In this post I will lay out "the solution" to global warming, focusing primarily on the 14 "stabilization wedges."
Part 1 argued that stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at 450 ppm is not politically possible today, but that it is certainly achievable from an economic and technological perspective. It would require some 14 of Princeton's "stabilization wedges" -- strategies and/or technologies that over a period of a few decades each reduce global carbon emissions by one billion metric tons per year from projected levels (see technical paper here [PDF], less technical one here [PDF]). The reason that we need twice as many wedges as Princeton's Pacala and Socolow have said we need was explained in Part 1.
I agree with the IPCC, which concluded last year that "The range of stabilization levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are currently available and those that are expected to be commercialised in coming decades." The technologies they say can beat 450 ppm are here. Technology Review, one of the nation's leading technology magazines, also argued in a cover story two years ago, "It's Not Too Late," that "Catastrophic climate change is not inevitable. We possess the technologies that could forestall global warming."
I do believe only "one" solution exists in this sense -- We must deploy every conceivable energy-efficient and low carbon technology that we have today as fast as we can. Princeton's Pacala and Socolow proposed that this could be done over 50 years, but that is almost certainly too slow.
We're at 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year -- rising 3.3 percent per year -- and we have to average below 18 billion tons a year for the entire century if we're going to stabilize at 450 ppm. We need to peak around 2015 to 2020 at the latest, then drop at least 60 percent by 2050 to 15 billion tons (4 billion tons of carbon), and then go to near zero net carbon emissions by 2100.
That's why a sober guy like IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri, said in November: "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment." Or as I told Technology Review, "The point is, whatever technology we've got now -- that's what we are stuck with to avoid catastrophic warming."
If we could do the 14 wedges in four decades, we should be able to keep CO2 concentrations to under 450 ppm. If we could do them faster, concentrations could stay even lower. We'd probably need to do this by 2030 to have a shot at getting back to 350 this century. (And yes, like Princeton, I agree we need to do some R&D now to ensure a steady flow of technologies to make the even deeper emissions reductions needed in the second half of the century.)
I am not going to focus on the politics, policies, market factors, or mindset needed to achieve these 14 wedges. That will be the subject of Part 4. But, needless to say, none of this can happen without a serious price for carbon dioxide and a very aggressive technology deployment effort.
So here is the basic solution. I have thrown in a couple extra wedges since I have no doubt that everybody will find something objectionable in at least two of these wedges. This is what the entire planet must achieve:
- One wedge of vehicle efficiency -- all cars getting 60 mpg, with no increase in miles traveled per vehicle.
- One of wind for power -- one million large (2 MW peak) wind turbines.
- One of wind for vehicles -- another 2000 GW wind. Most cars must be plug-in hybrids or pure electric vehicles.
- Three of concentrated solar thermal -- about 5000 GW peak.
- Three of efficiency -- one each for buildings, industry, and cogeneration/heat-recovery for a total of 15 to 20 million gwh.
- One of coal with carbon capture and storage -- 800 GW of coal with CCS.
- One of nuclear power -- 700 GW plus 10 Yucca mountains for storage.
- One of solar photovoltaics -- 2000 GW peak (or less PV and some geothermal, tidal, and ocean thermal).
- One of cellulosic biofuels -- using one-sixth of the world's cropland (or less land if yields significantly increase or algae-to-biofuels proves commercial at large scale).
- Two of forestry -- End all tropical deforestation. Plant new trees over an area the size of the continental U.S.
- One of soils -- Apply no-till farming to all existing croplands.
That should do the trick. And yes, the scale is staggering.
Why not more than one wedge of CCS? That one wedge represents a flow of CO2 into the ground equal to the current flow of oil out of the ground. It would require, by itself, recreating the equivalent of the planet's entire oil delivery infrastructure. I also think that CCS has practical issues that will limit its scale, not the least of which is that I doubt it will be among the cheaper solutions. But that is another blog post.
