See the Tabbed Pages for links to video tutorials, and a linked list of post titles grouped by topic.

This blog is expressly directed to readers who do not have strong training or backgrounds in science, with the intent of helping them grasp the underpinnings of this important issue. I'm going to present an ongoing series of posts that will develop various aspects of the science of global warming, its causes and possible methods for minimizing its advance and overcoming at least partially its detrimental effects.

Each post will begin with a capsule summary. It will then proceed with captioned sections to amplify and justify the statements and conclusions of the summary. I'll present images and tables where helpful to develop a point, since "a picture is worth a thousand words".

Showing posts with label DOE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DOE. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

The U.S. Needs a Single Department/Agency Dedicated to Global Warming

Summary.  The National Climate Assessment Development Advisory Committee issued a draft version of its Third National Climate Assessment in 2013.  The Committee is drawn from bureaus and divisions within thirteen diverse federal departments and agencies.  Its mission is to report on scientific information and assessments thereof related to global warming, but does not include a mandate to formulate policy.

These and other aspects of the Committee’s composition and responsibilities lead to identification of several administrative problems and deficiencies.

This post recommends that in order to overcome these difficulties a single cabinet-level department or agency be created solely devoted to most or all aspects of the global warming issue.  This new entity critically should be charged with proposing policies addressing mitigation of and adaptation to further global warming.


The National Climate Assessment Development Advisory Committee (NCADAC) issued a draft version of its Third National Climate Assessment (NCA) in 2013.  The NCADAC was established in 2010 under terms of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972.  It is housed in the Department of Commerce under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  The NCADAC consists of 60 members.  Forty-five senior authors drawn from academic, nonprofit and consulting organizations prepared the report.  240 other scientists and professionals assisted the NCADAC.  The work was coordinated by fourteen ex officio members drawn from thirteen federal agencies.  These are the logos of the participating departments and agencies:
 
In turn the NCA is authorized under the Global Change Research Act of 1990  (the Act) to “assist the nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change”.  It is assembled in the Global Change Research Program.   A principal objective of the Act is to “improve cooperation among Federal agencies and departments with respect to global change research activities”.  In addition, every four years it is to prepare an assessment for the President and Congress that (1) evaluates and interprets its results, including scientific uncertainties, (2) analyzes effects of global change on the environment and on an extensive range of human economic and social activities, and (3) analyzes current natural and man-made trends and offers projections of future trends for up to 100 years.  It is noteworthy that its tasks do not include formulation of policies to address global warming.
 
The draft NCA was open for comments for a time, and its final version in response to comments received is in preparation.  Links to the full draft report, as well as to each chapter individually, are available here.
 
Thirteen Federal Departments and Agencies
As noted above, official government participation in the preparation of the NCA comes from twelve departments and agencies and the White House.  These are
 
Agency for International Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Energy
Department of Defense
Department of Homeland Security
Smithsonian Institution
Department of Agriculture
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
White House Council on Environmental Quality
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Department of Transportation
Department of Health and Human Services
Environmental Protection Agency
National Science Foundation
Department of State
 
Descriptions of each department or agency including the section within each having to do with global warming, and the title of each ex officio member participating in preparing the report, are given in the Details section at the end of this post.
 
Several serious problems arise from the present dispersed nature of the federal global warming effort.  The Details provided at the end of this post make clear that the offices in the federal government working on global warming are strewn across a myriad of departments and agencies.  Only perhaps two of these, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, are concerned primarily with the environment in general, and within them, specifically the issue of global warming.  The problems arising from the existing arrangement include the following important issues.
 
1)     Personnel from thirteen federal departments and agencies with a broad range of administrative responsibilities serve as Acting Ex Officio Members coordinating the preparation of this third NCA. 
 
     As noted above, NCADAC is not mandated to formulate policy recommendations to address global warming and the harms it inflicts on humanity.  (For example, see the NCA Executive Summary, in the section “Responding to Climate Change”.  It states that mitigation approaches are being assessed elsewhere than by the NCADAC, including by various departments and agencies among those in the NCADAC.)
 
