COP21/IPCC CO2 EMISSION REDUCTION GOALS AND REQUIRED ANNUAL CAPITAL COSTS

This article describes the current global CO2eq emission from all sources, not just energy-related, and the COP21/IPCC goals regarding reducing CO2eq during the 2017 - 2100 period to avoid excessive global warming above pre-industrial (the 1861 - 1880 period). See URL of The Emissions Gap Report 2017.

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/22070/EGR_201...

 

Also presented are the current annual world capital investments in renewable energy systems, and three estimates of the required annual investments to achieve the CO2eq reductions during future years.

 

COP21/IPCC Temperature Goals

 

Table 3 shows the required reductions of CO2eq emissions to accomplish COP21/IPCC temperature goals. However, the world CO2eq, all sources, are on a “business as usual” trajectory to increase from 51.7 billion metric ton in 2014 to about 64.7 b Mt by 2030, based on an IPCC-assumed growth rate greater than of 2015 and 2016. See table 2.

 

If so, IPCC computer models indicate the temperature increase would be about 4.3 C above pre-industrial by 2100. Investments in RE systems would need to immediately increase from about $280 b/y (the average of the last 6 years) to at least $1.5 trillion/y to achieve the required reductions of CO2eq in 2030. See table 1.

 

Much of the lower-cost CO2eq reductions (low-hanging fruit) would be achieved during the 2017 - 2030 period. It would become increasingly more costly to achieve additional CO2eq reductions after 2030. See tables 1, 2 and 3.

 

Table 1/CO2eq

Baseline*

Target

Reduction

Temperature goal

 

 b Mt

b Mt

b Mt

 

COP21 Pledges, cond./uncond.

 59.4

53.4

Actual, 6.0

 

COP21 Pledges should have been

 59.4

41.8

Shortfall, 17.6

 2.0 C by 2100

COP21 Pledges should have been

 59.4

36.5

Shortfall, 22.9

1.5 C by 2100

* Provided all current policies and all pledges, made prior to COP21, are 100% implemented.

 

Table 1A/Year

2030

2100

2080

2100

Goal/World CO2eq

 b Mt

Delta C

 b Mt

 b Mt

Business as usual trajectory

64.7

4.3

 

 

Current policy trajectory

59.4

3.7

 

 

Unconditional NDCs of COP21

55.5

3.2

 

 

Conditional NDCs of COP21

53.4

3.0

 

 

2 C above pre-industrial by 2100

 41.8

2.0

 0

 

1.5 C above pre-industrial by 2100

36.5

1.5

 

0

 

Future Impact of COP21 on World Temperatures in 2100

 

Paris Conference of the Parties, COP21: COP21 is a non-binding agreement, which aims to limit the world temperature to 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level (the 1861 - 1880 period) by 2100. By 2015, the increase was about 1.0 C above pre-industrial. That leaves just 1.0 C to go by 2100, if a 2 C increase is the limit, or 0.5 C, if a 1.5 C increase is the limit.

 

This may appear minor, but it is not, because the BAU CO2eq trajectory points to higher temperature increases by 2100. See IPCC “The Emissions Gap Report 2017”

Comments on table 1A

 

1) The world CO2eq, all sources, including Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF), are on a “business as usual” trajectory to become about 64.7 b Mt by 2030. If so, the increase above pre-industrial would be about 4.3 C by 2100.

 

There has been a reduction in the rate of increase of emissions during the past few years. The IPCC BAU CO2eq projection for 2030 is based on a higher CO2eq growth rate than the actual growth rates in 2015 and 2016. However, the IEA reported a 1.4% increase in energy-related CO2eq for 2017. See URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/summary-of-world-co2eq-...

World investments in RE systems have averaged about $280 b/y for the 2011 - 2016 period (6 years). That level likely would lead to CO2eq emissions of about 64.7 b Mt by 2030. China has spent about $80 b/y during the past 3 years to finally deal with its horrendous pollution problems.

