Category: Climate change

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Is It a Viable Technology?

As mentioned in my previous blog (‘What I Took Away From the Doha Clean Energy Forum’): “three speakers made a strong case for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) as a means of addressing global warming and climate change, especially in heavily carbon emitting industries such as cement production. Lots of questions remain, and will be discussed in a future blog.” This is that future blog on a well trod but still controversial subject.

Wikipedia defines CCS as “..the process of capturing waste carbon dioxide (CO2) from large point sources, such as fossil fuel power plants, transporting it to a storage site, and depositing it where it will not enter the atmosphere, normally an underground geological formation.”

image

Considerable literature exists on CCS, exhibiting a wide range of opinions on its viability as a technology to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The principal argument for CCS is that the world today is fueled largely by coal, oil and natural gas and that this situation is not likely to change any time soon. In fact, as many developing nations industrialize and emerge from poverty, the demand for energy increases steadily and it is argued that only fossil fuels can meet that demand in coming decades. It is also argued that while solar and wind and other renewable energy technologies can eventually replace electricity from coal and natural gas power plants this will not occur quickly and people will need fossil energy during the long transition. In addition, some industries like steel and cement are not so easily ‘fixed’ and will continue to use fossil fuels in increasing amounts as global industrialization grows.

These points raised in support of CCS are countered by the following arguments:
– CCS is expensive, whether added to an existing power plant or industrial carbon dioxide source, or included in newly constructed facilities. The energy penalty for operating CCS is also high, requiring a fair amount of parasitic energy that reduces efficiency and revenues.
– When operating, CCS systems require large amounts of water.
– captured carbon dioxide must be liquified and stored for indefinite periods of time in such a way as to avoid leakage and large ‘burps’ that can be toxic. This requires identification and development of storage sites (depleted oil and gas wells, coal mines, underground aquifers), infrastructure to transport liquid CO2, adds additional costs and raises questions of liability if something goes wrong and stored CO2 is accidentally released.
– the time required for development, demonstration and large-scale deployment of CCS technology that can have a meaningful impact on global warming is too long compared to other options.

Proponents of CCS (see http://www.globalccsinstitute.com) argue that CCS costs can be brought down significantly with a sufficient number of demonstration projects and economies of scale associated with large-scale deployment. Nevertheless, at the recent Doha Clean Energy Forum even one of its supporters admitted that an impactful global CCS system will cost an estimated 3.6 trillion USD (and I did say trillion). My immediate reaction was that for $3.6 trillion I can deliver an awful lot of renewable energy that will replace coal, oil, and natural gas use in power generation and transportation. Nevertheless, there is the argument that the CO2 emissions from some industries will still be there in large and growing amounts even with large-scale deployment of renewables and CCS is the only way to limit these emissions.

These are strong arguments for some attention to CCS R&D and demonstration, but, in my view, not at the expense of rapid development and deployment of renewables. This creates a conundrum as CCS demonstrations are expensive, and the money for them would have to come from somewhere. Government funding is at best problematic in current budget situations. Other possibilities are the fossil fuel industries themselves, which have a vested interest in continued purchase of their commodities. Countries with large reserves of fossil fuels – e.g., the U.S., with large reserves of coal – will also see value in CCS allowing extended use of secure domestic energy reserves.

In a world committed to reducing carbon emissions CCS offers a helping hand but not a definitive one. It may offer a partial answer for the rest of this century, but governments are unlikely to provide the needed funds for large-scale deployment. Let’s see if the private fossil fuel sector is willing to step up to protect its vested interests.

image

We Need A Carbon Tax

While I’m usually not a fan of economists (life ain’t that simple) I do subscribe to their theory that the cost of things influences human behavior. The difficult part is finding that trigger cost point that makes a difference. One example is recent U.S. history on gasoline prices. When imported oil prices surged a while back and gas prices reached more than $3/gallon, many thought that gasoline consumption would dip because of the increased price. If it did it was hard to notice. Seems like the U.S. ‘breakpoint’ is closer to $4/gallon, and even then I’m not sure. But at some point…. Now it’s true that U.S. gasoline consumption recently has begun to dip, and some of this may be due to higher prices, but my instinct tells me that the dip mostly reflects more fuel efficient cars in the fleet.

