Tyndall Centre Update: Mitigation… potted account of some recent

research

Kevin AndersonMechanical, Aerospace and Civil EngineeringTyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

Finally,

“… this is not a message of futility, but a wake-up call of

where our rose-tinted spectacles have brought us. Real

hope, if it is to arise at all, will do so from a bare

assessment of the scale of the challenge we now face.”

Anderson & BowsBeyond ‘dangerous climate change

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society

Jan 2011

“When I look at this [CO2] data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius, which would have devastating consequences for the planet.”

Fatih Birol - IEA chief economist

… and according to the World Bank, at just 4°C

"There will be water and food fights everywhere,”

Jim Yong Kim – WB president

My headline conclusion:

Stabilisation at 2°C remains a feasible goal

just

… with economic (oikonimia), but not financial (chrematisitc) benefits

Research Areas

District heating (esp. CHP) CCS/Renewables –planning, stakeholder/public perceptions, Bio energy (lead UK’s research with strong industry link) Smart grids (technical and how used) Food in a changing climate Growth, green growth, equity (economics, steady state) High-emitters (UK & China) – tailoring policies Carbon budgets (revisiting UK budgets)

Shale gas

- Environmental/Social issues can be mitigated- Climate change implications cannot

Shale gas & natural gas are identical They are both high carbon energy sources (75% carbon) For electricity, gas is ~50% of coal emissions per kWh But only lower CO2 if substituted coal is not burnt elsewhere In absence of explicit policies, shale only adds to the carbon

burden (see US data). As DECC note:

“it is difficult to envisage a situation other than shale gas largely being used in addition to other fossil fuel reserves and adding \a

further carbon burden.”

Shale gas and UK carbon budgets

Emissions from combusting ~10% of British Geological Survey’s central estimate of the Bowland shale resource equates to the total 2013-2050 UK carbon budget

In brief; if the UK is to pursue shale gas for use in UK power stations it must renege on its own carbon budgets

(shale gas will not be a major energy source before ~2025, & the CCC state by 2030 the UK requires almost carbon-free electricity)

Nuclear

New Tyndall Report into nuclear power within the UK

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/tyndall_evidence.pdf

The mitigation conclusion is that the case for or against

nuclear energy within the UK is contextual; i.e. the objectives, in terms of carbon reduction levels, rates of mitigation and timeframe all need to be well specified

Shipping

International Maritime Organisation (IMO) tasked by UNFCCC to develop Climate Change response

(emblematic of most sectors)

“Mankind is on the horns of a dilemma. … our collective way of

life [is] eating away at the very support system that enables

us to live and breathe. This cannot go on. We need to make

some tough decisions, we need to make them now ...

Faced with facts we cannot argue against we need to consider

our priorities … to make sacrifices; we need to start putting

"life" ahead of "lifestyle".Efthimios E. Mitropoulos

The IMO General Secretary’s view on climate change

Shipping

Two flagship mitigation policies of the IMO

are: The ‘energy efficiency design index’ (EEDI)

The ‘ship energy efficient management plan’ (SEEMP)

How do these fair against the IMO and ICS’s high-level commitments?

Anderson and Bows, 2012, Carbon Management (2012) 3(6), 615–628

Superimposing IMO/ICS plans/projections on their high-level commitments

90-140MtCO2

Superimposing IMO/ICS plans/projections on their high-level commitments

Anderson and Bows, 2012, Carbon Management (2012) 3(6), 615–628

90-140MtCO2

~1300MtCO2

~1900MtCO2

Superimposing IMO/ICS plans/projections on their high-level commitments

Anderson and Bows, 2012, Carbon Management (2012) 3(6), 615–628

Shipping – lots of low carbon options

Existing: Operational change, radically reduce speed (cube relationship with energy consumption)

Retrofit: Kites & possibly nuclear

New: Wind (kites, flettnor rotors, sails, nuclear, bio)

Demand: ~50% of UK shipping is transporting fossil fuels

Ports: Cold ironing, renewable onsight (Sulphur & LNG)

Shipping

… yet planning for a 1000% (A2) to 2000% (A1B) increase

on their high-level mitigation commitments

… with the IMO referring repeatedly to such increases as reductions

Shipping is in good company …

Overall there is very clear weakening of the global and UK government’s commitment to climate change

Virtually every nation & sector is failing to meet its own commitments, or claiming ‘savings’ that are known to be false (except Swansea?)

… as for 2°C, no nation or sector (including the UK & Wales) is even contemplating such emission reductions (e.g. UK 3-4% p.a., whilst 50:50 chance of 2°C demands ~10% p.a. for UK)

2013 UK Context

Tax breaks for shale gas development

Osborne’s (Chancellor) 37GW of unabated CCGTS

Highest investment ever in North Sea oil

(possible reopening of Scottish coal mines)

Expanding aviation & more ports

EU Car legislation watered down to be little more that BAU

Rejected 2030 decarbonisation target

Shell – Arctic exploration

Myth of CCS – 50-80gCO2/kWh

Σ China & India… (making our computers & running our call centres)

Emission in 2020 15-20GtCO2 (~⅔ global 2010)

Peak ~2025-30

Population ~40% of global figure

GDP/capita < 5% OECD in 2010

Energy growth ~5-8% p.a.

We must escape the shackles of a twentieth century mind-set if we are ever to resolve twenty-first century challenges

This will demand leadership, courage, innovative thinking, engaged teams, difficult choices & ‘pain’ for high emitters

Cybil exemplified what this may look like for Swansea

Tyndall Centre Radical Emission Reduction

conference Royal Society Dec. 2013

Kevin AndersonWebsite: http:// kevinanderson.info

Twitter: kevinclimate