* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Introduction to CMI-15 - Carbon Mitigation Initiative
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Carbon governance in England wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Fossil fuel phase-out wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Canada wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Carbon capture and storage (timeline) wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Business action on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Introduction to CMI-15: The fifteenth annual meeting of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative Steve Pacala and Robert Socolow Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) Princeton University April 13, 2016 held for the first time in London and accompanied by many side meetings CMI Structure Research Groups: Science Technology Integration Co-Directors: S. Pacala R. Socolow BP: C. Feilding G. Hill Advisory Council: Collaborators (partial list): GFDL, Princeton NJ Tsinghua University Politecnico di Milano University of Bergen Climate Central, Princeton NJ S. Benson, Stanford D. Burtraw, Resources for the Future D. Hawkins, Natural Resources Defense Council M. Levi, Council on Foreign Relations D. Schrag, Harvard CMI has now been extended through 2020. History CMI began in 2000, at a time when John Browne sensed that the world might pass through a discontinuity and begin to take climate change seriously. He wanted BP to develop a comfortable relationship with a research center that would advance climate science and analyze low-carbon technology. The following few years were indeed characterized by greatly increased interest and concern: serious initiatives in carbon trading and subsidies for lowcarbon energy – including CO2 capture and storage (CCS). Princeton and BP were leaders in this effort in our respective domains. Much has changed and is changing Low-carbon energy is arriving unevenly: wind, solar, and vehicle fuel efficiency are being realized at a one-wedge pace, while hydrogen power, CCS, and nuclear power are faltering. Innovation in the energy sector has been dramatically affected by the arrival of shale gas and oil and low energy prices. In climate science new modeling capability is enabling forceful, credible statements about extreme events. An international regime has emerged in the past year, based on “nationally determined contributions,” which engages all sectors and creates strong pressure on the oil and gas industry to become proactive. Risks of climate change for BP The climate problem has the potential to disrupt BP’s core business in at least three ways: 1. Effective climate policies can emerge that discourage fossil fuel consumption, that impose environmental performance standards on production processes, and that subsidize or otherwise promote efficiency and low carbon energy. 2. Climate-motivated research can create disruptive new energy technology. 3. The consequences of climate change can directly disrupt BP’s investments in energy production infrastructure and supply chains. BP supports CMI to help manage risks 1. CMI sharpens BP’s corporate perspective on climate change. It provides BP with strategic understanding of the potential physical, biological and human systems impacts. 2. BP benefits when CMI disseminates sound information that supports effective public policy discussions. 3. BP leverages the much larger research programs of the CMI investigators. Agenda and goals Agenda item Why included? THIS AFTERNOON This talk Introduces/reintroduces CMI BP Review Reports on BP evolution and reengagement Four research talks Updates the CMI program TOMORROW The Paris Agreement Identifies Immediate opportunities and challenges Oil and gas through 2035 Provides a planning horizon that is coincident with BP’s Energy Outlook Beyond 2035 Acknowledges that the energy systems of a low-carbon world will differ greatly from today’s. The Paris Agreement, Dec. 2015 A fresh start. We are finally all in the same boat. A voluntary process, with many different credible outcomes. Two features of “Paris” For this talk The science is not doubted. An update on climate science A bet on low-carbon technology Tame coal via gas, CCS, wind&solar, biocarbon. The search for old ice on Greenland NEEM Summit (GISP2 and GRIP) DYE 3 Million-year ice on Greenland 1992: When this ice was stored in a Copenhagen freezer, its age was unknown. 