The technologies needed to beat 450 ppm, Part 1

Examining the IPCC’s ‘portfolio of technologies’ 19

In 2007, the IPCC wrote [PDF] in its Working Group III summary (page 16):

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. This assumes that appropriate and effective incentives are in place for development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion of technologies, and for addressing related barriers (high agreement, much evidence).

This range of levels includes reaching atmospheric concentrations of 445 to 490 ppm CO2-equivalent, or 400 to 450 ppm of CO2. The first sentence does beg the question, what exactly does "expected to be commercialized" mean? I'll return to that in Part 2.

So, what exactly are these climate-saving technologies? You can read about every conceivable one in the full WG III report, "Mitigation of Climate Change." But the summary lists the "Key mitigation technologies and practices" (page 10) in several sectors divided into two groups: those that are "currently commercially available" and those "projected to be commercialized before 2030." I will simply list them all here. In a later post, I'll discuss which ones I believe could deliver the biggest reductions at lowest cost -- my 14-plus "wedges," as it were -- and the political process for achieving them.

It is worth seeing them all, I think, to understand exactly how we might stabilize below 450 ppm CO2. Also, one of the technologies is the closest thing we have to the "silver bullet" needed to save the climate, as I will blog on in a few days.

Energy supply now commercial: Improved supply and distribution efficiency; fuel switching from coal to gas; nuclear power; renewable heat and power (hydropower, solar, wind, geothermal and bioenergy); combined heat and power; early applications of carbon capture and storage (CCS, e.g. storage of removed CO2 from natural gas).

Energy supply projected to be commercial by 2030: CCS for gas, biomass, and coal-fired electricity generating facilities; advanced nuclear power; advanced renewable energy, including tidal and waves energy, concentrating solar, and solar PV.

(Note to IPCC: Concentrating solar is commercial now -- it better be, with nearly 6000 MW running or under contract now.)

Transport now: More fuel-efficient vehicles; hybrid vehicles; cleaner diesel vehicles; biofuels; modal shifts from road transport to rail and public transport systems; non-motorized transport (cycling, walking); land-use and transport planning.

Transport by 2030: Second generation biofuels; higher efficiency aircraft; advanced electric and hybrid vehicles with more powerful and reliable batteries.

(Hmm, hydrogen fuel cell cars didn't make the 2030 cut, but plug-in hybrids did.)

Buildings now: Efficient lighting and daylighting; more efficient electrical appliances and heating and cooling devices; improved cook stoves, improved insulation; passive and active solar design for heating and cooling; alternative refrigeration fluids, recovery and recycle of fluorinated gases.

Buildings by 2030: Integrated design of commercial buildings including technologies, such as intelligent meters that provide feedback and control; solar PV integrated in buildings.

(Note to IPCC: Those are all already commercial. Heck, some companies are doing real-time, over-the-internet monitoring of their buildings, continuous commissioning, now!)

Industry now: More efficient end-use electrical equipment; heat and power recovery; material recycling and substitution; control of non-CO2 gas emissions; and a wide array of process-specific technologies.

(I would have singled out efficiency motors and variable speed drives here. Sad footnote: President Bush gutted the Energy Department program that had developed technology road maps with the energy intensive industries and was funding accelerated development and deployment of the key technologies.)

Industry by 2030: Advanced energy efficiency; CCS for cement, ammonia, and iron manufacture; inert electrodes for aluminium manufacture.

(A short, boring list. I might have thrown in solid oxide fuel cells, just to spice things up. The DOE program that Bush gutted was working on a lot of sexy stuff, including the inert electrodes.)

Agriculture now: Improved crop and grazing land management to increase soil carbon storage; restoration of cultivated peaty soils and degraded lands; improved rice cultivation techniques and livestock and manure management to reduce CH4 emissions; improved nitrogen fertilizer application techniques to reduce N2O emissions; dedicated energy crops to replace fossil fuel use; improved energy efficiency.

Agriculture by 2030: Improvements of crops yields.

(I guess they didn't have many Agriculture R&D experts. Well, I'm not one. Those who are, feel free to chime in. Biochar, anyone?)

Forestry/forests now: Afforestation; reforestation; forest management; reduced deforestation; harvested wood product management; use of forestry products for bioenergy to replace fossil fuel use.

