Climate change
and the future of
energy
Christian Azar
Chalmers University of Technology
SCIENTIFIC
BACKGROUND
Virtually certain: the greenhouse effect
Water vapour ”is a blanket
more necessary to the
vegetable life of England
than clothing is to man”.
- John Tyndall 1862
Virtually certain: CO2 on the rise
IPCC AR4 faq 2.1
Virtually certain: temperature on the rise
Gobal average surface temperatures
Source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
THE CHALLENGE
Global carbon dioxide emissions
from fossil fuels (1950-2006)
35
30
Gton CO2 per year
25
20
"Developing" countries
15
Former eastern bloc
10
"Developed" countries
5
0
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Source: CDIAC
CO2 emissions per capita from fossil
fuels (2007)
20
ton CO2/cap
15
10
5
0
USA
EU
China
India
TECHNOLOGY
TRENDS AND PROSPECTS
Energy efficiency – half of the
solution!
Plug-in hybrids
Co-generation
Energy-efficient houses
Energy efficient lamps
Fuel use in Swedish district heating
Fuel systems
use in Swedish
district heating
(1970-2008)
60
TWh/år
60
50
TWh/year
50
40
Others
30
30
20
10
Coal
OIL
BIOMASS
COAL
20
Oil
10
Biomass
0
0
1970
OTHERS
40
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Biomass energy
CO2
CO2
Wood
Power
Biomass energy with carbon capture
and storage
CO2
CO2
Wood
Power
Bioenergy risks:
- Higher food and land prices?
- Destruction of sensitive
ecosystems?
- Land conflicts
Rapid growth in wind power
GW
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1980
1990
2000
Rapid growth in wind power
GW
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1980
1990
2000
10,000 times more energy from the sun
The small squares show the area of solar cells required to power
and fuel the world
Installed capacity (GW), solar PV
25
20
15
Global
10
Germany
5
0
1995
2000
2005
2010
New electric capacity in Europe 2009 (in MW)
World
Generation,
Past
andNuclear
future Electricity
role of nuclear
power
TWh/year
TWh/year
3000
Rest of the world
2500
Former Soviet Union
2000
OECD
1500
1000
500
0
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Source: BP World Energy Statistics.
COMBINING THE
OPTIONS
Global energy scenario towards
350 ppmv.
EJ/yr
800
700
nuclear
600
coal w capt.
500
gas w capt.
400
coal
solar H2
300
solar electr.
solar heat
oil
200
bio w capt.
gas
100
wind
hydro
biomass
0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Based on model runs with the GET model. Azar et al, Climatic Change (2006)
Model can be run interactively at www.chalmers.se/ee/getonline
CLIMATE POLICIES
ARE NEEDED
Climate policy is easy…
• Carbon price
• Support to technology development
…yet so difficult
• Vested interests: ”I hate carbon taxes”. Bill
Rainey, CEO West Virginia Coal
Association
• The general public does not seem to love
carbon taxes either
• Different countries have different
preferences and priorities, and different
views about responsibilities
…so very difficult
• Summer 2009:
– House of representatives: Waxman (D)Markey(M) climate change bill adopted by
219-216!
• Summer 2010:
– Senate: Lieberman, Kerry,
Graham
To bring forth solutions, we need
• Political leadership…
• Public opinion…
• Business leaders…
arguing in favor, not against, climate protection
CONCLUSIONS
• Tough challenge
• Technically feasible
• Emission trends in the wrong direction
• Policy measures needed
• How can the steel industry help so that better
climate policies are introduced?
• BACK UP
Virtually certain: CO2 on the rise
IPCC AR4 faq 2.1
Virtually certain: GHGs on the rise
IPCC AR4 faq 2.1
Average CO2 emissions (until 2008)
and legislation for passenger cars
Lewenstam, Volvo cars
Future role of nuclear power?
IT IS NOT ALL
ABOUT
TECHNOLOGY
Global greenhouse gas emissions (2000)
Source:Stern report 2006
COSTS
The cost to stabilise the atmosphere (I)
Trillion USD
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
350 ppm
450 ppm
550 ppm
stabilisation target
Azar & Schneider, 2002. Ecological Economics
The cost to stabilise the atmosphere (II)
Global GDP
Trillion USD/yr
250
200
Bau
150
350 ppm
450 ppm
100
550 ppm
50
0
90 2000 10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 2100
Year
Source Azar & Schneider, 2002. Ecological Economics
OUT OF THE
FRYING PAN,
INTO THE FIRE?
Millons of hectares of biomass – dream or nightmare?
Sweden
45 Mha
507 Mha
Russia 1708 Mha
1960 Mha
957 Mha
500 Mha of
energy
plantations?
317 Mha
Biomass plantations
1787 Mha
3031 Mha
769 Mha
Higher food prices - good or bad for the
poor?