Why not more than one wedge of nuclear? Based on a post last year on the Keystone report, to do this by 2050 would require adding, globally, an average of 17 plants each year, while building an average of 9 plants a year to replace those that will be retired, for a total of one nuclear plant every two weeks for four decades -- plus 10 Yucca Mountains to store the waste. I also doubt it will be among the cheaper options. And the uranium supply and non-proliferation issues for even that scale of deployment are quite serious.
Note to all: Do I want to build all those nuclear plants? No. Do I think we could do it without all those nuclear plants? Probably. Therefore, should I be quoted as saying we "must" build all those nuclear plants, as the Drudge Report has, or even that I propose building all those plants? No. Do I think we will have to swallow a bunch of nuclear plants as part of the grand bargain to make this all possible and that other countries will build most of these? I have no doubt. So it stays in "the solution" for now. (Note to self: Are you beginning to sound like Donald Rumsfeld? Yes.)
This is not to say the two wind power wedges (4000 GW peak total) would be easy -- we only built 20 GW last year. We would need to average 100 GW/year through 2050. But I do think it is ecologically and economically possible, as I think all the other wedges are, too.
But none of the wedges is easy. That's why getting to 450 ppm is not yet politically possible. Not even close. As noted, part 4 will discuss the politics, policies, market factors, or mindset needed to achieve these 14 wedges.
Three more points: First, it bears repeating that the wedges are not analytically rigorous (as I explained in Part 1), but they are conceptually useful. We might need a few more or a few less.
Second, based on comments posted on this blog, it seemed to make more sense to present the total solution first before posting on each individual wedge in detail. But I do expect to blog in detail on each of these wedge in the coming months.
Third, if you don't like one of those wedges, you need to find a replacement strategy. Other possibilities can be found here [PDF], but I think the ones above are the most plausible by far, which tells you how dubious some of Princeton's other wedges are (I'm talking about you, would-be hydrogen wedges). Could a bunch of breakthrough technologies substitute for some of the above wedges? That is far more implausible, as I will discuss in Part 3.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
LGT Posted 3:52 pm
23 Apr 2008
# One wedge of vehicle efficiency -- all cars getting 60 mpg, with no increase in miles traveled per vehicle.
# One of wind for power -- one million large (2 MW peak) wind turbines.
# One of wind for vehicles -- another 2000 GW wind. Most cars must be plug-in hybrids or pure electric vehicles.
[...]
We have arrived here - the verge of our species collapse - using a wrong roadmap, our system of economy. What you are suggesting is that if we change our vehicle, we can turn right around and drive to a safe future.
Permalink
Chella Rajan Posted 4:04 pm
23 Apr 2008
Yes, technology is going to have to play a huge role in reducing GHGs, but consider this: Americans emit at the rate of about 20 tons of CO2 per person while the average European has a carbon footprint that is about half as large. Technological and land-use differences play a small role in this difference; much more has to do with attitudes and life-style differences.
I also won't waste my breath rebutting all the lame excuses people make for the large difference -- suffice it to say that a 20% reduction in personal footprint is possible today with simple lifestyle changes; in 10 years, with the help of enlightened tax policies and other governmental incentives, we could end up living in much smaller and more efficient houses, drive less, and become more socially responsible consumers in general, all of which could add to the lifestyle wedge for this country alone.
Globally, the lifestyle wedge would mean different things in different parts of the world. Business people, for instance, would need to reduce their flying drastically and in countries like India and China, the wealthy would need to shift their attitudes away from conventional American aspirations with Texas-size appetites.
Simply saying that making lifestyle changes happen is too difficult won't do either. If it is going to take the next generation to make the change, then it's the kids now in primary school who need to be given the right messages about the enormous footprint they're already creating (see, for instance, http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4618854&page=1). Working with policymakers and technologists will have to be complemented with changes in our education system. That should be a win-win strategy in any case.
The alternative is indeed almost too dire to imagine (see, for instance, http://www.greenpeace.org/india/blue-alert-report)
Permalink
LGT Posted 4:04 pm
23 Apr 2008
Politics and the economy must provide service to the people, not the other way round. And if they don't serve us, we must replace them with a system that does!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:46 pm
23 Apr 2008
The low cost wedges fit together to make them all work better. That will get the GHG levels down faster.
