Science Fiction

I was working in the lab late last night,

when my eyes beheld an eerie sight

      - Bobby Picket  (Monster Mash)

Science can't change you,

Looks like I can't change you

        -Talking Heads

Greetings

       Denial can take many forms.   The most obvious is where you just stick your fingers in your ears and shout " I can't hear you!".    See e.g. Florida bans use of term "climate change".

           But I recently ran into a more subtle form.  From the IPCC of all all places.  As you know they publish a suite  of projections.  They range from continuing on our merry way doing nothing and hitting 4 degrees by 2100 ( RCP 8.5),  to taking some action to avert disaster.   In the latest round, only one of the options actually gets us below 2 degrees (RCP 2.6) .  

         But unless you read the fine print you might not know that in order to get there, we need to invent and build out a whole new technology - the carbon sucking machine.    So, the IPCC is telling us, and our leaders that it is still possible to avoid dangerous climate change.  Not by a drastic change in our carbon spewing ways,  such as suggested by Kevin Anderson.   But by implementing a technology that doesn't currently exist.    Looking closely at the charts, one can see that the IPCC's  expectation is that we start pulling carbon out of the air by 2020, and that by 2070, emissions actually go negative.. 

      But does this technology actually exist?

          So, how's it going down there in the lab?  Going pretty slow, it seems.  It would seem that capturing carbon at the coal plant would be the easiest, as the carbon is is concentrated.  But so far, progress, has been slow.    Its still very expensive., and both government and utilities are loosing their appetite.  see Obama pulls plug on Future Gen   (Joe Romm)  and      European Utilities drop CCS technology project.

       Meanwhile , some argue that CCS diverts attention from the need to move away from fossil fuels, and the fact that fossil fuels are finite, and will peak soon.  see  Heinberg.  See  also here.  For a review of the current situation see  Carbon Sequestration - Too little too late?   which concludes: 

"Meanwhile, the facts on the ground—and in the air—are quite grim. “So far, we have achieved almost nothing in terms of mitigation of emissions, which are tracking at the upper limit for future emission scenarios. Indeed, in the last decade the world economy has actually recarbonized—shifted back to coal,” says David Victor, professor of international relations and director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at the University of California, San Diego."

-----



Survivable IPCC projections are based on science fiction - the reality is much worse

Nick Breeze



The IPCC's 'Representative Concentration Pathways' are based on fantasy technology that must draw massive volumes of CO2 out of the atmosphere late this century, writes Nick Breeze - an unjustified hope that conceals a very bleak future for Earth, and humanity.

It is quite clear that we have no carbon budget whatsoever. The account, far from being in surplus, is horrendously overdrawn. To claim we have a few decades of safely burning coal, oil and gas is an utter nonsense.

The IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) published in their latest report, AR5, a set of 'Representative Concentration Pathways' (RCP's).

These RCP's (see graph, right) consist of four scenarios that project global temperature rises based on different quantities of greenhouse gas concentrations.

The scenarios are assumed to all be linked directly to emissions scenarios. The more carbon we emit then the hotter it gets. Currently humanity is on the worst case scenario of RCP 8.5 which takes us to 2°C warming by mid century and 4°C warming by the end of the century.

As Professor Schellnhuber, from Potsdam Institute for Climate Research (PIK) said, "the difference between two and four degrees is human civilisation."

In 2009 the International Union of Forest Research Organisations delivered a report to the UN that stated that the natural carbon sink of trees could be lost at a 2.5°C temperature increase.

The ranges for RCP 4.5 and RCP 6 both take us over 2.5°C and any idea that we can survive when the tree sink flips from being a carbon sink to a carbon source is delusional.

Where does this leave us?

Of the four shown RCP's only one keeps us within the range that climate scientists regard as survivable. This is RCP 2.6 that has a projected temperature range of 0.9°C and 2.3°C.

Considering we are currently at 0.85°C above the preindustrial level of greenhouse gas concentrations, we are already entering the range and as Professor Martin Rees says: "I honestly would bet, sad though it is, that the annual CO2 emissions are going to rise year by year for at least the next 20 years and that will build up accumulative levels close to 500 parts per million."



The recent US / China agreement supports Rees's contentions. But even if Rees is wrong and we do manage to curtail our carbon emissions, a closer look at RCP 2.6 shows something much more disturbing.

In his image (see graph, right), IPCC SMP Expert Reviewer David Tattershall has inserted vertical red lines to mark the decades between years 2000 and 2100. Within this 21st Century range he has also highlighted a steep decline in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (shown by the steep declining thick red line).

It is interesting that concerted action for emissions reductions is timed to occur just beyond the date for the implementation of a supposed legally binding international agreement.

Stopping emissions does not reduce atmospheric carbon. The emissions to date are colossal and the warming effect is delayed by around 40 years. Therefore, even if we halt emissions, we know there is much more warming to come. That will also set off other positive feedbacks along the way that will amplify the warming further, stretching over centuries.

