Deep De-Carbonization - Can We Get There From Here?

Eduardo Porter of the NY Times discusses a new UN report on climate change detailing the actual steps needed to stay within the 2 degree Centigrade temperature elevation to which world leaders paid lip service a few years ago. He doesn't say it but I will - it may be doable, but we aren't going to do it.

From the Times:

Here’s what your future will look like if we are to have a shot at preventing devastating climate change.

Within about 15 years every new car sold in the United States will be electric. In fact, by midcentury more than half of the American economy will run on electricity. Up to 60 percent of power might come from nuclear sources. And coal’s footprint will shrink drastically, perhaps even disappear from the power supply.

This course, created by a team of energy experts, was unveiled on Tuesday in a report for the United Nations that explores the technological paths available for the world’s 15 main economies to both maintain reasonable rates of growth and cut their carbon emissions enough by 2050 to prevent climatic havoc.

Within fifteen years the US will have that much installed nuclear capacity? Odd, since the political will to build new facilities seems to be nil. This is from the World Nuclear Association:

In the USA there are plans for 13 new reactors, and two combined construction and operating licences for these were issued early in 2012 while five more are under review. All are for late third-generation plants, and a further proposal is for two ABWR units.  it is expected that some of the new reactors will be on line by 2020.

A whole lucky 13 new plants? That hardly expands our base. From Wikipedia:

Nuclear power in the United States is provided by 100 commercial reactors (65 pressurized water reactors and 35 boiling water reactors) licensed to operate at 65 nuclear power plants, producing a total of 790 TWh of electricity, which was 19.2% of the nation's total electric energy generation in 2011.^[1] The United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power.

The notion that the numbers won't add up is hardly news. This is from Roger Pielke's blog late this spring:

I did a lot this math in The Climate Fix and in various peer reviewed papers, but you don't need to believe me. Here is Caldeira et al. in Science in 2003:

To achieve stabilization at a 2°C warming, we would need to install ~900 ± 500 MW [mega-watts] of carbon emissions-free power generating capacity each day over the next 50 years. This is roughly the equivalent of a large carbon emissions-free power plant becoming functional somewhere in the world every day. In many scenarios, this pace accelerates after mid-century. . . even stabilization at a 4°C warming would require installation of 410 MW of carbon emissions-free energy capacity each day.

Get that? A nuclear power plant-worth of carbon-free energy per day, every day until 2050.

I have not attempted to compare the latest UN figures with the 2003 paper mentioned above, but still. The 60% figure cited by Mr. Porter is from what the UN calls the "High Nuclear" scenario. In their base case, nuclear electricity rises from 21% to 30% of all electricity, but electricity uses also greatly expands (replacing petro-based transportation as well as residential heating and cooking). From the UN report:

To meet demand, net electricity generation grows by nearly 75% relative to 2010, as shown in the middle right panel of Figure 6. At the same time, a gradual shift in the mix of generation sources results in nearly complete decarbonization of electricity by 2050, with a CO2 intensity of 18 gCO2 per kWh (5 gCO2 per GJ), a 95% reduction from its 2010 value. The 2050 generation mix is a blend of 40% renewables (hydro, solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal), 30% nuclear, and 30% fossil fuel (coal, natural gas) with CCS (CCS = carbon sequestration).

If nuclear rises from 20% to 30% of electric output and electric output rises from 100 to 175 units, then nuclear capacity increases from 20 units to 52.5 units. If we are going to more than double our nuclear capacity in the next thirty-five years, 13 new plants to supplement the 100 online will hardly be a credible start.

Mr. Porter is droll here:

[The report] offers a sobering conclusion. We might be able to pull it off. But it will take an overhaul of the way we use energy, and a huge investment in the development and deployment of new energy technologies. Significantly, it calls for an entirely different approach to international diplomacy on the issue of how to combat climate change.

“This will require a heroic cooperative effort,” said Jeffrey D. Sachs, the Columbia University economist who directs the Sustainable Development Solutions Network at the United Nations, which convened the multinational teams.

Yes, international cooperation is sky-high just now.

The teams, one in each of the 15 countries, looked at what would be necessary to keep the atmosphere from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above the preindustrial average of the late 19th century, a target that most of the world committed to at the climate summit meeting in Copenhagen five years ago. To do so, CO₂ emissions from industry and energy use would have to fall to at most 1.6 tons a year for every person on the planet by midcentury.

That is less than a tenth of annual American emissions per person today and less than a third of the world average. And we haven’t quite figured out how to get from here to there.

But don't stop believing!

