Late last week saw the public release of the new Shell energy scenarios, under the heading “New Lens Scenarios”. This is always a much anticipated moment in Shell, a bit like the Olympics as it only happens every few years – the last ones were released in 2008. In the interim many people across the company get involved in the scenario process through workshops and meetings, but the core team manages to keep the final product under wraps until the big day. While we might get an early sniff of the story, the final product always contains new themes and ideas, designed not to recast the status quo paradigm, but to challenge and surprise where possible.
So it is with Mountains and Oceans, the two new scenarios that look out to the very end of this century, a first in terms of “viewing distance”. I won’t attempt to tell the whole scenario story here, better to direct you to the website, here. But the climate stories buried within them are of real interest and should act as a wake up call for governments around the world.
In my post last week I discussed the idea that the CO2 issue is best thought of as a stock problem, in other words fossil CO2 released from the “geosphere” is accumulating in the ocean/atmosphere system and adding to the background greenhouse warming that makes this planet habitable. Roughly, each additional trillion tonnes of carbon that is released makes the planet another 2°C hotter.
This has been shown by Allen et. al., Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne, Nature Vol 458, 30 April 2009. The key chart is shown below. 
This means that the focus of policymakers should be on the cumulative emissions of carbon over the long term, rather than on actual emissions on any given date. As such, climate policy needs to focus on limiting the accumulation, rather than simply slowing down the rate of emissions. For example, using energy more efficiently for the same level of production or GDP or supplementing the energy mix with renewable resources could well reduce annual emissions, but may do nothing to limit the accumulation over time. More renewable energy also gives policy makers a sense that they are addressing the problem of how to meet the surging demand for energy and also manage emissions, but over the long run it will just take a little longer to reach the same accumulation of carbon. Using up current proven reserves of oil gas and coal (about 900 billion tonnes of carbon), whether over 50 years, 60 years or 90 years, still delivers the same climate result.
By contrast, deploying carbon capture and storage (CCS) and eventually linking it with any use of fossil resources resolves the accumulation issue. The New Lens Scenarios demonstrate this point very well.
In the Mountains scenario, which sees natural gas use grow to become the backbone of the world energy supply, the politics of the day allows CCS to start serious deployment in the 2030s and rapidly increase to peak deployment in the 2060s. As the energy mix shifts later in the century, CCS use declines somewhat. By 2100, emissions are effectively zero, with the prospect of some drawdown of atmospheric CO2 in the 22nd Century as CCS is combined with the use of biomass for energy. Importantly, cumulative emissions are capped and the amount of warming is limited, albeit not at 2°C.
The Oceans scenario tells a different story. The underlying politics and social trends see more focus on renewable energy early on, with CCS not seriously deployed until 20-30 years later than Mountains and never growing to the same level. Although solar PV becomes very substantial in the energy mix, the time it takes to win the day allows cumulative carbon emissions to grow well past the Mountains scenario, adding to the potential warming by the end of the century. Oceans also caps the accumulation by 2100.
Both scenarios make extensive use of CCS, but delaying deployment while lured by the attractiveness of a high renewable energy future has a real downside, more warming.
We can see the evidence of government focus on renewable energy in the recent NER 300 funding in Europe. Despite the goal of establishing a CCS demonstration programme, no funds were delivered to CCS projects in Europe and the money was granted to renewable energy projects. Green politics is fast becoming a distraction from the real climate priority of managing cumulative emissions, which requires CCS.
The scenarios are designed to tell stories and get us to think about the implications of the energy choices that we make. They are not forecasts or predictions, but they do represent viable alternative pathways which are economically, socially and technologically feasible. Enjoy the challenges posed.
David,
Your “well over half full today” assessment is based on climate models which we know have demonstrated limited skill. While your assessment suggests that ~1.2C of warming is already “baked in”, actual warming is no more than 0.5C today; and, perhaps as little as half that number, based on the actual instrument data, without adjustments.
This tells me that there is significant uncertainty about our current situation; and, even greater uncertainty about our future situation. However, I believe you are correct that CCS would be critical, if the modeled futures were reasonably accurate.
Ed,
The thinking behind this piece is based largely on the paper by Allen et. al. which I have referenced. In fact they appear to show a somewhat lower climate sensitivity (the white crosses on the chart) than many others.
David
David, what do you think could be the scale at which CCS could be developed over the next 40 years ? It seems the scale at which CO2 would have to be captured and stored would make it only one part of the required solution. Efficiency and renewables being the others.