 

2) The world CO2eq emissions, all sources, would be about 58.9 b Mt by 2030, with full implementation of all policies and pledges made prior to COP21. If so, the increase would be about 3.7 C by 2100. Investments of at least $600 b/y, starting immediately, would be required to achieve the IPCC trajectory of 58.9 b Mt by 2030. See note 1.

 

3) The world CO2eq emissions, all sources, would be about 55.2 b Mt by 2030, with full implementation of UNCONDITIONAL COP21 pledges by 2030, per IPCC. If so, the increase would be about 3.2 C by 2100.

 

4) The world CO2eq emissions, all sources, would be about 52.8 b Mt by 2030, with full implementation of CONDITIONAL COP21 pledges by 2030. If so, the increase would be about 3.0 C by 2100.

 

5) The world CO2eq emissions, all sources, would be about 41.8 b Mt by 2030, with an ADDITIONAL 52.8 - 41.8 = 11.0 b Mt of CO2eq emissions reduction by 2030. If so, the increase would be about 2.0 C by 2100. That additional reduction is not trivial, as it is equivalent to about 11 times the total annual emissions of the entire EU28 transportation sector.

 

6) The world CO2eq emissions, all sources, would be about 36.5 b Mt by 2030, with an ADDITIONAL 52.8 - 36.5 = 16.3 b Mt of CO2eq emissions reduction by 2030. If so, the increase would be about 1.5 C by 2100. Investments of at least $1.5 trillion/y, starting immediately, would be required to achieve the IPCC trajectory of 36.5 b Mt by 2030.

 

NOTE 1: Item 2 is a big if, because since COP1 (Kyoto-1990), all major developed nations have failed to fully implement all policies and pledges to decrease CO2eq emissions.

http://www.nature.com/news/prove-paris-was-more-than-paper-promises...

 

NOTE 2: The US had pledged a CO2eq reduction of about 1 b Mt from 2015 - 2015. However, due to the US withdrawal from COP21, that reduction may be less, which means other nations would have to make up the difference, not only regarding emission reduction, but, more importantly, also regarding the scheduled US contribution to the Green Climate Fund of about $25 b in 2020, and much greater annual amounts thereafter. China and India, major polluters and claiming “developing nation status”, would not pay a dime.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-us-leaving-cop21-a-...

Sequestration of CO2 on a Massive Scale: The IPCC assumes emission reductions for each year after 2030, to ultimately achieve:

- ZERO emissions by about 2080 to achieve 1.5 C by 2100

- ZERO emissions by about 2100 to achieve 2.0 C by 2100

This would require sequestration of CO2 on a huge scale. Wherever sequestration demonstration plants were built during the past 15 years, all ended up as expensive failures.

 

NOTE: "This is a miracle scenario of the IPCC, in which the climate models reach 1.5 C. The scenario assumes that carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, which stores carbon dioxide in large quantities underground, is to be used on a large scale. But this would be far too expensive. The scenario is based on self-delusion."

 http://www.dw.com/en/earth-on-track-toward-2-degree-global-warming-...

 

Table 3/World CO2eq

by 2030

by 2100

Probability

 b Mt

 C incr.

%

All sources in 2014

51.7

 

 

IPCC; baseline estimate

64.7

4.3

 

IPCC; current policies fully implemented

59.4

3.7

 

IPCC; unconditional COP21 pledges

55.5

 3.2

 

IPCC; all COP21 pledges

53.4

3.0

 

IPCC; required for 2.0 C

41.8

2.0

66

IPCC; required for 1.5 C

36.5

1.5

66

Reduction % from 59.4, 2 C; 1 - 41.8/59.4

30.0

 

 

Reduction % from 59.4, 1.5 C; 1 - 36.5/59.4

39.0

 

 

Three Capital Cost Estimates to Implement COP21/IPCC Goals

 

Table 4 summarizes the results of the three capital cost estimates. The Vermont basis is for 90% of all primary energy from renewables by 2050, not just electrical primary energy, which is only 35% of all primary energy.

