Is the new Shell Sky scenario a radical pathway to 2°C or just a justification for more fossil fuels?
* Primary energy consumption high
* CO₂ as expected for a "well below 2°C" scenario
Fossil fuels:
* Coal consumption higher than most 2°C scenarios
* Oil consumption as expected, but high in 2100
* Gas low, but no one knows the role of gas in the future
Bioenergy:
* Higher than IEA, but in line with most other 2°C scenarios
Carbon capture and storage
* 10,000 CCS facilities needed by 2070
* Similar to IEA & Statoil (in 2040)
* Lower than most other 2°C scenarios, which are rather bullish on CCS
Renewables
* Hydro, nuclear, geothermal (not shown) consistent with other 2°C scenarios
* Wind has rapid growth to 2050, higher than most 2°C scenarios
* Solar is higher than all other 2°C scenarios
* BP is going solar!
In summary, relative to other 2°C scenarios, Shell Sky has
* High primary energy consumption
* CO₂ as expected
* Higher than expected coal
* Much higher than expected wind & solar
* High, but modest CCS
* A reasonable path to 2°C, with challenges
Details: shell.com/energy-and-inn…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1987: President of the Maldives: "We know, & yet we keep delaying action. The time for just talking is over."
1988: James Hanson testified "99% confidence"
1988: The #IPCC is born
1990: IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR)
1990: Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS)
1992: UNFCCC "to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system"
1997: Kyoto Protocol
2007: Bali Road Map gives new hope
2008: A limit well below 1.5°C (Tuvalu, AOSIS)
2008: 1.5°C to stay alive
2009: Copenhagen Accord enshrined 2°C in climate politics
Impressive new study on the carbon intensity of crude oil production by field. Average life-cycle emissions are 10.3gCO₂-eq/MJ or 1.7GtCO₂-eq (5% global energy GHG emissions), with huge variation by field / country. 1/5 science.sciencemag.org/content/361/64… ($)
Flaring (red), heavy oil (blue), or both (yellow) are key factors increasing emissions. Flaring is 22% of average weighted carbon intensity, but much higher in some places (over 50%). Heavy oil can be very emission intensive, but not always. 2/5
This will excite Norway: "Although some giant North Sea offshore fields have shown rapidly increasing per-barrel emissions due to depletion, they have low upstream GHG intensities when compared to many other global oil fields." 3/5
THREAD on my presentation at #ONS2018#CentreCourt (Monday), where I (try to) explain why there is potentially space for some new oil & what constrains the amount 1/
It is important to remember, that every molecule of CO₂ that enters the atmosphere causes the temperature to increase. To stop temperature rising, either stop emitting CO₂ or, if you must, take out what you put in. 2/
Because it is unlikely we can get to zero emissions in 10-20 years (1.5°C) or 30-40 years (2°C), we have to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. The more removed, the less radical the short-term reductions. Radical mitigation AND CO₂ removal is key. 3/
The standard headline & interpretation: We are doomed, the Earth's climate will runaway to 4-5°C even if we slash emissions.
Well, that is not what the paper says (actually, it is a Perspective), & I don't see this framing as particularly helpful!
The paper does not seem to define "Hothouse Earth", this seems to come from the press material? I don't see much on 4-5°C or 10-60m in the paper, if so, it is very indirect?
The paper "explores" if we "could" instigate feedbacks, they "could" cascade, & they "could" lead to a hothouse earth (whatever that is). "We cannot exclude" this happening at 1.5-2°C. The closing paragraph says we should investigate these issues! pnas.org/content/early/…
The range has remained stubbornly wide (1.5°C-4.5°C), despite many individual studies claiming to narrow it (particularly recent instrumental-based methods). Though, @AndrewDessler could argue that in the 1970's the range was underestimated & today it is overestimated (maybe).
Most methods have a similar range, but instrumental methods are certainly lower. Many reasons why the instrumental record may be low (aerosols, variability, temperature estimates, ocean heat content, etc, etc).
This thread seems to get two things wrong 1. Emissions need to be as close as possible to zero AND CO₂ removal is needed in addition (it is not either/or) 2. Mitigation is currently FAR cheaper than removal (removal may help costly mitigation, like air to fuels for aviation)
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @Noahpinion view original on Twitter
If CO₂ removal was used to just offset existing emissions (instead of reducing emissions), it is far cheaper to deploy energy efficiency, solar, batteries, CCS, etc, then recapture emissions directly from air (expensive). Even if social cost was $80/tCO₂, still take cheapest?
In emission scenarios (shown for 1.5°C), CO₂ removal has two roles:
* Small: Offset hard to mitigate sectors (the brown does not go to zero, need CO₂ removal)
* Big: Offset earlier emissions (already emitted too much, which gets worse if we don't mitigate drastically today)