Here's the real problem. Somehow leaders must be made aware of exactly wich wedges need to stay and be boosted with heavy direct subsidies and which are basically expensive boondoggles that don't really reduce GHG. Instead they soak up scarce capital, financial and political.
Come on Joe, admit it. You know ethanol, from whatever biomass grown on soil will never reduce GHG. it's based on the faulty carbon cycle analysis.
Nuclear power? 10 Yucca mountains? Please.
60 mpg? When plugin hybrids already get well over 100 mpg.
Clean coal CCS? Give up on this already.
No-till? No organic ag with biogas digestors supplying the organic fertilizer? This is worth multiple wedges in curtailed methane. And in revived carbon sink soil activity. And in savings from the huge GHG released in the production, mining, transportation (ammonia comes from russia on tankers now, thanks to corn ethanol), and application of chemical fertilizer.
The biogas supplies a storable backup distributed power source for the grid. Which allows the rest of the grid to use solar, wind, and water (current and wave power generation)for it's entire load.
Furthermore you make no mention of geo heat exchange heating/cooling. Heating and cooling building accounts for 36% of GHG. By using solar cogeneration to power the geo heat exchange, storing energy as heat/cold, that entire 36% dissappears.
The rest of the plan is fine though.
But if we are going to get this done at the lowest cost, with the most effective, quickest gHG reduction. This selection needs to be made.
This plan needs to be understood interactively, with one wedge helping the next wedge work. Please try to at least consider this point of view. Why not take a shortcut and do it now, instead of waiting until it's obvious.
By that time it maybe too late. look at the time article. The state of knowledge on this is sickening in the mass media. The same old diversionary lies are repeated over and over and over...
Is this how we supplied the arsenal of democracy to win WW2? No it's not. We needed a jeep, government selected one and got it mass produced. The same with liberty ships, tanks, planes, the bomb. They didn't say we'll just try a lot of stuff and see what works. In fact Germany did that. It didn't work.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 9:22 pm
23 Apr 2008
Permalink
JoeT Posted 10:40 pm
23 Apr 2008
The hard reality is that although self change is the moral and environmental option, it is very unlikely that we are going to be able to stop climate change.
So we're faced with the reality of a changed climate and how we think/plan for it.
nosmokings.blogspot.com
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:15 am
24 Apr 2008
Permalink
314159265 Posted 1:36 am
24 Apr 2008
Permalink
katakanadian Posted 2:44 am
24 Apr 2008
Permalink
Karen Street Posted 2:54 am
24 Apr 2008
More comments:
people in policy believe that is too early to eliminate options. Since expanded use of nuclear power is assumed as baseline, assuming that we can eliminate that option and still get there from here (whether there is 2 or 2.5 C) is optimistic. It is possible that concerns about positive feedback, rate of change, etc will be greater in future IPCC reports; because they are written conservatively, it is less likely that we will find more breathing room.
Assumptions that solar's role will be as important as suggested may be optimistic. Almost all analysis I've seen indicates that in the absence of technological breakthrough, total solar energy will be less than 1% of total energy by 2030. UNFCCC, for example, puts solar at 0.2% in its 2030 mitigation scenario.
10 Yucca Mountains for 1 wedge? I don't think so, current limits on Yucca Mountain are legislated rather than technical. Note: China anticipates adding 300 GW nuclear by 2050. Plant size in report was assumed to be current smaller size, but new plants may be 50% or more larger, requiring only 2/3 as many plants. With China building so many, that leaves the rest of the world needing to replace current plants with larger ones, and add fewer than 6 larger plants each year. Given the number of power plants the US builds every year (not to mention the number of coal plants Germany and Italy are currently building and planning), this can't be all that difficult.
Re wind: it is necessary for wind to add, not build, 100 GW new power each year. Wind currently is expected to last 25-30 years, so in the second half of this half-century, 100 GW wind would be replaced and 100 GW added. I saw a national lab analysis that showed the cost of wind going down, then increasing, as wind moved to less attractive sites. And remember, wind in any quantity requires natural gas backup even if the entire US grid is combined to take advantage of wind blowing there if it is not blowing here. If this natural gas were to use carbon capture and storage, its cost would rise significantly, as CCS infrastructure costs more/kWh on plants not used regularly.
