Published on EGEE 101: Energy and the Environment (https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee101)

Home > Lessons > Lesson 12: Climate Change Solutions

Lesson 12: Climate Change Solutions

Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement (COP's)

Global Cooperation through Conference of Parties —COP Meetings

When it became evident that climate change may be occurring, there was the beginning of the movement (a series of meetings called the Conference of Parties —COP) that was responsible for the Kyoto meeting in December of 1997: a section of the United Nations was formed: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (you might see UNFCCC in some of the linked text). The first meeting was the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, subsequent meetings set up the reduction strategies for climate change. The two most important meetings were held in Kyoto, Japan (the Kyoto Protocol) and in Paris, France (the Paris Agreement).

Important points for the Kyoto Protocol (1997)

Reduction of six greenhouse gasses by some countries, to varied levels below their emissions of greenhouse gasses in 1990.

  • carbon dioxide (CO2)
  • methane (CH4)
  • nitrous oxide (N2O)
  • hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
  • perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
  • sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)

The treaty was to become legally binding when it was ratified by 55 Countries (they use the term "States") including the Developed Nations responsible for 55% of the carbon dioxide emissions from the Developed Nations group in 1990. This treaty was ratified in 2005 (Russia was the last necessary country to adopt it.) The United States has not ratified it yet (but we are bound by the agreement).

Just to confuse everyone (and so as not to embarrass developing countries) they use the terms Annex 1 parties (mostly developed nations) and Annex 2 Parties (mostly the developing nations).

An emission trading methodology was adopted to reduce the cost of compliance (but details on how this will work are not yet in place). A major victory for the US as we utilize this approach for SO2 and NOx emissions via the Clean Air Act of 1990 and its amendments.

Developing countries have a “right to develop” and so will not have to reduce or curtail their emissions of greenhouse gases at all.

Changing land use issues and natural carbon sinks (such as planting a forest) also impact the reduction levels assigned (and agreed to).

Sharing of technology (sounds a tad socialist to me and will be difficult to employ).

There is a great deal of uncertainty in how everything will work out.

The European Union is allowed to act as a “bubble” and redistribute the reductions to meet the overall reduction level required. Australia joined but then after a government change, left the agreement. The United States has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

More information is available (if you are interested) from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [1].

World map showing the US and Australia have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol among the world powers, numerous smaller nations have not also.
Map of Kyoto Protocol Participant Nations
Credit: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [1]

Emission Trading

Recall that this was discussed when we covered acid deposition. Internationally, this will work well, as it will be cheaper to reduce emissions in other countries that are operating old, inefficient equipment than it will to reduce emissions from plants that are efficiently run. As CO2, unlike a lot of emissions, is global in nature, it does not matter that we are reducing emissions in India or China, we will still reap the benefit of slowing the pace of climate change. Many of the pollutants we discuss may be international in natures, such as acid deposition from Germany crossing into France or vice versa, they will not travel the globe and influence Australia for example. The long lifetimes of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere allows them to travel extensively so their increase can be measured at the poles far from the point source of origin (your car, power plant, natural source, etc.) Ozone-depleting CFCs also are long-lived and tend to congregate above the South Pole.

As long as there is a reduction, the requirement is met, it's source is not important. However, there is a financial cost assigned with these reductions. The developing countries need health care, education, and clean water as a priority well above reduction in climate change. They can sell off emission reductions to the highest bidder (at a profit). Industry will be happy to buy these permits as long as they are priced below the cost of achieving the same reduction in their industry. More on this in the next part of the lesson.

Impact on the U.S.

We agreed to a reduction to 7% below 1990 levels. That does not seem to be too high, but there is a problem: emissions have been growing (as has the economy, followed by a downturn...).

The 7% reduction below 1990 levels looked like it may have ended up being a very significant 30% reduction from 2010 levels. There is a lot of speculation on how much greenhouse gases we emit because it depends on many factors, such as the economy, severity of the winter or summer, changes in the fuel mix. While the 7% reduction is high, a 30% reduction is staggering (7% from going to below 1990 levels and 23% estimated from the growth of the emissions). Actual numbers ended up being much smaller but we will not meet the goals, like many, many nations.