In that case, we cannot afford to waste time in either direction. CCS, renewables and efficiency all have to be deployed fast and at much bigger scale. One should not be developed at the expense of the other. All three should be developed at the expense of fossil fuels.
Seems to me that Shell should develop a scenario in which that is the case. It may not be Shell’s preferred scenario, but with scientific consensus the way it is now and the serious risk of a few “Pearl Harbours” in the near future, I would not exclude the possibility of an serious swing in public opinion, with subsequent effects on policy, Co2 price, regulation etc.
Jim,
Have a read of the previous post as well. Ultimately, CCS will be needed on the same scale as whatever fossil industry is in place, just to manage the total emissions. In the Mountains scenario, CCS use rises to about 25 billion tonnes CO2 per annum stored over a period of 40 years.
David
I somewhat miss the point of these scenarios. I understand that Shell focuses on gas and it is trying to sell CCS. You try to limit competing energy source (coal and nuclear) to increase price of gas and to get loads of money for you CCS technology. Alright, I understand that. What I don’t understand is how you want to convince anybody by your scenarios. I can clearly see that input from the scientists and engineers was very limited, perhaps non-existent. These scenarios are apparently mainly the work of your CO2 task-force. What I would expect from any science-worthy scenario is to clearly define basis like energy demand (based on population and economy growth), potential for each technology to develop in total energy to be supplied and relative price.
For example we know that the price of nuclear energy is quite steady with huge potential for growth but it takes a long time to bring this source on line. Coal is the energy of choice for many countries and it is likely it will remain the backbone for countries with significant domestic reserves. Gas energy is very competitive and can be brought online faster. Also solar can grow very fast but it is not competitive at the moment.
I understand that it is very difficult to predict the world energy mix but I would expect more serious attempt than what I can see from Shell.
This brings me to CCS. The only reason for CCS existence is the alleged need to limit global warming to 2degC. I can see that your knowledge on climate science is very limited and this is inevitably reflected in the scenarios. But, I have few recommendations to make your scenarios more noteworthy:
1. Develop scenario for each energy source and include relative price. Include CCS options for fossil fuels. Include externalities, grid upgrades, carbon tax, subsidies etc and calculate assumed unit price for the each scenario and capital cost over the scenario lifetime. Same scenarios will be cheaper than the others. CCS will increase energy demand and price compared to non-CCS option.
2. Calculate emissions of such scenarios and atmospheric concentration of CO2. Use at least two competing models of carbon cycle.
3. Based on CO2 concentration you can calculate externality coming from it. There are many different models but it would be fair to state low and high externality scenario.
4. Having price paid for consumed energy, price for capital cost to develop energy mix and price for externalities allows to compare scenarios apples to apples based on assumptions made.
5. It would be reasonable to make sensitivity runs on all parameters and assumptions.
6. Hindcast your scenarios on historical data.
Unfortunately, anything less is just kids play with a crystal ball. Not science and not worthy attention. I want to expect more from Shell. I understand that Shell doesn’t have a full range of experts required for such research but it shouldn’t be difficult to source experts and reviewers for such task. I even don’t have a problem to participate. The problem with such research is that you never know what the result could be. That’s hardly a good selling point for your bosses and I understand that. I can’t imagine that Shell would actually pay for such study. Shell is doing a business not charity.
Jiri,
I hope you actually took the time to got through the scenarios before making this comment. If you did, then I am sorry that you have missed the point, that’s a real pity.
David
Sure I’ve read the Shell document – not all the ballast but I’ve tried hard to read more technical parts. It is quite possible that I’ve missed the point. After all, that’s what I’ve pointed out. I though that you can explain it to me. Why Shell bothers to produce some scenarios which don’t have “scientific” quality? I assume it is PR stunt and ammo for your lobying with politicians. Do I miss the point?
Yes. I think you did.
The white dot’s on you emissions vs temp chart make 2deg warming after the first Trillion tons emited (we are more than half through that) and 1deg warming after the second Tt emited. We know that curent known fossil fuel reserves are about one Tt. This is logaritmic curve. Not runaway effect and not linear relationship (as David often suggests).
And David suggests to process 25 billions tons of CO2 a year. To get the scale of the effort there is 8 billion tons of coal and 3 billion tons of natural gas produced every year. It is clear that storing 25 billions tons of CO2 a year can be compared to the fossil fuel industry itself. The cost would be enormous. At the moment Shell can store 1t of CO2 for about $100. Even it it can half the price it would be $1.25 trillion a year worth bussines. One would say it would be worth doing some proper science before anybody commits to such huge task.
