President Obama’s Clean Power Plan to Reduce Emissions

The Administration’s Clean Power Plan will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electric power industry over the next fifteen years.

 

Global warming affects all humankind.  Changing weather patterns, consisting of greater and more frequent weather extremes have become more and more common in recent years and decades.  Around the world, extreme rains and floods, droughts and unprecedented sea level rise have occurred in ways that we are now accepting as being “new normals” of weather which humanity did not experience in earlier years.  While we cannot point to individual events as being caused by global warming, the frequency of occurrence and patterns around the world are all consistent with the predictions that global warming will worsen extremes of weather and climate going forward.  The warming arises because of humanity’s burning of fossil fuels for energy as well as from other human activities, not from any natural cycling of climate patterns.

Relative effectiveness of fossil fuels.  Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the principal greenhouse gas contributing to global warming.  The fossil fuels used to produce energy yield different amounts of heat per weight of CO₂ resulting from combustion.  This is a consequence of the intrinsic chemical properties of each fuel, and cannot be changed by engineering or ingenuity.  These differences are shown in this table: 

           Relative Emission Efficiency of Fuels  

Fuel	Relative amount of CO2 released per unit of heat obtained, compared to natural gas
Natural gas	1.00
Petroleum (fuel oil,  gasoline)	1.55-1.61
Coal	2.00-2.03

                     Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion

The table shows that burning coal produces twice as much CO₂ as does natural gas when burned for energy.  (Other references give slightly different numbers without affecting this overall conclusion.)  In other words, use of coal as a fuel, say, for generating electricity, releases twice as much CO₂ into the atmosphere as does burning natural gas to obtain the same amount of heat, i.e., to generate the same amount of electricity.  If humankind is concerned about minimizing the worsening of global warming, we would benefit greatly by reducing the use of all fossil fuels, and especially coal.
 

Coal demands of electric generation.  A typical coal-fired electricity generating plant has a power capacity in the megawatt (MW) range.  To have this capacity, it burns large amounts of coal.  The largest coal-fired plant in the U. S. is the Robert W. Scherer Power Plant in Juliette, Georgia .  When operating to capacity, the facility burns almost 1,300 tons of coal every hour, or 11 million tons a year.  The coal used at Scherer comes from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.  It is transported by train to the plant, a trip of 1,800 miles.  The coal arrives in trains 124 cars long; such a train can reach as long as two miles in length.  A picture of a coal train is shown here.

     http://tcktcktck.org/2014/02/coal-train-photo/

The Scherer facility consumes 3-5 such trainloads of coal every day.  When burned, this coal yields 27 million tons of carbon dioxide annually.  The facility has four separate generating units, each with a capacity of 880 MW.   So smaller facilities might use perhaps one-quarter, or one-half, for example, of the amount of coal that the Scherer plant uses. Overall, the U. S. has about 1,000 fossil fuel-fired generating plants, and, since many plants have more than one generator, a total of about 3,100 generating units that fall under the CPP.
 

The U. S. Clean Power Plan.  President Obama heralded the release of the Final Rule for the Administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) on August 3, 2015.  The proposed rule was released over one year earlier and is described here.  The CPP addresses greenhouse gas emissions, primarily CO₂, produced by electricity generation in the U. S.  Emissions from this sector of the energy economy are a main component of overall greenhouse gas emissions in the U. S.
 

Over 4.3 million comments from stakeholders and the public on the proposed rule were received by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), many of whose considerations were incorporated in the Final Rule. 
 

The CPP’s goal is to reduce emissions from electricity generation by 32% below the levels of 2005 by the year 2030.  Importantly, the plan does not dictate how these goals are to be met.  Rather, it recognizes that the features of each state’s generation infrastructure differ from one another.  As a result, the specific reduction goal for each state has been assigned differently to account for these distinctions.  In addition, each state is given the responsibility of devising its own specific plan for attaining its particular reduction goal.  Among the general paths to reducing emissions, the CPP names retrofitting existing power plants, eliminating noncompliant power plants, and installing renewable energy facilities.   Additionally, states can trade emission allowances among themselves to help attain their objectives.
 