2016: Michael Bender (Princeton), using an argon-isotope method he invented, found that this ice is at least 1 million years old – direct evidence of an ice sheet in central Greenland at least that far back. July 12, 1992, Sigfus Johnsen (University of Copenhagen) with the deepest section of the GRIP core, at 3029 meters depth, drilled through the ice at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet. The brown color is due to contemporaneous dirt in the ice from soil, lake water, bogs, and mud. High carbon fixation by Antarctic phytoplankton The biologically induced gas disequilibria (“among the largest ever recorded for a natural marine system”) and high carbon fixation in Antarctic waters are enabled by the very high cellular concentration of the carbonfixing enzyme, Rubisco (8% of biomass here, compared to 0.6% at 20oC). Spring phytoplankton bloom Data are from waters adjacent to Palmer Station, West Antarctic Peninsula, 6 meter depth, 2012-13. Source: Tortell, P.D., et al., (2014), Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 6803–6810. Fossil fuels Natural gas leakage and the global CH4 cycle Source: Global Carbon Project 2013; Figure based on Kirschke et al. 2013, Nature Geoscience Sources and sinks of methane (approx.) 300 Natural sources Anthropogenic sources 300 million tons/yr million tons/yr 5000 million tons Chemical destruction, mostly in the atmosphere 600 million tons/yr Includes 100 Mt/yr from natural gas (about the same as cattle) Methane Global Warming Potential 120 120 Because methane has a shorter residence 100 time in the atmosphere than CO2, but is ~120 times more potent as a GHG than an 80 equal mass of CO2, its GWP (the ratio of the cumulative radiative forcing of equal 60 masses) depends on the time horizon. 100 120 Methane GWP 80 60 60 40 40 20 20 00 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time Horizon (years) 70 80 90 100 Barnett Region methane emissions Top-down and bottom-up estimates all agree, so no sources have been missed. EPA Barnett emissions too low Barnett production, processing and local distribution leaks ~1.3% of production. This is roughly TWICE the EPA estimate. Zavala-Araiza et al. PNAS 2015 Barnett gas beats coal Gas Warms Less Than Coal Below This Line Texas electricity produced with Barnett gas is better for the climate than coal. Barnett Campaign 25% Only 5% of production site emissions 50%of ofproduction emissions fromsites 100emit of are from over 10% sites of leaking production over 10% of ~20,000 facilities production Barnett Campaign conclusions 1.3% of natural gas production in the Barnett is emitted into the atmosphere. A gas-fired power plant fueled from the Barnett has a lower warming potential than a pulverized coal plant over all time horizons. The > 50,000 kg/hr of methane leaking from the Barnett is dominated by what look to be simple mistakes (i.e. a valve left open). EDF US Methane Project conclusions downwind upwind Emissions from gas and oil production, processing and distribution are one of two major US sources. Emissions from cities with old gas grids is the other. Boston leaks ~2.5% of total fossil methane. Source: S. Wofsy, Harvard University. We can measure CH4 emissions from space With new demonstrated technology, satellites could now measure CH4 emissions at a “neighborhood” or “production field” or “facility,” much as the OCO-2 satellite measures CO2. Measurements of the CO2 concentration in Los Angeles from multiple passes of the OCO-2 satellite operating in “target” mode. Satellite instruments for observing methane Instrumentt Agency Data period Pixel [km2] Low Earth Orbitf Solar backscatter SCIAMACHY GOSAT TROPOMI GHGSat GOSAT-2 CarbonSat MethaneSat1 ESA JAXA ESA GHGSat, Inc. JAXA ESA concept 2003-2012 2009201620162018proposed 2-3 years DLR/CNES NASA NASA Active (lidar) MERLIN Geostationary[2] GEO-CAPE2 geoCARB2 1Global Coverage Precision 30x60 10x10 7x7 0.05x0.05 10x10 2x2 1x1 6 days global 3 days global 1 day global Targets 1-10 km 3 daysi 5-10 days targets 200 km 1.5 %g 0.6 % 0.6% 1-10% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1—0.2% 2020- 50x50 along track 1.0%k proposed proposed 4x4 4x5 hourly 8 hours 1.0% 1.0% coverage for 200x200km targets (production, urban areas) 2Not global, 3 platforms needed to cover all continents A new NAS report on “attribution” “It is now often possible to make and defend quantitative statements about the extent to which human-induced climate change …has influenced either the magnitude or the probability of occurrence of specific types of events or event classes. NAS: National Academy of Sciences (U.S.) Source: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21852/attribution-ofextreme-weather-events-in-the-context-of-climate-change. Scorecard: Attributable events Hand-off to Rob The Paris Agreement, Dec. 2015 A fresh start. We