I really like the concept of total accumulation being brought to the fore, because far too many people simply focus on reducing emissions. It is critical that we start thinking in terms of total accumulation when we are talking about carbon emissions, because otherwise we are effectively just delaying collapse.
HOWEVER, I strongly disagree that CCS is the only way to prevent a critical level of accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere/oceans. Not only does such an argument make too many assumptions, but it is also a case of putting all our eggs into one basket. My concerns with CCS is mainly the following:
1. Capture: Really? How? How much? 100%? 50%? The fact is, we don’t even know if it is entirely possible yet – nevermind what % we’ll be able to “capture” or whether the technology could be rolled out to ALL CO2-producing entities in the world… (which is what would be necessary for it to not just REDUCE emissions);
2. Storage: Where? In geological formations or deep ocean masses? Acidifying the oceans with any more CO2 (and don’t tell me it will be stored “safely” under the ocean) would just create a different kind of problem. The same goes for deep geological formations – how can we be sure that it won’t seep through and cause other problems? What happens in case of an earthquake or some other disturbance – such as in 1986 when a mudslide caused the trapped CO2 at the bottom of Lake Nyos to escape and wipe out an entire village of over 1,000 people?
3. Timing: Even if by some miracle we could invent a CCS technology and deploy it to capture 100% of the millions of tonnes of CO2 from all emissions produced on earth (which, once again, is what will need to happen if we don’t just want to “reduce” emissions), can this be done in time? The existence of CCS technology would be of no use – only the total global deployment of it will. Can this be done in time to prevent run-away climate change? From what even the proponents of CCS technology are saying, it seems that it would be cutting it fine at best. And that is if our rather optimistic climate forecasts are to be believed.
4. Business-as-usual: I am not surprised that conventional energy companies such as Shell are jumping on the CCS bandwagon, because it would mean that they can just carry on extracting and selling/burning fossil fuels as usual – only now they’ll have some i-gadget in their chimneys to remove the CO2… Wonderful. But what about the other social and environmental damages caused by these processes? The destruction of eco-systems? The pollution of air and water? AND, don’t forget, the fact that they are causing us to rely on FINITE resources which will eventually run out anyway if we don’t find alternatives…
No, the best way to avoid the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere/oceans, is to not take the stored carbon out of the ground in the first place. And for the excess CO2 we already have in the atmosphere, the best Carbon Capture and Storage system already exists – it’s called TREES. Plant them, and stop rainforest deforestation.
As for energy: if modern human life survives the multiple challenges facing us this century (problems we created for ourselves – mainly within one century – mainly through short-sightedness), then we will eventually HAVE to convert exclusively to renewable energy. Because the energy sources we rely on at the moment has an expiry date on it. So why wait before we make the transition? It’s once again short-sighted!
The amount of solar energy available to us every hour, ready to be harnessed, far exceeds our fossil energy resources. If 0.3% of the Sahara desert was a concentrated solar plant, it could power all of Europe (Meinhold, WWF Energy Report, 2011)….
It is all fine and well to say that we need a mix of solutions to tackle the problem – we do – BUT, there is also the $1 concept to consider: we can only invest $1 on one thing at a time. So if we invest millions/billions in CCS technology, which might not work, or might be too little too late, or might cause other environmental problems, then we have withheld those millions/billions from better solutions which will then be compromised…
So why invest so much money, time and energy into a technology that still needs to be developed (and proven), when the only truly SUSTAINABLE solution – renewable energy – is already so far advanced and only needs proper investment and support?
If we had time and money to waste, then it wouldn’t matter. But we don’t, so it does.
Thank you,
Jay.
(On Twitter: Mr Sustainability / @Mr_Sustain)
Jay,
I think we are agreed that there are only two solutions to this problem – don’t use fossil in the first place, or somehow capture the emissions and return the carbon to where it came from. The latter can only be done with CCS or permanent bio storage. In our recent New Lens Scenarios solar plays a major role, to the extent that it eventually dominates the global energy system in one scenario. But it takes so long to do this, simply because of the rate of deployment (and I know for a fact that the scenario guys pushed this to the practical limit of scalability) that cumulative emissions exceed the more fossil based scenario where CCS is deployed much earlier. In any case, the solar scenario needs CCS as well. It’s nice to think that just a small percentage of solar energy falling on this planet can solve everything, but we still need to built the kit to do it. Like it or not, that will take much of this century to get done.
David
Thanks for your reply David.