Now what does the above have to do with a carbon tax? For those familiar with my earlier blog on CAFE Standards you will recall that way back in 1975, just after the Arab oil embargo, I would have favored a gradual but long-term increase in the federal gasoline tax as a way to reduce gasoline consumption and oil imports. This was not to be because of Congressional resistance, and so we ended up with fuel economy standards for cars and light duty trucks.

In today’s world not only are we still concerned about reducing oil imports, we are also concerned about reducing carbon emissions from combustion of carbon-rich fossil fuels. Hence my return to support for the use of a price mechanism to influence human behavior, in this case a gradually increasing tax on carbon emissions throughout our economy.

I prefer a steadily increasing and long-term carbon tax to a cap-and-trade system for several reasons: I believe a cap-and-trade system is more vulnerable to ‘gaming’ and a steadily increasing and predictable tax provides more certainty to the private sector in its planning and investment activities. I also believe that the revenues from a carbon tax can be redistributed in a way to alleviate inequities arising from the tax (gasoline taxes have more relative impact on low-income vs higher-income citizens), facilitate critical long-term national investments in infrastucture, education and research, as well as to reduce other taxes such as corporate and income taxes. This latter possibility could provide the basis of an agreement between Republicans and Democrats to finally address global warming and climate change as part of a larger effort at tax reform. Recent hints at discussions of such an agreement are encouraging.

Update on Global Warming And The Threat Of Sea Level Rise

The following article appeared in today’s (12 August 2013) New York Times and by reproducing it here I hope to help it get wider visibility. It is one of the most disturbing articles on global warming and its possible implications that I’ve ever read. If the sea level rises mentioned in the article hold up under scientific scrutiny it foretells a significant shift in human habitation. Not only did I find the article alarming, but it also got my juices going. There are still those out there like the Heartland Institute, and even a few scientists, who deny the reality of global warming or say that its impacts will be minimal. If one believes in the scientific method the evidence for global warming is overwhelming, at least to this scientist and to the many scientists much more knowledgeable of global warming than I am. I consider it irresponsible of the deniers to continue their denial in light of this growing body of evidence.

“Timing a Rise in Sea Level
By JUSTIN GILLIS (New York Times)
Thirty-five years ago, a scientist named John H. Mercer issued a warning. By then it was already becoming clear that human emissions would warm the earth, and Dr. Mercer had begun thinking deeply about the consequences.

His paper, in the journal Nature, was titled “West Antarctic Ice Sheet and CO2 Greenhouse Effect: A Threat of Disaster.” In it, Dr. Mercer pointed out the unusual topography of the ice sheet sitting over the western part of Antarctica. Much of it is below sea level, in a sort of bowl, and he said that a climatic warming could cause the whole thing to degrade rapidly on a geologic time scale, leading to a possible rise in sea level of 16 feet.

While it is clear by now that we are in the early stages of what is likely to be a substantial rise in sea level, we still do not know if Dr. Mercer was right about a dangerous instability that could cause that rise to happen rapidly, in geologic time. We may be getting closer to figuring that out. An intriguing new paper comes from Michael J. O’Leary of Curtin University in Australia and five colleagues scattered around the world. Dr. O’Leary has spent more than a decade exploring the remote western coast of Australia, considered one of the best places in the world to study sea levels of the past.

The paper, published July 28 in Nature Geoscience, focuses on a warm period in the earth’s history that preceded the most recent ice age. In that epoch, sometimes called the Eemian, the planetary temperature was similar to levels we may see in coming decades as a result of human emissions, so it is considered a possible indicator of things to come.

