Christian AzarChalmers University of Technology

Climate change and the future of energy

THE SCIENCE

Carbon dioxideCO2 ppm

0

1.5

1.0

0.5

360

340

320

300

280

260

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Radiative forcing Wm-2

The climate has already started to change

Impacts

• Temperature increase

Source: IPCC FAR (2007)

Impacts

• Sea level rise (0.2-0.6 meter by the year 2100)

• Thermal expansion of oceans

• Melting glaciers

• Possible long-term concern: Greenland and Western Antarctic ice sheets

Impacts

• Temperature increase

• Sea level rise

• More intense precipitation

• Droughts

• Biodiversity

• Positive impacts

• A lot of uncertainty remains

Flooding, Assam, India, July 2004

THE CHALLENGE

Global greenhouse gas emissions (2000)

Source:Stern report 2006

Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels

Source: CDIAC

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

"Developed" nations

Former eastern bloc

"Developing" countries

billion tons C/year

Data from 2002. Sources: FAO, CDIAC

6

5

4

3

2

1

00 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Population (million)

CO

2 e

mis

sion

s (t

onC

/cap

ita)

USA

Canada, N.Z., Australia

Russia Japan

W.Europe

E.Europe Middle East

China L.America Other Asia

India Africa

Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels (per capita 2002)

SOME SOLUTIONS

Options to reduce CO2 emissions from the energy system

Use less energy

Use other forms of energy

Capture and store carbon

Energy efficiency – half of the solution!

Plug-in hybrids

Co-generation Energy efficient lamps

Energy-efficient houses

Rapid growth in wind power

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1980 1990 2000

GW

Rapid growth in wind power

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1980 1990 2000

GW

Fuel use in Swedish district heating

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

TWh/år

BiomassOil

Coal

Others

Biomass – a complex form of energy

PROMISING FORMS: - Sugar cane ethanol- Woody biomass for heat and co-generation

LESS PROMISING- Wheat ethanol- RME from rapeseed (area intensive, expensive, often associated with high GHG emissions)

RISKS & OPPORTUNITIESHigher food prices Sensitive ecosystems

769 Mha

1960 Mha

Sweden 45 Mha

957 Mha

317 Mha

1787 Mha3031 Mha

507 MhaRussia 1708 Mha

500 Mha of energy plantations?

Biomass plantations

Millons of hectares of biomass – dream eller nightmare?

Future role of nuclear power?

Herzog et al Scientific American, February 2000.

with structural traps

130 – 500 Gton C

30 – 650 Gton C

Enhanced oil recovery

20 – 65 Gton C

Grimston et al (2001).

Carbon storage possibilities

Biomass energy

CO2

Wood

CO2

Power

Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage

CO2

WoodPower

CO2

10,000 times more energy from the sun

The small squares show the area of solar cells required to power and fuel the world

Energy scenario towards 350 ppmv

Azar et al, Climatic Change (2006)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

EJ/yr

nuclear

coal

oil

solar H2

biomass

solar electr.

wind

gas

solar heat

hydro

coal w capt.

gas w capt.

bio w capt.

The cost to stabilise the atmosphere (I)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

350 ppm 450 ppm 550 ppm

stabilisation target

Trillion USD

Azar & Schneider, 2002. Ecological Economics

The cost to stabilise the atmosphere (II)

Source Azar & Schneider, 2002. Ecological Economics

Global GDP

0

50

100

150

200

250

90 2000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 2100

Year

Trillion USD/yr

Bau

350 ppm

450 ppm

550 ppm

CLIMATE POLICY

Policy measures are needed

•Carbon price (tax or cap-and-trade system)– It is the cap not the trade that reduces emissions

•Energy efficiency standards

•Support to advanced technologies – R&D

– Market diffusion programmes

International negotiations

• UNFCCC 1992

• Kyoto protocol 1997

• Bali action plan 2007

• Copenhagen meeting in December 2009:

– Capping emissions in ”developed countries”,

– Emission reductions in ”developing countries”,

– Financing adaptation,

– Mechanisms to reduce deforestation

Conclusions

• Tough challenge

• Technically feasible… (aviation and meat consumption possible exemptions)

• Economically feasible…

• But trends go in the wrong direction

• Policy measures needed, but is there enough political will?

• Points for discussions:

– Which role for Indonesia?

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

Enrichment Ca 4% U235, 96% U238

ReprocessingFinal disposal

0,7% U235, 99,3% U238

Separation of plutonium

U235 is fissioned, Pu + fission products areproduced

Civilian nuclear fuel cycle

Reactor

Natural Uranium

Enrichment Ca 4% U235, 96% U238

ReprocessingFinal disposal

0,7% U235, 99,3% U238

Separation of plutonium

U235 is fissioned, Pu + fission products areproduced

Links to nuclear weapons

Reactor

Natural Uranium

Nuclear bombs Highly enriched uranium

or plutonium

90% U235

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?

CO2-concentration and temperature

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 against other countries

(think of France and Sarkozy)