Not quite agreed! The thought of returning the carbon back to where it came from is a nice one, but in practice that is not entirely what is happening – it is not happening through a natural process, there is a lot of complexity involved, and therefore we cannot be completely sure that our method is safe and reliable – particularly if it is still in CO2 form.
.
The only way CCS could be a safe and viable solution in my opinion is if a ‘natural’ process could be used, such as explained in this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21320666 .
.
But even if ‘natural’ CCS technology such as this could be develped, it shouldn’t serve as an excuse for energy companies such as Shell to carry on raping the earth and destroying eco-systems just so they can get their hands on some more oil and gas. There are other very serious enviornmental concerns with fossil fuels besides CO2 emissions, which are not being addressed by CCS.
.
As for your concerns about the deployment of solar – I will have to go and read the scenario carefully, but it sounds very strange to me that they found CCS technology could be developed and deployed globally at a faster rate than solar technology. I am sure the scenario guys did their best with the information available to them, but it is also possible that there are factors which they didn’t consider, which could change the scenario considerably.
.
For example, the WWF published, in their Energy Report of 2011, a scenario where energy efficiency and renewable energy could reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by 70% by 2040. So that is a different scenario based on different information. CCS would not be able to reduce CO2 emissions by that much until about 10 or 20 years later – at the earliest…
.
But ultimately, even if a successful and affordable CCS technology could be developed and deployed, it will not prevent accumulation until there is total deployment to every single CO2 emitter on Earth. Because until then it will be just another way to reduce emissions.
.
At the end of the day we come back to the fact that this problem will require a mix of solutions. Getting the mix right – in time – is critical. You believe CCS is the answer, James Lovelock believes it is nuclear, and I believe using natural systems and efficient design is the only sustainable solution. I hope whoever’s ideas wins the day is right, because otherwise, I think it is safe to say, we are screwed. Let’s agree on that!
There is an inevitability about a considerably larger accumulation than we have today, so that means further warming. The scenarios point out in very clear terms that CCS will be needed, even if we can race forward with other energy technologies. We may well do this, but if we don’t contain the emissions from the remaining fossil use, then accumulation just continues. WWF may well paint a rosy picture to keep us all happy and motivated, but imagining a world where fossil use simply vanishes in under 40 years is something of a reality distortion.
We shouldn’t forget that Shell has the finest experts on CCS. Many people in Shell have pretty good idea about status of CCS technology and I guess they’ve provided useful input for CCS PR campaign. This is not unproven technology. I actually doubt why any demonstration projects are needed. Probably not to test technology but to get better grasp on capital and operation cost and to convince public. Sure this technology will work and even if there is some seepage the effect would be most likely minimal. The only credible case against CCS is the cost and extra energy consumed. And this is the reason why there is no need to build any CCS until there is agreement above national law that energy consumers will pay for CCS. I personally, after years of studying this subject, I think that it causes much less damage simply to live in carbon rich atmosphere than to pay premium on inefficient “renewable energy” or energy consuming CCS. It is funny to observe irrational fear of slightly increased CO2 content (say 600ppm). It is sort of carbon-phobia. I hope that most population won’t get this syndrome and the commonsense prevail. Even politically I guess that the worst of carbon-phobia is behind us or soon will be.
Hi David,
.
I agree with your last statement. I know we can’t free ourselves from fossil fuels within the next 40 years and that we’ll have to find ways to deal with the consequences of this. Stop deforestation and launch a tree-planting programme I say. But if a safe CCS technology can be developed, then great, let’s do it – we need all the help we can get…
.
BUT, it should not serve as an excuse for companies like Shell to continue extracting all the remaining fossil fuels they can get their hands on. And unfortunately this is the reason why the main proponents and sponsors of CCS are these fossil fuel companies – they want one last fix of cheap fossils before they get to the point where they have to seriously invest in renewables (which is not as profitable). Or do you not think there is any truth in this?
.
It is this grey area that I am worried about and simply don’t trust energy companies with. How are we going to ensure that they don’t use CCS as a mask for carrying on with business as usual for as long as possible? At what point is Shell going to say “there is extractable gas here, but we are going to stop now and focus on renwables”? Or is that point only going to be reached co-incidently at the same time as the affordable gas running out? A few token renewable projects on the side is not going to fool their critics… How can we be sure of they have true intentions?
Jay,
It’s just economics. Oil and gas companies will continue to extract and sell these resources as long as there is a market for them. Applying CCS will raise the cost or lower the return on these resources so they will become less competitive, which means other energy sources will take some additional market share.
David