Cross-posted from Dispatches from Life
Joseph Romm is one of the most respected writers on climate policy. Here is a summary of his thoughts on what is necessary to avert catastrophic warming:
We have to bring down the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to between 350-450 parts per million (ppm) to avoid the hellish worst of climate change. Economically and technologically, this is quite doable. However, it is not plausible in the current political climate. Because the alternative is unacceptable, we will get there, but to do so we must all become familiar with the best solutions, and then loudly push our political leaders toward them.
Read the specifics below the fold…
The solution is centered around achieving ~14 “stabilization wedges”. One wedge = one billion fewer metric tons of CO2 emitted globally, compared to projected levels. Again, this is possible with current technologies, and has a net cost of zero. The basic strategy is to replace all coal as quickly as possible, and to electrify transportation as much as possible.
Though there’s no silver bullet, but there is “one” solution: we must deploy every conceivable energy-efficient and low carbon technology that we have today as fast as we can. In order to reach the target carbon concentration of 350ppm, we have to deploy all 14 wedges of energy savings by 2040. Though increasingly serious implementation will begin soon, starting around 2030 multiple climate-caused catastrophes will cause drastic measures unthinkable today to be implemented. We must reverse the trend of increasing emissions by 2015-2020 at the latest, and we must have substantial action before 2012 or we’re toast.
There are about 18 wedges possible, and we need about 14 of them to succeed. Here are the options:
Currently available (14.5):
- 1 wedge – albedo change through white roofs and pavement ( “soft geo-engineering” )
- 1 wedge – vehicle efficiency: 60mpg standard for all cars, no increase in miles driven
- 2 wedges – wind: two million large wind turbines
- 3 wedges – Concentrated Solar Power aka Solar Baseload
- 3 wedges – energy efficiency: one each for buildings, industry, and cogeneration/heat-recovery (also geothermal heat pumps)
- 1 wedge – solar photovoltaics (PV)
- 2 wedges – end deforestation AND plant new trees covering an area the size of the United States
- 1 wedge – massive conservation post-2030
- 1/2 wedge – nuclear (more not plausible, and it’s expensive, too)
Requiring more R&D (4):
- 1 wedge – geothermal & other ocean-based renewables (wave, tidal, ocean thermal)
- 1 wedge – coal with biomass cofiring WITH carbon capture & sequestration (more not plausible, and it’s expensive, too)
- 1/2 wedge – next-generation nuclear
- 1/2 wedge – cellulosic biofuels for long-distance transport & remaining aviation
- 1 wedge – soil & biochar
There will, of course, be substantial up-front investments. However, they are a drop in the bucket of global GDP: 1.1%, or approximately one trillion dollars per year.
The IPCC, The McKinsey Global Institute, and the conservative International Energy Agency all report that the cost of this strategy will reduce global GDP by less than $1 for every $10,000. Because the huge costs of dealing with climate change will largely be avoided by this strategy, it is a net gain for the global and US economies.
For more detail, see the original posts, here, here, and here.
Geo thermal energy and nuclear on a vast scale would increase atmospheric warming if continually expanded over a number of centuries. So these should not be first choices, they should have low usage.
Wow! Even a student activist blog pushing the clean coal lie. I think it shows how far we have passed the point of no return.
Welcome to the Anthropocene! Abandon all hope for life on the planet as we know it.
jcwinnie,
Wow! It must be hard to maintain your cheerful disposition when you’re the sort of person who takes a post referring people to Joe Romm’s blog and twists it into a plug for clean coal.
Go read the original posts, and spend some time at Climate Progress. One of Romm’s chief positions is that the US should not – starting now – construct a single new coal-fired power plant unless it can meet stringent standards on emissions. Anyone interested in building such a plant can either figure out how to make carbon capture and storage work or forget about building their plant.
Sheesh. Even this post says explicitly, “the basic strategy is to replace all coal as quickly as possible.”
I agree that nuclear has high capital costs, but the majority of studies show nuclear is only a little higher carbon intensity than wind. We need 24/7 power that is low carbon.
@Doug Gibson
Research and Development into CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) is other than “replacing all coal as quickly as possible with renewable energy.” Chooster has been quoted as saying “the U.S. should invest in technology to reduce the carbon produced by burning coal, but he said it will take at least eight years to be sure such systems work.”
8 years. Isn’t that about what the consensus was on the window. Face it, coal has won, baby!
Now I’m sure with the depth of your experience in utilities you can state a belief that the way it will go down will be “Anyone interested in building such a plant can either figure out how to make carbon capture and storage work or forget about building their plant.” My naive assumption is that your use of the verb, “figure”, equates to theoretical pencil whipping, rather than actually using proven methods, properly building AND maintaining such systems, and concurrent careful monitoring to ensure compliance that is well enforced by the EPA (Business Protection Agency).
And, everything else about coal remains copacetic, eh?