It's the Coal, Stupid
| Wed Sep. 10, 2008 4:51 PM PDT
Burning fossil fuels accounts for 80 percent of the rise of atmospheric CO2 in industrial times. Now NASA researchers Pushker Kharecha and James Hansen show that CO2 can be kept below harmful levels as long as emissions from coal are phased out within the next few decades. In other words, we can burn all the oil and gas that's left on Earth and still avoid really dangerous climate change.
Previous research shows the super dangerous level of global warming will occur if CO2 in the atmosphere exceeds a concentration of 450 parts per million. It's currently at about 385 ppm, up from a pre-industrial 280 ppm.
The research revolved around five emissions scenarios spanning the years 1850-2100. Each reflects a different estimate for peak of fossil fuel production—an important yet unknown variable. On one end was the "business-as-usual" scenario. The other scenarios included reducing emissions from coal. First by developed countries starting in 2013. Then by developing countries a decade later. Finally leading to a global phase out by 2050. The last three scenarios consider different dates for peak oil.
The bottom line is clear. . .
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Even if we calculate unconstrained emissions from conventional oil and gas, there is simply not enough of these fuels left to take CO2 above 450 parts per million. On the other hand, coal and unconventional fuels like methane hydrates and tar sands contain much more fossil carbon than conventional oil and gas and should be pahsed out or never started up in the first place.
"Because coal is much more plentiful than oil and gas, reducing coal emissions is absolutely essential to avoid 'dangerous' climate change brought about by atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration exceeding 450 parts per million," Kharecha said. "The most important mitigation strategy we recommend—a phase-out of carbon dioxide emissions from coal within the next few decades—is feasible using current or near-term technologies."
Cut the coal, save the world. Clean coal? Don't be an oxymoron.
Julia Whitty is Mother Jones' environmental correspondent, lecturer, and 2008 winner of the Kiriyama Prize and the John Burroughs Medal Award.
Comments
I think the comments by Julia Whitty should have included a look at Hansen's latest suggestion published in The Independent (see reference below) which incorporates the use of trees as an alternate energy source for existing coal-fired power plants, and the sequestering of the resulting emissions wherever underlying geological formations make this possible. What Hansen and Karecha are trying to tell us in the paper quoted by Whitty is that a climate sensitivity of ~3 deg-C for doubled CO2 is too simplistic and only accounts for the fast feedback processes. To paraphrase them it must be said that "Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6 deg-C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica". In other words at 450 +/- 100 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, Antarctica would be ice-free and the world Ocean would probably rise by as much as 25 meters. In other words it would be a catastrophe large enough to shake the very foundations of our industrial civilization. Hansen's message is simple: "If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm".
I quote The Independent : The most ambitious international efforts focus on stabilizing it at 450 ppm, though few see this as achievable.
But Professor Hansen says this goal "is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation" and that present levels have already "brought us to the precipice of a planetary tipping point". He adds: "If we go over the edge we will transition to an environment far outside the range that has been experienced by humanity, and there will be no return within any foreseeable future generation."
He is convinced that 350 ppm is the absolute maximum that will avoid the loss of the polar ice sheets and other disasters. He says that all coal power stations must be phased out by 2030, unless they are equipped with special "carbon capture and storage" equipment that stops the gas escaping into the atmosphere. If that was done, the level could be stabilized at 400 ppm. After that, a vigorous program of planting trees to suck up carbon dioxide ? coupled with the use of carbon capture equipment when the trees are burnt, and improvements in agricultural practices ? could get levels down to 350 ppm "within a century".
reference : http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/phase-out-coal-a...
I think the comments by Julia Whitty should have included a look at Hansen's latest suggestion published in The Independent (see reference below) which incorporates the use of trees as an alternate energy source for existing coal-fired power plants, and the sequestering of the resulting emissions wherever underlying geological formations make this possible. What Hansen and Karecha are trying to tell us in the paper quoted by Whitty is that a climate sensitivity of ~3 deg-C for doubled CO2 is too simplistic and only accounts for the fast feedback processes. To paraphrase them it must be said that "Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6 deg-C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica". In other words at 450 +/- 100 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, Antarctica would be ice-free and the world Ocean would probably rise by as much as 25 meters. In other words it would be a catastrophe large enough to shake the very foundations of our industrial civilization. Hansen's message is simple: "If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm".
I quote The Independent : The most ambitious international efforts focus on stabilizing it at 450 ppm, though few see this as achievable.
But Professor Hansen says this goal "is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation" and that present levels have already "brought us to the precipice of a planetary tipping point". He adds: "If we go over the edge we will transition to an environment far outside the range that has been experienced by humanity, and there will be no return within any foreseeable future generation."
He is convinced that 350 ppm is the absolute maximum that will avoid the loss of the polar ice sheets and other disasters. He says that all coal power stations must be phased out by 2030, unless they are equipped with special "carbon capture and storage" equipment that stops the gas escaping into the atmosphere. If that was done, the level could be stabilized at 400 ppm. After that, a vigorous program of planting trees to suck up carbon dioxide ? coupled with the use of carbon capture equipment when the trees are burnt, and improvements in agricultural practices ? could get levels down to 350 ppm "within a century".
reference : http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/phase-out-coal-a...
