Tag: electricity

COP 26 and Climate Change Action

Will COP 26 be an echo chamber of plausible responses to the climate crisis or a forum that drives change? Will COP 26 be the moment that stops the increase in global temperature, or will it be drowned in politics?

Methane at COP 26

Since 1950 atmospheric methane (CH4) has grown from 1220 ppb to 1870 ppb. On its own, it has increased temperature during that period by 0.13C. Breaking up this increase by its components reveals the following:

  • 57% from fugitive emissions from natural gas.
  • 25% from ruminant animals (both farmed and wild).
  • 13% from waste.
  • 9% from fugitive emissions from coal.
  • 6% from rice cultivation.
  • 6% from biomass.

Most of attention in regard to methane emissions has been given to belching from ruminant animals. Yet cutting red meat (and rice) from our diet is not a matter for COP 26, IMO. Yet there are other matters to be considered at this conference. For example, what about fugitive emissions from natural gas?

Let us suppose that in the next 10 years we were able to cut methane emissions from everything except ruminant animals and rice cultivation by 50%. In this case the atmospheric methane would fall from 1870 ppb to 1730 ppb. This would be just the beginning, for it would continue to fall out to 2100. In other words, instead of contributing to the growth in global average temperature, it would mitigate the increases from other sources.

The move from coal to natural gas for electricity generation may have been a good idea at the time, but we should not now chose to use these gases for electricity production. If this is done and also we cut methane emissions from waste as well as changing from biomass to electrical cooking and heating, this would reduce atmospheric methane, without doing anything else. So a cut in methane emissions by 2030 should be on the COP 26 agenda.

Actual and projected increases in global average temperature since Industrialisation.
Effect of cutting methane emissions

F-Gases at COP 26

When the Montreal Protocol was established in 1990, it was realised that moving from ozone-depleting CHCs to other gases would increase atmospheric greenhouse gases. At the time it was agreed that certain gases mentioned in the Montreal Protocol gases would be fazed out from 2025. Yet there is no sense that this commitment is being taken seriously in the run-up to COP 26. It should be included in the final agreement.

Electricity Production: Low CO2

Presently, there are only two viable models for electricity production in a low CO2 environment: nuclear and intermittent sources. While nuclear is favoured in some places. It is not favoured in other places. In any event, it would appear that following this route is very expensive. On the other hand, intermittent sources, by their very nature, are unreliable.

It is true that cyclic fluctuations through the week can be managed through an appropriate level of storage, which could be via pumped-hydro, batteries and other more experimental means of storing electricity. Therefore, it is not cyclic and predictable fluctuation in demand that is preventing the take up of intermittent power supply. The problem is in the unpredictable nature of supply. The thing that is holding back more widespread use of intermittent supply of electricity is the lack of a plan to cover the shortfall in electricity supply when the wind or the sun fail to deliver the quantum of electricity that is required. This is the biggest problem in moving to a more complete dependence upon intermittent / renewable supply of electricity.

For nations that are already industrialised there is a simple solution at hand, even though it cuts across the ideological resistance to coal. Yes, the solution is to use coal-fired generators (and any existing redundant gas-fired generators) to provide back up generating capacity in the case of a failure in supply of electricity from renewable sources. In the short-term, the existing coal and gas-fired generators could be brought on line in the event of a failure of supply. Even with the current configuration, this should happen in less than 20% of the time once the intermittent supply system generally provides 100% of electricity power. This approach will ensure a 80% cut in the CO2 emissions from this source. On the other hand, it does mean that banning coal from the electricity-generation field will not be possible, or even practical (if one really wants to cut CO2 emissions).

In a system that does not use nuclear power, it would appear that a properly designed system will provide all power to consumers from renewables and from storage. Under this system, the storage would be replenished from time to time using coal-fired generators. This would only happen when the storage falls below a level in which the operators believe is too low for a measured guaranteed security of supply. Under this scenario, the coal-fired generators would run flat-out until the storage was replenished.

In a system that uses nuclear power, the power stations could run continuously, replenishing the storage in a balanced manner.

Oil-based fuel

We already know how to cut the usage of oil-based fuels for passenger vehicles and light trucks. The simple solution is for each country to mandate that new vehicles must be fully electric. However, this will bring many problems in its wake. These include a complete replacement of the refueling system and potential massive increases in the prices of raw materials. It would be more sensible to move more slowly.

The ideal solution, hopefully to be discussed at COP 26 is for each nation to move towards mandating hybrid, plug-in hybrids and fully electric vehicles for new vehicles well before 2030. The market can then manage the extra cost for each type of vehicle. Since a simple hybrid is not much more costly than a vehicle with a 100% internal combustion engine, this can be the starting default. Even this will cut the consumption of petrol by about 30-40%, which will lead to a significant reduction in CO2 emissions from this type of vehicle.

Solutions for heavier trucks and buses and ships can be considered at a later period. The end result should be that by 2030 we will have a solution prepared for all oil-based fuels.

Cement and Steel

Solutions are currently being considered for the CO2 generated in these two processes. Time is required to allow feasible and proven solutions to emerge.