Most important, the assessment offers an opportunity to end decades of inconsequential horse-trading over climate change and to start addressing the problem for real.

Five years since political leaders from countries around the world committed to do whatever it took to keep global temperatures from rising more than two degrees above the preindustrial average, no one had taken the trouble, until now, to evaluate how that might be achieved.

Lacking any understanding of the feasibility of the exercise, governments postured and jockeyed over which country should be responsible for what, offering as little as they could get away with in actual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, whether the collective effort met the two-degree commitment or not.

“If governments don’t have any idea of what two degrees means in their countries, how can they commit to two degrees?” asked Guido Schmidt-Traub, executive director of the Sustainable Development Network.

Oh, stop - the governments knew what their  2 degree commitment meant - increased donations and decreased gnawing on left-wing politicians from energetic Greens. The reality-based community has never been particularly interested in the realities of achieving their aspirations.

And the obvious political problem with delivering a specific roadmap is that the unreality of the exercise will quickly set in. So is it time to bring on the geoengineers? Oh, sure, because confidence in Big Government is also sky-high.

Not to be all negative, of course.

Comments

[Ignatz Ratzkiwaski]

--Oh, sure, because confidence in Big Government is also sky-high.

Not to be all negative, of course.--

Negative? Guess I'm a glass half full kinda guy.

[Threadkiller]

http://www.soscalifornia.org/oil-industry-can-aid-environment/

[sbw]

ig: Guess I'm a glass half full kinda guy.

But is the water in the glass warm or cold?

[Man Tran on iPhone]

Following up on yesterday's debate here on the issue of BOzo's impeachment, I ran across a comment under daddy's link to Wretchard.

[...]Elsewhere today I was writing about Sarah Palin's call for the impeachment of Obama. Yes, the practical barriers will prevent it. Because, and even though observers admit it, they do not see that it is a quantum change. Fully 1/2 and more of our body politic and 2/3 of the structure of our government have deliberately abandoned the constitutional template of 225 years in erecting those barriers.

I favor the effort, because " otherwise we are acquiescing in Obama's declaration of himself as Imperator Mundi". Not that it will be sufficient, but rather it is necessary to prove that what follows is the consequence of rape and not consent.

Subotai Bahadur (my emphasis)

This is the slam dunk. I'm not willing to lie back and think of England.

[AliceH]

What world temperature exactly are we meant to be stablizing?

Lots of "2 degrees" talk and "compared to pre-industrial surface temperature" references... not much in the way of "1860 value 53.7, 2015 target 55.7 or less" type of statements.

I begin to suspect their consensus of precision on maximum supportable increase is not carried over to equal consensus or precision of the baseline or the target temperature.

[Threadkiller]

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/09/support-for-amnesty-is-only-strong-with-elites-not-regular-americans/

[Old Lurker]

...and where exactly is that target temperature to be, Alice, and if it to be an average, then we all know that introduces unlimited combinations averaging the same.

It is too silly to contemplate.

[Rick B]

AliceH,

Now that's just cheating. We can't play SkyDragon without false precision and you know it. What's next? Are you going to insist upon an accurate description of the effect of H2O on climate?

We might just as well quit right now if you're going to behave like this.

[AliceH]

It won't be long before a slew of new "shared responsibility taxes" are proposed. Want to buy a gasoline or diesel car? No problem - but you'll owe $10K "shared responsibility tax" on your next 1040. Can't afford a new electric car? No problem - sign on to the Transportation Marketplace website, enter your zip code, income, family size and see if you qualify for subsidies. You might even qualify for Bus'aid - free transit from and to the destinations your betters have selected as best suited to your needs!

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

UAH satellite reading for June 2014 is 0.3C higher than 20 year average. Big deal. The 2014 el nino looks like it will be tepid, not a repeat of the 1998 super el nino. Temps are stable, the models are wrong, the data prove that. There is nothing to talk about. Ignore the UN and their grant money starved crony climate gangsters.

[Old Lurker]

Oh Alice, be serious.

Next thing you will be speculating that the EPA has the right to garnish our paychecks for breaking one of their top secret rules.

[lyle]

[The report] offers a sobering conclusion. We might be able to pull it off. But it will take an overhaul of the way we use energy, and a huge investment in the development and deployment of new energy technologies and by "investment," we mean taking shitloads of tax money and giving it to Green Dem Parasites. Significantly, it calls for an entirely different approach to international diplomacy on the issue of how to combat climate change.

Because fighting Skydragon ain't cheap!

[lyle]

I'll start believing there's a warming problem when coastal real estate starts plummeting in value.