The US is wind and sun rich compared to Europe and Japan; estimates about solar in the US do NOT apply elsewhere. Rome is north of NYC.
Expectations about the ability of reduced deforestation and increased afforestation (which was closer to one wedge total, not each) are reduced in current analysis. Note as well that P&S expect these to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, even though they calculate the number of wedges needed to stabilize primarily carbon dioxide emissions, and do not count wedges needed for other GHG, nor to counter deforestation.
A general rule: it's easier to plan more wedges rather than fewer, and hope rather than plan that solar and wind will turn out to work better than anticipated. The costs of being wrong are too high. One concept of energy security is not to put all eggs too few baskets.
A Musing Environment
Karen Street
Permalink
turanga leela Posted 3:04 am
24 Apr 2008
Never forget that the industries causing the climate problem are the biggest fans of voluntary action. Hence we get things like the Clear Skies Initiative from the Bush Administration--all founded on voluntary action.
450 ppm is a very definite, hard line, and it has to be reached through quantifiable reduction. That is why NGOs are pushing for either a cap and trade system or a carbon tax in which CO2 is regulated as a pollutant by sovereign governments in cooperation with an international monitoring system like Kyoto. So we can measure how much GHG is going up the smokestack and into the atmosphere and determine whether or not the world as a whole is on the right track. People voluntarily driving less or putting up personal wind turbines is not going to be quantifiable in a broad based sense. So focusing on those things as a "strategy" will kill us.
This old school thinking about voluntary action and lifestyle changes has got to stop in terms of reversing the warming trend. This is the biggest environmental problem the world has ever faced and as an activist community we've got to respond in kind--continuing with eco-platitudes like recycling and composting will not get us there. The problem is too big.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:31 am
24 Apr 2008
Permalink
turanga leela Posted 3:35 am
24 Apr 2008
Now, maybe if the government mandated lifestyle changes and a vegetarian diet through power rationing and high taxes to price meat out of people's budgets...there might be some possibilities. But the political backlash against such proposed policies would probably be mind boggling.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 3:57 am
24 Apr 2008
So in calling for a price on the pollutant CO2, beware of the danger of negative ingenuity. So far this century, governments have already collected trillions in CO2 fees. Reducing net emissions below zero with nothing but olivine sequestration won't cost that much. So we must suspect those who seem intent, first thing, on increasing the fees of hoping to make the problem a perpetual cash cow.
I think I am like everyone who hasn't received many thousands of natgas-derived dollars in wanting at least two wedges' worth of nukes built, and not minding in the least if each one has its own on-site miniature Yucca Mountain, as they all do today. Proliferation, uranium scarcity -- that's just gas-shill talk.
How shall driving gain nuclear cachet?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:58 am
24 Apr 2008
Getting your quality of life experiences from exersize and reading and friends, instead of from consumption, buying,air travel, and electronic entertainment.
Instead of buying more stuff use stuff other people take to goodwill or throw away. That's a huge one, upcoming in college towns. Wealthy students coming to the end of the college year thr4ow away tons of good stuff. It's right out on the curb around the end of classes/tests.
It could make up a whole wedge in 10 years or so of shifting lifestyle to quality of life over quantity of consumption and possesions.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
turanga leela Posted 4:01 am
24 Apr 2008
Permalink
turanga leela Posted 4:03 am
24 Apr 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:04 am
24 Apr 2008
No more women forced by their cultures, religions, or spouses to go forth and multiply, beyond their personal energy, means, and will.
Growth for it's own sake to beat the other religions, families, tribes, or economic cultures. The time to end this insanity is yesterday!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
JoshS Posted 4:47 am
24 Apr 2008
Politics are on our side of the human/natural equation...
I'm getting really, really tired about hearing about political impossibilities. Those are illusions not worth chasing.