     Furthermore, the departments and agencies of the NCADAC have disparate objectives and conduct differing activities related to global warming.  These are carried out in a fashion that is administratively segregated, without significant coordination by an upper level cabinet official.  This situation potentially inhibits effective communication between personnel in related fields.  Important research and assessments are conducted by various ones of these agencies and departments, while regulation of emissions from different sources originates in still other agencies and departments. 
 
     In summary, the present status of research, evaluation and policy development related to global warming critically lacks a centralized, authoritative, coordinated organizational structure.
 
2)     Many of the organizations in the NCADAC are full federal departments headed by a cabinet member, a Secretary, or an agency headed by an Administrator.  Since s/he heads a very large organization (see Details), her/his attention is divided among many issues over time.  For this reason s/he can neither provide the focus nor devote the attention to global warming that it merits.
 
3)     Some of these departments and agencies oversee a variety of activities, many of whose goals are inconsistent with each other, with respect to the issue of global warming (see Details).  Consequently it is difficult for the particular Secretary or Administrator to develop and implement policies that could address global warming as effectively as possible, because s/he represents conflicting subordinate divisions.  The same person is being asked to perform functions that are mutually opposed to each other.  This is not an effective way to promote policies that address the issue of global warming.
 
4)     It is possible that vital communication among personnel engaged in their particular activities within their departments and agencies may be inefficient, simply because of bureaucratic barriers.  (This writer has no substantiation for this surmise.) 
 
5)     Most of the specific offices, bureaus and divisions contributing to preparation of the NCA are housed in larger departments and agencies.  As such they have to contend with their peer offices, bureaus and divisions within their departments and agencies for support from limited budgetary resources.  This potentially limits their capabilities for carrying out their objectives.
 
The U.S. needs a new cabinet-level department/agency dedicated to global warming.  The very motto of the NCADAC, “Thirteen Agencies, One Vision…”,
 

 
cries out for just such a solution.  This vision in reality must be expanded to the notion that America’s effort against continued warming be empowered by strong science, critical evaluation, and bold new federal policies. 
 
Bureaus, offices and divisions within the thirteen agencies of the NCADAC contribute diverse activities to the assembly of the NCA; these are identified below in the Details section.  The statement of purpose of the NCADAC, to “improve cooperation among Federal agencies and departments with respect to global change research activities”, speaks directly to the crucial weakness of current federal efforts to combat global warming, namely, the diffused location of efforts among executive branch departments and agencies.  The Details section makes clear just how broadly these responsibilities are scattered.
 
In order to overcome the managerial, bureaucratic and budgetary impediments to the development of cogent global warming policy, all or most of these activities should be united under the leadership of a new Department or Agency dealing exclusively with global warming.  (A reasonable case for exceptions exists perhaps for preserving efforts devoted to international climate negotiations within the Department of State, and for keeping the Sustainable Infrastructure section within the Department of Defense, for example).
 
A single department or agency would resolve the difficulties identified above.  1) The scattered, diffuse distribution of efforts devoted to global warming would be centralized into a unified administrative structure.  The mission of the new department or agency would include formulation of policy, not merely research to collect new information and evaluation of that information.  2) The department secretary or agency administrator could focus all her/his efforts on the single subject of global warming.  3) The attention of the department secretary or agency administrator would not be diverted by needing to concern herself/himself with the prerogatives of conflicting subordinate divisions.  4) Having a single administrative structure would facilitate communication among personnel working on various aspects of the global warming effort.  And 5) formulation of the budget and allocation of resources could be accomplished within the administrative structure of the new entity to optimize efficiency and effectiveness.
 
It is concluded that the U. S. should create a single new cabinet-level department or agency whose mission would be to address all aspects of the global warming problem.  Doing so would overcome serious bureaucratic problems that currently exist, and optimize federal efforts in this endeavor.
 