Civilian nuclear fuel cycle
Natural
Uranium
0,7% U235, 99,3% U238
Enrichment
Ca 4% U235, 96% U238
Reactor
U235 is fissioned,
Pu + fission products are
produced
Separation of plutonium
Final disposal
Reprocessing
Links to nuclear weapons
Natural
Uranium
0,7% U235, 99,3% U238
Enrichment
Ca 4% U235, 96% U238
90% U235
Nuclear bombs
Highly enriched uranium
or plutonium
Reactor
U235 is fissioned,
Pu + fission products are
produced
Separation of plutonium
Final disposal
Reprocessing
Nuclear energy and weapons
• Technological risks
– Enrichment facility (dual use)
– Reprocessing (dual use)
– Nuclear reactor produces around 200 kg Pu/year
• International policy and security analysis
– Sweden, Finland etc no ambition to get weapons,
– USA, China, etc already have
– Which countries should have the right to have advanced civilian
nuclear energy programmes? Development of NPT?
– Benevolent regimes might become aggressive, and vice versa.
• More nuclear for Sweden and the US build more nuclear?
– Which signal do we want to send?
– The bigger nuclear industry, the stronger lobbying to sell to the
rest of the world (think of Sarkozy)
How do we best protect sensitive ecosystems
and rural poor who lack formal property rights to their
land?
- Certificate systems?
- Import taxes?
- No biomass?
Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS?
• Only those countries that already have enrichment and
reprocessing plants should be allowed to have it?
• The entire fuel cycle under multinational control?
• New reactor designs?
POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS
• Nuclear energy is clearly not the only pathway to nuclear
weapons
• But under current frameworks a world wide effort to
expand nuclear energy is hardly attractive
Nuclear weapons a broader
perspective
• More than 26 000 nuclear weapons, total yield corresponds
to 200 000 hiroshima bombs
• 2000 on hair-trigger alert (15-30 minute notice)
• NPT aims at preventing proliferation. Further, weapons
states should strive towards ”complete disarmament”
(article VI).
• Can England require that Iran cease with its enrichment
program while they at the same time plan to modernise
their own weapons capacity?
Impacts
• Temperature increase
• Sea level rise
• More intense
precipitation
• Droughts
• Biodiversity
• Positive impacts
• A lot of uncertainty
remains
Flooding, Assam, India, July 2004
Food-fuel competition
Johansson & Azar, 2007.
Biomass – a complex form of energy
PROMISING FORMS:
- Sugar cane ethanol
- Woody biomass for heat and cogeneration
-- 2nd generation fuels
LESS PROMISING
- Wheat & corn ethanol
- RME from rapeseed
(area intensive, expensive, often
associated with high GHG
emissions)
Carbon emissions (MtC/year)
2000
China
1600
USA
1200
800
India
Russian Fed.
400
Japan
0
1990
03
05
07
99
Global Carbon Project 2009; Data: Gregg Marland, CDIAC 2009
01
03
05
2008
CO2 emissions (PgC y-1)
CO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions
5
55%
Annex B (Kyoto Protocol)
4
Developed Nation
3
45%
Developing Nations
2
Non-Annex B
1990
2000
Taken from Global Carbon Budget, Le Quéré et al. 2009,
Nature Geoscience; CDIAC 2009
2010
Why the climate sensitivity is important
Why the climate sensitivity is important
Caldeira et al, Science 2003.
Basic facts
• There is a natural greenhouse effect
• CO2 and other greenhouse gases are increasing
• This increase is fundamentally due to human activities (for
CO2, fossil fuel burning and to a lesser but nevertheless,
important extent deforestation)
• This means that the surface temperature has to increase
• Temperature is on the rise
• There is natural variability in the climate, but this can not
explain the increase in temperatures that has taken place
over the past 50 years
• Much uncertainty remains when it comes to the climate
sensitivity, aerosol forcing and regional impacts
• Oceans become more acid as CO2 concentrations increase
Two legitimate points of view
• Rich countries should take the lead:
– Historically, they are the main ”culprits”
– They emit much more on a per capita basis
– They have the technological and economic
capacity, whereas many developing countries
have other more urgent problems
Two legitimate points of view
• Rich countries should take the lead:
– Historically, they are the main ”culprits”
– They emit much more on a per capita basis
– They have the technological and economic
capacity, whereas many developing countries
have other more urgent problems
• Developing countries need to act too, otherwise the
world will not be able to solve the problem.
Carbon storage possibilities
130 – 500 Gton C
with structural traps
30 – 650 Gton C
Herzog et al Scientific American, February 2000.
Enhanced oil recovery
20 – 65 Gton C
Grimston et al (2001).
What about the cold weather last winter?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=1
”>90 percent” certain: human
responsibility
Most of the observed increase in global
average temperatures since the mid-20th
century is very likely due to the observed
increase in anthropogenic greenhouse
gas concentrations.
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
The climate sensitivity
Svante Arrhenius 1859-1927
The climate sensitivity
• Water vapour
• Clouds
• Ice and snow cover
• Lapse rate
Svante Arrhenius 1859-1927
The climate sensitivity
The global average annual surface temperature
is expected to increase by 2-4.5oC per CO2
equivalent doubling (when equilibrium is
established).
Chalmers Climate
Calculator
available at www.chalmers.se/ee/ccc