are finally all in the same boat. A voluntary process, with many different credible outcomes. Two features of “Paris” For this talk The science is not doubted. An update on climate science A bet on low-carbon technology Tame coal via gas, CCS, wind&solar, biocarbon. CO2 pathways to 2035 in BP’s Energy Outlook ??...? Source: BP Energy Outlook 2035 Will natural gas really displace coal? BP thinks so! Source: BP Energy Outlook 2035 The carbon intensity of global energy: growing! New coal dominates new gas in power sector Source: Phil Hannam, from Platts data, Dec. 2015 What will $100/tCO2 bring? How will various industries respond to a specific economy-wide carbon price whose objective is to induce new investments? For the sake of argument, consider $100/tCO2? • Upstream, the impacts are particularly dramatic upstream. $100/tCO2 is: $40/barrel of oil $5/million Btu of natural gas $200/ton of high-quality coal. • Downstream, if price-independent distribution costs are added, retail price increases are smaller, in percent. $100/tCO2 is: $0.80/U.S. gallon of gasoline $0.08/kWh electricity from coal $0.04/kWh electricity from natural gas. Future coal plant, CO2 captured and stored Assume: 1000 MW coal plant 10 years of operation 60 m usable, vertically 10% porosity 1/3 of pore space is CO2 Result: Horizontal footprint is 40 km2. How long does the CO2 need to stay down? Excessively strict early rules could thwart CCS. A new world for EOR at $100/tCO2 Enhanced oil recovery (EOR): EOR at 2 to 3 barrel produced per ton of CO2 stored (typical) stores roughly one carbon atom for each carbon atom produced*. At $30 to $50 per barrel and $100/tCO2, the two revenue streams are equal. How will EOR be changed by a $100/tCO2 price? * 1 bbl oil: ̴120 kgC; 1 tCO2: 272 kgC. Solar and wind are climbing steeply, linearly 375 350 Global Installed Capacity, GWe 325 300 Growth rates, 1996-2014, % per year Wind: 26.3 PV: 51.7 275 250 225 200 Wind PV 175 150 125 Linear growth in capacity recently for both Wind and PV, at 40 GW/yr! 100 75 50 25 0 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Year Source: Robert Williams. PV – IEA, "Trends 2015 in Photovoltaic Applications: Tables and Figures," Paris, 2015. Wind – Global Wind Energy Council, "Global Wind Report: Annual Market Update 2014," 2015. “Stranded asset” and investments in new reserves Step 1: An asset is created by adding value to something. Investment is necessary, not just discovery. Step 2: An asset is stranded. Stranding requires a) immobility, plus b) an external imposition that reduces the asset’s value. (1) (2) The next investments that create fossil fuel reserves in new provinces – and new pipelines and power plants – will become the scrimmage line for “stranded assets,” because they are predicated on 20-60 years of “business as usual.” Rapid Switch (Greig): How fast can change occur? History is useful: How quickly did automobiles displace horses, and why neither faster nor slower? Looking ahead: How quickly will science provide key insights (how the earth works, what is toxic)? How quickly can a technology gain market share? How will human values change (diet, consumerism)? What goes wrong when change is attempted too quickly? A Princeton-led Negative Emissions Initiative Motivating question: What do we know and what don’t we know about technical, economic, ecological, and societal feasibility of negative emissions? Princeton-led multidisciplinary team: •Princeton U Energy Systems Analysis Group (Eric Larson, PI) •MIT Joint Program on Global Change (Adam Schlosser/John Reilly) •U Minnesota Ecology Department (David Tilman) •Climate Central, non-advocacy science communication Recommendation #1 for BP Address your core activities. 1. Upstream CO2: Lead in curtailing flaring, promote CCS where gas is processed, redesign EOR for when CO2 storage becomes a revenue stream. 2. Upstream fugitive CH4: Demonstrate best practices – minimal release, fast response to carelessness. Beyond safety. 3. Gas for coal: Work out the limits on how much and how fast, e.g., to restrain the juggernaut in Asia. 4. Gas for “firming”: Provide dispatchable power via partnerships where gas backs up intermittent renewables. Recommendation #2 for BP Engage policymaking proactively. 1. Be real and helpful about carbon pricing. What should we expect to see happen at $5/tCO2? What about $100/tCO2, reached by a ramp that is credible? 2. Identify yourselves with carbon efficiency. Examples: A. When bringing gas to new cities, assure efficient buildings/appliances. B. Help your industrial and power-plant customer to use your fuel efficiently (the customer’s side of the meter).