Details
 
Federal Agencies Involved in Global Change (Many statements below are based on information obtained from agency-specific internet pages and from Wikipedia.)  As noted above, the fourteen offices whose staffs were officially involved in assembling the NCA are components of thirteen separate departments or agencies.  The details below provide thumbnails of these departments and agencies, and the offices in which the staff members are located.
 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
 
EPA is a free-standing federal agency created in 1970 by an executive order from President Nixon.  Its head, the Administrator, has cabinet-level authority.
 
Its organization chart presents twelve Offices, including Air and Radiation, Research and Development, and Water.  The Office of Air and Radiation is responsible for controlling air pollution and radiation exposure, and includes the subjects of climate change, energy efficiency, pollution from vehicles and engines, acid rain, and stratospheric ozone depletion.  EPA gained authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act by the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007.  Under this authority EPA and the Department of Transportation jointly regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, i.e. from distributed sources.  EPA also uses this authority to regulate emissions from fixed point sources, primarily electric power plants. 
 
A member of the Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division is a member of the team overseeing preparation of the NCA.
 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
 
NASA, an independent federal agency, was established in 1958 to develop civilian space exploration.  Currently many of the modalities used to measure and assess global warming and its terrestrial effects use NASA spacecraft.  Its organization chart shows the main aspects of its operations. 
 
The Senior Advisor for Inter-Organizational Environmental Science, NASA Science Mission Directorate helps supervise the preparation of the NCA. 
 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NOAA is but one division of many in the Department of Commerce.  Most of these are directed toward promotion and assessment of domestic commerce and international trade. 
Within this setting NOAA appears to be an outlier, having little in common with the other divisions.  Its organization chart clearly shows its emphasis on oceanic and atmospheric research.  It uses advanced scientific technologies to study changes in the oceans and the atmosphere, including global climate observation and use of state-of-the-art climate models. 
 
A scientist in NOAA’s Climate Program Office helps prepare the NCA.
 
Funding for preparing the NCA and for the NCADAC is shared between NASA and NOAA.
 
White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
 
CEQ promotes policies within the White House intended to limit emission of greenhouse gases and promoting renewable energy sources.  In these ways it seeks to mitigate global warming.
 
The Deputy Associate Director of CEQ participates in assembling the NCA.
 
Department of Energy (DOE)
 
DOE has expanded from the original Atomic Energy Commission created to host civilian applications of nuclear energy after World War II.  It was elevated to the cabinet-level DOE in 1977.  Its organization chart shows it has major responsibilities in military and civilian aspects of nuclear power.  In addition, in the Office of Science and Energy there are an Office of Science, and Assistant Secretaries for Fossil Energy, and for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.  Separate sections, reporting directly to the Secretary of Energy, include the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, which supports new commercial ventures in renewable energy, and the Energy Information Agency.
 
This summary shows that within the same Department there are programs dealing with the fossil fuel industry on the one hand, and renewable energy on the other.   
 
The Director of the Climate and Environmental Sciences Division, found in the Office of Biological and Environmental Research, a component of the Office of Science, is an official supervising preparation of the NCA.
 
Department of the Interior (DOI)
 
The organization chart for DOI shows five primary divisions, including Land and Minerals Management; Fish, Wildlife and Parks; and Water and Science. 
 
The Water and Science division includes the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), whose mission comprises Climate and Land Use Change, Core Science Systems, Ecosystems, Energy and Minerals, Environmental Health, Natural Hazards, and Water. 
 
The Land and Minerals Management division oversees public lands, offshore waters and federal energy and mineral resources; this includes granting permits for and regulating natural resource extraction on federal lands.  DOI’s division of Land and Minerals Management includes the Bureau of Land Management; the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement; and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.  The Bureau of Land Management oversees American public lands, about one-eighth of the total area of the U. S.  Its responsibilities include regulating natural resource development such as logging, mining and extraction of fossil fuels, as well as projects for renewable energy.
 
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management governs the development of offshore oil and gas resources in an environmentally and economically acceptable way, as well as developing offshore renewable energy.
 
It is seen from this summary that DOI comprises development activities in the realms of both fossil fuels and other minerals, and growth of renewable energy.  Historically its emphasis has been on the first of these activities.
 
The USGS Chief Scientist for Climate and Land Use Change is an official supervising the NCA.
 
National Science Foundation (NSF) supports basic research projects proposed primarily by academic investigators across the spectrum of scientific endeavor.  The Director of NSF’s Program in Decision, Risk and Management Sciences contributes to coordinating the preparation of the NCA.
 
The Smithsonian Institution  was founded in 1846.  Iits website states it is the largest museum and research organization in the world. Its Environmental Research Center studies connections between land and water in coastal zones, including effects of global warming.  A Senior Policy Advisor focusing on global environmental issues participates in supervising preparation of the NCA.
 
Department of Transportation (DOT)
 
DOT’s principal objective is promoting ease and safety of domestic transportation and travel, and fostering their economic development.  Its various sections relate to highways, waterways, air travel, railroads, pipelines and movement of hazardous materials. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles originate jointly from DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and EPA.  CAFÉ standards are the executive branch’s means for regulating fossil fuel use in distributed (i.e., moving) emission sources.
 
An energy economist working in the Office of the Secretary is an official overseeing preparation of the NCA.
 
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is a component of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  HHS also operates the Social Security Administration, Medicare, and the National Institutes of Health. An epidemiologist who is Associate Director for Climate Change in the Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects at the National Center for Environmental Health of the CDC is an official supervising preparation of the NCA.
 
Department of Agriculture (DOAg)
 
The organization chart for DOAg has seven divisions, all related to aspects of agriculture, both domestic and foreign.  
 
The DOAg official supporting the preparation of the NCA is Director of the Climate Change Program Office (CCPO), which is responsible for coordinating climate change research and program activities in the Department.  These activities set forth the causes and consequences of global warming, as well as ways of mitigating and adapting to it.
 
Department of Defense (DOD)
 
DOD is a large organization responsible for military activities of the U. S.  The DOD official contributing to preparation of the NCA is Program Manager for Sustainable Infrastructure in the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program.
 
Department of State (DOS)
 
DOS has an office for special envoys and representatives reporting directly to the Secretary (see organization chart) , one of whom is devoted to international negotiations on climate change.  A DOS official in this office participates in preparation of the NCA.
 
The U. S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is also a component of DOS, reporting directly to the Secretary.  The Global Climate Change Coordinator in USAID is an official overseeing preparation of the NCA.
 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
 
DHS seeks to keep the U. S. secure from external threats.  Its organization chart shows seven operational divisions.  DHS was assembled from several other federal agencies after the attacks of September 11, 2001.  The Senior Counsel to the Secretary participates in preparation of the NCA.
 
© 2014 Henry Auer

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Carbon Capture and Storage Investment Is Strongly Needed

Summary.  Increased burning of fossil fuels leads to greater global warming, resulting in disasters from extreme weather events.  These carry heavy financial burdens.  An important, but unproven technology for mitigating global warming is removal and burying waste carbon dioxide using carbon capture and storage.  Worldwide research, development and demonstration, while active, is considered inadequate to lead to industrial implementation by about 2020.  Expanded support by government funding and private investment is needed to attain commercialization of this technology.  Considered as a zero-sum undertaking, current investment expenditures in capture and storage would abate future expenses of responding to extreme weather disasters.



Introduction.

Increased Use of Fossil Fuels.  Energy use around the world is projected to continue increasing in coming decades, due mostly to use by developing countries, especially China and India, as they progress toward becoming advanced industrialized nations themselves.  Most of this energy demand will still be satisfied by burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas and petroleum) although the share provided by renewable sources is increasing.

Stronger Greenhouse Effect.  This increased burning of fossil fuels is directly responsible for the ever-increasing content of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) in the earth’s atmosphere.  This has led to an increase in the long-term global average temperature, whose trend over time coincides with the trend of increasing use of fossil fuels and emission of CO2.

Climate Models Confirm Man-Made Greenhouse Gases Are Responsible for Warming.  Climate models that include the extra CO2 from fossil fuels over the past 50 years successfully reproduce the observed rise in global temperature.  But if the extra CO2 is omitted, the predicted temperature falls below the observed values.  This shows, first, that the climate models correctly predict past events, and second, that past temperature increase is due to the extra CO2 from fossil fuels.


Climate Models Predict Increased Occurrence of Extreme Weather Events.  Since the above results validate climate models, they can be used to project future climate developments.  The United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects increased occurrences of extreme weather events, such as heat waves and heavy rain, as more greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere.  These in turn lead to harms and damages to human life, including wildfires in forests, flooding, droughts and decreased agricultural production.

The Effects of Long-Term Temperature Increases Are Worsening 

Several recent articles point up the unprecedented effects of warming of the planet.  Their occurrence is consistent with projections by climate scientists that extreme weather events will increase in number and/or severity.  These are given under Details at the end of this post.

Carbon Capture and Storage

Carbon Capture and Storage, or Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS), refers to technologies that remove most of the CO2 from power plant exhaust before the gas is dispersed into the atmosphere.  The captured CO2 is then transported to a suitable site, and injected for permanent storage underground in impermeable geological formations (see this previous post).  The storage must truly be permanent, lasting hundreds to thousands of years, in order for it contribute to reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas levels.  If implemented on an industrial scale world-wide, CCS could make a major contribution to reducing the rate of warming of the planet.

The Nations of the World Have Failed to Limit Greenhouse Gas Emissions.  The nations of the world have so far not been able to agree on a follow-on agreement to the Kyoto Protocol limiting greenhouse gas emissions, which expires at the end of 2012.  Domestically in the U. S., there is no legislated national policy for reducing emission of greenhouse gases.  The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), however, has recently issued regulations limiting emissions from large sources.  EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have issued rules increasing vehicle fuel efficiency.

To date, only the European Union, the United Kingdom and the American state of California have implemented economy-wide plans to reduce greenhouse gas emission by at least 80% by 2050. 

CCS Is Critical to Decarbonize Energy Production by 2050.  A nonofficial report issued by the California Science and Technology Council (CSTC) recognized that existing technologies could not accomplish California’s objective (see this post).  Rather, CSTC proposed that vehicle transportation had to shift from burning fossil fuels to electricity, and that consequently electricity generation had to be essentially completely decarbonized.  CSTC’s report relies heavily on industrial-scale CCS to attain this objective.

The European Union likewise recognizes the crucial role to be played by CCS in achieving its decarbonization goals.

Unfortunately, CCS at present is only an experimental technology, not a proven one (see this post).  The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) is an international consortium of 25 nations directed toward research, development and demonstration (RD&D), and implementation, of CCS.  According to its Technology Road Map 2011 (TRM) , there are fewer than 100 planned or operating CCS experimental projects worldwide.  These vary in size, the particular technology being studied, and the nature of the geological formation chosen for injection.  Of the 100 projects, only four are operational commercial scale installations with validated assessment systems, meaning that the scale of storage is at an industrially-feasible level, in the range of about 1 million tons of CO2 stored per year.  Additional projects worldwide are planned or in development at pilot to industrial scales.  

There are about 40 such pilots in the U. S. and Canada.  Only seven use geological storage, and more than half are devoted to “beneficial reuse” (referring to EOR; see below).

China is currently the nation emitting the highest amount of CO2 in the world, and its emission rate is projected to grow significantly in future decades because of its dynamic economic expansion.  Even so, the TRM identifies only four pilot scale projects in China, not all of which are directly related to capturing and storing CO2 emissions from power generation.

In the U. S., Chemical and Engineering News (C&EN), a publication of the American Chemical Society, reported on July 16, 2012 that the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) is supporting 8 industrial and electric utility CCS pilots for startup between 2013 and 2017.  DOE is contributing US$2.8 billion out of a total investment of US$10.0 billion for 7 of the 8 pilots.

Many CCS projects cannot be considered true tests of new storage technology, because the CO2 is being injected into pre-existing fossil fuel depositories which clearly have not leaked their holdings for millions of years.  Furthermore, other pilots are using the CO2 in the previously known process of Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), in which the gas is used to force additional crude oil out of a well that otherwise would be nearing the end of its useful life.  Since new fossil fuels are being harvested by EOR, this method cannot be considered to contribute to the net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, which is the intended purpose of CCS.  Nevertheless, the CSLF, in the Second Update to its Strategic Plan, has expanded its objectives to include industrial utilization of captured CO2, including EOR but also other industrial uses as well.

Gaps in Knowledge and Technological Capabilities in CCS

The TRM identifies several unknown factors or insufficiencies in the present state of the technology that need to be addressed under RD&D objectives (see its Module 3).  These fall into the three main processes for CCS, first, new technologies for capturing CO2; second, transportation of CO2 from the site of its capture to the storage site; and third, technologies for identifying and developing permanent geological storage sites.  Zoback and Gorelick recently raised the strong possibility that injecting industrial volumes of CO2 into geological formations carries a significant risk of inducing seismic events that would allow  leakage back to the surface. 

Zoback and Gorelick calculated that worldwide, CCS has to dispose of 3.5 billion tons of CO2 produced per year.  This would require that worldwide about 3,500 industrial-scale injection facilities be operational by mid-century, which averages to about 85 facilities added per year.  RD&D on scaling up is critical for current as well as to-be-developed technologies, and to optimize economies of scale.  RD&D projects need to be operational by 2020 or earlier. 

The Need for Government Support 

The High Cost of RD&D. Each CSS pilot project is a major industrial operation requiring large investments of capital and long lead times for implementation.  The TRM identifies several governments, including the U. S., that together have committed more than US$26 billion for RD&D, which should enable between 19 and 43 RD&D projects by 2020.  It points out, however, that “the time, cost, and resources required…for multi-billion investment decisions are often heavily underestimated by the funders, be they governments or other CCS project proponents.” 

The U. S. RD&D Effort Is Diminishing In Recent Years.  The TRM notes that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the “stimulus” of 2009) allowed for US$3.4 billion for CCS projects.  Unfortunately this fiscal stimulus has reached its end and is not being renewed. The DOE Fossil Energy Research and Development Program appropriation amounts are shown in the table below; the decrease from 2010 to the request for 2012 is 31%. 

Fiscal Year
Expenditure or Congressional Request, US$ millions
2009
692
2010
660
2011
672 (continuing resolution)
2012
453 (Congressional request)

Department of Energy FY 2012 Congressional Budget Request (http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/12budget/Content/FY2012Highlights.pdf). 



High Costs And Other Factors Have Resulted in Cancellations of RD&D Projects.  The TRM reports that, of the projects listed in its preceding TRM dated 2009, several were canceled by 2011, and more than half underwent budget contractions.  This has led to delaying of timelines and the potential for further cancellations.  Principal reasons for these reductions included lack of government funding and “changed economics” (which this writer interprets as cost increases arising from updates and review).  Itemization of some canceled projects is given below, in Details. 

Conclusions 

Mankind’s projected increase in use of fossil fuels for energy in coming decades will lead to increased world-wide average temperatures.  This trend is expected to increase the number and severity of extreme weather events, leading to serious economic and societal harms to affected populations around the world.  These harms are accompanied by massive economic costs that ultimately are borne by the tax-paying public and by higher insurance policy premiums. 

It appears not practical at present to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by cutting back on use of fossil fuels to the extent needed.  Rather, an important aspect of abating emissions would be the development and widespread deployment of carbon capture and storage technology added on to fossil fuel-powered energy providers. 

Yet CCS is an experimental technology not yet proven to be capable of or adequate for decarbonizing energy generation at an industrial scale.  One estimate proposes a need for about 3,500 industrial-scale CCS facilities world-wide by 2050. 

RD&D and industrial implementation of CCS requires investment in large scale experimental and pilot projects having long lead times.  Currently political environment generally is not sufficiently supportive of such efforts.  Large scale support from the governments of both developed and developing countries, in collaboration with private sector industrial investment, is needed to vindicate and validate CCS.  Yet generally at present the trend of both political and financial support is diminishing rather than growing.  

