* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Introduction - Carbon Mitigation Initiative
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Iron fertilization wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Reforestation wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate-friendly gardening wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Carbon pricing in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Carbon sequestration wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Business action on climate change wikipedia , lookup
The Carbon Mitigation Initiative Third Annual Meeting January 20-21, 2004 INTRODUCTION Goal: The goal of the meeting is to understand progress to date and to produce a shared commitment to the objectives of Year-4 and beyond. LAUNCH OF THE AGREEMENT December 1999 – June 2000. BP runs an internal, U.S.-based competition for a research initiative in carbon mitigation. October 2000. BP and Ford Motor Company jointly announce the formation of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) at Princeton University to develop new approaches to carbon management. “CMI will focus on resolving the fundamental scientific, environmental, and technological issues that ultimately will determine public acceptance of carbon management strategies. It will search for strategies that: 1) will have the desired effect on atmospheric carbon and climate; 2) will be safe and reliable with limited environmental impact; and 3) will involve neither prohibitive economic costs nor prohibitive disruption of patterns of energy consumption.” Recognizing the complexity and durability of the issues, both BP and Ford Motor Company make a ten-year commitment, with BP funding of $15,100,000 and Ford Fund funding of $5,000,000. December 2000. Kickoff meeting is held in Princeton. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PEI / CMI THE CHALLENGE OF CARBON MANAGEMENT The relentless increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide together with the trend of public opinion and scientific evidence points toward a future constrained by "the carbon problem". To solve the carbon problem, new technologies for the capture and storage of the carbon in fossil fuels must be implemented on a fantastic scale. The majority of the roughly one thousand billion tons of carbon* in the fossil fuels consumed over the 21st century will need to be actively redirected from the atmosphere and sequestered elsewhere. *1000 Gt(C) ~ 500 ppmv PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PEI / CMI CMI Mission Statement The vision of the CMI is to lead the way to a compelling and sustainable solution of the carbon and climate change problem. By combining the unique and complementary strengths of the CMI parties ⎯ one premier academic institution and two influential global companies ⎯CMI participants seek to attain a novel synergy across fundamental science, technology development, and business principles that accelerates the pace from discovery, through proof of concept, to scalable application. CMI Goals CMI will focus on resolving the fundamental scientific, environmental, and technological issues that ultimately will determine public acceptance of carbon management strategies. CMI will establish which strategies: • will have the desired effect on atmospheric carbon and climate; • will be safe and reliable with limited environmental impact; • will involve neither prohibitive economic costs nor prohibitive disruption of patterns of energy consumption. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PEI / CEES Near McElmo Dome, Colorado (from David Hawkins, NRDC) “A sign about every quarter-mile” in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, Southwest Colorado. Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton, 2001-2010 Carbon Carbon Capture Capture Carbon Carbon Storage Storage Carbon Carbon Science Science Carbon Carbon Policy Policy $21,150,000 funding from BP and Ford. BP: G. Hill Ford: K. Hass Directors: S. Pacala R. Socolow Research Team Leaders: R. Williams M. Celia G. Sherer J. Sarmiento D. Bradford M. Oppenheimer External Advisory Board: S. Benson D. Hawkins J. Holdren D. Keith F. Orr R. Richels Carbon science Carbon science projects explore the consequences of large-scale carbon management: Earth system modeling of the impact of alternative mitigation options on greenhouse gases and climate. Analysis of abrupt changes in the carbon and climate system. Shipboard measurements of the O2/N2 ratio of air to estimate natural CO2 sequestration by the land biosphere and oceans. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PEI / CMI Carbon Science Personnel Bender Morel Pacala Sarmiento Sigman Abic, Cane, Clark Denkenberger, Deutch Haenssen, Jacobson Malyshev, Marinoy McKinley, Mignone Naik, Purves, Reuer Roy, Shevliakova Schultz, Selzer, Simeon Sturtevant, Weaver Zea Tools Earth System Model Automated Trace Gas Samplers Core Research Calculate Stabilization Emissions Predict Future of Natural Sink Measure Natural Sinks, Including via O2/N2 and Ar/N2 Measurements Predict Climate Change Impacts Improve Carbon and Climate Models Scouts Iron Fertilization Glacial/Interglacial Deep injection Ecological Sequestration Climate Change and Wind Energy Science Highlights 2003 1. New observational and data-based estimates of terrestrial and ocean carbon sink size and variability confirm previous estimates. 2. New data indicate that polar oceans were stratified during the last glacial period, supporting the hypothesis that that decreased evasion of CO2 from the deep ocean had a cooling influence on climate. 3.Data from polar oceans provide the first evidence that natural iron variations produce changes in marine biological productivity, possibly influencing CO2 uptake. 4. A new state-of-the-art climate model with an interactive land model has been completed and is running initial simulations. 5. Analysis of Wisconsin forests since the 1960’s indicate growth rates have decreased with rising CO2 levels, undermining the theory that carbon dioxide’s fertilizing effect on land plants would increase CO2 uptake in the future. Uncertainty About the Future of the Land Sink Compared to Stabilization Emissions Billions of Tons of Carbon per Year 9 8 7 Reduction in Net Land Emissions Required for 500 ppm Stabilizaton 6 5 Strength of CO2 Fertilization in IPCC Third Assessment Models 4 3 2 1 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 Year 2040 2050 Fossil Carbon Emissions Reductions (Gt/y) Cumulative Emissions Reductions Necessary to Stabilize at 500 PPM 170 145 120 95 CO2 Fertilization Sink Land Use Sink 70 45 20 -5 2000 2010 2020 2030 Year 2040 2050 John Wayne's America, Why I Love Her Foreword Observed Change in Grow th Rate 0.165 0.141 0.118 0.095 0.072 0.048 0.025 0.002 -0.021 -0.045 -0.068 -0.091 -0.114 -0.138 -0.161 -0.184 -0.207 -0.231 -0.254 -0.277 -0.300 -0.324 -0.347 Zero Number of Observations Forest Growth Decline CO2 Fertilization Prediction 0 Conclusions • Growth in forests in the north-central US has slightly but significantly decreased over the last 35 years. • State-of-the-art ecosystem models of CO2 fertilization are false for this region. • When added to observed down-regulation and evidence from new global carbon budgets, this result provides additional cause for skepticism about the predicted future benefits of CO2 fertilization. • The IPCC should give equal time to models with no CO2 fertilization, or risk endorsing integrated assessments that recommend too little early mitigation of fossil carbon emissions. Carbon capture Carbon capture projects explore the hydrogen-pluselectricity economy: Low-cost routes to hydrogen production from natural gas and coal, with a first focus on membrane reactors. Infrastructure requirements for hydrogen and carbon dioxide. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PEI / CMI Carbon Capture Personnel Core Research Williams Celik H2 production from fossil fuels with CO2 sequestration (with Milan) Socolow DeLorenzo Law Denkenberger Polygeneration of electricity, H2, synfuels (with Tsinghua) Ju Kaijuka H2 and CO2 infrastructures (DOE) Kreutz Succar Larson Wang Ogden Yang Scouts Srinivisan Yuan H2 use beyond transportation H2 and DME combustion Milan: Consonni, Chiesa, Vigano Tsinghua: Li, Ren Tools Aspen Plus and GS (Milan): plant design Markal: energy forecasting Combustion Laboratory Research Highlights for 2003 • Hydrogen production from coal with CO2 capture shows costs are comparable for membrane and conventional separation. Key issues: byproduct electricity, syngas cooling, co-capture of sulfur. • Polygeneration (electricity + synfuels + H2) modeling highlights opportunities via once-through liquid-phase synthesis reactors. Superiority of indirect to direct liquefaction is communicated at high level in China. • Costing of H2 infrastructures to link large-scale production and decentralized use clarify pace of transition in cities, requirements for system storage. • Combustion mechanisms for H2 and dimethyl ether (DME) are studied. A Glimpse of the Future: Coal Gasification is More Than Halfway to Coal with CO2 Capture Benchmark: IGCC Electricity with CO2 Capture High temp. WGS reactor Low temp. WGS reactor H2- and CO2-rich syngas Quench + scrubber CO2-lean exhaust gases CO-rich raw syngas Coal slurry O2-blown coal gasifier Regeneration, Claus, SCOT Solvent regeneration Lean/rich solvent Lean/rich solvent H2S physical absorption CO2 physical absorption CO2 drying + compression Supercritical CO2 to storage H2-rich syngas Saturated steam Syngas expander Heat recovery steam