Download Mitigation Strategies— Potentials and Problems

Climate Change
Mitigation Strategies—
Potentials and Problems
Edward S. Rubin
Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Presentation to the Workshop on
Climate Change, Engineered Systems and Society
The National Academies
Irvine, California
June 7, 2011
The Recent National Academies Study:
America’s Climate Choices
In this talk I will:
•
Focus mainly on the
U.S. situation
•
Draw heavily on results
of the 2010 ACC panel
report on, Limiting the
Magnitude of Future
Climate Change,
supplemented by other
materials
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
The Congressional Request
The National Academies should …
“…investigate and study the serious and sweeping
issues relating to global climate change and make
recommendations regarding what steps must be
taken and what strategies must be adopted in
response to global climate change ...” (2008)
Focus on actions to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions and
other human drivers of climate change (such as changes in land use),
but also consider the international dimensions of climate stabilization
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Setting goals
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
The Goal of Stabilization
•
1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate
Change called for “stabilization of greenhouse
gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level
that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system”
*192 countries are parties to the convention
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Dangers of climate change increase
with higher global temperature
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Source: IPCC, 2007
Setting GHG Mitigation Goals
Target: limit global mean
temperature increase
What is a “safe” amount of climate change?
What “limits” should be adopted as goals?
Target: limit atmospheric
GHG concentrations
How do limits on global mean temperature
change or other key impacts translate into
limits on atmospheric GHG concentrations?
Target: limit global
GHG emissions
How do atmospheric GHG concentration
limits translate into limits on global GHG
emissions?
Target: limit U.S.
GHG emissions
What is a reasonable share of U.S. emission
reductions relative to the global targets?
What is the implied emissions “budget”?
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Set an Emissions Budget
•
We suggest that the U.S.
establish a “budget” for
cumulative GHG emissions
over a set period of time
•
We offer a representative
range of: 170–200 gigatons
(Gt) of CO2-eq for the period
2012–2050 (corresponds to
reductions to ~50% to 80%
below 1990 emission levels)*
Business-as-usual emissions
would consume these budgets
well before 2050; thus, there is
a need for URGENCY
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
* Based on results from, Energy Modeling Forum -22 (EMF, 2009)
and America’s Energy Future (NAS, 2009)
Mitigation options
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Focus on CO2 from Energy Use —
the Dominant Greenhouse Gas
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
weighted by 100-yr Global Warming Potential (GWP)
2.0%
5.5%2.2%
6.5%
7.4%7.9%
84.6%
83.9%
.
Total in 2005 = 7.26 Gt CO2 equiv
Source: USEPA, 2007
CO2
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
CO2
CH4
CH4
N2O
N2O
Others
Others
How Human Activities
Generate CO2 Emissions
The blue rectangles are intervention points for mitigation
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Ways to Reduce CO2 Emissions
•
•
•
•
Reduce demand for energy-intensive goods & services
Improve the efficiency of energy use (at all stages)
Expand use of low- and zero-carbon energy sources
Capture and sequester CO2 directly from ambient air
All of these options are currently available
(to varying degrees)
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Electricity and Transportation are the
Major Sources of U.S. CO2 Emissions
U.S. CO2 Emissions
Petroleum
Natural Gas
Electricity
33.0%
35
29.8%
30
25
20.1%
17.1%
20
15
10
5
0
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
(a) End-Use Energy Sectors
Percent of U.S. CO2 Emissions
Percent of U.S. CO 2 Emissions
Coal
45
39.8%
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Transportation
(b) Electric Power Sector
Source: Based on USDOE, 2008
Fossil fuels provide 70% of U.S.
electricity and emit 40% of CO2
Electricity + Vehicles emit ≈ 75% of all CO2
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Technical Options Available
•
INCREASED ENERGY EFFICIENCY




•
LOW-CARBON ELECTRICITY




•
Renewables: wind, hydro, geothermal, solar
Nuclear power
Coal and gas with CCS
Natural gas
DECARBONIZED FUELS



•
Building design and systems
Industrial processes
Transportation systems
Electric power systems
Biofuels (based on LCA emissions)
Hydrogen: from renewables, nuclear, natural gas and coal w/CCS
Synthetic fuels from coal, natural gas, biomass, oil sands w/CCS
REPLACE FUELS w/ LOW-CARBON ELECTRICITY


