1

Climate Change Mitigation: Technology Issues

Presented to APPA Climate Task ForceOctober 17, 2006

Doug Carter(703-772-9976)

2

Mitigation approaches fit into three families

1. Increased efficiency (generation or end use)

2. Reduced carbon intensity (nuclear vs fossil)

3. 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).

3

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.

4

EIA perspective on power plant costs

Cost of Electricity: Coal is 33% less than others(Constant 2004 $'s; Cost data from EIA-AEO2006)

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

PulvCoal

IGCCCoal

NGCC AdvNGCC

Nuclear Wind20%

Wind30%

IGCC C-cap

Lev

eliz

ed C

ost

, $/M

W-h

r

Capital

VO&M

FO&M

Fuel

1249

20651167

1167

3014

575584

1443

TPC, $/kw

5

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.

6

7

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

8

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.

9

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.

10

IPCC analysis shows affect of uncertainty in future baseline emissions.

Cumulative emissions thru 2100 for IPCC/SRES scenarios.

Caps, ppm

Note that under some scenarios, no climate specific changes are needed to meet a 550 ppm cap on CO2 concentrations.

Source: IPCC 3rd Assessment Report, 2001.

11

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)

12

Solutions must be affordable and workable beyond the US (China)

Energy Use by Region

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

OECD EEFSU ASIA ALM OECD EEFSU ASIA ALM OECD EEFSU ASIA ALM

En

erg

y, Q

uad

s

Other

Nuclear

Coal

Natural Gas

Oil

2003 20302015

Source: EIA AEO-2006

13

Sequestration sites may be scarce in China

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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%

18

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

19

Background: Emission Data

20

21

22