So how does the IPCC achieve these vast reductions in greenhouse gases?

If we look at the vertical red lines, at around 2025 the steep decline in atmospheric greenhouse gases begins. Accumulated emissions not only are reduced to zero in 2070 but actually go negative.

This chart shows that carbon is removed from the atmosphere in quantities of hundreds of billions of tonnes, for as far ahead as 2300 to sustain a temperature beneath 2°C.

What makes this idea of projected large-scale Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) even more perverse is the talk by policymakers of a "carbon budget". This refers to the amount of fossil fuel that can be burned before we are at risk of reaching a 2°C rise in global mean temperature.

It is quite clear that we have no carbon budget whatsoever. The account, far from being in surplus, is horrendously overdrawn. To claim we have a few decades of safely burning coal, oil and gas is an utter nonsense.

Sequestering billions of tonnes of carbon for centuries

If all of the above has not raised any alarm bells then perhaps it is time to consider the proposed methods for sucking the billions of tonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere.

In February 2015 the National Research Council in the United States launched their two reports on "climate interventions". Dr Nutt concluded with this statement on CDR:

"Carbon Dioxide Removal strategies offer the potential to decrease carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere but they are limited right now by their slow response, by their inability to scale up and their high cost."

Dr Nutt's conclusion points to very important factor that we can elaborate on with a rare case of certainty. There is no proposed CDR technology that can be scaled up to suck billions of tonnes out of the Earth's atmosphere. It simply does not exist in the real world.

This is reiterated by Dr Hugh Hunt in the Department of Engineering, at the University of Cambridge, who points out:

"10 billion tonnes a year of carbon sequestration? We don't do anything on this planet on that scale. We don't manufacture food on that scale, we don't mine iron ore on that scale. We don't even produce coal, oil or gas on that scale. Iron ore is below a billion tonnes a year! How are we going to create a technology, from scratch, a highly complicated technology, to the tune of 10 billion tonnes a year in the next 10 years?"

Science fiction

It is not just that there are currently no ideas being researched to such a degree where they are likely to be able to bring down atmospheric carbon to a safe level of around 300 parts per million. It is also that the level of funding available to the scientists doing the research is woefully inadequate.

These RCP's are used by policymakers to decide what actions are required to sustain a safe climate for our own and future generations. The information they are using, presented by the IPCC, is nothing more than science fiction.

It makes for sober thinking when glossy images of President Obama and the Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, are presented to the world shaking hands on global emissions reductions by 2030 that we know will commit us to catastrophe

Looking for a Loophole

Greetings

     So, is coal dead?    I;m told that the new proposed rules are so tough that no coal plants can be built.    Well, that good news, certain;y.  But for a different perspective, it's always useful to check the business press (h/t to Reueben)

      So, how tough are the rules? 

the Obama administration’s proposals, which would require all future coal plants to be as clean as combined cycle natural gas facilities. 

Or, technically speaking, today’s coal units spew out about 1,850 pounds of carbon per megawatt hour while the proposal is expected to cap that at 1,000 pounds. To do so, they would need to have the ability to employ CCS.

But what is CCS, anyway?   Depends on who you talk to to:

Judi Greenwald, vice president for technology at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. “Our best hope at the moment for CCS advancement is carbon capture, utilization and storage,” which takes the captured carbon and uses it for enhanced oil recovery.

So, as long as we are burying the stuff, might as well get some more oil while we're at it, right?

     “Leaving the CO2 underground is of no ultimate benefit for climate stabilization when additional hydrocarbons have been extracted in exchange,” says Jeffrey Michel, an MIT scholar and environmental professional living in Germany. Michel, who is a contributor to EnergyBiz Insider, goes on to say that injecting 1 ton of carbon dioxide will yield 3.6 barrels of crude oil. That, in turn, creates 1.4 tons of carbon dioxide when refined and burned.

---

As Obama Unveils New Regs, Coal Could Be Resurrected If Carbon Could Be Buried

It’s a big day for coal-fired power plants, which will formally learn the Obama administration’s plans on how they are to be regulated. The proposal, which if enacted, would set strict limits on carbon dioxide releases that would essentially nullify the future construction of coal facilities.

That’s at least until carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) would become commercial. That’s not possible now. But what is possible is to capture the carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants and to it use for enhanced oil recovery. That tool, however, is not without controversy: Critics say that pumping such heat-trapping emissions into the ground only so that they could be used to extract a product that releases even more such global warming pollution is a bit silly.

“Leaving the CO2 underground is of no ultimate benefit for climate stabilization when additional hydrocarbons have been extracted in exchange,” says Jeffrey Michel, an MIT scholar and environmental professional living in Germany. Michel, who is a contributor to EnergyBiz Insider, goes on to say that injecting 1 ton of carbon dioxide will yield 3.6 barrels of crude oil. That, in turn, creates 1.4 tons of carbon dioxide when refined and burned.

