Showing posts with label COP23. Show all posts
Showing posts with label COP23. Show all posts

Saturday, 9 December 2017

Negative Emissions I: CCS A Costly, Risky Distraction?

December 09, 2017 Carbon Dioxide Removal , CDR 0 Comments
To meet targets, we must stop emitting GHGs by 2050. However scepticism around meeting the desired 1.5C is increasing, many believe this can only be achieved using CDR negative emission technologies like Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) and Bio-Energy with CCS (BECCS), mentioned in over 80% of IPCC pathways to emissions reductions.


There is increasing interest in adapting pre-existing industries. Today there are 17 fully operating CCS facilities that annually captures 31 million tonnes of CO2. Contrary to popular belief (or my ideas) OPEC countries and oil companies (example Shell, 2015), are investing in greener technologies. The Al Reyadah project is a joint venture between Abu Dhabi National Oil Company and Masdar, it's facility captures 800,000 tonnes of CO2/year from the Emirates Steel factory and sequesters captures CO2 to enhance oil recovery, (with more facilities planned to be built).

Despite, steps in the right direction, it is opposed strongly by environmental groups like Greenpeace branding CCS as a 'costly, risky distraction'. 

Problems

  1. Small-scale
    1. Only 17 fully operating CCS facilities.
    2. Little progress for large-scale deployment since 2008.
  2. High profile projects cancelled
    1. UK 2015.
    2. Norway 2013.
    3. USA 2015.
  3. Storing CO2 permanently 
    1. An oil company in Mississippi sequestered CO2 underground that created well blowouts releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, and in one case released so much, it suffocated wildlife.
  4. Costly 
    1. To meet 1.5C CCS must capture 5 gigatonnes of CO2/year from 2050-2100, costing approximately $500 billion/year. 
    2. May contaminate groundwater supplies.
  5. Morally wrong
    1. Enhancing oil recovery prolongs the use of fossil fuels.
    2. Pressure on freshwater supplies.
    3. Does not address ocean acidification and may enhance this.


The Future

Further research and innovation into negative emissions technologies may overcome major limitations of current CCS technologies. For instance, Origen Power, a by-product of heating limestone can be used to neutralise acidic waters and capture atmospheric CO2 (see video below). But, at present, this has not been implemented on a commercial scale.


TED talk: Can we stop climate change by removing CO2 from the air? (Tim Kruger, 2017).
 "All [CDR] ideas come with trade-offs, none of them are perfect, but many have potential."

Perhaps the future solution should be a mixture of CDR negative emissions technologies like CCS, alongside reductions in GHGs. CCS alone will not solve climate change, especially when there are only 17 facilities worldwide and finite sources of fossil fuels left, it's long-term sustainability is questionable. But more research and funding is required for the development of all geoengineering approaches.



Perhaps, Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), is the future for long-term sustainability of CCS. We shall see...
- No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, 2 December 2017

What the COP?

December 02, 2017 CDR , COP23 0 Comments

We need CDR geoengineering,
here's why:

The Climate-Interactive simulations developed by the Massachusetts Institute for Technology, engage the public in climate change discussions. It illustrates the challenges in negotiating a comprehensive agreement that meets 2C agreed temperature increase (COP16) and further 1.5C (COP21).


Rounds 1&2 



During the COP23 simulation, I represented India with four peers, and other members forming: The USA, EU, Other Developed Nations, Fossil Fuel Companies, China, Other Developing Nations and climate lobbyist.

I was apprehensive during the initial rounds of negotiation, it was difficult to negotiate with more developed groups than ourselves, their priorities seemed to be more important, we focused on ensuring economic growth, alleviating poverty and improving living standards in our country, but other groups didn't seem to care. After reporting our pledges, a maximum temperature increase of 2.8C was obtained, an improvement from current pledges, estimated at 3.3C by 2100. But, ultimately we were unable to agree on how to split the funds available to developing countries (India, China and other), and no agreement was made (even the USA was willing to reduce emissions!).



During round 2, all parties pledged a massive 3% reduction in deforestation, use of fossil fuels and increase in afforestation by 2050-2060. But this still did not result in a temperature increase of 2C. 

So why didn't we reach the 1.5-2C? Simply put we need(ed) to act sooner than 2050 and more drastically (fig.1). 
Fig.1 Quotes from scientists and academics in ways we can meet the agreed targets (Source: The Guardian, 2016).

Outcomes

    1. An understanding of why countries' pledge to particular targets.
    2. Allocating power to the public to challenge governments and demand more.
    3. Publicising the progress of global negotiations.

A reinforcing for need for geoengineering in tackling climate change, particularly CDR when meeting challenging pledges.  By no means should we stop aiming to stabilise GHG emissions and diversify away from fossil fuels, but this may not be enough to reverse a prolonged period of climate warming, modelled by Matthews (2006). Lastly, I highly recommend taking part in a COP23 simulation.

In the end, one person can change it all.
(for the good or for the bad, it's up to you)
- No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,