Examining elevated fossil beaches and coral reefs along more than a thousand miles of coast, Dr. O’Leary’s group confirmed something we pretty much already knew. In the warmer world of the Eemian, sea level stabilized for several thousand years at about 10 to 12 feet above modern sea level.

The interesting part is what happened after that. Dr. O’Leary’s group found what they consider to be compelling evidence that near the end of the Eemian, sea level jumped by another 17 feet or so, to settle at close to 30 feet above the modern level, before beginning to fall as the ice age set in.

In an interview, Dr. O’Leary told me he was confident that the 17-foot jump happened in less than a thousand years — how much less, he cannot be sure.

This finding is something of a vindication for one member of the team, a North Carolina field geologist, Paul J. Hearty. He had argued for decades that the rock record suggested a jump of this sort, but only recently have measurement and modeling techniques reached the level of precision needed to nail the case.

We have to see if their results withstand critical scrutiny. A sea-level scientist not involved in the work, Andrea Dutton of the University of Florida, said the paper had failed to disclose enough detailed information about the field sites to allow her to judge the overall conclusion. But if the work does hold up, the implications are profound. The only possible explanation for such a large, rapid jump in sea level is the catastrophic collapse of a polar ice sheet, on either Greenland or Antarctica.

Dr. O’Leary is not prepared to say which; figuring that out is the group’s next project. But a 17-foot rise in less than a thousand years, a geologic instant, has to mean that one or both ice sheets contain some profound instability that can be set off by a warmer climate.

That, of course, augurs poorly for humans. Scientists at Stanford calculated recently that human emissions are causing the climate to change many times faster than at any point since the dinosaurs died out. We are pushing the climate system so hard that, if the ice sheets do have a threshold of some kind, we stand a good chance of exceeding it.

Another recent paper, by Anders Levermann of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and a half-dozen colleagues, implies that even if emissions were to stop tomorrow, we have probably locked in several feet of sea level rise over the long term.

Benjamin Strauss and his colleagues at Climate Central, an independent group of scientists and journalists in Princeton, that reports climate research, translated the Levermann results into graphical form, and showed the difference it could make if we launched an aggressive program to control emissions. By 2100, their calculations suggest, continuing on our current path would mean locking in a long-term sea level rise of 23 feet, but aggressive emission cuts could limit that to seven feet.

If you are the mayor of Miami or of a beach town in New Jersey, you may be asking yourself: Exactly how long is all this going to take to play out?

On that crucial point, alas, our science is still nearly blind. Scientists can look at the rocks and see indisputable evidence of jumps in sea level, and they can associate those with relatively modest increases in global temperature. But the nature of the evidence is such that it is hard to tell the difference between something that happened in a thousand years and something that happened in a hundred.

On the human time scale, of course, that is all the difference in the world. If sea level is going to rise by, say, 30 feet over several thousand years, that is quite a lot of time to adjust — to pull back from the beaches, to reinforce major cities, and to develop technologies to help us cope.

But if sea level is capable of rising several feet per century, as Dr. O’Leary’s paper would seem to imply and as many other scientists believe, then babies being born now could live to see the early stages of a global calamity.”

Keystone XL Pipeline: A Memorandum To The President

A tough political decision that President Obama will soon have to make is whether to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline that would cross the international border between the U.S. and Canada. It is a highly controversial issue, one I do not find it easy to form an opinion on (see final paragraph) and about which I have had quite a few discussions with colleagues. What follows are some of the arguments that complicate my thinking and would constitute the elements of a decision memorandum I would send to the President.