The White House Stance

There is a significant change in policy when the Obama administration was replaced by the Trump administration. 

Obama Administration

  • Reducing Emissions through Clean Energy Investments and Standards
  • Monitoring Emissions
  • Climate Change Adaptation
  • Climate Change Science and Education

The U.S. managed to have very significant reduction but much was due to fuel switching from coal to natural gas for economic reasons rather than policy (although that did contribute).

President Trump standing at a podium announcing plans to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
President Trump
The Trump administration withdraw from the Paris Agreement (as expected based on campaign promises). While the US had signed the Paris agreement it was not ratified by the legislative branch of government — similar to Kyoto Protocol). The impact on emissions is unclear, the recent greenhouse gas reductions were largely due to economics (cheap natural gas). International funding from the U.S. to support climate change efforts will likely be reduced. President Biden rejoined the agreement in February 2021. It will be interenting to see how ambitions the new reduction plan will be. Change will come with a high cost (but also employmenbt opportunities). Getting the balance right is the challenge.

Here is a good link to see what the US had agreed to [2] (take a quick look).

Important points for the Paris Agreement (2015)

  • There was a change from having greenhouse emissions be below a set year to having the limiting the warming extent so that the global temperature is < 2°C higher than the pre-industrialization level (hoping to be <1.5°C). The Paris Agreement was ratified in 2016 when 55 nations accounting for ~55% of global greenhouse emissions enter into the agreement. There were also two other significant changes:
  • Increasing the ability to adapt to climate change
  • Making finance flows consistent towards a pathway for lower greenhouse gas emissions
  • the U.S agreed to a 26% reduction of greenhouse gasses by 2025
  • See this quick 1 min video overview from the United Nations [3]
Image of a treee with the words "4 November 2016 Paris Agreement enters into force."
4 November 2016 Paris Agreement enters into force
Credit: European Union

Emission Trading

We have the ability to store CO2 in certain geological formations but there is a lot of uncertainty as to the viability and the cost. If we can prevent the emissions to begin with, we are going to be able to be in better shape. We discussed conservation earlier, but there is another option: going abroad to help out other countries to raise their efficiencies or even close down some of the older plants. But how does that help the US with her emissions?

Emission trading [4] (also known as cap and trade) was one of the key successes in the negotiations for the US. By going to other countries where the technologies are not already running at high efficiencies (for the application) then with new sensors, replacement parts, or enhanced monitoring and technology the efficiencies can be raised cheaply (at least in comparison to doing the same thing in the U.S. where the efficiencies and the monitoring is already in place).

To make sure that the U.S. gets the credit, the international trading system of emission permits for CO2 needs to be established. The U.S. hopes it will be a model similar to the SO2 emission trading model established in the Clean Air Act (1990). Bottom line: it will be cheaper to go abroad to developing countries and countries of the former Soviet Union and lower their emissions, pay for, and claim the credit for the emission reduction.

However, some early attempts at this have failed. The devil is in the details, such as the cap and incentives to get the system operational. The advantage is that there is a well-defined limit.

 The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)
Example infographic for emission Trading.
Credit: Carbon Neutral (Australia)

Biomass

A large field bordered by trees and mountains.
A field in Central Pennsylvania.
Credit: JPM
Corn field
A corn field.
Credit: JPM

If the loss of carbon sinks is the issue, then why not replant the forests? This is actually a great idea (providing you have the land, not likely to work in New York, New York). The Australians were very keen on having carbon sink count as a means of offsetting CO2 emissions and it was included in Kyoto protocol.

After all, the fossil fuels were at one point in time locked away in biomass. By returning them to that state we take the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere where it might be contributing to the warming of the planet. If we really want to extend our energy use then we can cut the trees down, burn the biomass and as long as the trees are replanted it is a carbon dioxide neutral system. But wait, it gets even better:

We can use other plants too such as Corn or Sugarcane (warmer locations such as the Caribbean). Then instead of burning the fuel, we make booze! Well, perhaps not the booze we would want to make. We can make ethanol (or methanol—but you cannot drink methanol) and instead of it being in the rum (Bacardi and Don Q—made in Puerto Rico) we can make pure ethanol and use it as a transport fuel. Does this ring a bell? Remember Brazil: 3% gasoline in the ethanol to prevent the ultimate drink driving problem: One for you (car) & one for me! Sugarcane is already biomass in the sense that the cane is crushed to squeeze the sugar water out, the stalks are dried and then used to fuel the fire for the rum making process.