[Captain Hate]

Going full Costanza is never a smart idea:

http://minx.cc:1080/?post=350359

[jimmyk on iPad]

Not only do they profess to know the precise amount of carbon reduction required to lower the temperature 2 degrees, and the precise measures to achieve it, they evidently know the precise benefits of doing so. That's just so . . . Sciency!

[Ignatz Ratzkiwaski]

If the fascists get their way either millions will die as trillions in wealth is destroyed without effecting the climate one iota or even more millions will die if by some miracle they actually succeed in keeping our planet colder than it otherwise would be while destroying trillions in wealth.

I presume sovereign immunity protects our overlords from those millions and their loved ones.

Moreover, since we are in an interglacial period during the present ice age, if these retards actually do what they pretend they can and, oops, kick off the next glaciation early, I'm assuming residents of the various metropolises scraped from the face of the earth prematurely will not have standing either.

[AliceH]

I just need a gram of soma.

[chemman]

If they really want to pull it off then it will take a lot bigger investment in fusion rather than fission.

[Threadkiller]

Do these same scientists weigh in of the policy of dumping billions of gallons of fresh water into the Pacific in the middle of a drought?

[Rick B]

jimmyk,

With all that scientistic knowledge on display it's just amazing that no one seems to want to buy a ticket to the Watermelonman v SkyDragon cage match. Maybe they should try some Godzilla v Mothra trailers in their advertising campaign?

[Ignatz Ratzkiwaski]

Interesting longevity chart and study for those aged 75.
What I take from it is how little difference the amount of alcohol consumed makes.

[Tom Maguire]

Guess I'm a glass half full kinda guy.

Some see a glass that's half full; I see a specimen cup.

[henry]

Ig, sovereign immunity protected Ceausescu just fine.

[Threadkiller]

That's because you are cultured, TM.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwaski]

--Some see a glass that's half full; I see a specimen cup--

Not sure how to take that; let's hope not as an endorsement of Gandhi's beverage of choice.
Re my 1:08, I'll note Gandhi only made it to 78.

[lyle]

From CH's link:

He likes it BearBack.

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at July 09, 2014 12:00 PM (7HjKx)

"Andrew Sullivan" is also weighing in there.

[lyle]

What I take from it is how little difference the amount of alcohol consumed makes.

Whew!

[Danube on iPad]

"it is necessary to prove that what follows is the consequence of rape and not consent"

There's the rub: we know going in that there will be no consequence.

I am wondering about Boehner's lawsuit: what will be in the prayer for relief, i.e., what will he ask the Court to do? Restore the Obamacare deadlines he unlawfully extended? Order Obama to prosecute more drug offenses? I'm not seeing it....

[rich@gmu]

oh good grief.

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

@1:12- what does THAT mean?

[Ignatz Ratzkiwaski]

Tons of excellent comments at CH's Ace link including this, which I haven't checked for veracity;

Ted Cruz tweeted Obama mapquest directions from Dallas to McAllen and Austin to Laredo. Best. Troll. Ever.

[jimmyk]

Gandhi only made it to 78.

Somehow living conspicuously among Muslim and Hindu religious fanatics isn't on that chart.

[Captain Hate]

Listening to her show probably hastened his demise in the most mentally painful way possible:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/07/09/npr-star-diane-rehm-helps-her-husband-commit-slow-suicide-then-agitates-

[henry]

NK, I'm not up to speed on post-unicorn ironic-ex-ante prose like our fearless leader here, but in flyover-speak it translates to DOOM.

[Captain Hate]

From the Horde:

What did Maverick do now?

He tried to get into one of thee interment camps and they told him to get fucked. Now he's doing a stompy stomp. Fucking tool that he is.

Posted by: effit at July 09, 2014 01:44 PM (knfPD)

Apparently Rush is howling over this.

[MaxB]

According to my June issue of Time Magazine, there was a real consensus among medical and nutritional scientists for 40 years. Almost everyone in those fields agreed that a diet lower in fat would produce thinner healthier people.

After 40 years of increasing obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, many of those scientists are now saying, "Whoops! Never mind. Our bad."

I'm not sure exactly how complex Earth's climate is, but I'm thinking maybe...

[Old Lurker]

Since I do not smoke but I do eat fruit, I just arranged the chart to see how much I can drink and how little I can exercise.

My conclusion is that so long as I get up to walk to the bar to mix my next drink, all is good...

Whew.

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

Henry: OHhhhhh. I don't travel in those sorts of cultured irony-filled social circles. Thanks for the translation.

[pagar]

"Do these same scientists weigh in of the policy of dumping billions of gallons of fresh water into the Pacific in the middle of a drought?"