Let me begin by reminding readers what the pipeline issue is all about. Quoting from Wikipedia: “The Keystone Pipeline System is a pipeline system to transport oil sands bitumen from Canada and the northern United States “primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast” of Texas. The products to be shipped include synthetic crude oil (syncrude) and dilbit (diluted bitumen) from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, and Bakken synthetic crude oil and light crude oil produced from the Williston Basin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota. Two phases of the project are in operation, a third, from Oklahoma to the Texas Gulf coast, is under construction and the fourth is awaiting U.S. government approval as of mid-March 2013. Upon completion, the Keystone Pipeline System would consist of the completed 2,151-mile (3,462 km) Keystone Pipeline (Phases I and II) and the proposed 1,661-mile (2,673 km) Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Project (Phases III and IV) . The controversial fourth phase, the Keystone XL Pipeline Project, would begin at the oil distribution hub in Hardisty, Alberta and extend 1,179 miles (1,897 km), to Steele City, Nebraska.”

Those opposed to the pipeline cite the contribution to carbon dioxide emissions from the mining of tar sands in Canada, the possibility and consequences of pipeline leaks associated with heated and highly pressurized bitumen, the initial (now modified) proposed path of the pipeline through areas above the Ogallala Aquifer (a major source of fresh water), and the potential delay in investments in renewable energy technologies due to the continued availability of oil resources.

The proponents of the pipeline argue that Canada will mine the tar sands and produce the bitumen and its associated carbon dioxide emissions regardless of what the U.S. decides (an alternative pipeline path would be to Canada’s west coast for sales to Asia), Canadian tar sands oil is already reaching the U.S. by train and new quantities could be shipped by rail as well (as Canada is already preparing to do), that obtaining oil from Canada is preferable to obtaining oil from the Persian Gulf and other countries and is in the U.S. national security and economic interest, and that pipeline construction today is under better regulation and is safer than ever before.

In his climate change speech at Georgetown University on June 25th (see earlier blog ‘The Beginnings of a U.S. Energy Policy’) the President seemed to hint that he would approve the pipeline, arguing that “Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest. And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.”

The use of the words ‘significantly exacerbate’ seems ‘significant’ in that it will be hard to argue that the carbon emissions from mininig the Alberta tar sands will add significantly to current global carbon dioxide emissions. Add they will, and add to oil availability they will as well, but by themselves and in terms of impact on climate change, not significantly.

Thus, if one assumes that the pipeline will be carefully regulated (and strict enforcement of regulations will be critical), that the Canadian tar sands will be mined regardless, that the new pipeline path is less risky for the Ogallala, and that the pipeline will reduce U.S. needs for other oil imports, I would approve the pipeline if it were my decision to make. This recognizes that our current need for liquid petroleum fuels to support transportation is significant and will continue for a while. However, this should in no way limit or slow down our efforts to electrify our transportation fleet, derive the needed electricity from renewable sources, and develop non-petroleum-based alternative fuels. I will say much more about these latter topics in future blogs.

Global Warming and Climate Change: All Too Real

The attached article by Dana Milbank in the June 12, 2013 Washington Post was the direct trigger for this post, on a topic that was on my list of things to discuss.  It is a harbinger of the future (NYC and GCC).

I first referred to climate change publicly in a speech I gave at the University of Delaware in 1982 entitled ‘Values in Energy Decision Making: Some Personal Perspectives’.  It was just a few years after Jim Hansen first began publishing on the issue of global warming and climate change and undertook to alert the world to the possibilities.  We all owe him a big thanks.  (Note:  the 1982 speech referred to above will be discussed in future blogs on nuclear power, energy conservation, and the role of values in energy policy.)

My current thoughts on global warming and climate change are reflected in the attached power point presentation, an invited Earth Day-related talk to a citizen’s group in northern Virginia (Global Warming and Climate Change).  It was an opportunity for me to review some of the rapidly growing literature on the subject and the latest scientific testimony to Congress. While not being a climate scientist, and recognizing that a few scientists still question the validity of human-induced global warming, I personally have no doubts, based on my reading of the literature as a scientist, that global warming is occurring due to human activities and is having serious impacts.  One such impact is on precipitation patterns which is touched upon in my earlier blog on ‘Water and Energy’.  Some have identified global warming and associated climate change as the most important issue facing the global community, which may be all too true notwithstanding that the world faces many other difficult-to-solve problems as well.