Permalink
turanga leela Posted 4:56 am
24 Apr 2008
The clincher is always figuring out a plan for accomplishing what you want to do, and lay it out, step by step. If you hit a stumbling block, you map out scenarios for how to get around it. And that' what I think we have trouble with most of the time in policymaking. We run into a boulder on the path and think that if we just beat our heads against it for long enough and hard enough it will eventually break. What we need to do is figure out how to get AROUND the boulder in enough time that we can still beat the ticking doomsday clock.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:05 am
24 Apr 2008
As far as I'm concerned, it would be OK to get the money for government programs from the military budget and from higher taxes on the rich and large corporations, but that is considered pretty radical, as far as I can tell, and so I think there is a reluctance to talk about government-led programs because there really aren't other sources of money.
Permalink
turanga leela Posted 5:17 am
24 Apr 2008
Of course, then, if you've got sizeable investments from a big monolithic equity firm, you've still got the problem that the energy system is controlled by large and powerful interests. A lot of people would like to see this transition to low carbon energy systems as a way of democratizing the energy system, considering the large influence energy companies have on our political system. But I am starting to wonder if, given the large investments we need, doing both simultaneously is even possible.
Permalink
turanga leela Posted 5:18 am
24 Apr 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:04 am
24 Apr 2008
Permalink
advancednano Posted 1:46 pm
24 Apr 2008
current nuclear power build.
In the USA: There are Combined license applications for 15 nuclear plantsthat have been received by the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission.)
34 plants from 23 applications are expected by 2010
Almost all current US plants will be extended to 60 years of operation. Half have already been extended.
Current new build by country in order of amount of power added
China 6 reactors, 5520 MW
Russia 7 reactors, 4920 MW
S Korea 3 reactors, 3000 MW
India 6 reactors, 2976 MW
Japan 2 reactors, 2285 MW
France 1 reactor, 1630 MW
Finland 1 reactor, 1600MW
Canada 2 reactors, 1500 MW
Iran 1, 915MW
Slovakia 2 reactors, 840MW
Argentina 1 reactor, 692MW
Pakistan 1 reactor, 300 MW
35 reactors, 28798 MW (most should be completed by 2012/2013)
91 reactors 99095 MW
with approvals, funding or major commitment in place, mostly expected in operation within 8 years (by 2016)
China 60 GW by 2020.
India 20 GW by 2020.
Russia released a plan to build 42 nuclear power plants by 2020.
Japan generates 47.5GW from 55 reactors now and is building 18GW of more nuclear power. So Japan should be getting 66GW from nuclear power in 2020.
France uprating almost all of its reactors
EdF uprated its four Chooz and Civaux N4 reactors from 1455 to 1500 MWe each in 2003. Over 2008-10 EdF plans to uprate five of its 900 MWe reactors by 3%. Then in 2007 EdF announced that the twenty 1300 MWe reactors would be uprated some 7% from 2015, within existing licence limits, and adding about 15 TWh/yr to output. Plus giving them 10 year extensions.
Idaho national labs has a strategic plan for Light water reactors The US alone could get back to 10 new reactors per year. The historical record of plant construction shows that the United States by itself built: 12 nuclear plants were completed in 1974, 10 in 1973, 8 in 1972.
The world completed 24 nuclear reactors in one year in the 1980s. So 17 per year + build for replacement is easily doable.
Stretch Goals:
1. Life extension of the current fleet beyond 60 years (e.g., what would it
take to extend all lives to ~80 years?); and
2. Strong, sustained expansion of ALWRs throughout this century (e.g., what
would it take to proceed uninterrupted from first new plant deployments in
~2015 to sustained build-rates approaching 10+/year?).
Big power uprate of existing reactors by using new fuel geometry and coatings.
Annular fuel details for 50% uprate
All of this is even without getting new reactor types running. Factory mass produceable. Hyperion Power generation uranium hydride reactor (target 2012).
More conservative design that is under development. International Reactor Innovative & Secure (IRIS) is a modular 335 MWe pressurised water reactor with integral steam generators and primary coolant system all within the pressure vessel. Construction time target of the first IRIS unit is three years, with subsequent reduction to only two years. IRIS could be deployed in the next decade (2015), but you are projecting out 30-50 years.