generator Turbine exhaust 95% O2 Steam turbine Air Air separation unit Gas turbine Air N2 for (NOx control) GHGT-6 conv. electricity, CO2 seq. (9-25-02) • Cost: 6.4 ¢/kWh (at carbon tax of 93 $/tonne C), efficiency: 34.8% (HHV). (70 bar gasifier with quench cooling; plant scale: 368 MWe) H2 Production: Add H2 Purification/Separation High temp. WGS reactor Low temp. WGS reactor H2- and CO2-rich syngas Quench + scrubber CO2-lean exhaust gases CO-rich raw syngas Coal slurry O2-blown coal gasifier Regeneration, Claus, SCOT Solvent regeneration Lean/rich solvent Lean/rich solvent H2S physical absorption CO2 physical absorption CO2 drying + compression Supercritical CO2 to storage H2-rich syngas Saturated steam Syngas expander Heat recovery steam generator Turbine exhaust 95% O2 Steam turbine Air Air separation unit Gas turbine Air N2 for (NOx control) GHGT-6 conv. electricity, CO2 seq. (9-25-02-a) • Replace syngas expander with PSA and purge gas compressor. Conventional H2 Production with CO2 Capture High temp. WGS reactor Low temp. WGS reactor H2- and CO2-rich syngas Quench + scrubber CO2-lean exhaust gases CO-rich raw syngas Coal slurry O2-blown coal gasifier Regeneration, Claus, SCOT Solvent regeneration Lean/rich solvent Lean/rich solvent H2S physical absorption CO2 physical absorption Saturated steam CO2 drying + compression Supercritical CO2 to storage High purity H2 product Pressure swing adsorption Purge gas Heat recovery steam generator Turbine exhaust 95% O2 Steam turbine Air Air separation unit Gas turbine Air N2 for (NOx control) GHGT-6 conv. hydrogen, CO2 seq. (9-25-02) • H2 cost: 7.5 $/GJ (HHV) (at carbon tax of 38 $/tonne C, electricity 4.6 ¢/kWh ). [70 bar gasifier with quench cooling; plant scale: 1210 MWth H2 (HHV)] Relevance: transition to turbulence and detonation; engine knock; explosion hazard Instability aggravated with increasing pressure, but diminished with propane addition Increasing propane addition Equivalence ratio: 0.80 Pressure: 5 atm Diesel engine testing: reduced emissions of CO, NOx, formaldehyde, particulates, and unburned hydrocarbons (UHC) 1300 Ignition temperature experimentally determined Detailed 1200 Skeletal 28-step 1150 Tign (K) • 1250 1100 1050 1000 • Detailed and reduced reaction mechanisms developed. Simulation agrees with experiment p = 3atm -1 k = 150 s 950 900 850 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 DME Mole Fraction 0.4 0.5 Carbon storage Carbon storage projects explore the safety, reliability and environmental impact of carbon storage in underground reservoirs: Predictive models of CO2 leaking from an underground storage site as it moves toward the earth's surface, with an emphasis on chemistry in drinking-water aquifers and the unsaturated zone. Experimental studies of the chemistry of CO2 at high pressure. Exploratory studies of alternatives to underground storage (e.g., oceanic injection, carbonate production, enhanced biological sequestration). PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PEI / CMI Carbon Storage Personnel Celia Jaffe Myneni Peters Prevost Scherer Altevogt Bruant Duguid Gasda Giammar Li Luet Rodonjic Core Research CO2 Leakage Estimation Data from Alberta Basin (with AGS) Critical Pathway: Existing Wells and Cement Risks associated with CO2 leakage into shallow ground water and soils Geochemistry of CO2-Brine-Rock Interactions Tools Scouts Extend Dynaflow geomechanics code to include multi-phase, multicomponent flow capabilities Mammoth Mountain field studies of high- CO2 soil gas impacts on vegetation Upscaling of micro-phenomena to large spatial scale Research Highlights for 2003 • Refocus of the below-ground group. • Experiments to assess the potential for cement failure in wells are underway. • Analytical solutions for determining the characteristics of CO2 injection plumes, and to estimate leakage rates through abandoned wells. • Geochemical experiments have shown that pressure has only minimal effects on mineral dissolution in deep aquifers. New Focus for Carbon Storage Personnel Celia Scherer Prevost Altevogt Bruant Duguid Gasda Giammar Li Luet Rodonjic Core Research Potential for CO2 Leakage From Existing Wells Focusing on Cement 1. Analysis of field collected cement samples (Teapot Dome). 2. Laboratory experiments on cement in the presence of CO2. 