New blog address
The Climate and Environment at Imperial blog has moved. Visit our new blog.
Category: CCS
A New York take on Sustainable Development: Is it feasible?
By Clea Kolster, PhD student, Science and Solutions for a Changing Planet
The term ‘sustainable development’ was first coined in 1987 in the UN’s World Commission on Environment and Development report, Our Common Future. Almost 30 years later, the concept of sustainable development is more relevant than ever.
The definition given in the report is, to this date, the most widely accepted modern definition of the term: ‘Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’ Climate and society, energy, water, ecosystem health and monitoring, global health, poverty, urbanization, natural disasters, food, ecology and nutrition – these are some of the main problems that need to be tackled when discussing the possibility of sustainable development. They are all complex problems that require an interdisciplinary and analytical approach. Earlier this year, I joined a group of people doing just that.
On Friday April 3rd 2015, I entered the land of Ivy League elites of Columbia University to take part in the 5th Annual Interdisciplinary PhD Workshop on Sustainable Development. Having been on a year abroad at Columbia University during my undergraduate degree, I knew the spot pretty well and was thrilled about getting the chance to come back as a matured and informed PhD student ready and eager to present my work.
Arriving at the workshop, I struck up a conversation with some of the students around me. I quickly understood that a number of us had made the cross-Atlantic trip, with participants from Denmark, Italy, Sweden, France and even Australia. Students also came from Canada and Mexico, with a large majority attending world-renowned US universities, including Harvard, MIT, Yale, Princeton, UC Berkeley and of course Columbia.
Tackling sustainable development
The highlight of the first day was a keynote speech by American economist Jeffrey Sachs, head of the Earth Institute at Columbia University., Sachs has an incredible track record: he is a Quetelet professor (honorary distinction given to Columbia University professors, awarded to only four professors since 1963) of Sustainable Development, special advisor to Ban Ki-Moon, youngest economics professor at Harvard University (age 28), author of three New York Times bestsellers – and the list goes on.
One of the things that engrossed me most was his emphasis on planetary boundaries and the current ideological conflict between growth (mostly economic) and environmental sustainability. Sachs definitely got the whole room thinking about whether or not sustainable development is actually feasible and, for those like myself who desperately want that answer to be positive, what one can do to bring us closer to that goal: a world with sustainable economic, social and environmental objectives.
The rest of the afternoon featured sessions on a variety of topics from natural disasters – including the Venetian example of floods – to urban planning in China and development in India. After a long afternoon of presentations, I got the chance to network and socialize with the students. I met some very interesting individuals, most of whom, contrary to myself, feel as though they are economists before anything else, in spite of an earlier education in engineering.
On the second day, I was due to give my presentation as part of the Energy. In a small room filled with 10-15 other PhD students, all of whom were senior to me, and a few professors, I sat nervously waiting for my turn, beginning to realize that my presentation was clearly going to be one of the most “engineeringy” and technical of all.
I finally gave my 20 minute talk on the “Techno-Economic Analysis of the Link between Above Ground CO2 Capture, Transport, Usage for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) and Storage”. I was happy to take some interesting questions at the end of it (which I hoped meant that the audience was actually interested by my topic) and later on at the coffee reception engaged in some stimulating discussions with some of my peers. It was clear that in spite of our dissimilar approaches, we had all contributed to responding to the question of sustainable development and its feasibility.
A look forward
Did you know that 1.4 billion people currently live in a state of extreme poverty at below $1.25/day? In fact, it will take a 4 to 5 time increase in total global output by 2050 to get poor countries to meet the $40,000 per capita income of rich countries today. With figures like these, it isn’t surprising that large groups of individuals around the world dedicate their time to assessing and analyzing the best ways of achieving sustainable development encompassing economic, social and environmental goals.
In my view, sustainable development is feasible, we can tackle climate change, we can reduce our exploitation of natural capital while promoting economic growth, we can bridge the gap between poor and rich countries; the problem is – as Jeff Sachs pointed out – a lack of trust. A lack of trust leads to social and political instability and these will always impede sustainable development around the world.
References
World Commission on Environment and Development – Bruntland Commission. 1987. Our Common Future. s.l. : Oxford University Press, 1987.
Find out more about Clea’s research
Paterson misses the point
By Dr Simon Buckle, Grantham Institute
Owen Paterson’s remarks on the UK response to climate change miss the point. I do not disagree with him that the UK decarbonisation strategy should be improved. In particular, there is a need for a more effective strategy on energy demand. However, my preferred policy and technology mix would be very different to his and include the acceleration and expansion of the CCS commercial demonstration programme in order to reduce the energy penalty and overall costs of CCS. And without CCS, there is no way responsibly to use the shale gas he wants the UK to produce in the coming decades for electricity generation or in industrial processes, or any other fossil fuels.
However, these are second order issues compared to his call for scrapping the 2050 targets and the suspension of the UK Climate Change Committee. On current trends, by the end of the century, the surface temperature of our planet is as likely as not to have increased by 4°C relative to pre-industrial conditions. The present pause in the rise of the global mean surface temperature does not mean we do not need to be concerned. We are fundamentally changing the climate system, raising the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts on society and the natural systems on which we all depend.