Modular Helium Reactor (MHR , formerly the GT-MHR), will be built as modules of up to 600 MWt. In its electrical application each would directly drive a gas turbine at 47% thermal efficiency, giving 280 MWe. It can also be used for hydrogen production (100,000 t/yr claimed) and other high temperature process heat applications.
Molten salt reactors.
Thermoelectric improvements either with higher temperatures or with new thermoelectrics which could achieve near Carnot limit efficiencies. Freedomcar has funding of this and already some smaller scale uses (beer fridges and car seat warmers.) 2010-2013 for deployment in first cars and trucks.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:38 pm
24 Apr 2008
They could use this money to make the loan payments. Over and above local programs or astate programs, a federal subsidy of 10 cents per kwh would get this energy revolution going.
And right on the same scale as WW 2 war production. That 10 cents would give a 3 to 5 year payback period. That's a gold rush to free power after the payback.
And the extra income after the payback could pay property taxes and other costs that drive retired people out of their homes.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
mwildfire Posted 11:56 pm
28 Apr 2008
"I think I am like everyone who hasn't received many thousands of natgas-derived dollars in wanting at least two wedges' worth of nukes built, and not minding in the least if each one has its own on-site miniature Yucca Mountain, as they all do today. Proliferation, uranium scarcity -- that's just gas-shill talk."
Nonsense. Most environmentalists are firmly opposed to the use of nukes. I don't believe Amory Lovins is a "gas-industry shill," and he opposes it on multiple grounds.
Then there biofuels--so far the evidence is that these are a net negative when it comes to dealing with climate change. In a world without oil and gas-based fertilizers, growing enough food for the world's population will be a big challenge. Diverting one seventh of the world's croplands to fuel production must be accompanied by deciding which seventh of the world's population will be eliminated along with their food supply. Even algae, from what I heard, is much less efficient than PV systems in the same area.
I also want to agree with those who object to trying to come up with a plan based entirely on technology, with an assumption that our lifestyles must remain untouched. Not only do other countries use much less power than we do--so did everybody a mere two centuries ago. Now the attitude is that we must continue to use huge quantities of electricity and travel thousands of miles at will, even if it means our descendents will be struggling for survival on a ruined world...which almost certainly will be the case, given the short time left to make drastic changes and the resistance on the part of the overwhelming majority to those changes. I'd like to note that I lived for 25 years without electricity, and did not consider myself deprived. Most of those years we had free gas from a well on our property, which made it easier--but the first couple years we made do with kerosene lamps, dipped water from the creek, kept food in a cooler...in other words, lived like all of our ancestors. But it isn't necessary that we return to those days if we rapidly convert our economy to electric transport, rail freight, solar and wind power on both a centralized and decentralized basis, and institute policies to reduce population slowly. Will we do this? In a word, no. A couple of people objected to the mention of "lack of political will" as though it weren't real--I can only assume they've never been involved in political activism. To think lack of political will isn't a real problem, you have to be pretty much a newborn baby when it comes to trying to effect change in policy.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 3:04 am
29 Apr 2008
Nonsense. Most environmentalists are firmly opposed to the use of nukes.
That is their disgrace. People who merely care about the environment do not tolerate being labelled as environmentalists precisely because of that betrayal.
I don't believe Amory Lovins is a "gas-industry shill," and he opposes it on multiple grounds. ...
Notice the use of marks indicating exact quotation. But I wrote "gas-shill", not "gas-industry shill". Government makes a lot of money on natural gas.
Does this Lovins get money from both private fossil fuel interests and branches of government? Does he advocate natural gas? Does he live in a house he shouldn't be able to afford, with a huge tank of natural gas liquids outside?
"Multiple grounds", meet whack-a-mole. Look up the anti-Lovins rants of one 'NNadir' on DailyKos. He seems to know enough about the man's treason to everything he pretends to hold dear, and to have a sufficiently similar shakiness on technical matters, that it's almost as if he were an expiation puppet.
Let the baby light matches in the fuel storage room!
Permalink