A Rapid in Time

Is natural gas leaky enough to offset its carbon mitigation benefits?

Nature News article on an in-press JGR story be Petron et al.:

Led by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado, Boulder, the study estimates that natural-gas producers in an area known as the Denver-Julesburg Basin are losing about 4% of their gas to the atmosphere — not including additional losses in the pipeline and distribution system. This is more than double the official inventory, but roughly in line with estimates made in 2011 that have been challenged by industry. And because methane is some 25 times more efficient than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere, releases of that magnitude could effectively offset the environmental edge that natural gas is said to enjoy over other fossil fuels.

“If we want natural gas to be the cleanest fossil fuel source, methane emissions have to be reduced,” says Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and first author on the study, currently in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research. Emissions will vary depending on the site, but Pétron sees no reason to think that this particular basin is unique. “I think we seriously need to look at natural-gas operations on the national scale.”

Mitigating California’s greenhouse gas emissions

Williams et al. examine the challenges of mitigating emissions of heat-trapping gases in developed economies, via a case study of California’s goal of reducing emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050:

Three major energy system transformations were necessary to meet the target (Fig. 2). First, energy efficiency had to improve by at least 1.3% yr⁻¹ over 40 years. Second, electricity supply had to be nearly decarbonized, with 2050 emissions intensity less than 0.025 kg CO₂e/kWh [compared to about 1 kg/kWh for traditional coal power generation]. Third, most existing direct fuel uses had to be electrified, with electricity constituting 55% of end-use energy in 2050, compared to 15% today.

Read More

Key take aways from the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2011

I haven’t had a chance to go through the full report, but from the executive summary:

Consistent with the Oak Ridge CDIAC analysis mentioned earlier:

Although the recovery in the world economy since 2009 has been uneven, and future economic prospects remain uncertain, global primary energy demand rebounded by a remarkable 5% in 2010, pushing CO₂ emissions to a new high. Subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption of fossil fuels jumped to over $400 billion. The number of people without access to electricity remained unacceptably high at 1.3 billion, around 20% of the world’s population. Despite the priority in many countries to increase energy efficiency, global energy intensity worsened for the second straight year.

We need to act now if we are to have any significant chance of realizing the Copenhagen Accord’s 2 degree target (which the IEA’s 450 Scenario yields about a fifty percent chance of meeting):

Four-fifths of the total energy-related CO2 emissions permissible by 2035 in the 450 Scenario are already “locked-in” by our existing capital stock (power plants, buildings, factories, etc.). If stringent new action is not forthcoming by 2017, the energy-related infrastructure then in place will generate all the CO₂ emissions allowed in the 450 Scenario up to 2035, leaving no room for additional power plants, factories and other infrastructure unless they are zero-carbon, which would be extremely costly. Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment avoided in the power sector before 2020 an additional $4.3 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.

(Emphasis mine.) Note also the interest rates are extremely low right now, making it an excellent time to borrow in order to make these and other desperately needed infrastructure investments.

Despite advances in natural gas and renewables, the world is proceeding on a coal-heavy course:

Coal has met almost half of the increase in global energy demand over the last decade. Whether this trend alters and how quickly is among the most important questions for the future of the global energy economy. Maintaining current policies would see coal use rise by a further 65% by 2035, overtaking oil as the largest fuel in the global energy mix. In the New Policies Scenario, global coal use rises for the next ten years, but then levels off to finish 25% above the levels of 2009. Realisation of the 450 Scenario requires coal consumption to peak well before 2020 and then decline. The range of projections for coal demand in 2035 across the three scenarios is nearly as large as total world coal demand in 2009. The implications of policy and technology choices for the global climate are huge.

China’s consumption of coal is almost half of global demand and its Five-Year Plan for 2011 to 2015, which aims to reduce the energy and carbon intensity of the economy, will be a determining factor for world coal markets.

A turn away from nuclear energy will increase the challenge of decarbonizing the energy system:

In the New Policies Scenario, nuclear output rises by more than 70% over the period to 2035, only slightly less than projected last year. However, we also examine the possible implications of a more substantial shift away from nuclear power in a Low Nuclear Case, which assumes that no new OECD reactors are built, that non-OECD countries build only half of the additions projected in our New Policies Scenario and that the operating lifespan of existing nuclear plants is shortened. While creating opportunities for renewables, such a low-nuclear future would also boost demand for fossil fuels: the increase in global coal demand is equal to twice the level of Australia’s current steam coal exports and the rise in gas demand is equivalent to two-thirds of Russia’s current natural gas exports. The net result would be to put additional upward pressure on energy prices, raise additional concerns about energy security and make it harder and more expensive to combat climate change.

And alleviating energy poverty is a relatively low-cost investment with huge human welfare benefits but little negative impact on the ability to achieve climate goals:

We estimate that, in 2009, around $9 billion was invested globally to provide first access to modern energy, but more than five-times this amount, $48 billion, needs to be invested each year if universal access is to be achieved by 2030. Providing energy access for all by 2030 is a key goal announced by the UN Secretary-General. Today, 1.3 billion people do not have electricity and 2.7 billion people still rely on the traditional use of biomass for cooking. The investment required is equivalent to around 3% of total energy investment to 2030. Without this increase, the global picture in 2030 is projected to change little from today and in sub-Saharan Africa it gets worse. Some existing policies designed to help the poorest miss their mark. Only 8% of the subsidies to fossil-fuel consumption in 2010 reached the poorest 20% of the population…. Universal access by 2030 would increase global demand for fossil fuels and related CO₂ emissions by less than 1%, a trivial amount in relation to the contribution made to human development and welfare.

Making up for lost time (new carbon emission estimates)

Via Joe Romm, Seth Borenstein of AP reports on new preliminary estimates of 2009 and 2010 world emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel and industrial sources.

Some discussion after the fold.

Read More