CO2-HÅNDTERING I EN KLIMAVITENSKAPELIG SETTING

Transkript

1 CO2-HÅNDTERING I EN KLIMAVITENSKAPELIG SETTING Knut H. Alfsen Forskningsdirektør CICERO

2 HVOR FORT FORSVINNER DRIVHUSGASSER FRA ATMOSFÆREN? 100 % Remaining fraction (%) 75 % 50 % 25 % 0 % Years CO2 CH4 SF6 N2O HFC-134a CF4

3

4 HVORDAN FORSVINNER CO2?

5 STORE UTSLIPPSREDUKSJONER ER NØDVENDIG FOR Å STABILISERE KONSENTRASJONEN 80% reduksjon i utslipp tilsvarer en ambisjon om et nullutslippssamfunn! Source: Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millenia Committee on Stabilization Targets for Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Concentrations; National Research Council %3@6B<3-301<<1/4<-/=-@6:7/4-C1/W1C3-6:3-;:3623:-2?64-2?3-<14Z<-2?62-:30

6 KARBONUTSLIPP FRA FOSSLIE BRENSLER Fossil fuel emission of carbon kt C USA China Germany United Kingdom Japan India Source: Tom Boden, Gregg Marland, Robert J. Andres Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

7 CO2 EMISSIONS PER CAPITA IN CHINA

8 CONTRIBUTIONS OF DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES Energy efficiency 68% Nuclear 14% Renewables 9% CCS 9%

9 IEA: BIDRAG FRA TEKNOLOGIER Key technologies for reducing global CO 2 emissions under the BLUE Map scenario Gt CO Baseline emissions 57 Gt BLUE Map emissions 14 Gt WEO ppmcase ETP2010 analysis CCS 19% Renewables 17% Nuclear 6% Power generation efficiency and fuel switching 5% End-use fuel switching 15% End-use fuel and electricity efficiency 38% Source: IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2010

10 FRA ACCSEPTS OMTALE AV CCS Non-CCS mitigation technology like renewable energy is absolutely necessary and could in theory take on the job alone but there is little evidence of this happening. CCS can help bridge the gap between increasing fossil fuel use and decreasing CO2 emissions. A logical conclusion: the options are using CCS or eliminating fossil fuels - failure to do either one means climate disaster. Given the latter seems unlikely, we need to pursue CCS as quickly as possible.

11 POTENTIAL NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES OF CCS Greater utilization of coal with associated impacts, Greater demand for water for cooling and running the capture process; An extensive CO2 pipeline infrastructure with space claims and risks; Potential conflicts with other users of geological storage reservoirs, etc. The nature and cost of these externalities are not currently well understood and more research is therefore needed.

12 PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE Stakeholders: NGOs critical Energy companies less critical although closer work with CCS leads to a bit more critical vie Governments in between (as always?)

13 PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE Because geological sites can be found and managed safely in such a way as to all but rule out leakage, does not mean they will be found and managed in that way. Need for guidelines, incentives and oversight to ensure desired site selection and management. Existing information on the costs of implementing CCS is poor and potentially misleading. Much of the detailed information is held by the private sector and is confidential. Analyses in the academic literature tend to be based on just a few sources, and have not been updated to take account of rising fuel and material costs. Don t over-sell!

14 CCS I EUROPA The Costs of CO 2 Capture, Transport and Storage Post-demonstration CCS in the EU Finansieres i dag delvis fra kvotekjøp. Mye fornybart i Europa lav kvotepris lite CCS mer urenset kullkraft i Kina? Viktig med uavhengig finansiering av CCS

15 NOEN KONKLUSJONER CCS kommer til å spille en mindre, men kanskje viktig, rolle i det store bildet. Det er viktig at CCS-sporet utforskes i et bredt, globalt perspektiv hvor alt må undersøkes. Kanskje er Norge nærmest til å gjøre (en del av) dette. Hva vi tror om - og gjør med - CCS er viktig fordi det påvirker hva vi tror og gjør med med andre opsjoner (fornybar energi og energieffektivisering først og fremst). CCS mer enn teknologi!

16 TUSEN TAKK FOR OPPMERKSOMHETEN!