A cost-effective policy to limit these very real climate risks must be based on concerted, co-ordinated and broad-based mitigation action. This is needed to deliver a substantial and sustained reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions, which continue on a sharply rising trajectory. The best way to create the conditions for such action by all the major emitting economies – developed and developing, in different measure – is through the UN negotiation process, supplemented by bodies such as (but not confined to) the Major Economies Forum. The focus of this process is now on achieving a deal covering emissions beyond 2020, due to be finalised at the Paris summit at the end of next year.
There are encouraging signs of progress, e.g. in both the US and China, and the EU is due to agree its own 2030 targets at the end of this month. But the process is difficult and protracted. I agree with Paterson that 2050 is not the be all and end all. I have argued here that the Paris talks should focus on how the next climate agreement can help us collectively to achieve a global peak in emissions before 2030, the first necessary step to any stringent mitigation target, rather than trying to negotiate a deal covering the whole period to 2050.
If Paris is a success, we might then re-assess whether or not the UK’s current mitigation targets are adequate or not. But we are rapidly running out of time to achieve what the world’s governments profess to be their aim of limiting global warming to at most 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The longer we delay mitigation action, the more difficult that challenge will be and the more expensive. At some point soon it will become impossible in practical terms.
Given its leadership on this issue over many decades, UK action to scrap the Climate Change Act and/or suspend or abolish the Climate Change Committee would be severely damaging. Seeking short-term domestic political advantage – which is what this move appears to be – through recommendations that would undermine national, European and international efforts to limit climate risks is irresponsible. Sadly, this seems to be what the so-called political “debate” in the UK has been reduced to.
Feasibility and affordability of reducing greenhouse gas emissions
By Ajay Gambhir, Research fellow on mitigation policy at the Grantham Institute
The United Nations Climate Summit 2014, to be held in New York on 23rd September, comes at an important point in the calendar for discussions on how to address climate change. Next year will see nations submit pledges on their future greenhouse gas emissions levels, as part of the United Nations process culminating in the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP) in Paris at the end of 2015, the ambition of which is to secure a global agreement to tackle climate change.
There is now a rich body of evidence on the implications of mitigation at the global, regional and national levels. This note presents some of the evidence, revealed by research in the Grantham Institute over recent years, which supports the view that mitigation remains feasible and affordable.
Technologies and costs of a global low-carbon pathway
The Grantham Institute, in partnership with Imperial College’s Energy Futures Laboratory (EFL) demonstrated a relatively simple, transparent analysis of the relative costs of a low-carbon versus carbon-intensive global energy system in 2050. The report concluded that mitigation in line with a 2 degrees Celsius limit to global warming would cost less than 1% of global GDP by 2050 (excluding any potentially significant co-benefits from improved air quality and enhanced energy security).
Joint Grantham and EFL report: Halving global CO2 by 2050: Technologies and Costs
The importance of India and China
The two most populous nations, India and China, have undergone rapid economic growth in recent decades, resulting in significantly increased demand for fossil fuels, with associated increases in their CO2 emissions. Mapping pathways towards a low-carbon future for both regions presents challenges in terms of technology choices, affordability and the interplay with land, water and other resources. The Grantham Institute, in partnership with other research groups (including IIASA and UCL), has produced long-term visions of both regions using energy technology modelling and detailed technology and resource assessments, to set out pathways to very low-carbon economies which can be achieved at relatively modest costs. In addition, the Institute has undertaken assessments of the feasibility and cost of achieving the regions’ near-term (2020) Cancun pledges.
Grantham Report 1: An assessment of China’s 2020 carbon intensity target
Grantham Report 2: China’s energy technologies to 2050
Grantham Report 4: An assessment of India’s 2020 carbon intensity target
Grantham Report 5: India’s CO2 emissions pathways to 2050
Key sectors and technologies
Reports have been produced on a number of key technologies across all economic sectors and on the role that these can play in a low-carbon world: electric and other low-carbon vehicles in the transport sector; low-carbon residential heating technologies; other building efficiency and low-carbon options; and a range of technologies and measures to reduce emissions from industrial manufacturing.
The successful development and deployment of a range of low-carbon power sector technologies will be central to decarbonising the power generation sector over the coming decades, thereby providing the basis for low-carbon electrification in the building, transport and industrial sectors. The Institute has produced briefing papers on the technological status, economics and policies to promote solar photovoltaics and carbon capture and storage (including with bioenergy to produce net negative emissions).