It is recommended that expanded planning be started right away for CCS development and deployment.  This requires long-term commitments at both the political level and in fiscal and financial support.  Such expenditures now would lead to economies of scale as CCS is implemented. 

Globally, the expenses borne by society in response to the harms inflicted by the worsening effects of global warming, on the one hand, and the expenses of needed investment in greenhouse gas abatement technologies, on the other, are the elements in a zero-sum energy undertaking.  The more investment undertaken now for abatement would be rewarded by minimizing the economic damages inflicted by extreme weather events in the future.  It behooves the nations of the world to make the necessary investments for the betterment of their citizens.


                             ******************************************      

Details on The Effects of Long-Term Temperature Increases 

On July 25, 2012 the New York Times reported that in only four days (July 8 to July 12) the extent of the surface of the ice sheet covering Greenland that was melting grew from 40% to 97%, a phenomenon never seen in recent times.  It is in accord with two recent ice sheet calving events, involving sections twice and four times the size of the island of Manhattan, respectively. 

In the U. S., the extreme drought in the Midwest has severely affected agricultural yields, the Times reported on July 26, 2012.  So far, this year is the hottest year on record in the U. S.  More than 50% of the country was classed as suffering moderate to extreme drought in June 2012 , the worst in nearly 60 years.  The drought reduces the corn crop, which impacts livestock and poultry production as well as production of corn ethanol.  As a result food prices in 2013 are expected to increase 4-5%, affecting the economic wellbeing of all Americans. 

Also on July 26 the Times reported that extreme heat was damaging a large number of infrastructure elements, including roads, subways and electric utilities. 

The large number and severity of forest wildfires experienced in the western U. S. in 2012 is to be expected as global temperatures rise, according to a teleconference of climate scientists convened the last week in June, 2012.  Prof. Michael Oppenheimer, a member of the IPCC, stated “the disastrous fires we’ve seen fit into a pattern of increased fire risk … it’s a vivid image of what we can expect more of as the world warms more”.  The Waldo Canyon fire in Colorado in June 2012 destroyed nearly 350 homes and burned over 17,000 acres (6,880 hec).
James Hansen, a pioneering climate scientist, has warned of the dangers of global warming for several decades.  He and two colleagues analyzed recent weather extremes by statistical probabilities.  They conclude “the distribution of seasonal mean temperature [deviations from historical averages] has shifted toward higher temperatures and the [size of these deviations] has increased. ….Extreme heat waves, such as that in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow [Russia] in 2010, [are attributed to] global warming, because their likelihood was negligible prior to the recent rapid global warming.”
More generally, Coumou and Rahmstorf (Nature Climate Change 2, 491-496 (2012); doi:10.1038/nclimate1452) analyzed weather extremes from 2000 to 2011 around the world.  They conclude that events such as heat waves and/or drought, and heavy precipitation, are linked to mankind’s effect on the climate. 

Details on Cancellations of RD&D Projects.   

The Guardian on June 17, 2012 reported that the chief executive of Scottish and Southern Energy warned “CCS is…at the demonstration stage….We do not know that this technology will work”.  He called for UK government support at this demonstration phase of the project. 

The same article noted that another company, Scottish Power, working with Shell, abandoned CCS technology last year because it needed at least £1.5 billion (US$2.3 billion), higher than the UK government could support. 

Similarly, the Guardian reported on June 26, 2012 that Ayrshire Power (Scotland) abandoned its planned new CCS-fitted 1852 MW power plant because it feared it could not obtain funding from the UK and the European Commission. Several other UK pilot projects have been canceled in recent years, for both financial and technical reasons. 

C&EN reports that American Electric Power terminated its projected CCS pilot, an add-on to an existing coal-fired power plant.  A company officer stated “it is difficult to show any justification for carbon capture when Congress has taken no action and has [no future action planned]….A utility would be very reluctant to build a new power plant with CCS. There is no known technology that can do it.”

© 2012 Henry Auer