As long as it destroys more of the economy of the US they are achieving their goal,from what I can tell.

[henry]

NK, I spent all morning with social marketing experts. Only beer can cure me now.

[lyle]

Almost everyone in those fields agreed that a diet lower in fat would produce thinner healthier people

They'll never admit they were wrong and they damn sure won't admit what truly produces thinner, healthier people: wealth.

[AliceH]

Almost everyone in those fields agreed that a diet lower in fat would produce thinner healthier people.... many of those scientists are now saying, "Whoops! Never mind. Our bad."

Sort of.

For 40 years they said "Trust us - we're Highly Trained Medical Professionals who only want what's best for you, so cut fat from your diet" and "a calorie is a calorie". Now they say "Trust us - we're Highly Trained Medical Professionals who only want what's best for you, so cut carbs/sugar from your diet" and "not all calories are equal".

There isn't any substantive evidence of Authorities admitting they were wrong or even acknowledging they are now offering different/contradictory advice. Near as I can tell, the party line is it's "the food industry" at fault for marketing based on their previous advice and for not shifting gears fast enough to market based on the new advice.

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

The experts? weren't they paid by the Dept of Agric and BigAg? funny how they concluded that carbs were better for us than fat.

[pagar]

"Ted Cruz tweeted Obama mapquest directions from Dallas to McAllen and Austin to Laredo. "

The picture of Obama trying to get that umbrella comes to mind.

[matt]

To most NYT readers electricity comes from the same place the lamb chops in the meat department do. Their only thought about Indian Point, which supplies up to 30% of the city's power, is to shut it down.

The administration has stymied every nuclear plant in the works, undermining financing by not providing the loan guarantees they did in the past. It is all a scam against conventional energy guided by the Greens.

[Extraneus]

To achieve stabilization at a 2°C warming, we would need to install ~900 ± 500 MW [mega-watts] of carbon emissions-free power generating capacity each day over the next 50 years. This is roughly the equivalent of a large carbon emissions-free power plant becoming functional somewhere in the world every day. In many scenarios, this pace accelerates after mid-century. . . even stabilization at a 4°C warming would require installation of 410 MW of carbon emissions-free energy capacity each day.

The Earth hasn't warmed in 17 years. These people should all be stripped of their credentials and made to work in the fields.

[Captain Hate]

Do these same scientists weigh in of the policy of dumping billions of gallons of fresh water into the Pacific in the middle of a drought?

When did this happen and why? This isn't about the reservoir where some nitwit was photographed peeing and everybody lost their minds, is it?

[Threadkiller]

Tom McClintock op-ed:
"California Drains Reservoirs in the Middle of a Drought

The state desperately needs water, yet federal policy sends huge 'pulse flows' into the Pacific to benefit fish."

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304547704579565622649474370?mobile=y

No paywall.

[jimmyk]

The experts? weren't they paid by the Dept of Agric and BigAg?

Not sure if that can explain it, given that cattle and chickens are part of BigAg too, and we are told that higher meat consumption uses even more grain for feeding all those cattle.

BigAg definitely explains the sugar price supports that benefit both sugar producers and ADM, as well as the ethanol nonsense, all of which has been harmful to health.

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

Jimmy: but BigAg gets a higher markup for grains used for people consumption than for livestock consumption, don't they? ... wait.

[(A) nuther Bub]

The government experts who told us for decades that fat was bad and that "A calorie is a calorie" were the nutritional analogs of what JOMers call the GOPe. They remain in charge as evidenced by Michelle Obama's school lunch program, where healthy and active little kids are forced to drink low-fat milk, fergodssake, among other mindless substitutions of bad food for good.

The ones advising carb avoidance have been the Ted Cruz faction of nutrition -- Atkins, Michael Eades, Taubes, etc. -- still much maligned by the "togas" of nutrition expertise. Gaining some respect finally, but still mainly in an underground fashion.

BTW, does anyone know the parameters of high vs. moderate consumption of alcohol from that story? Asking for a friend, natch.

[Jack is Back! (In the USA)]

LOL. How long do you think it will take to make all those nukes "shovel ready" ?

Talk about folly. I only wish we had the political will to buiid a breeder reactor or a high temperature gas reactor or a scaled up thorium reactor but we don't and everyone knows it.

It appears the Times finally has a comics page.

[clarice]

Think how much cooler the world would be if we capped the methane from the B.S, spewed each day at the NYT.