Grantham briefing paper 2: Road transport technology and climate change mitigation
Grantham briefing paper 3: Carbon capture technology: future fossil fuel use and mitigating climate change
Grantham briefing paper 4: Carbon dioxide storage
Grantham briefing paper 6: Low carbon residential heating
Grantham briefing paper 7: Reducing CO2 emissions from heavy industry: a review of technologies and considerations for policy makers
Grantham briefing paper 8: Negative emissions technologies
Grantham briefing paper 10: Shale gas and climate change
Grantham briefing paper 11: Solar Power for CO2 mitigation
Grantham Report 3: Reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in the global building sector to 2050
Competitiveness
A critical consideration in any nation or region’s mitigation strategy is the degree to which a low-carbon transition might put its industries at risk of losing competitiveness against rivals in regions with less stringent mitigation action. In a landmark study using responses from hundreds of manufacturing industries across the European Union, researchers at the Institute, in partnership with the Imperial College Business School and Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, have produced robust evidence to support the contention that the EU’s Emissions Trading System has not produced any significant competitiveness impacts or industry relocation risks.
On the empirical content of carbon leakage criteria in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme – Ecological Economics (2014)
Industry Compensation under Relocation Risk: A Firm-Level Analysis of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme – American Economic Review (2014)
Global energy governance reform
The energy policies of governments around the world will, to a large extent, determine global greenhouse gas emissions. Western governments cooperate on their energy policies through the International Energy Agency (IEA), which is a powerful advocate and analyst of low carbon energy strategies. Unfortunately the IEA excludes developing nations, such as China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, from its membership. The Grantham Institute is working with China’s Energy research Institute (ERI) to advise the Chinese government on China’s options for greater engagement in international energy cooperation, including closer association with the IEA. China’s participation is important for world energy security and affordability – the other main objectives of energy policy – as well as for climate mitigation. A consultation draft report published by this ERI/Grantham project is at Global energy governance reform and China’s participation. An earlier report by the Grantham Institute with Chatham House is at Global energy governance reform.
2014 – A pivotal year for CCS?
By Dr Niall Mac Dowell, Centre for Environmental Policy
For centuries, all of the world’s economies have been underpinned by fossil fuels. Historically, this has primarily been oil and coal, but since the mid-1980s natural gas has become increasingly important. Over the course of the last decades, there has been an increasing focus on electricity generation from renewable sources, and since about 1990 carbon capture and storage (CCS) has become an important part of the conversation around the mitigation of our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The role of CCS in addressing our GHG mitigation targets is clear and unambiguous – see for example the IEA CCS technology roadmaps which show that by 2050, almost 8 GtCO2/yr needs to be sequestered via CCS; a cumulative of 120 GtCO2 in the period from 2015 to 2050. Tellingly, this means that we need to see real action on the commercial scale deployment of CCS globally by 2015 such that we have at least 30 installations around the world actively capturing and sequestering CO2 from a range of industrial and power-generation plants. Currently, there are 8 CCS projects around the world which are actively capturing and sequestering CO2 – primarily in North America (Shute Creek, Val Verde, Enid Fertilizer and Century Plant in the US and the Weyburn-Midale project in Canada) and Europe (Sleipner and Snøhvit in Norway), although Algeria have also been operating the In Salah project since 2004.
However, it is notable that none of these plants are capturing CO2 emitted from power stations; rather they are capturing from industrial sources from which CO2 arises in a stream suitable for transport and storage. This is particularly important as CO2 emissions from power generation represent the single largest source of global emissions.
For this reason, it is particularly encouraging to note the UK’s leadership position in this area. Following from our signing into law the mandate to mitigate by 80% our GHG emissions by 2050, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) have recently signed agreements for Front End Engineering Design (FEED) studies for two commercial scale CCS projects; the Peterhead project and the White Rose project.
These are two really exciting projects, both of which represent real world firsts. The Peterhead project is a collaboration between Shell and SSE and is a retrofit of post-combustion capture plant to an existing power plant. This project is intended to operate in a base-load fashion and follows on from the Boundary Dam CCS project in Canada which also uses Shell technology. However, a key distinction between the Boundary Dam and Peterhead projects is the CO2 source; Boundary Dam is a coal-fired power plant whereas Peterhead is a gas-fired power plants. From an engineering perspective, these plants present significantly distinct CCS challenges, and therefore the Peterhead project represents a real step forward.
It is, of course, important to emphasise the importance of the Boundary Dam project. Returning to the IEA’s CCS technology roadmaps, we can see that CCS on coal-fired power plants is of vital global importance; potentially contributing to about 40% of emission mitigation in both OECD and non-OECD countries.
The White Rose project on the other hand is an example of oxy-combustion technology applied to a coal-fired power plant. This project is a collaboration between Alstom, Drax Power and BOC. Here, instead of performing a retrofit, the White Rose project is building a brand new, state-of-the-art 450MWe super-critical power plant which has the capacity to co-fire biomass and coal which, when combined with CCS can lead to the plant producing carbon negative electricity. Importantly, the White Rose plant will have an emphasis on the generation of flexible power; something which is key as we have more and more intermittent renewable energy in our energy system.
Thus, 2014 is the year where CCS on power generation becomes a reality. Given the fact that fossil fuels will remain a vital part of the world’s energy landscape for some time to come, with some sources indicating that they will account for over 66% of the world’s energy by 2100, it is almost impossible to over emphasise the importance of our ability to utilise them in an environmentally benign and sustainable way. For this reason, I believe 2014 represents a pivotal year; one which, in time, we will look back on as being the dawn of the age of sustainable fossil fuels.