Carbon Pipelines Negative T
No Solvency – No Tech / Slow
Download 0.92 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Prefer our evidence – theirs is unsupported optimism
- Won’t be available till 2030
- Too slow
No Solvency – No Tech / SlowNo technology for carbon capture – optimistic evidence points to still over 2 decades awayHamilton 10 – Professor of Public Ethics @ ANU Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics in Australia, 2010, “Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change,” pg 162 As soon as one begins to investigate the issue, one is struck by the yawning gap between the deadlines for action provided by the climate scientists and the time lapse before the technology can deliver. While climate scientists say we must begin to radically reduce emissions in rich countries inside a decade, the best estimates for 'clean coal' indicate it will not be ready for widespread adoption for at least two decades. Independent analysis suggests that full-scale commercial implementation of carbon capture and storage will not occur until 2030 In Australia, economic modelling by the Treasury assumes that 'clean coal' technology will not begin reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants until 2026 at the earliest and more likely 2033.' Yet the International Energy Agency (IEA), long seen to be the captive of the traditional energy industries, estimates that by 2030 the world will need more than 200 power plants fully equipped with CCS if warming is to be limited to 3°C. Three degrees! The IPCC estimates that by 2050 only 30-60 per cent of power generation will be technically suitable for carbon capture and storage, and the IEA's projections show the technology will deliver less than 20 per cent of the emission reductions needed by 2050 in order to stabilise concentrations close to 450 ppm. Prefer our evidence – theirs is unsupported optimismJohnson et al. 10 – PhD in Atmospheric Science Andrew Simms, policy director of New Economics Foundation, UK think tank, and head of NEF's Climate Change Programme, Dr. Victoria Johnson, researcher for the climate change and energy programme at NEF, MSc with distinction in Climate Change from the University of East Anglia and PhD in Atmospheric Physics at Imperial College, London and Peter Chowla, Policy and Advocacy Officer at the Bretton Woods Project. “Growth isn’t possible”. New Economics Foundation, January 25,2010. http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Growth_Isnt_Possible.pdf There are three fundamental critiques of these scenarios, however. First, it is noteworthy that recent research by Lowe et al. has stated that in order to have less than a 50 per cent change of not exceeding 2°C, emissions need to peak by 2015 and fall by 3 per cent each year thereafter. Neither the RS nor the AP scenarios achieve such an early and dramatic peak and decline scenario. Lowe et al. also note that even if emissions peak in 2015, there is still a one-in-three chance that near-surface temperatures will rise by more than 2°C in 100 years’ time.193 The IEA, however, dismisses a scenario that does not achieve overshoot stating: ‘A 450 stabilisation trajectory without overshoot would need to achieve substantially lower emissions in the period up to 2020 and, realistically, this could be done only by scrapping very substantial amounts of existing capital across all energy-related industries. In any case, given the scale of new investment required, it is unlikely that the necessary new equipment and infrastructure could be built and deployed quickly enough to meet demand.’194 Wigley et al. also note that a policy that allows emissions to follow an overshoot pathway means that in order to recover to lower temperatures within a century timescale, we may, for a period, require negative global emissions of CO2.195 Second, the assumptions about growth in capacity of CCS are also overly optimistic. The consensus view is that CCS may be commercially viable by 2020; however, a number of analysts believe even this is an optimistic scenario suggesting that 2030 may be more realistic. Third, given the optimism attached to CCS as a viable technology in the near future, the assumption that CO2 intensity can feasibly decline by 2.6 per cent per year can also be viewed as over optimistic. Figure 5 produced by Pielke et al. compares predicted (IPCC scenarios) and observed changes in energy intensity the economy carbon intensity of energy. Observations (2000–2005) imply both an increase in energy intensity of the economy and carbon intensity of energy by approximately 0.25 and 0.3 per cent pa respectively. Won’t be available till 2030Favreau 10 (Didier, a senior analyst with IFP Energies nouvelles, France and graduated engineer from the Ecole Nationale Superieure des Mines de Saint-Etienne, France, “Economics act against CCS retrofits,” Oil and Gas Journal, October 4, 2010, http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-108/issue-37/transportations/economics-act-against-ccs-retrofits.html, ADP) Economics will likely prevent retrofitting carbon capture and sequestration technologies to existing power plants with a capture efficiency <40% and a residual life <15 years. Only capture of flue gases (postcombustion) is practical for existing units, although even this is often made difficult by space constraints. Other solutions use processes (oxycombustion or gasification), which cannot generally be adapted to existing installations except with major revamping. Current CO2 capture, transport, and storage costs are high because they apply to demonstration projects, requiring considerable research and development. These costs will drop by 2020-30 for new units, the various technologies being better demonstrated and commercial products benefiting from their larger scale. Some experts estimate potential cost reductions of about 40%. A high degree of uncertainty remains, however, regarding storage costs, which represent about 20% of the total CCS expenses. Too slowRochon et al 08 Peer Reviewed, Greenpeace International: Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace, Authors include: Dr Erika Bjureby, Dr Paul Johnston, Robin Oakley, Dr David Santillo, Nina Schulz, Dr Gabriela von Goerne (Emily, May 2008, “False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate,” http://www.probeinternational.org/False%20Hope%20--%20Why%20carbon%20capture%20and%20storage%20won%92t%20save%20the%20climate.pdf)//DR. H Carbon capture and storage (CCS) aims to reduce the climate impact of burning fossil fuels by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power station smokestacks and disposing of it underground. Its future development has been widely promoted by the coal industry as a justification for the construction of new coal-fired power plants. However, the technology is largely unproven and will not be ready in time to save the climate. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.92 Mb. Share with your friends:
|