Forestry/forests by 2030: Tree species improvement to increase biomass productivity and carbon sequestration. Improved remote sensing technologies for analysis of vegetation/soil carbon sequestration potential and mapping land use change.

Waste management now: Landfill methane recovery; waste incineration with energy recovery; composting of organic waste; controlled waste water treatment; recycling and waste minimization.

Waste management by 2030: Biocovers and biofilters to optimize CH4 oxidation.

(Hmm. Maybe some advanced waste-to-fuel/energy processes, too.)

So, is the IPCC right? Can we stabilize below 450 ppm with these technologies (and the ones in the full report)? Are there 14-plus wedges here? I think so. Stay tuned.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. bigTom Posted 2:53 am
    10 Apr 2008

    Beware of renewable nameplate capacity.  Too often I see nameplate capacity of intermittent renewables used in place of capacity time capacity factor*. For instance in your 14 wedges you state that the 20GW of current wind displaces 20GW of fossil fueled power. It doesn't if the capacity factor is 35% (generous by the way), then it only displaces on average .35*20GW = 7GW. Similar computations apply to solar as well.
        Not all wedges are likely to have the same width -but perhaps I missed the your definition of a wedge.
       Some political horse trading is required. Liberals must trade off some things they find distasteful such as some nuclear wedges, in order to get more renewable, sequestration and conservation wedges.
    * Capcity factor is the fraction of the named output capacity a plant averages over a period of time. For example a wind turbine which runs a quarter of the time at full power and otherwise is off would have a capacity factor of only 25%.

    Permalink

  2. Karen Street Posted 3:45 am
    10 Apr 2008

    IPCC pessimismNote that none of the 177 analyses accepted by IPCC aims to keep the temperature increase below 2 C, only 6 aim for below 2.5 C,and that business as usual has worsened since the analyses were accepted.
    Why do you say that liberals find nuclear wedges distasteful? Some liberals, yes, but a decreasing number. It does seem to be true that organizations considered liberal by themselves, such as environmental groups, oppose nuclear power.
    I second the point on the difference between capacity and effective capacity--in the US, the capacity factor of rooftop solar is about 19-20%, in Europe it's going to be less. If CA achieves 3 GW in photovoltaics by 2017, the added reductions in greenhouse gases will be much less than if they built one 1.1 or 1.5 GW nuclear power plant. That is not to oppose new solar, it's just that some mistake 3 GW in solar as equivalent to two large nuclear power plants, when it's closer to half a smaller one.
    Not every approach can be a wedge. I read increasing pessimism in scientific literature about the ability of trees planted today to sequester as much carbon as was thought a decade ago. Some approaches can supply more than one wedge, notably efficiency and nuclear power.
    A Musing Environment

    Karen Street

    Permalink

  3. Rico Posted 4:39 am
    10 Apr 2008

    CapacityIn addition to making distinctions between "nameplate capacity" and "capacity factor" (which I agree is an important distinction), there is also the need to consider how much of the "capacity factor" meaningfully contributes to the grid load at any point in time. For lack of a better term, that's what I would call "effective capacity". For example, though a nuclear (or hydroelectric) plant can operate at near capacity essentially all the time, load requirements are variable over time. So either you have another source of dispatchable power and use the nuclear or hydroelectric plant to satisfy base load only, or its "effective capacity" will be lower than its "capacity factor". On the other hand, since solar capacity follows load requirements pretty well (and in the case of solar thermal, even better if it has heat storage), its "effective capacity" remains close to its "capacity factor".
    Unfortunately, I don't know of any source of "effective capacity" statistics. But this paper discusses the issue with respect to solar thermal. Another point is that when (let's hope it's not "if") smart grid technology is meaningfully deployed, our current conceptions of "peak" and "off-peak" load distributions are likely to change dramatically. It seems to me that smart grid deployment is the very first rate-limiting step in our quest to make "unreliable" renewable power sources optimal.

    Permalink

  4. sunflower's avatar

    sunflower Posted 5:34 am
    10 Apr 2008

    Solar not in the image of nuclear.A square meter of solar concentrator is worth the same as burning a barrel of oil per year in sunny climates, and half that in cloudy climates.  The concentrator cost is $100-150/m^2 and lasts for 30 years.  The application is to displace fossil fuels for everything, including making power.  That is a very thick wedge.