Besides the above, good article BTW, that coal ash is also radioactive.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nu...
Submitted by Milt Lee (not verified) on Wed Sep. 10, 2008 9:47 PM PDT.
In South Dakota, we live next to one of the largest concentrations of coal in the country. It's really bad to be this close to all that coal, because most folks around here love the idea of mining, but in my mind, we need to just stop using any of this stuff - really - just invest in solar, wind, and stop messing around with any of the old fossil technologies. If we all start driving electric cars, electric bikes, and any other thing that can use stored electricity, then we might stand a chance. Hope it happens!
Submitted by stockpix (not verified) on Mon Sep. 15, 2008 2:07 PM PDT.
In the short run, we need to beef up transmission so that localized renewable power like wind, geothermal and solar can get to the people who need it.
We really need to get serious and put a level of effort in on a global basis that is the equivalent of the US effort in WWII. So far we are talking minuscule effort levels of a moonshot which is not remotely going to do the job.
The 450 point is a good estimate of a serious danger point, but we really do not know for absolute certain where the tipping points in the system lie. There are horrific runaway scenarios involving massive release of frozen arctic methane that can lead to 90% of taxa extinction events where nothing much larger than a mouse survives.
I completely agree we need to urgently phase out coal but with China still actively building inefficient coal plants this article amounts to a significant degree of happy talk.
I think we need to start an active biomass energy based soil sequestration program where some energy is extracted but 50% of the carbon in the biomass is turned into a very durable charcoal soil amendment. This needs to be limited away from ecologically vital primary forests and be run on an environmentally sustainable basis.
We also might wish to start experimenting with increasing particulate pollution from airplanes when at altitude. Since particulate pollution tends to counteract the greenhouse warming effect.
I think the comments by Julia Whitty should have included a look at Hansen's latest suggestion published in The Independent (see reference below) which incorporates the use of trees as an alternate energy source for existing coal-fired power plants, and the sequestering of the resulting emissions wherever underlying geological formations make this possible. What Hansen and Karecha are trying to tell us in the paper quoted by Whitty is that a climate sensitivity of ~3 deg-C for doubled CO2 is too simplistic and only accounts for the fast feedback processes. To paraphrase them it must be said that "Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6 deg-C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica". In other words at 450 +/- 100 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, Antarctica would be ice-free and the world Ocean would probably rise by as much as 25 meters. In other words it would be a catastrophe large enough to shake the very foundations of our industrial civilization. Hansen's message is simple: "If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm".
I quote The Independent : The most ambitious international efforts focus on stabilizing it at 450 ppm, though few see this as achievable.
But Professor Hansen says this goal "is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation" and that present levels have already "brought us to the precipice of a planetary tipping point". He adds: "If we go over the edge we will transition to an environment far outside the range that has been experienced by humanity, and there will be no return within any foreseeable future generation."
He is convinced that 350 ppm is the absolute maximum that will avoid the loss of the polar ice sheets and other disasters. He says that all coal power stations must be phased out by 2030, unless they are equipped with special "carbon capture and storage" equipment that stops the gas escaping into the atmosphere. If that was done, the level could be stabilized at 400 ppm. After that, a vigorous program of planting trees to suck up carbon dioxide coupled with the use of carbon capture equipment when the trees are burnt, and improvements in agricultural practices could get levels down to 350 ppm "within a century".
reference : http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/phase-out-coal-a...
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest "acid rain," "mercury poisoning," and bad health effects from electricity generation were foreign concepts. The many dams on the Columbia, Snake, Umpqua, and Klamath Rivers and their tributaries provided clean inexpensive power. However, we now know the ill effects on the ecosystem created by the many dams. In fact, some are being torn down in order to re-build the salmon runs.
I believe the effects of burning fossil fuels have similar long-term negative effects on both the ecosystem and human beings.
The article suggests we eliminate coal-fired generating plants...50% of our nation's generation capacity. The options are very limited if we want to continue a lifestyle that expects power to be there 24/7 in quantities desired.
Solar is very limited and enjoys only a 7% capacity factor...that means on the average it produces power only 7% of the time at full power. Wind power is not much better at 25%. Neither of these sources is reliable on a 24/7 basis. Large storage batteries are expensive, full of bad chemicals themselves, and not very efficient.
The only non-greenhouse gas 24/7 producer of electricity besides hydro is nuclear. Nuclear operates at an overall average capacity factor of 92%. Nuclear power plants have a very small footprint and have no impact on the public. (I know some will cry foul on that one... but the truth is much research has been done since WWII on radiation and its impact on humans, including long-term workers at nuclear weapons facilities. Result: no more deaths/1000 than the normal population.)
The anit-nuclear power zeal stems from anti-nuclear weapons sentiments generated in the 1970s. Given today's realities, it is time my peers from the '70s hang up their bongs, put away their "Hell No, We Wont Go" signs, and be mature about helping establish a long-term national energy policy based upon facts, not emotions.
Zeak,
If we were all driving electric vehicles, we wouldn't have to worry about gas. This just shows why we need to move do a future without fossil fuels.
Besides, we haven't done anything yet to reduce our use of gas, so how can you blame the current problems in the Southeast on Al Gore?!