Conclusion

Significantly cutting greenhouse gas emissions in this way by 2030, in the areas where we already know how to do it, will avert the climate change crisis, and put us on a path to prevent global warming since industrialisation of more than 1.5C. Early and radical action is required.

Such action should be legacy of COP 26. The question remains, will the representatives have the courage to take the actions that are required? Will the members present be willing to abandon those ambitions that will not lead to that outcome, but will hinder this desirable result.

Is electricity demand too high?

Electricity demand could be too high at present as China and India increase coal-fired generation and because of the push to cut CO2 emissions from passenger cars.

Expected Electricity demand in 2021 and 2022

The IEA expects that global electricity demand will grow faster than renewables can keep up in 2021. Even though generation from renewables like hydropower, wind and solar is due to grow 8% in 2021 and by more than 6% in 2022, it will only be able to meet about half the projected increase in global electricity demand. The rest will be met mostly by thermal plans that burn fossil fuels, especially coal.

Furthermore, IEA expects most of this extra demand will come from China and India.

China is pushing hard to increase electricity demand and supply

It is well known that China is increasing its coal-fired generation capacity. A generous explanation is that China could be using this as an opportunity to provide back-up generation power once its intermittent renewable capacity can provide most of its demand needs. Backup capacity is needed once any system goes to 100% renewables during ordinary operations. This is because all intermittent supplies can fail and these failures can spread over an extended period. Storage can meet many of these shortfalls in supply, but there is a point where storage will not be sufficient. It is at this point that it coal and gas-fired generation will be required. It is only prudent to provide for this capacity.

India is massively electricity poor.

No-one can seriously complain about India increasing its coal-fired generation. In 2016 it was running at about 2 tonnes per person CO2. China was running at about 7 tonnes per person and USA was running at 15.5 tonnes per person. However, once it has properly addressed this issue, it should eventually aim for 100% renewables during ordinary operations. Then it will need backup generation capacity which can be supplied by periodic running of its legacy installation of its fossil-fuel generators.

OECD nations need to cut fossil-fuel generated electricity

Without cutting greenhouse gas emissions the global average temperature will continue to increase. A cut in the level of emissions can be achieved, and this should result in global average temperature being held at 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. It will still bump above this, but will also fall below, as has happened in March 2021, which is 0.33C below March last year.

A path to a maximum 1.5C temperature increase.

It is a reasonable target for every nation that can do it (i.e. the OECD nations) to run electricity generation on 100% renewables during ordinary operations by 2030. It could keep its remaining coal and gas-fired generation to be only used to provide backup capacity. If this is done, it will assist in levelling this curve much earlier than 2030 and give the world more time to solve the intractable problems with steel, cement and building heating.

The way this could work is for coal and gas-fired generation to be removed from directly supplying the grid. This capacity then can be used to renew storage of electricity. It only needs to run when storage capacity is seriously depleted, but during that time it can be run at 100% of capacity 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This will minimise the CO2 emissions from this process and hold costs down as much as possible.

The push for fully electric vehicles could be counter-productive

It a nation does not have enough renewable electricity generation to fully supply the grid, it should consider very carefully whether fully-electric vehicles are as CO2 free as is often claimed. If additional fossil-fuel is used in generating electricity as a result of the widespread introduction of fully-electric vehicle, there may be no actual cut in the CO2 emissions for that country as a result of this policy.

It should be noted that non-plug in hybrids can cut fossil-fuel usage by almost 50%. Each country should to take this in account.

Net Zero and GHG Emissions

The aim of Net Zero GHG emissions is to stabilise global average temperatures, it is hoped that it can be achieved at 1.5C over pre-industrial levels. The calculation of CO2e for each of the GHG gases needs to take into account the impact of each of these gases upon global average temperatures. For CO2, it is quite simple: just take the quantum of the emissions themselves. 400 parts per million of CO2 equals 400 parts per million tonnes of CO2e. Since N2O has a half life of around 120 years, the normal calculation to convert to CO2e applies. In this case, 300 parts per billion of N2O equals 89 parts per million of CO2e. For the other gases a different calculation must apply. Since the other gases have a half life that significantly impacts their warming potential (methane has a half life of 9.5 years), we cannot just keep adding these warming potentials into our CO2e values. We have to take into account the progressive reduction in the atmospheric levels of these gases from previous emissions. For each year, we can (roughly) add the current emissions into CO2e, but we also have to deduct the losses into the atmosphere from previous years.

Net Zero from methane

For methane, we can simply deduct the losses attributable to the methane emissions in prior years.

  • Year -1: 4.75%
  • Year -2: 13.80%
  • Year -3: 21.99%
  • Year -4: 39.40%
  • Year -5: 36.11%
  • And so on into infinity.

If the world reduces the absolute value of methane emissions in each year, this gives us all a negative CO2e value that can be shared around amongst all nations. This will soften the required reductions in regard to continuing emissions of CO2 and N2O. This negative impact will continue out to 2100 if the reductions in these gases are sufficiently large. It can also go beyond this if the absolute reductions continue. For methane, the most significant element in total emissions consists of the fugitive emissions from coal extraction and natural gas extraction, transportation and use, so it is important to cut these as the first priority.

Emissions of methane are currently around 800 million tonnes. Of this total, about 26% can be attributed to coal and gas fugitive emissions (including the failure to manage leaks properly, especially around the year 1990; some mismanagement is still continuing). If coal use were entirely eliminated, natural gas cut down to only 20% of the current use (for non-energy industrial purposes only), “leaks” of natural gas cut to a “normal level”, and emissions from ruminants and rice production continued in line with population, the emissions of methane each year would be about 670 million tonnes. This reduction of 130 million tonnes of methane per year, would represent a negative CO2e, starting at zero for 2030 and growing to 3,250 million tonnes per year by 2050.

Negative CO2e from refrigerant gases

The warming potential from refrigerant gases is expected to decline from 2025, due to the further implementation of the Montreal Protocol. The atmospheric level of these gases should reduce from this date. These gases have about half the impact of methane, so let us say that it also represents a negative CO2e, starting a zero in 2025 and growing to negative 1,600 million tonnes per year year by 2050.

Positive CO2e from Nitrous Oxide

Based on the increase in atmospheric N2O, we can calculate that N2O emissions are running at about 320 million tonnes per year. It may be possible to cut emissions arising from agriculture so that the final number were 160 million tonnes per year. Based on radiative forcing at current levels of emissions, this would mean that the net CO2e from nitrous oxide would be about 1,200 million tonnes.

Positive CO2e from CO2

Based on the foregoing, for a Net Zero outcome, CO2 emissions from all sources would need to be capped at about 4,000 millions tonnes. This compares with the 35,000 million tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2018. This was made up as follows:

  • Coal 13,000 tonnes (including about 2,000 tonnes of metallurgical coal and coal used for residential heating).
  • Oil based fuels 9,000 tonnes.
  • Natural gas 6,000 tonnes.
  • Cement production 1,500 tonnes.
  • Other (undefined) 5,500 tonnes.

Preferably, all coal uses would have to go if Net Zero were to be achieved. All electricity production using natural gas would have to go. All oil-based fuels need to be replaced by chemical alternatives, like ethanol or ammonia, or by electric vehicles. Alternative ways of building heating will be required, using electric air conditioning and heat pumps with local geothermal resources.

Each of these things will be a challenge, but the biggest is the complete change in electricity generation. Under Net Zero, there is no place for natural gas after 2050. At present, renewables like wind and solar cannot supply anything like baseload power, even with all types of storage, so new baseload resources will be needed, such as geothermal and modular molten-salt nuclear reactors.

Electric cars are a bit of dream, at least for nations that are not rich or have large distances to cover. For the latter, something like the ethanol-driven approach of Brazil seems to be required.

There is considerable hope for “green steel” and “green cement”. We wait in anticipation.

Carbon capture, utilisation and storage

This is a major feature of a recent report by the IEA. The question for me is whether it really will be secure at the volumes being considered. They go far beyond current storage being undertaken in depleted oil and gas wells, with the risk of subsequent leakage currently not being seriously considered.

Net Zero in 2050 vs 2060

The foregoing is predicated on achieving Net Zero by 2050. Whether this is a viable strategy for all nations is debatable. A date like 2060 could be more achievable.

For comparison purposes, I have modelled global average temperatures out to 2070, using two targets. One is that Net Zero, according to my definition, will be achieved in 2050; the other is that Net Zero, on the same basis, is achieved in 2060.

Two scenarios for reaching Net Zero.
Two scenarios for reaching Net Zero

This graph shows that a result close to 1.6C can be achieved, even if (my) Net Zero is not achieved until 2060. Of course, it will be a safer outcome if OECD nations can arrive at that point by 2050.

Conclusion

Net Zero by 2050 may be a pipe dream, but the world could give itself a number more years before we reach a stable 1.5C if urgent action were taken. This is because reduced GHG emissions in the intervening years will reduce the growth in average annual global temperatures. This will involve action on the following issues:

  • Do not build any more coal-fired electricity generators where there are other options available.
  • Do not use gas-fired generators for anything except for the purpose of meeting peak demand.
  • Develop geothermal resources where available, and enter into fixed price contracts for the supply of electricity from such resources 24/7 (to ensure that such facilities are not bankrupted by operations that can only provide intermittent supplies.)
  • Governments to push ahead with funding trials for modular molten-salt nuclear-powered electricity generators.
  • Governments to immediately mandate fuel-flex vehicle electronics, so that ethanol can progressively take over as ethanol production increases and where electric vehicles are not suitable for the particular application, or are too expensive.
  • Governments to mandate that ships entering their ports use non-CO2 fuels.
  • Progressively implement reduced N2O agricultural practices as and when the research indicates that this is possible.
  • Governments to mandate that gas not to be used for building heating in new-builds. When electric air-conditioning is not effective in cold climates, governments to mandate that heat pumps using local geothermal methods be used instead.