    Permalink

  5. bigTom Posted 6:01 am
    10 Apr 2008

    were still a minority  I also consider myself to be a pronuclear liberal. But I don't feel like a fully accepted member of the club because of the high concentration of antinuclear people in the club. We still have a lot of "selling" to do among our choosen (political) tribe.

    Permalink

  6. Rico Posted 6:27 am
    10 Apr 2008

    Nuclear?bigTom, I'm ambivalent to nuclear. Other than the obvious (the waste and security issues) part of the reason is the cost and the availability of critical components, like containment vessels. Those variables have to be projected over very long construction times. Meanwhile, have you looked into the potential of geothermal? In particular I mean "hot rock" (EGS) geothermal, or variants on the theme more applicable to "traditional" sites. Granted, hot rock geothermal is one of those technologies that require more R&D. But the level of R&D funding has thus far been pretty pathetic, so it's hard to tell how well better funding would pay off. But according to this study, the potential bang for the buck could be enormous.
    I honestly don't understand why EGS is not more discussed and/or pushed more aggressively. Am I missing something? Can anyone help?

    Permalink

  7. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 6:49 am
    10 Apr 2008

    Rico, I don't understand it either......it just seems to fall between the cracks somehow, I don't know why.  I did a post on the potential of geothermal heat pumps, but that's a different technology.

    Permalink

  8. amazingdrx Posted 8:06 am
    10 Apr 2008

    Left out the bestYep Jon, they left out geo heat exchange heating and cooling of buildings (36% of GHG goes to heat and cool buildings), solar cogeneration (heat/electricty), smart grid and smart grid storage, and a few more.  Yikes.
    These alone could cancel half of GHG emissions.
    This needs serious ammendment!  Make ammends, step 13.  get on this IPCC.  Get radical.

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

  9. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 8:38 am
    10 Apr 2008

    My nominations for wedgesif you look at Joe's simpler description of wedges (which I'll use since I'm just a simple guy), there are many wedges that look like nonstarters -- the ccs ones, in particular, but also biofuels.  But there are several that look good to me:


    cutting vehicle miles in half with mass transit/walkable communities
    cutting building emissions by 25%.  Let's count 3 wedges here; I think you could make most buildings almost emissions free
    I'm not sure what to make of the wind wedge, maybe you could get more than one, let's say one;
    Same with solar
    stop deforestation is one
    improve soil is one


    So, if we get 3 wedges out of buildings, that's actually eight wedges, and we need 7, if  I understand this properly.  Quite doable!

    Permalink

  10. Rico Posted 10:15 am
    10 Apr 2008

    Color me confusedjromm: Confused commenters
    While I'm sure all of us commenters appreciate how busy your schedule is. And while I'm also sure that at least many of us, to one extent or another, defer to your superior knowledge and/or experience, I'm equally sure that calling all of us "confused" with no attempt at subtlety or distinction doesn't help your cause much.
    I'm trying hard to get in your camp, and probably will end up there (more or less), but you're not making it any easier. There's no sense in pissing people off for no reason, is there? I'm just saying.

    Permalink

  11. Karen Street Posted 10:18 am
    10 Apr 2008

    But why hasn't any analysis shown it to be easy?Jon,
    You produced wedges that IPCC might not consider doable, not for an entire wedge.
    The bottom line is that no peer-reviewed analysis accepted by IPCC gets us to a temperature increase of less than 2 C, even with earlier and more optimistic business-as-usual assumptions. None. Not any of them.
    So we may not yet be at the point where we can reject solutions, if our goal is to keep temperature increase below 2 C.
    There is non-peer reviewed analysis galore. But do we want to base our future on it?

    Karen Street

    Permalink

  12. Sean Casten's avatar

    Sean Casten Posted 11:09 am
    10 Apr 2008

    Don't assume all options are in those wedgesI love Socolow's wedge concept, if only because it breaks the goal up into manageable slices.  However, their great disadvantage is that they suggest that the universe of our options is to be found within those wedges... which simply isn't true.  Note that none of those wedges capture improved power generation efficiency (which have the potential to lower CO2 emissions by 20%, if all we do is return to 1910 efficiency levels).  
    There may be other options as well - but it bears keeping in mind that once we finally get serious about lowering GHG emissions, we'll find a lot of opportunities that we didn't previously know were out there.  Put a price on carbon and markets will respond in unpredictable ways - and one doesn't therefore need to know the universe of possible options to be able to say categorically that there are more options than will be dreamt of in our philosophies... and therefore, the task ahead of us is not as hard as we think.  But for God's sake, let's get started!

