date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:52:50 +0100 from: Merylyn McKenzie Hedger subject: FW: Battelle Labs climate thoughts to: "'m.hulme@uea.ac.uk'" Thought this chilling stuff might be of interest. > -----Original Message----- > From: Charlie Kronick/Chris Gore [SMTP:canuk@gn.apc.org] > Sent: 23 April 1999 02:29 > To: > Subject: Battelle Labs climate thoughts > > Dear Colleagues, > > "If engineers ran the worldS.. > > I attended an interesting and potentially worrying meeting today ( > Friday 16 April) at Chatham House, the Royal Institute for > International > Affairs in London. It was a presentation by Dr Jae Edmonds and > Richard > Benedick - formerly chief negotiator of the US in the Montreal > Protocol > - of Battelle Memorial Institute in the US on their Global Energy > Technology Strategy. The project is a public private partnership - > with lots of industry participation - EPRI in the US, plus BP- Amoco, > some Japanese utilities and many other partners, plus what seems to be > fairly extensive > > The presentation was fascinating - as much for what was not said as > for > what was included -with further discussion from a variety of industry > and academic practitioners. It was a fairly technocratic crowd, > typical > of any Chatham House gathering, with Mike Grubb in the chair, and only > John Lanchberry of the RSPB (here in the UK) representing the anything > like an alternative viewpoint. > > The presentation was complex, and fairly long winded. It represents > the > summary of the first year of three year study looking at a > technological > strategy to respond to climate change. While nodding their heads > towards policy issues, this presentation at least was dominated by a > top > down analysis of how technological innovation could deliver > stabilisation of carbon concentrations in the atmosphere at 2X > pre-industrial levels.(There was no discussion if this was an > appropriate target, but seemed a de-facto admission that 2X was the > best > that anyone could hope forS) This was compared for the purposes of > illustration with the IPCC IS 92a reference scenario - more or less > business as usual. Battelle ran the model with a variety of > assumptions, including plentiful oil and gas, scarce oil and gas, coal > as a bridging fuel (God help us) and a rosie, cuddly solar future. It > was an economic model, attempting to determine what the new suite of > technologies might be that would deliver a permanent 550 ppmv future. > > > > I couldn't begin even to summarise all the arguments - they have a web > site - http://gtsp.pnl.gov - note it does not include "www" - which > should have all the main technical papers. > > The key conclusions of the presentation are relatively simple to > summarise: > * anything like stabilisation at 550 ppmv will require relatively high > levels of performance from technologies that are relatively > unsophisticated at the present time > * technology will be central to any response to cc > * need to reverse current trends in energy R&D spending > * carbon management is basically risk managementS > > These conclusions are relatively anondyne ,but what was interesting > and > disturbing was the technology mix that emerged from a relatively > complete presentation of one model run: > > 1. The good news: nuclear power was nearly a non-factor in any > future > that you care to name. > 2. The bad news: solar (their short hand for renewables) was barely > any > bigger. > 3. Energy efficiency was significant but S > 4. The key new technologies were carbon capture, carbon transport, > carbon sequestration, and de-carbonisation and in some variations some > types of synthetic fuels. > > They touched upon every example of deep ocean injection, > sequestration, > carbon stripping, hydrogen from methane, transformation into calcium > carbonate, etc. etc. There was a nod to every "not here, not now" > response to reducing carbon emissions ever conceived, and several that > have barely seen the light of day - there was even one enthusiast for > genetically engineered carbon sinksS. > > It was a classic top down, technologically driven performance. > > There were some interesting assumptions imbedded in the conclusions: > > n a world government, or at least some kind of global regime of > governance would make this system work (the WTO perhaps?) > n current climate policy - the KP with its first steps to incremental > reductions of ghgs - could be a red-herring, distracting vital > attention > away from key policies and measures. > n emissions caps, and general policies like carbon taxes could obscure > from the target of protecting the climate system > n policy measures - whether improving local air quality, transport > efficiency, banning sports utility vehicles in the US (this was > Benedick's suggestion, not mine I'll have you know) were much more > likely to be effective than any ongoing ratcheting down of emissions > targets > n at the moment, Government policies are largely inconsistent -e.g. US > negotiating a target, but not implementing any measures to meet it. > > > Now I'm not sure where these guys fit into the continuum of US > responses > to cc, but there is a slightly worrying synchronicity with the new US > legislation which tends to ignore the UNFCCC process in favour of > early > implementation, on their terms. Though I have my doubts about the > ultimate benefits of the global political process delivering a > suitable > solution to cc, I am even more worried about a group of engineers > ignoring social constraints or even such goals as a more equitable > allocation of future emissions. > > I think that the analyses probably offer some really useful and > interesting information, but I would be very interested to hear the > views of US colleagues on the political positioning of the GTSP. It > is > not a value free zone, and its enthusiasm for various kinds of carbon > sequestration as opposed to support for renewables and any kind of > bottom up approach seems almost a calculated play for the more > reactionary aspects of the North American/Japanese axis on climate > mitigation responses. What do you all think? > > ***************************** > > Charlie Kronick > Director > CANUK > 49 Wellington Street > London WC2E 7BN > Tel (+44) 171-836 1110 > Fax (+44) 171-497 0447 > > ****************************