. when the cost of production exceeds the cost of a substitute.

Christopher said...

In which case the evidence for a near future NG peak is decidingly negative. Any statement that says otherwise is using out of date information.

The price will go up a bit when demand for it picks up.

Harrywr2 said...

Christopher said... 13


"The price will go up a bit when demand for it picks up."

In the history of the world there never has been a mineral that has been exhausted.

What happens is the price of the mineral 'goes up a bit' until using something else is cheaper.

A 1,000 Megawatt Base Load Thermal Electricity Plant uses roughly 75 million million Btu's of fuel per year.

At $4/million Btu's for gas that's $300 million a year for fuel. At $8/million Btu's thats $600 million per year.

$600 million in fuel cost savings buys a 1,000 Megawatt nuclear power plant in 10-12 years or a 4,000 Megawatt wind farm complete with two man made reservoirs for pumped storage in 15-20 years.

Christopher said...

"In the history of the world there never has been a mineral that has been exhausted.

What happens is the price of the mineral 'goes up a bit' until using something else is cheaper."

I was simply expressing a market truism; the price of NG is low right now (pretty close to what it costs to extract it). It won't stay as low as it is ($4/million btu) because demand will eventually increase for it.

markbahner said...

"A 1,000 Megawatt Base Load Thermal Electricity Plant uses roughly 75 million million Btu's of fuel per year."

I doubt there are many 1000 MW base load power plants fired with natural gas anywhere in the world.

It makes much more sense to build small natural gas power plants...including power plants that use the waste heat (combined heat and power).

But I agree that *if* natural gas prices consistently reach $8/million Btu consistently (I don't think they ever will; I don't think there will ever be a 10-year period in which natural gas prices average $8/MMBtu) then alternatives become much more desirable.

markbahner said...

The miracle of the Internet...a map of natural gas plants in the U.S., by size and total electrical production cost ($/MWh):

http://www.powermag.com/issues/cover_stories/Map-of-natural-gas-power-plants-in-the-United-States-by-nameplate-capacity-and-total-production-costs_1360.html

I don't see any plants that are in the 1090+ MW nameplate category (though there are quite a few in the 460 to 1090 MW nameplate capacity range).

Post a Comment