    Permalink

  13. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 11:19 am
    10 Apr 2008

    Karen, what's up with the journals?I mean, I don't edit a peer-reviewed journal.  They could have a special issue, many special issues (I once actually edited a special issue of an IEEE social issues journal).  They can do it.  They should do it.
    Sean, the more people can propose "wedges", the better.  I agree that the market may come up with some unknown alternatives -- I certainly hope so -- we should also think about policies to implement the known wedges.  And hey, figure out a chp-type wedge!

    Permalink

  14. Sean Casten's avatar

    Sean Casten Posted 11:24 am
    10 Apr 2008

    JonMy point is a bit larger - I'm not suggesting that with the addition of one more wedge we'd have it, but rather that no matter how smart the dude, s/he can't come up with all the ideas that a marketplace of dumb actors will come up with on their own.  The "chp wedge" as you put it - but more broadly, just the generation-efficiency wedge - is a good example, but only as a specific example.  Ask Joe-on-the-street what we can do to address AGW, and you'll more or less get all the options in the wedges, in one form or another.  Conservation.  Better fuel economy.  More nuke.  CCS.  But Joe-on-the-street will miss the same thing that the Princeton professors miss: namely, the massive inefficiency of our power sector.  We assume it's ideal, when it's the opposite.  
    And yeah, I rant on this all the time only because it's in the little slice of the AGW world that I really get.  Which makes me wonder how much else is out there that we simply haven't thought of.  After all, missing a 20% slice is pretty huge...

    Permalink

  15. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 11:52 am
    10 Apr 2008

    There's a market and then there's markets......for instance, if you want denser, multi-use building, you can create incentives for those policies, without building the buildings (although I wouldn't mind some of that too).  Or, if you want buildings to be much more energy efficient and generate some of its own energy, same thing.  So there are rather broad areas, or "wedges", that can be targeted where it can still be left to the market to figure out the details.
    By the way, saw an article in the N.Y. Times recently about gas "microturbines", that make sense for buildings with more than 60 people, so the article states.  Seems like a good deal for buildings, no?

    Permalink

  16. amazingdrx Posted 1:51 pm
    10 Apr 2008

    Wrong"Some political horse trading is required. Liberals must trade off some things they find distasteful such as some nuclear wedges, in order to get more renewable, sequestration and conservation wedges."
    You are the ones who must compromise.  Nuclear power is a disaster in it's present state.
    No more nukes until you admit the problems exist and redesign and prove the new designs take care of the problems.
    We are not devestating the environment with our wedges, as you are.



    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

  17. amazingdrx Posted 2:02 pm
    10 Apr 2008

    Capacity factor?Was that the confusion you were talking about Joe?
    I think so Rico.  Big nuke..er tom made the mistake, as he mistakenly supports nuclear power that is understandable.  Massive confusion of the Brand/Lovelocke variety.
    Nuclear advocates can't wait to shuffle through their anti-renewables talking points.
    Low capacity factor, intermittent (needing 100% backup),  expensive, dangerous (millions have been killed building wind towers!), and so forth.  It's radioactive exposure that makes them exagerate, hehey.

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

  18. Des Emery Posted 3:08 pm
    10 Apr 2008

    450 ppmJust a couple of comments --  it's a good thing to have a destination in mind when you plan a trip and you have all the time in the world to think deeply about it.   But when you're running from a fire or a flood, you don't really care which way is the road to the promised land, you just get the hell out.
    So instead of arguing about which 'wedge' is the most appropriate, why not just get busy and build them all. Before catastrophe (Global Warming) arrives with a vengeance.
    And for electricity,whether wind or solar or nuclear sourced, build a grid that will accept input from all producers and provide output for all users, letting the electrons surge back and forth as required, so there is no 'up' or 'down' time involved.  

    Des Emery

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement