A hopeful press release touting an even more hopeful (wishful?) report:
Takoma Park, MD -- At the G-8 summit in Germany in June 2007, President Bush promised to "consider seriously" the European Union goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to limit global temperature rise to about 4 degrees Fahrenheit. A new study concludes that the United States could eliminate almost all of its carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2050. It also concludes that it is possible to do so without the use of nuclear power. The landmark study, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy, was produced as a joint project of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.
"A technological revolution has been brewing in the last few years, so it won't cost an arm and a leg to eliminate both CO2 emissions and nuclear power," said Dr. Arjun Makhijani, author of the study and president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. "We can solve the problems of oil imports, nuclear proliferation as it is linked to nuclear power, and carbon dioxide emissions simultaneously if we are bold enough."
The "Roadmap" concludes that the United States can achieve a zero-CO2 economy without increasing the fraction of Gross Domestic Product devoted to lighting, heating, cooling, transportation, and all the other things for which we use energy. The fraction was about 8 percent in 2005. Net U.S. oil imports can be eliminated in about twenty-five years or less, the study estimated.
...
The 12 most critical policies that need to be enacted as urgently as possible for achieving a zero-CO2 economy without nuclear power are as follows.
- Enact a physical limit of CO2 emissions for all large users of fossil fuels (a "hard cap") that steadily declines to zero prior to 2060, with the time schedule for tightening assessed periodically according to climate, technological, and economic developments. The cap should be set at the level of some year prior to 2007, so that early implementers of CO2 reductions benefit from the setting of the cap. Emission allowances would be sold by the U.S. government for use in the United States only. There would be no free allowances, no offsets and no international sale or purchase of CO2 allowances. The estimated revenues -- approximately $30 to $50 billion per year -- would be used for demonstration plants, research and development, and worker and community transition.
- Eliminate all subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuels and nuclear power (including guarantees for nuclear waste disposal from new power plants, loan guarantees, and subsidized insurance).
- Eliminate subsidies for biofuels from food crops.
- Build demonstration plants for key supply technologies, including central station solar thermal with heat storage, large- and intermediate-scale solar photovoltaics, and CO2 capture in microalgae for liquid fuel production.
- Leverage federal, state and local purchasing power to create markets for critical advanced technologies, including plug-in hybrids.
- Ban new coal-fired power plants that do not have carbon storage.
- Enact at the federal level high efficiency standards for appliances.
- Enact stringent building efficiency standards at the state and local levels, with federal incentives to adopt them.
- Enact stringent efficiency standards for vehicles and make plug-in hybrids the standard U.S. government vehicle by 2015.
- Put in place federal contracting procedures to reward early adopters of CO2 reductions.
- Adopt vigorous research, development, and pilot plant construction programs for technologies that could accelerate the elimination of CO2, such as direct solar hydrogen production, hot rock geothermal power, and integrated gasification combined cycle plants using biomass with a capacity to sequester the CO2.
- Establish a standing committee on Energy and Climate under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board.
Comments
View as Flat
wiscidea Posted 8:04 am
01 Aug 2007
So...
You're saying there's will be a "technofix" available if we just tell people they can no longer emit CO2? Somehow, the problem will just magically go away shortly after we tell people to stop producing CO2? Gee. So simple.
Perhaps the "integrated gasification combined cycle plants using biomass with a capacity to sequester the CO2" will save our asses. Any indication of what this "biomass" is, the scale of sequestration, and where we are going to dump it to keep it out of the atmosphere for several hundred years? I assume there must be several pilot plants operating right now if it is going to be used on a large scale within a couple decades.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:06 am
01 Aug 2007
Didn't George Bush...
..."consider seriously" capturing Bin Laden and, later, not invading Iraq?
Forward!
Permalink
wayneluke Posted 8:39 am
01 Aug 2007
Less than 18 months.
Really, "King" George's reign is almost over. Studies like this would be of more benefit to those who will be taking up the challenge of correcting the last eight years and moving the United States forward instead of worrying about a lame duck presidency now.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 9:21 am
01 Aug 2007
Not my favorite magic pony, JMG,
particularly as the summary will not breathe a word about -- dare I mention it! -- public transit, mass transit, trains, you know, things that aren't cars.
Also, it looks like they put more stock in biomass from algae -- at least they don't like food-derived ethanol -- that can also, by the way, generate hydrogen, then they do in wind and solar. Having said that, I will do my best to freely pick and choose from what looks like an interesting wealth of data, particularly on wind and power. Thanks for the lead!
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:25 am
01 Aug 2007
The full report ...
... is not on the website yet. I'll read it and report back once it's up.
grist.org
Permalink
texan77064 Posted 9:25 am
01 Aug 2007
Eliminate both CO2 emissions and nuclear power?
I would seriously doubt anyone would believe this happening. The radioactive core is what keeps the center of the Earth warm. How natural is that? The French have been pushing their safer reactor design all over the globe. The path of least resistance is also the most economical. Money talks, BS walks.
Do you know how much carbon dioxide is generated when smelting bauxite into aluminum? Then there is the electric power needed to electrify those refrigerator size blocks of carbon. But your still throwing those cans away. You need to feel some pain before it will matter.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 9:35 am
01 Aug 2007
Yes, I agree, carbonless does not cost more
Permalink