The UN has stated that the World must urgently act to cut a further 25% from predicted 2030 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In the US, GHG emissions today are 4% above 1990 levels and are projected to increase. Based on UN goals, it appears that neither sufficient reductions in the release of GHG nor sufficient mitigations of the effects of climate change are taking place. To achieve those goals an 80% GHG reduction by 2100 would require an average reduction of 64 million metric tonnes each year for the next 82 years, or 165 million metric tonnes each year if the target date is 2050.
At the state level, even those jurisdictions that are concerned about climate change are falling short. These circumstances partially stem from a failure to appreciate the size and complexity of the issue as well as common disconnects between politics and technology. While many states have produced energy and emissions goals and mandates, the most important “figure-of-merit” is the rate at which GHG releases are abated. And while much of the focus has been the source of electricity generation, the biggest challenge to a low carbon future lies in the end use sectors.
We must recognize that 70-80% of the GHG releases come from the hundreds of millions of fossil fuel consuming “devices” in the transportation, residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. These will be far more difficult to fully replace than fossil fueled power plants. Replacing the country’s fossil fueled electricity with large nuclear plants would take about 320 such plants or about 250,000 three megawatt onshore wind turbines. By contrast, replacing fossil fueled end use items such as cars, hot water heaters, and space heaters would require hundreds of millions of replacements. There are about 250 million vehicles in the USA and about 130 million housing units. If each housing unit had an average of two fossil fueled appliances that would require 260 million replacements. Many more millions of replacements would also have to take place in the commercial sector.
Moreover, replacements for these end use appliances are typically powered with electricity. This could require new clean electrical capacity two or more times larger than today’s entire electric power system, plus vast amounts of energy storage. So, while many state energy goals are only directed at replacing fossil generation, achieving a low carbon future must also include serious policies addressing GHG emissions from end use sectors.
Click Here for a Table of Greenhouse Gas Release Rates
Mr. Specter, You rightly emphasize a huge amount of fossil-fuel end-user equipment must be replaced with electricity-powered equipment supplied by clean-energy power plants to cut greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to… Read more »
I agree totally.
Herschel
Dear Henry, Here is some further information that you might find useful. On a national basis, fossil fueled power plants produce 29% of the GHG, while the end use sectors… Read more »
Herschel, I like very much your end-use sector vs. power plant breakdown of where the U.S. GHG emissions are coming from — thanks for providing that information. Yes, to properly… Read more »
I’m pleased that you found the data on GHG releases released from the power plants and from the end use sectors useful. I will ask Charles Foster of OEP to… Read more »
The job of designing and managing international research on climate change was botched. Thus, for the Congress the first order of business is to fire the old management and hire… Read more »
Terry: I am sorry, but I do not understand your comment. I don’t know what a “longitudinal study” is. Further, if we are to “Take nobody’s word” why would anybody… Read more »
Herschel: Thanks for asking the excellent questions! In reply first, I’ll address the content of a longitudinal study. Second, I’ll address the process by which conclusions are currently reached about… Read more »
Terry: You appear to have a very specific issue with IPPC’s analysis of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) . have you contacted the IPPC with your concerns? If so, could… Read more »
Herschel: Thank you for asking about whether I contacted the IPCC with my concerns. I did so. Years ago, I wrote to the person who was then the chair of… Read more »
Dear Terry, You tell a sad story about people being non-responsive to your legitimate questions. I know how you feel because I have has similar experiences. A local politician was… Read more »
Herschel: Thanks for the kind and thoughtful response. I’m a registered professional engineer in nuclear engineering in California and worked in the nuclear power industry for two decades. I specialized… Read more »
The reason we have climate change is because we allow fossil fuel users to pollute the atmosphere for free. The solution that can cut across all sectors of the economy… Read more »
Dan: I recently attended an OEP gathering where Congressman Philip Sharp was the principle speaker. His view was that carbon taxes were a “necessary, but insufficient” response to dealing with… Read more »
Herschel: In some sense, the cost of creating a low-carbon future is free. Fossil fuels have external costs that are real and must be paid now and in the future.… Read more »
Dan: We have had this discussion before. There is no free lunch. Each month my electricity bill includes a charge (tax?) to support renewable energy in New York. I’m comfortable… Read more »
Herschel: 1. My main point is that fossil fuel energy is way more expensive than clean energy right now, though you do not pay the full cost at the pump… Read more »
Ultimately economics drives new technologies. Even superior technologies will fail to take hold unless economics convinces people/companies/governments to employ them. Conscientious behavior can’t be expected to overcome economics. So what… Read more »
Tom: As a nuclear engineer your argument has a great deal of appeal, but let me return to my thought that we concentrate on the rate of reduction of GHG… Read more »
Herschel, thanks for your observations. You mentioned pressure vessels, which has traditionally been an industrial bottleneck for nuclear power. Today there are several forges capable of producing them, but more… Read more »
Tom: Let me share with you some thoughts about energy storage. While I agree that nuclear fuel has a vast amount of energy storage within the fuel itself, there are… Read more »
The title of this thread asks “Are We Losing the ‘War’ Against Climate Change?” The phrasing is more apt than most of us probably realize. We take the reference to… Read more »
Roger: I need some help to further understand your comment. What are PEM fuel cells? How does steam reforming of natural gas prevent the release of CO2 into the atmosphere?… Read more »
Thanks for the questions. PEM = Proton Exchange Membrane. PEM fuel cells operate at ambient to only moderately elevated temperatures, and are the type developed for automotive use. It took… Read more »
Roger: The S in CCS stands for sequestration, if I am correct. What is the sequestration piece if the steam reforming process you have described? Past sequestration schemes that I… Read more »
Most of the energy penalty one hears about in connection with CCS is related to capturing CO2 from the flue gasses of coal-fired power plants. Operation of the system is… Read more »
Roger: While I agree overall with what you are saying, I would clarify one point. I would put a price on carbon and allow certified CCS to be an offset… Read more »
Good points. I agree with all.
Roger: Thank you for your comprehensive reply.
herschel
[…] Description (excerpt): This table identifies present sources of GHG (in percent of total releases) on a USA national basis, from NY State, and from New York City. This table… Read more »
Here’s the conclusion of a recent article that states a case I think is right on … THOMSON REUTERS An assessment of the Trump administration’s efforts to deregulate the fossil… Read more »
Dear Jane: I too share your enthusiasm for electric vehicles. I’d like to go a step further and say that I support electrified transportation, which includes electric vehicles. One of… Read more »
Herschel: The biggest impact on poor people will be climate change. Fossil fuel subsidies greatly exceed clean energy and EV subsidies, yet those subsidies will create damaging impacts that will… Read more »
Dan: I agree that the impact of climate change will likely harm poor people more than other groups, particularly as climate change causes sea levels to rise and causes droughts/fires… Read more »
Herschel: I thought you were talking about the poor in the US, many of whom do own cars. For the very poor in the US and around the world, I… Read more »
Dear Dan, One thing we must all be aware of is to not overstate our case, i.e., “Too cheap to meter”. Insufficient energy has real consequences for people and the… Read more »
Herschel: I’m not sure what your point is about Tesla. They have the right amount of superchargers for the number of Tesla cars out there. They are currently scaling up… Read more »