Recall that biomass has multiple advantages:

  • Increased employment in the mid-West.
  • Increased security of energy.
  • Increased lifetime of fossil fuels (because biomass it is a renewable energy we can save the fossil fuels for more important uses than burning!)
  • NET Carbon dioxide neutral!
  • Less pollution!
a handful of biomass
Biomass.
Credit: DOE / NREL, Warren Gretz
Pumps
A methanol and ethanol pump.
Credit: DOE / NREL

There are many concerns, however, the food vs. fuel issue and the energy intensity of growing certain biomass (use of natural gas, derived fertilizer for example, as there is not enough manure).

 

Methane

US Methane emissions by source
Surprisingly leaky pipes and the petroleum industry are not the biggest contributors; rather livestock and landfills (your junk) contribute >50% of the methane emissions! (1990 to 2014)
Credit: EPA

The CO2 is not the only gas that is contributing to the increased concentration in the atmosphere. Methane (CH4) is also being released into the atmosphere and as it is a more efficient greenhouse gas (one CH4 molecule is roughly equivalent to twenty-one CO2 molecules). So if we can plug the leaks that would help mitigate climate change (possibly).

Recall that coal mines can be a source of methane leaks. Two gigantic coal mines in Russia, for example, are responsible for much of that country's methane release. Capturing the methane and using it also helps lower greenhouse gas emissions (if it is replacing coal) because it has a higher efficiency (combusts at a higher temperature).

Animals, particularly cows, are another source of methane! I forget how many stomachs a cow has, my nephew (8-year-old) says 4! While processing the food they eat, the average cow will emit 280 liters of methane gas a day or about 119 pounds CH4/head/year (Johnson and. Ward, 1996). There is not much we can do to capture this short of a rather vulgar bovine attachment. However, if we were to be vegetarians, you can feel better about your personal contribution to the increased concentration of greenhouse gasses. But if you also eat a lot of rice (I love rice, being English it is our national food—with a good curry of course) then you help to produce a significant amount of methane. The rice paddies require fertilization, and being a stagnant water supply is low in oxygen, and so methane is produced.

 left, landfill, right, a rice field
Left: Landfill sites contribute approximately 18% of the anthropogenic methane.
Right: Reminiscent of all the Vietnam war movies, this rice paddy requires enough water to flood the field for rice to grow.
Credit: EPA

Bottom line: Teriyaki Beef with rice (the special at Spats last week — Splendid) is not the most environmentally friendly dish you can have! I should feel more guilty about driving the car to the office, that trip had the greater contribution to my greenhouse gas emissions!

Sequestration: Part 1

Sequestration is locking something away. With CO2 we wish to lock it away so it does not enter the atmosphere and contribute to climate change (possibly). So all we need is a location where high volumes of CO2 can be stored–trivial, right?

There are not too many locations where there are massive holes in the ground, but there are other options:

  • In the ocean
  • In minerals
  • In depleted oil and gas wells
  • In brine fields
  • In coal fields (unmineable)
  • In carbon Sinks
 Graphic representation of flue gas.
Flue gas: Nitrogen is blue, water is red with two white hydrogen atoms attached, carbon dioxide is gray with two purple spheres attached, there is some oxygen too. The where is Waldo question? Can you spot the single S atom (yellow)?
Credit: JPM

Most will be used in the US where appropriate. However, there is a significant and costly catch: we do not get pure carbon dioxide out of the stack of power plants! What goes in: fuel and air. What comes out: products of combustion and air. The products of combustion are mostly carbon dioxide and water with lesser quantities of NOx and sulfur dioxide, etc. The air that we used is where the problem is. Air is mostly nitrogen. We want the oxygen but have to let the nitrogen tag along unless we can afford to separate them (\$\$\$\$\$\$). For every 1 mole of oxygen, we get about 6 moles of nitrogen. We also add more air than is necessary to help the mixing process, necessary for combustion to take place. So the nitrogen that goes into the system comes out again and we will have to separate the carbon dioxide from the other gases, oxygen (from the excess air), water (product of combustion), and nitrogen (\$\$\$\$\$\$). In the flue gas image shown to the right, the molecules are shown very close together in an unrealistic representation (too high a density) for viewability.