[narciso]

afternoon all, heh about mcCain getting shut out, about antics in Denver, snorfle, except
Hickenlooper should be held accountable for
swallowing the cool aid, Graham Chapman, would pipe in, and say 'it's very silly indeed'

in other news, we have reached the R.D. Laing, where the authorities are insane;

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/07/it-begins-us-citizen-goes-to-jail-for-collecting-rain-water/

[Porchlight]

That's an interesting analogy, (A)B.

I think I would characterize the Ted Cruzes of the world as those who would encourage us to eschew "experts" and use our own common sense in making food choices. And would work to maximize our freedom from nannyish food freaks in general.

Meaning if people are going to interfere in our lives, it really doesn't matter if they are fat avoiders or carb avoiders. The interference is the problem, not whether their prescription is the correct one. I want to abolish or at least drastically reduce the power of the EPA. But I want to do this because the EPA is intrusive and oppressive and destructive of my liberty, not because it is wrong about climate change.

[Porchlight]

That's an interesting analogy, (A)B.

I think I would characterize the Ted Cruzes of the world as those who would encourage us to eschew "experts" and use our own common sense in making food choices. And would work to maximize our freedom from nannyish food freaks in general.

Meaning if people are going to interfere in our lives, it really doesn't matter if they are fat avoiders or carb avoiders. The interference is the problem, not whether their prescription is the correct one. I want to abolish or at least drastically reduce the power of the EPA. But I want to do this because the EPA is intrusive and oppressive and destructive of my liberty, not because it is wrong about climate change.

[Porchlight]

Sorry for the double post. Typepad no like me today.

[(A) nuther Bub]

Porch: Meaning if people are going to interfere in our lives, it really doesn't matter if they are fat avoiders or carb avoiders. The interference is the problem, not whether their prescription is the correct one.

I should not have used a political analogy. So far, at least, all of us are free to eat what we want to eat. Some of us may become "nannyish food freaks" and I may be included in that category, I supppose. When one has had a life-enhancing result -- long-retained weight loss and vast improvement in all vital signs -- it's easy to get bitten by an evangelistic bug and annoy everyone. I'll stop now. My only intent was to say it's not government or its agencies who have an anti-carb stance. It's individuals like me who have experienced the result. Amen. Peace be upon us.

[Porchlight]

I certainly don't count you as such, (A)B. I am surrounded by them here in Austin, though. Those who would actively seek to limit my choices (or my kids' choices, or my choices on behalf of my kids) for our own good.

Most of my friends who have succeeded in serious weight loss have done so on low-carb diets. Many have gained the weight back, but any serious weight loss requires maintenance. Someday I'm going to actually lose my 11-year-old "baby weight" and low carb/high protein has definitely helped so far. :)

[NK(withnewsoftware)]

Porch 5 years ago Medifast low carb got me down 60lbs of fat. Over the years I gained 25lbs back. In the last 3 months I have glacially lost about half, and have 12lbs or so to go. The summer tennis is helping, and another help is dropping Diet Softdrinks. Big help the past few weeks. Instead I drink homemade Fresh fruit infused water. Hmmmm.

[Porchlight]

Good for you, NK!

[Bruce]

I got lost here a bit. My understanding is that since there hasn't been any real global warming over the last 1 3/4 decades, that the new crisis is anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC) and not AGW. But, they seem to be stuck on AGW, and apparently are using the same models that failed so dramatically to predict the lack of global warming to determine how much CO2 abatement is needed. Seems a bit fuzzy here to me.

[apetra]

According to the science, deep de-Clintonization of the U.S. is a higher priority.

[EnerGeoPolitics]

"2 degrees Celsius" is a number just plucked from the air, anyway. Nobody really knows whether or not we can adapt to temps 3, 4 or even 5 degrees C warmer. So, when it becomes clear that we cannot meet the "urgent" 2 degrees C target, they will just raise it to 3 degrees C.

It's a moving target because, on the one hand, the honest players don't know what the real temp cutoff is, and on the other hand, the dishonest brokers don't have temperature as their real target anyway.

[Fat Man]

Global warming? You will whimper and beg for global warming before nature is done with you:

"Poor man’s polar vortex to make shocking summer return in eastern U.S. next week"
By Jason Samenow July 10 at 10:35 am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/07/10/poor-mans-polar-vortex-to-make-shocking-summer-return-in-eastern-u-s-next-week/

[cathyf]

Really, Fat Man? That unseasonably cold weather is in the midwest this week, and it's been really nice. 70 rather than 90 in July has been quite a treat! Enjoy it while it lasts...

Weather is like that, it changes from day to day. Enjoy the enjoyable weather, grit your teeth through the ugly weather, it all averages out over time.