Opposition to CPP.  Legislative and industrial opponents of the CPP began expressing their concerns as soon as the Final Rule was issued.  Here are some arguments being presented.
 

The CPP is illegal or even unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency and others (2007) interpreted the Clean Air Act, originally passed in 1970, as including the authority to regulate CO₂ as an atmospheric pollutant if EPA found it to endanger the welfare of American citizens.  Following up on the Supreme Court’s decision, EPA did subsequently find that the gas threatens the health and welfare of Americans, and of our environment, in 2009.  As a result of this finding, EPA has the legal authority to regulate CO₂ emissions.
 

To the knowledge of this writer the question of the constitutionality of this rulemaking power is not being considered by the courts at this time.
 

Opponents have called the CPP a “War on Coal”.  In doing so they seek to place the burden of reorganization of the electricity generating industry on President Obama and his administration.  Use of coal in generating electricity has been declining for more than a decade, as has been the number of working coal miners.  A graphic representing the decreasing use of coal is shown here:

Comparison of the use of coal (blue bars) and natural gas (red bars) from 2002 to 2012. 
Source: http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/nat-gas-takes-market-share-coal.jpg?00cfb7

 

The graphic shows that the percent share of use of coal in electricity generation has been declining since well before President Obama took office in January 2009.  Perhaps opponents may wish to call this finding “Bush’s War on Coal” (not appropriate) or “Capitalism’s War on Coal”.  In fact the principal factor underlying the diminishing role of coal, and the increasing percent share of use of natural gas, is the growing availability of gas in the U. S. due to the increased use of hydraulic fracturing to produce it.  This has resulted in higher gas production and a lowering of its cost.  The increased availability of natural gas began during the administration of President George W. Bush. 
 

In spite of the increasing layoffs among Appalachian coal miners, the Congressional delegations from these areas appear not have their interests high on their agendas.  Only Rep. David McKinley, Republican of West Virginia, teaming with Rep. Peter Welch, Democrat of Vermont (not a coal mining state), offered a bill for assistance to miners, in Sept. 2014.  Additional searching does not show that this initiative progressed further in Congress.  President Obama’s administration, however, granted $7.5 million in June 2014 to Eastern Kentucky Concentrated Employment Program Inc. to help retrain out-of-work Kentucky miners.   This action is not consistent with a supposed Administration “War on Coal”.

Clearly market forces expected in a capitalist economy are responsible for the declining share in the use of coal.  The CPP does not institutionalize a “War on Coal”, but in view of the profoundly higher rate of emission of CO₂ resulting from its use (see above), the Plan is likely to lead to further reductions in coal use.
 

The CPP will produce only an insignificant decrease in global emissions.  This writer heard this argument expressed on the National Public Radio program “Here & Now” on August 4, 2015.  Such statements are not supported by the facts.  The U. S. is a major global emitter of greenhouse gases, and the CPP alone has the potential of reducing U. S. emissions by almost 10%.  In addition, representatives from all United Nations members are convening in December 2015 to finalize a global agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions from all members.  A rigorous stand by the U. S. at the domestic level will enhance its ability to obtain meaningful reductions from other nations.  This is a very important factor going forward.

Conclusions
 

Coal is a major fossil fuel used in electric power generation, but results in twice the greenhouse gas emissions per amount of heat generated than the other major fossil fuel, natural gas.  The Obama administration has issued its CPP which would reduce emissions by 32% below 2005 levels by 2030.  This is a significant emission reduction program.  Coupled with the Administration’s regulation to increase transportation fuel efficiency by almost a factor of two by 2025 it will have a major effect on the energy economy of the U. S.

© 2015 Henry Auer

Production Tax Credit for Wind Energy in the U. S.

Summary.  One way of reducing the rate of emission of carbon dioxide is to generate electric power from renewable sources, including wind energy.  In the U. S. renewable energy has been aided by a production tax credit since 1992, that Congress, in fits and starts, has repeatedly granted and taken away.  It is scheduled to expire again on Dec. 31, 2012.  In contrast, conventional fossil fuel energy sources have been steadily subsidized since the early 1900’s. 

Renewable energy, including wind energy, benefits the U. S. by relieving dependence on foreign energy sources, expanding economic activity, and lowering the annual rate of emission of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas.  For these reasons the production tax credit should be renewed for an extended duration, in order to convey stability and predictability to the renewable energy industry.

 

Introduction.  The United States burns large amounts of fossil fuels in order to drive its economy, resulting in correspondingly large annual rates of emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, CO₂.  CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere because more is emitted than can be absorbed around the planet.  As a result long-term average global temperatures have been rising inexorably.  Increased temperatures are held responsible

for extreme weather events around the world, which lead to significant harms to our economic and societal wellbeing.

One way of reducing the rate of emission of CO₂ is to generate electric power from renewable sources.  Wind generation has been growing rapidly around the world, including the U. S., yet its share of energy production is still relatively small.  The U. S. enacted a Production Tax Credit (PTC) as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 in order to promote wind energy.  It subsidizes the sale of electricity produced by wind power.

The PTC has been allowed to expire and been reinstated repeatedly in recent years.  The current legislation granting the PTC expires Dec. 31, 2012.  However, Congress has not passed any new appropriations bills covering the current fiscal year that began Oct. 1, including the PTC.  Other significant fiscal difficulties arise in the U. S. by law on Jan. 1, 2013, so considering an extension of the PTC is greatly complicated by these additional crises.

The PTC subsidizes wind power generation by US$0.022 per kWh.  This adds up to about US$1 billion per year at the current level of wind generation (see below).  According to Vice Admiral (Ret.) Denny McGinn, the President and CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy, the PTC has been a major factor in creating and expanding the wind energy industry in the U. S. since its inception.  Currently its extension is a topic of great controversy, mostly along party lines, in the Congress.  Those opposed generally are against promoting renewable energy and to expanding tax credits as a form of increased government spending.   Those supporting extension favor the PTC as a way of fostering expansion of the renewable energy industry.

Over the past decade the PTC has been allowed to expire, and then been reinstated, in repeated cycles, leading to an “off-again-on-again” pattern of funding.  This has led to insecurity and unpredictability facing investors and energy industrialists seeking to develop new wind energy facilities.  It should be noted that these entrepreneurs are part of the private market economy.  They need stability in their understanding of the financial environment surrounding their plans; it is difficult to plan for investment and construction of new wind facilities when the PTC is given and taken away in fits and starts. 

The correlation between breaks in appropriations for the PTC and the annual newly installed wind generation capacity is shown in the graphic below.

Annual installation of new wind generation capacity correlated with breaks in appropriation for the PTC.  The total affected wind generation capacity can be obtained by adding the heights of each bar.  The generation capacity for 2012 and 2013 are estimates based on the present status of the PTC.

Sources: American Wind Energy Association; U. S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, as presented in The Guardian Oct. 17, 2012; http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/oct/17/us-wind-power-mitt-romney-subsidy?newsfeed=true

 

The PTC lapsed in the years 2000, 2002 and 2004.  The effect of the lost support is evident in this graphic.  In each of those years the installation of new wind energy facilities fell by 73% or more (light green bars).  When reinstated, the PTC was implemented only for one- or two-year periods, rather than permanently or at least for an extended time.  In addition, the graphic shows a projected drop to no new wind capacity to be constructed in 2013, although it is likely that vestigial new construction will persist into 2013.  Adm. McGinn believes the wind industry would need a 3-5 year horizon for planning, and understands that PTC subsidies will not be, and indeed should not be, a permanent fixture in their industry.

 

Economic potential of the wind energy industry.  The expansion of the wind energy industry as a component of renewable energy has led to a work force estimated to have reached 85,000 jobs nationwide in 2008-9, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) as reported in the New York Times.   It has since fallen by 10,000 because of competition from China, and the growth of inexpensive natural gas.  In July, for example, the U. S. Commerce Department imposed tariffs on turbine towers originating in China, responding to a finding that the towers were priced in the U. S. at less than the cost of production in China.  In recent months, facing the unresolved expiration of the PTC, it is estimated that 1,700 layoffs have already occurred.  The American wind industry is composed of several hundred manufacturers, from multinational companies to small firms making specialty items needed in wind turbine installations.

 

According to AWEA 2.9% of the U. S. electricity demand was provided by wind energy in 2011. In Iowa and South Dakota, which have high potenetial wind energy resources, around 20% of the electricity demand is provided by wind. Nationally, the U.S. could provide 20%  of its electricity from wind power by 2030; this achievement is expected to provide 500,000 jobs to American workers.  In addition, currently 65% of the components in wind turbines are manufactured in the U. S., compared with only 25% before 2005; there are almost 500 companies distributed across 44 states engaged in manufacturing for the wind energy industry.  These data show that wind energy can make a significant impact on the American economy. 

 

Historical role of subsidies in the U. S. energy economy.  One group opposing extension of the PTC is the American Energy Alliance .  Its president, Thomas Pyle, concurred in calling the PTC a “boondoggle”, which it has been receiving for 20 years.  This opinion, however, is in flagrant disregard of the findings of recent studies of energy subsidies.  In the U. S., sources of energy have been recipients of federal subsidies since the 1800’s.  This includes the coal industry, the oil industry, and nuclear power.  Timelines for incentives from the federal government for energy sources over the past century are shown in the graphic below.  



Duration of U. S. government incentive support for fossil fuels, nuclear energy and renewable energy (includes wind, solar, hydropower, geothermal and biomass) from 1900.

Source: American Wind Energy Association using data from the U. S. Energy Information Agency, 2008.  http://awea.org/learnabout/publications/upload/Subsidies-Factsheet-May-2011.pdf

 

These subsidies have been especially instrumental during the early years in the development of each industry; yet after a century of growth in the oil and gas industry, it is still receiving federal subsidies (second gray bar; see the graphic above), and it benefits from a depletion tax credit as well (top gray bar).  The coal industry likewise has benefited from favorable tax treatment since about 1950 (third gray bar).  It is hard to argue that industries that are among the largest and most profitable in the American economy still require subsidies for their survival and growth.  Subsidies to the oil and gas industry are as much as 5 times larger than those for the entire renewable energy sector.  In 2007 the fossil fuel sector received US$ 5.450 billion in subsidies, whereas all renewable energy sources received only US$ 1.147 billion.

 

Analysis

 

Conventional energy sources, namely the various fossil fuels, continue to receive significant subsidies from the federal government, in spite of the fact that they are clearly mature industries.  The companies in question are massively large, and garner extremely large profits from their operations.  It is difficult to justify continuation of any subsidy or support in their favor.  The nuclear industry likewise continues to receive significant subsidy support after several decades of operation.  In this case, operations are usually regulated at the level of the states that the various nuclear-powered electric utilities serve.

 

Development of renewable energy is viewed as having several favorable effects on the American economy.  First, it would contribute to increasing the independence of the U. S. from relying on foreign sources of energy, and from having to use dollar resources to buy fossil fuels from abroad.  Second, it would relieve dependence on fossil fuels overall.  Third, development of all forms of renewable energy would contribute to the U. S. economy by providing new job opportunities in various skilled vocations, thus expanding our economic activity.  Fourth, expansion of renewable energy leads to economies of scale that would make electricity from these sources be fully competitive with conventional, fossil fuel-powered, electricity.  This effect is in fact already operating; wind energy generation is considered to be comparable in cost to conventional electricity.  Finally, widespread adoption of renewable energy would contribute to reducing the annual rate of emission of greenhouse gases.

 

For all these reasons it is important that the renewable energy production tax credit be reinstated for an extended period.  The historical persistence of subsidy support for the conventional fossil fuel industries provides an excellent precedent for the PTC.  Since fossil fuels have long been profoundly successful industries, their subsidies are no longer needed.  The PTC could readily be funded by reducing or eliminating these historical subsidies.  The availability of the PTC would promote expansion of renewable energy, with all its advantages.  Implementing the PTC for a multi-year interval would convey stability and predictability to entrepreneurs and industrialists who seek to develop renewable energy resources.  

 

© 2012 Henry Auer

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)

Sources: TRM (http://www.cslforum.org/aboutus/index.html?cid=nav_about);

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