 

Table 4/Basis

 Goal

 Capital Cost 2017 - 2030

 

Above pre-industrial

$Trillion/y

Author

 2.0 C by 2100

1.2

Author

 1.5 C by 2100

1.5

IPCC

 2.0 C by 2100

Up to 1.9

IPCC

 1.5 C by 2100

Up to 2.5

Vermont basis

1.5 C by 2100

 4.1

 

Capital Cost Estimate 1: Current world investments in RE systems of about $280 b/y, which have been about the same for the 2011 - 2016 period (6 years), likely would lead to emissions of about 64.7 b Mt by 2030; China has spent about $80 b/y during the past 3 years to finally deal with its horrendous pollution problems. See Figures 2 (worldwide investments) and 4 (China, EU and US investments) of URL.

http://euanmearns.com/worldwide-investment-in-renewable-energy-reac...

 

As the RE percentage of the world’s primary energy has increased from 19.0% in 2011 to a mere 19.3% in 2015, it is obvious, this spending rate has been grossly inadequate for decades, as it did not prevent the world’s emissions from steadily increasing, and it did not cause a sufficient shift towards renewables.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-world-making-almost...

 

Investments of at least $600 b/y, starting immediately, would be required to achieve the IPCC trajectory of 59.4 b Mt by 2030, which is based on full implementation of all existing policies and pledges made prior to COP21.

 

However, table 5 shows, the world would need to immediately increase spending on RE systems from about $280 b/y to at least $1.5 trillion/y, a factor of 5, to achieve 1.5 C by 2100.

 

Even higher levels of investment of $2.0 to $2.5 trillion/y would be needed each year after 2030 to reduce emissions to ZERO by 2080 to achieve 1.5 C by 2100, per IPCC trajectory, plus investments for partial wind and solar system replacements and refurbishments, while expanding new systems, all while the gross world product, GWP, and population likely would be increasing.

 

Based on the dismal outcomes of twenty prior COPs, starting with Kyoto in 1990, the additional capital investments to achieve such huge emission reductions likely would not take place.

http://www.nature.com/news/prove-paris-was-more-than-paper-promises...

 

NOTE: According to current World Bank data, the GWP was about $75.6 trillion in 2016, at current market prices and exchange rates. The total GDP of high-income countries was about $48.4 trillion. This is the appropriate base for funding RE investment costs, because only the higher-income countries are committed to contribute to the cost of the emission reductions of COP21. These costs would be for their own economies plus for the economies of poorer countries, such as India, Turkey, etc., which were promised at least $100 b in 2020 from the Green Climate Fund, and more each year thereafter, to entice them to sign up for COP21. If the US leaves COP21, the base would become about $29.0 trillion.

 

NOTE: It would be very unlikely, the remaining higher-income countries would commit up to 4% of their GDP to fund the required emission reductions to limit the temperature increase to 2 C or 1.5 C by 2100. For example, the US commitment would be about 0.04 x $20 trillion/y = $80 b/y, of which $55 b would be spent on RE within the US and about $25 b/y would be given to the UN’s Green Climate Fund. Without the US putting at least $25 b/y into the Green Climate Fund, the other countries would have to make up the difference. No wonder the hue and cry, and lambasting of the US, and “no renegotiation”. Turkey declared: No money, no ratification!

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD

 

 

Table 5

 2030 CO2

2100 Temp Incr.

Annual

2016 - 2030

 

 

b Mt

C

 trillion$/y

 trillion$

1

Current trajectory

64.7

4.3

0.3

4.2

2

UNEP trajectory

 59.4

3.7

0.6

8.4

3

COP21 uncond’l only

55.5

3.2

0.9

12.6

4

COP21 all pledges

53.4

3.0

 

 

5

COP21 for 2.0 C

41.8

2.0

1.2

 16.8

6

COP21 for 1.5 C

 36.5

1.5

1.5

21.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

7

2080 goal, per UNEP

Zero

1.5

2.0 - 2.5

 

8

2100 goal, per UNEP

Zero

2.0

2.0

 

 

Explanation of Table 5

 

- Row 1 is the BAU trajectory of CO2 by 2030, all sources, based on annual investments in RE systems of about $280 b/y, which would result in a temperature increase of 4.3 C above pre-industrial by 2100. Total investments would be $4.2 trillion during the 2016 - 2030 period.