3. Numerical models for the areas surrounding the interface between sequestration reservoir and well. 4. Fast reservoir models for basin scale risk analysis. Tools Geochemistry and geomechanics module for CO2 reservoir/well interface that runs within industrystandard reservoir simulation codes. Scouts Mathematics of injected CO2 Research Highlights for 2003 • Refocus of the below-ground group. • Experiments to assess the potential for cement failure in wells are underway. • Analytical solutions for determining the characteristics of CO2 injection plumes, and to estimate leakage rates through abandoned wells. • Geochemical experiments have shown that pressure has only minimal effects on mineral dissolution in deep aquifers. Corrosion of Cement in Carbonated Brine Reacted cement sample (50 C) o Unreacted Reacted 6mm Unreacted zone Reacted zone Carbon policy Carbon policy projects explore the economics of large-scale sequestration: The economics of leaky containment and the discounting of future damages. Incentives bearing on shifts in technological regimes. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PEI / CMI Carbon Policy Personnel Bradford Core Research Li Costs and benefits of “wedge” technologies Optimal magnitudes and timing of mitigation Oppenheimer Naevdal Donner Naik Greenblatt Wagner Benchmarking “dangerous interference with the climate system,” e.g., impacts on cryosphere Innovative international allowance trading scheme Kim Scouts Penn State: Keller Carbon cycle modeling in integrated assessments (Workshop, May 2002) IIASA: Riahi Models of learning by doing PNNL: Edmonds Tools Modified versions of the RICE MiniCAM (PNL) and Merge (EPRI) Research Highlights for 2003 • Four integrated assessment models tailored for our use are operational. • New economic analyses indicate that delaying mitigation of CO2 emissions by decades could make avoiding specific climate thresholds prohibitively expensive. • Experiments with our integrated assessment models estimate the costs of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 at less than twice the preindustrial level. What is the size of the stabilization wedge? MERGE BAU MERGE S500 16 MiniCAM BAU MiniCAM S500 DICE99 BAU 12 8 DICE99 S500 4 W e d g e , G t-C E m issio n s, G t-C 20 RICE01-SEQ BAU RICE01-SEQ S500 0 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Year 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2000 MERGE MiniCAM DICE99 RICE01-SEQ 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Year Notes: - Carbon emissions exclude land use changes. - The projections differ with the assumptions made about the future economic growth & energy technologies. - The required carbon taxes in 2100 range between 150 and 600 $/tC. - MERGE projections are biased close to the terminal conditions (2080 onwards). What would be the size of each of slices for the stabilization wedge? 7 Wedges in 2055 [Gt-C] E FF 6 S UB 5 BST NUC 4 3 2 1 0 rr hr rh hh Sce narios The size of each of the slices depends crucially on the assumptions on future economic growth and technological changes in energy technologies. CMI 2003 Integration: Stabilization Wedge Economics & Policy Science Technology Capture Storage “Scouts” GtC/yr 21 The Stabilization Wedge sA s e n i Bus 14 7 0 2004 l sua U s Easier CO2 target ≈ 750 ppm Tough er CO2 ppm target ≈ 500 2054 2104 14 Doubled emissions Gigatons Carbon Emitted per Year Stabilization Wedge in s Bu s es - al u us as 7 Current emissions CO2 released to atmosphere 1.6 0 1950 2003 2053 Seven “Slices” Fills the Wedge It is irresistible to divide the wedge into seven equal parts. We call these “slices.” 7 GtC/yr 2004 2054 What is a “slice”? A “slice” is an activity reducing the rate of carbon build-up in the atmosphere that grows in 50 years from zero to 1.0 Gt(C)/yr. 1 GtC/yr Total = 25 Gigatons carbon 50 years Cumulatively, a slice redirects the flow of 25 Gt(C) in its first 50 years. This is 2.5 trillion dollars at $100/t(C). A “solution” to the Greenhouse problem should have the potential to provide at least one slice. Filling the Wedge The discussion moves to choosing among alternate ways of filling the wedge. Coal to Gas CCS Natural Sinks Efficiency Nuclear Renewables Questions Organizing Year 4 and Beyond Science What is a safe level for CO2 in the atmosphere? How much CO2 can be emitted if we are to stabilize at any given level? What are the unintended environmental consequences of mitigation options? Capture What are the critical enabling technologies that are ready for commercialization in the near term? Given that most of the stabilization wedge must be built in developing countries, what technological options are most promising for the developing world? What is the relationship between cost and capacity for the various mitigation options? Questions Organizing Year 4 and Beyond Storage How likely are CO2 storage reservoirs to leak? How risky are leaks at basin-scales or larger? How can we best mitigate leakage risk? Economics and Policy What is the economic cost of stabilization? What are the most efficient economic instruments to accomplish it? What is the relationship between economic efficiency and practicality of implementation? What is the cost of waiting? What political options are most feasible and which are most likely? Outreach