We have the technology, but part of the cost of sequestration will be this separation process. If we did not separate the gases, we will have to pay more for the compression, transportation, and pumping (\$\$\$\$\$\$).

Watch the (4:46) video below. It is a good simulation overview of the carbon capture and storage approach.

Very simplistic overview of carbon capture and storage.

 

Sequestration: Part 2 - In the Ocean

Recall the carbon cycle: The key to this issue is waiting long enough for the CO2 in the atmosphere to reach equilibrium with the CO2 in the ocean, at which point a significant quantity of CO2 will have been "removed" from the atmosphere - the problem is time. As my daughter likes to say on our road trips "it is taking too long!" That is the case here. We can not afford to wait. However, the good news is that the ocean offers significant CO2 storage capabilities (for long-term timelines).

There are 3 approaches to this process:

Fertilize the ocean

Remember how crude oil is formed? If there were more "bugs" in the ocean (phytoplankton) then as they grow and reproduce they will absorb CO2 (remember this is photosynthesis)! They will die and decay but providing there are more of them and they are self-replicating (whatever the outcome of plankton sex is) then there will be more carbon in the ocean and less CO2 in the atmosphere. This is a carbon sink (more on this later). The ocean "bugs" can also grow shells, which they obtain from the dissolved minerals in the ocean and dissolved carbon dioxide. "She sells sea shells on the sea shore!" Try saying that 4 times as quickly as you can. So the shells can also capture CO2 for long periods of time.

 Plot showing much of the worlds carbon is in the ocean.

"The ocean plays a vital dominant role in the Earth's carbon cycle. The total amount of carbon in the ocean is about 50 times greater than the amount in the atmosphere, and is exchanged with the atmosphere on a time-scale of several hundred years." Credit NASA
The equilibrium between CO2 in the atmosphere and the ocean is dominated by the ocean capacity.
Graph showing the CO2 cycle in the ocean.
Once we get CO2 into the ocean is still has a complex internal recycling that occurs.
Credit: NETL

Inject CO2 into the ocean to form hydrates

Check out the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute [5]) for more information about this topic.

 Graphic showing the cycle of cleaned, compressed carbon dioxide.
The cleaned, compressed carbon dioxide needs to be transported to deep water if you wish to form an underwater CO2 lake.
Credit: IBI
 Graphic showing the global carbon cycle.
The Global Carbon Cycle.
Credit: ILI

Inject CO2 to the bottom of the ocean to form a CO2 lake (underwater).

If you are a visual learner and would like to see liquid CO2 fill a beaker underwater (considerable depth): click on the image below to download and watch a short video.

 link to a silent video [6]
Credit: MBARI

But there is a lot of concern about perturbing the ocean so this is not a very likely solution.

Sequestration: Part 3 - In Oil fields

While oil fields are not exactly a great big hole in the ground (remember it is a porous rock that contains the oil), there are lots of small holes and they can be filled with CO2. If the field is still producing it has the added effect of enhancing the oil extraction process (enhanced oil recovery). Remember that associated natural gas helps to provide the pressure so that the oil will freely flow out of the ground (so you do not have to pump). This is very similar and is a technology that is being used.

If the oil field is not producing then you will not obtain any extra oil or gas but you might benefit from capping the abandoned natural gas wells that are leaking methane into the atmosphere.

 Map of the United States showing the major oil fields.
The US has large oil fields and many are below existing power plants. Notice too that the >1,000 MW power plants are relatively few in number (about 100).
Credit: NETL
 Picture of a nodding donkey pumping oil out of the ground.
A nodding donkey which is slowly pumping oil out of the ground.
Credit: EPA

 

Sequestration: Part 4 - In Brine fields

 Map of the United States showing the concentrations of saline formations (scattered all over the country).
Salt, salt, everywhere but no French fries to eat!
Credit: NETL

According to the U.S. Department of Energy:

Saline Formations. Sequestration of CO2 in deep saline formations does not produce value-added by-products, but it has other advantages. First, the estimated carbon storage capacity of saline formations in the United States is large, making them a viable long-term solution. It has been estimated that deep saline formations in the United States could potentially store up to 500 billion tons of CO2.

Second, most existing large CO2 point sources are within easy access to a saline formation injection point, and therefore sequestration in saline formations is compatible with a strategy of transforming large portions of the existing U.S. energy and industrial assets to near-zero carbon emissions via low-cost carbon sequestration retrofits.

Assuring the environmental acceptability and safety of CO2 storage in saline formations is a key component of this program element. Determining that CO2 will not escape from formations and either migrate up to the earth’s surface or contaminate drinking water supplies is a key aspect of sequestration research. Although much work is needed to better understand and characterize sequestration of CO2 in deep saline formations, a significant baseline of information and experience exists. For example, as part of enhanced oil recovery operations, the oil industry routinely injects brines from the recovered oil into saline reservoirs, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has permitted some hazardous waste disposal sites that inject liquid wastes into deep saline formations.

The Norwegian oil company, Statoil [7], is injecting approximately one million tons per year of recovered CO2 into the Utsira Sand, a saline formation under the sea associated with the Sleipner West Heimdal gas reservoir. The amount being sequestered is equivalent to the output of a 150-megawatt coal-fired power plant. This is the first commercial CO2 geological sequestration facility in the world.

Text is from the fossil energy sequestration page of U.S. Department of Energy.

 Bar graph showing the potential storage capacities for CO2.
There are very large potential storage capacities for CO2 in the ocean, geologic formations, and in the biosphere.
Credit: DOE

Sequestration: Part 5 -In Coal

I get to do some of this in my research with colleagues here at Penn State and elsewhere. Coal is a wonderful material! While it looks solid, if you select the appropriate rank of coal, the structure is full of very tiny holes, so small they are too small to be holes–so we call them pores. The very small pores are known as micropores and "here is where the magic happens" (for you celebrity crib fans). There are larger pores, and also very large pores or cracks in the coal, which are very useful for increasing the permeability (speed of access of the gasses into the coal).

 Graphic of the interconnected cleat system of coal.
Coal can have a complex interconnected cleat system (cracks) and lots of gas storage potential indicated by the green spheres within a molecular model of coal (from my Doctoral thesis!)—I knew it would have a use!
Credit: JPM

In the gas phase (there are three phases: solid, liquid, and gas for most things) the molecules or CO2 are bouncing around. We can increase the pressure (more gas molecules in the same volume as before) but that takes work. The molecules like their space and anyway we are decreasing their entropy. But if we put a molecule of CO2 into a coal micropore there is an attraction between the matrix and the CO2 molecule. Now the CO2 does not need as much space, it wants to associate with the coal and thus we can put in more CO2 into coal than we could into the same volume of empty space (bloody marvelous!).

There are a couple of other advantages too. Remember that methane is often in these pores too (if we are at the bituminous rank range), well, CO2 acts like an invading army and kicks out the methane (it competitively replaces the methane molecules). Thus, you could sequester CO2 into a deep coal seam, collect the methane that is released from the coal (coal bed methane), combust that and put the CO2 formed back into the coal seam. Thus forming a closed loop of emission free (CO2 anyway) electricity for as long as the methane lasts. As we have lots of coal, much of it is close to large point sources of CO2 (such as a power plant), then this all makes sense.

 Graphic of three gases (nitrogen, methane, and carbon dioxide).
The three gases shown Nitrogen (blue), methane (gray and green) and carbon dioxide are similar in size.
Credit: JPM

There are only a couple of minor details, the main one being cost. If the pumping and separation of the CO2 costs $ then the price of the electricity generated will increase. We are not yet in a competitive region for any of the sequestration technologies (maybe enhanced oil recovery). Selling methane certainly helps to lower the cost of sequestering CO2 into coal but the cost is still too high. There are a couple of locations where we are currently pumping CO2 into coal.

Details here if you would like to know more.

Energy Conservation & Efficiencies

Conservation

If you live on campus you would have seen OPP (Office of Physical Plant) driving about with the slogan "bright students dim the lights" on the side of the trucks. If we conserve, we use less energy, if we use less energy we use less fuel, if we use less fuel then there is less pollution (particulates, NOx, mercury, SO2, CO) and if we consider CO2 a pollutant (many do not) then we can have a slower pace of climate change. As we are using more and more energy each year, conservation tends not to be a reduction in the quantity of energy we used but rather a reduction in the growth of energy that we use each year. We can achieve a reduction of energy if we enter a significant depression, (look at the dates) and we can use less energy if the weather is kind (warmer winters and cooler summers).

Bottom line: we can conserve but we cannot conserve our way out of the problem unless we do far more, and change our behavior radically. Not very likely to happen.

Screenshot of a program which enables power-saving features on a Macintosh Computer.
By sleeping the computer it reduces the energy it is using. It is far more reliable than me remembering to turn off the monitor! Technology will be very important if we are to conserve more.
Credit: JPM

Technology can also help us conserve energy. Sensors can detect if there is anyone in the room. Computers “spin down their disks” or dim the monitor to save energy. The image below is the Energy Conservation screen from my laptop computer (where I am writing this). For a laptop, the issue of conservation is very important (as it directly relates to battery life). Some of the new generation of computer chips for laptops will actually slow their clock speed when not connected to the mains to prolong mobility from the cord.

Here are some conservation tips that you can do:

  • Shower instead of taking a bath (I would not abdicate cutting the shower out).
  • Shower with a friend (good clean fun). A shower uses less water than a bath and you also save on hot water and thus energy.
  • Purchase energy efficient devices, natural gas furnaces, and lighting.
  • Turn off unnecessary lights etc.

Efficiencies

An older car and a newer car sitting in a front yard.
My imported rental car and my father-in-law's ancient American beast of burden.
Credit: JPM

That SUV is not very efficient. The model T ford managed 12 mpg, and a SUV might make 24 mpg, not a major improvement in over 100 years. Especially when other countries are driving vehicles which obtain 60 mpg. We are not going to stay home to drive less, (the average American car will drive 12,000 miles each year), so an efficient vehicle will result in a lot less CO2. The age of the vehicle has an impact as we are tending to get better (but slowly) at efficiencies. Fortunately, we have much greater success with the other pollutants through technologies such as the catalytic converter. For carbon dioxide emissions to be reduced from personal vehicles, efficiencies need to be improved.

This is all discussed in Unit I (appliances, lighting, etc.) and II (vehicles). If you do not recall the material, go and take a look at it again.

 Graph showing the increasing efficiency of cars and light trucks.
New Light-Duty Vehicle Fuel Efficiency, 1975 - 2025.
Credit: Whitehouse

 

Reduce N2O

NOx consists of the following three gasses: NO, N2O, and NO2

Which one is also a greenhouse gas?

N2O is also known as laughing gas (used at the dentist during tooth pulling). But due to the very long lifetime in the atmosphere, where it is a greenhouse gas, we should limit how much we let into the atmosphere. Thus all the solutions to NOx removal (acid deposition), or mitigation, or prevention, are applicable to N2O reductions.

I'm not telling you the title of this page

If having children is the problem then population growth restrictions might be the answer. Every child born in the US is going to want to have the same things:

  • Hot water
  • Gaming console
  • Cars
  • Clean clothes
  • Air conditioning
  • Heating
  • Goods and services
  • Smart phones
  • Hoverboards

All require energy! Some countries are currently promoting population growth restrictions, some are decreasing in size due to other reasons (AIDS being one of them). This will impact how easy or hard it is to reach the greenhouse gas reductions required.