 

- Row 2 is the IPCC trajectory of CO2, all sources, if all policies and pledges, made prior to COP21, were fully implemented, which would result in a temperature increase of 3.7 C above pre-industrial by 2100, based on annual investments in RE systems of about $600 b/y. Total investments would be $8.4 trillion during the 2016 - 20130 period.

 

- Row 3 is the trajectory if all unconditional COP21 pledges were fully implemented, which would result in a temperature increase of 3.2 C above pre-industrial by 2100, based on annual investments in RE systems of about $900 b/y. Total investments would be $12.6 trillion during the 2016 - 20130 period.

 

- Row 4 is the trajectory if all unconditional and conditional COP21 pledges were fully implemented, which would result in a temperature increase of 3.0 C above pre-industrial by 2100.

 

- Row 5 is the trajectory, which would result in a temperature increase of 2.0 C above pre-industrial by 2100, based on annual investments in RE systems of about $1.2 trillion/y. Total investments would be $16.8 trillion during the 2016 - 2030 period.

 

- Row 6 is the trajectory, which would result in a temperature increase of 1.5 C above pre-industrial by 2100, based on annual investments in RE systems of about $1.5 trillion/y. Total investments would be $21.0 trillion during the 2016 - 2030 period.

 

- Row 7: Beyond 2030, the trajectory for ZERO CO2 emissions by 2080 to achieve 1.5 C by 2100, would be steeper and more expensive per year, than for 2.0 C by 2100.

 

Capital Cost Estimate 2: IPCC estimates reducing world CO2eq from the BAU projection of 64.7 b Mt in 2030 by 30 to 40 b Mt during 16 years (2017 - 2030), would require up to $30 to $40 trillion, up to $1.9 to $2.5 trillion/y, starting immediately, based on a cost of up to $100/Mt of CO2eq reduction (low-hanging fruit). The world’s current level of investment in CO2eq reduction is about $280 b/y, the average of the past 6 years. See URL.

http://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-world-way-off-track-on-paris-ac...

 

Capital Cost Estimate 3: The Vermont goal is to have 90% of all primary energy from RE by 2050, not just electrical energy, which is only about 35% of primary energy. The capital cost estimate of the Vermont energy transformation is about $33 b during the 2017 - 2050 period, about $1.0 b/y, as estimated by Energy Action Network. See URL. The current level of Vermont capital investment in RE is about $150 million/y. A 7-fold increase would be required.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-90-percent-re...

 

Prorating the $33 b cost of Vermont’s energy transformation for 10 billion people would be $33 b x 10000/0.625 = $528 trillion. It would be 12,380/47,000 x 528 = $139 trillion, after adjusting for per capita income. See note.

 

NOTE: 

The gross world product was about $78 trillion, or $78 trillion/6.3 b = $12,380/capita, in 2014.

Vermont’s GDP/capita was about $47,000 in 2015.

http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.pdf

 

World spending on RE was about $280 b in 2015, of which about $80 b by China. Some RE people, during and after COP21, called for RE spending to be increased to $1.0 trillion/y, which is a nice round number, but would be grossly inadequate. It also shows some RE people having a significant degree of disconnect from reality.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/ffp-glo...

 

Table 6/World Capital Cost

Period

Annual Capital cost

World under-spending factor

$Trillion

 y

 $trillion/y

 

139

2016 - 2050

4.09

 13.6

139

2016 - 2100

1.65

5.5

 

 

 

Views: 196

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

First Prize

NE Book Festival

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT (excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010  http://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?"  http://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” http://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

© 2018   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service