That said, the thinking among some climate scholars is that taking the CO2 and using it to retrieve oil deposits is a better solution than letting it into the atmosphere. And, it is the best answer until the releases can be captured and permanently buried, which the U.S. Department ofEnergy Secretary Ernest Moniz told a congressional panel this week that this happen before 2020.

-----

CO2 underground is of no ultimate benefit for climate stabilization when additional hydrocarbons have been extracted in exchange,” says Jeffrey Michel, an MIT scholar and environmental professional living in Germany. Michel, who is a contributor to EnergyBiz Insider, goes on to say that injecting 1 ton of carbon dioxide will yield 3.6 barrels of crude oil. That, in turn, creates 1.4 tons of carbon dioxide when refined and burned.

That said, the thinking among some climate scholars is that taking the CO2 and using it to retrieve oil deposits is a better solution than letting it into the atmosphere. And, it is the best answer until the releases can be captured and permanently buried, which the U.S. Department ofEnergy Secretary Ernest Moniz told a congressional panel this week that this happen before 2020.

U.S. lawmakers from coal-producing states are expressing reservations about the Obama administration’s proposals, which would require all future coal plants to be as clean as combined cycle natural gas facilities. Or, technically speaking, today’s coal units spew out about 1,850 pounds of carbon per megawatt hour while the proposal is expected to cap that at 1,000 pounds. To do so, they would need to have the ability to employ CCS.

Moreover, coal producers in the United States, such as Alpha Natural Resources ANR -6.18%, Arch Coal and Peabody Energy BTU -3.09%, will find that oversea’s markets won’t provide long-term refuge.  China and India, for example, are also developing much stronger coal regs. China’s coal-burningis to peak at 4 billions tons by 2015, say news reports. After that, it will begin a gradual descent, relying instead on hydro, nuclear and renewables.

Here in the United States, 112 coal plants have been retired since 2010, or soon will be, says Beyond Coal, totaling more than 48,000 megawatts.Doyle Trading Consultants generally agrees, saying 42,000 megawatts are vulnerable to retirement by 2020, 90 percent of which will fade away by 2015. That’s 18 percent of the existing coal-fired fleet.

Domestically, coal’s share of the electric generation market has fallen from 50 percent in 2007 to 40 percent now. But, globally, it is still expected to fuel the developing economies, supplying 60 percent of the power marketsthrough 2035. If the coal sector, however, wants to prevent a precipitous decline in its overall status, it must embrace CCS, and Secretary Moniz says that this country will partner with U.S. utilities and their coal providers.

To that end, CCS for applications related to coal and gas-powered electricity remain hugely expensive, necessitating further research development. So, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions is pushing carbon capture and utilization — to increase oil finds.

“CCS is a critical technology for reconciling our continued dependence on fossil fuels with the imperative to protect the global environment,” says Judi Greenwald, vice president for technology at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. “Our best hope at the moment for CCS advancement is carbon capture, utilization and storage,” which takes the captured carbon and uses it for enhanced oil recovery.

She points to two projects: Air Products’ Port Author and Southern Company’s Mississippi venture. The U.S. Department of Energy helped support the Air Products project, where carbon dioxide is captured from a refinery and then used to enhance oil recovery. In late 2012, it began operations. The Energy Department pumped in $284 million of the total $430 million cost. Similarly, the agency is working with Southern Co SO -1.23%. at its facility in Mississippi. Here, the public’s contribution is $290 million. The project is more than 80 percent complete.

The ultimate goal is to permanently bury the carbon. The Energy Department is putting up $1.1 billion or 80 percent of the money to build “FutureGen.” The facility is expected to be 200 megawatts that will retrofit an oil-fueled unit in Meredosia, Illinois. The project is now focused on its preliminary design and engineering. It will capture at least 90 percent of the CO2 emitted, and it will inject all of that underground, the organization explained.

For their part, utilities say that they would eagerly participate with the federal government while it is investing $8 billion in CCS. But they also note that over the last 40 years that they have collectively spent $100 billion on such things as scrubbers and coal gasification. To that end, the industry says that the attention should be on advancing those technologies that are currently commercial — not in forsaking the progress that has been made.

“Perhaps the federal government should first focus on ensuring the coal industry can economically build second generation plants rather than put a halt to the innovative progress made to date,” says Laura Sheehan, spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. “If the EPA acts as expected, the United States, which is the current global leader of CCS technology, will fall to the back of the innovation race.”

Obama’s immediate plan is to apply the CO2 limits to all prospective coal plants. His eventual aim is to impose similar caps on the existing coal-fired fleet. And all this is taking place in an electric generation market where natural gas is quickly gaining market share because of its abundance and cost.

In other words, both the regulatory and economic climate are evolving. That is why the coal industry and its utility partners have to stop stalling and start allocating the necessary resources to allow their offerings to remain relevant. Gasifying coal is a potential answer. Carbon capture is another.

While using CO2 to enhance oil recovery is within reach, it remains controversial. Nevertheless, it is an essential first step to permanent sequestration — something that would allow all stakeholders to breathe somewhat easier.