The U.S. is growing. Every man, woman, and child will use energy, which produces carbon dioxide.

Line graph showing the United States population steadily rising from close to 1 million in 1790 to over 250 million in 1990.
United States population growth chart (see the current population clock here [8]).

China and India are the countries to watch. While China is the most populous nation, India will overtake China in about 2015. Think about the impact on energy use when the Indians discover (can afford) air conditioning! Should we discourage their advances while maintaining our relatively lavish existence? The Kyoto Protocol uses the language "Every Country has the right to develop." Unfortunately, we can not afford to have these countries follow the same pathway with the same errors and the same environmental impact.

Technology transfer is a great idea but who should pay. Why should AB&B give away low NOx burners when they have investors expecting a return on investment? The emissions from the developing countries are what have kept the US out of active participation in Kyoto Protocol developments. Economic implications for the US without worldwide greenhouse gas reductions!

Is nuclear the answer?

If we need a technology that provides electricity without greenhouse gas emissions, we already have one: Nuclear.

 Picture of a nuclear power plant.
A nuclear power plant in California. One of about 106 96 reactors in the country (U.S.) producing  almost 20% of the electricity! The reactor building is framed by the large cooling towers that emit water vapor and steam into the environment (no nuclear radiation from the cooling towers).
Credit: NREL, Warren Gtetz

Recall the discussion on the nuclear future for the US? We have an aging nuclear reactor "fleet" and the predictions are that the percent of power generated from nuclear is going to decrease (for 2 reasons: as the economy and energy production grows the output of nuclear will remain about the same but the percent contribution will be less AND decommissioning of nuclear plants will result in a loss of capacity). The likely contender for filling the gaps in our energy supply: natural gas! Perhaps fear of climate change will overcome the fear of nuclear power? We have no significant  plans to build new reactors currently so if this is going to play a role in CO2 emission growth reduction NOW is the time to act! The decommissioning of nuclear plants is increasing (Three Mile Island will close) as it is cheaper to use natural gas but that will increase CO2 emissions! There are some policy changes pending that may slow this down by valuing the electricity produced without CO2 emissions more.

Renewable Energy

If we don't expect nuclear to be an option (at least in the near future, for the US) then renewable energy may offer part of the solution. Recall that we only have significant electricity production from hydroelectric at this time but wind power is increasing its output at a rapid pace with perhaps a greater contribution for biomass (liquid fuels).

The cost of electricity is a key issue here. The renewable energies are more expensive! While wind has managed to reduce its cost dramatically, we are still waiting for solar cells and the other renewable technologies to become competitive. Of course, renewable energy enhances our national security, reduces air pollution (depending on what it is replacing as the energy generation source) and, of importance in this lesson, they produce no CO2!

 EIA graphic showing growth in renewable energy historic and predictions.
EIA graphic for renewable energy growth.
Credit: EIA

 

Need More Information?

These are some sites to gather additional information. A student who would like a better grade will go and spend some time thinking about what they have already learned and try to build on that foundation of knowledge. You do not need to all have exactly the same learning experience; spend some time on what interests you! It will help your grade and your ability to produce quality material. Information is power!

Climate Change (EPA) [9]

What is up with the Weather (PBS) [10]

Lesson 12 Climate Change Solutions Coverage Map

Hover over the text below for more details. After this complete the Lesson 12 quiz.

Accessible Version (word document) [11]

Deliverable

After looking at this map, please take the L12 quiz.


Source URL: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee101/node/773

Links
[1] http://unfccc.int/2860.php
[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/what-did-us-agree-to-paris-climate-deal-2017-5
[3] https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement
[4] https://www.epa.gov/emissions-trading-resources/how-do-emissions-trading-programs-work
[5] http://www.mbari.org/ghgases/deep/release.htm#frame
[6] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee101/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.egee101/files/Lesson10/L10_CO2_sequest1_MBARI.mpg
[7] http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/content/carbon-capture-and-storage
[8] https://www.census.gov/popclock/
[9] http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
[10] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/index.html
[11] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee101/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.egee101/files/Lesson12/Lesson%2012%20Coverage%20Map.docx