Grid-charged batteries for ground transportation
Heat pumps for building furnaces and boilers
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Policy Options Available
1
Table 5.1 Policy options that can influence technology innovation [REVISED TABLE]
“TECHNOLOGY POLICY” OPTIONS *
Direct
Government
Funding of
Knowledge
Generation
 R&D contract
with private
firms (fully
funded or cost
shared)
 R&D contracts
and grants with
nonprofits.
 Intramural R&D
in government
laboratories.
 R&D contracts
with consortia or
collaborations
Direct or Indirect
Support for
Commercialization
and Production
 R&D tax credits
Knowledge
Diffusion and
Learning
 Education and
 Patents
 Production
subsidies or tax
credits for firms
bringing new
technologies to
market
 Tax credits, rebates
or payments for
purchasers/users of
new technologies
 Gov’t. procurement
of new or advanced
technologies
 Demonstration
projects
 Loan guarantees
 Monetary prizes
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie
2
*Mellon
Based on CSPO/CATF, 2009)




training
Codification and
diffusion of technical
knowledge (e.g, via
interpretation and
validation of R&D
results; screening;
support for
databases)
Technical standards
Technology/Industry
extension programs
Publicity, persuasion
and consumer
information
REGULATORY POLICY
OPTIONS
Economy-wide
Measures and Sector
or Technology-specific
Regulations and
Standards
 Emissions tax
 Cap-and-trade program
 Performance standards
(for emission rates,
efficiency or other
measures of
performance)
 Fuels tax
 Portfolio standards
Source: NAS, 2010
Mitigation: The Potential
(the elegance of analytical solutions)
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Strategies to Reach GHG Goals
Least-cost U.S.
energy mix in 2050
for a GHG budget
of ~170 Gt CO2-eq
80% GHG reduction case
160
140
120
100
EJ/yr
(80% below 1990)
(similar findings for
global analyses)
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
60
40
20
Oil w/o CCS
Coal w/CCS
Bioenergy w/o CCS
Non-Biomass Renewable
Source: EMF22, 2009
Oil w/CCS
Gas w/o CCS
Bioenergy w/CCS
Energy Reduction
MRN-NEEM
MiniCAM
MERGE
EPPA
ADAGE
0
2000
Results from
energy models
show that
major changes
are needed in the
U.S. energy system
80
Coal w/o CCS
Gas w/CCS
Nuclear
Feasible But Not Easy
•
An emissions budget in the range of 170–200 Gt CO2-eq
is technically possible, but could be very difficult to
achieve
•
No single solution; different models project different
mixes of energy sources and technologies
•
Within the electric power and transportation sectors,
essentially all available options would have to be
deployed, often at levels close to estimates of what is
technically possible
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Economic Impact
•
All models project that
GDP continues to grow,
but at a somewhat lower
rate than reference case
•
The magnitude of estimated
impact on GDP is especially
sensitive to the:



Timing of emission reductions
Availability of advanced
technology
Availability and price of
international offsets
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Source: NAS, 2010
Value of Sustained R&D
 REFERENCE: Continue historical
rates of technology improvement
 ADVANCED: Strong R&D with
more rapid technological change
400
350
$/tCO2-e (2005 U.S.$)
Projected price of CO2
emissions under two
technology scenarios:
300
Reference
Advanced
250
200
150
100
50
An early start and a strong
R&D program could reduce
total costs significantly
0
2020
2035
2050
Source: Kyle et al. 2009
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Core Policy Recommendations
1. Adopt a mechanism for setting an economy-wide
carbon pricing system
2.
Complement the carbon price with other policies to:

Realize the potential for energy efficiency and
low-carbon energy sources for electricity and transport
 Accelerate the retirement, retrofitting or replacement
of GHG emission-intensive infrastructure
 Establish the feasibility of large-scale carbon capture
and storage and new nuclear technologies
3.
Create new technology choices by investing heavily in
research and crafting policies to stimulate innovation
Source: NAS, 2010
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Core Recommendations (con’t.)
4. Consider potential equity implications when designing
and implementing climate change-limiting policies, with
special attention to disadvantaged populations
5. Establish the United States as a leader to stimulate other
countries to adopt GHG reduction targets
6. Enable flexibility and experimentation with policies to
reduce GHGs at the regional, state and local levels
7. Design policies that balance durability and consistency
with flexibility and capacity for modification as we learn
from experience
Source: NAS, 2010
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Mitigation: The Problems
(the messiness of real-world solutions)
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Still No Political Consensus
on Key Issues
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Importance and urgency of addressing climate change
Role of developed vs. developing nations
Cost of mitigation
Best or preferred policy measure(s)
Distribution of costs across society and regions
Availability of some mitigation options (at scale)
Acceptability of some mitigation options
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Still No Global or National
Mitigation Program
•
COP 15 (Copenhagen) failed to produce
an international accord on GHG reductions
•
The 111th U.S. Congress failed to enact a
climate bill (after adoption by the House)
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Even Here in California …
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
But Many Regional, State, Local
and Private Initiatives Underway
Source: Pew Climate Center, 2011
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
New Educational Initiatives
Would be Extremely Valuable
At Carnegie Mellon
we also have a long
history of educational
activities related to
climate change,
technology and
society. Here are a
just a few examples.
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
What Will the Future Bring ?
The
climate
problem is
not going
away !
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Education
can make a
difference
Thank You
[email protected]
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon