Sunday 14 July 2013

Global warming “can be reversed", scientists claim

Hi-tech bio-energy plants pumping carbon dioxide into old gas wells 'could reduce temperatures by 0.6°C per century'

A biofuel plant, Lockerbie

Hi-tech new bio-energy plants could “reverse” global warming by pumping carbon dioxide into old gas wells - lowering temperatures by 0.6°C per century, according to a study.

There are already 16 projects around the world working on the technology - aiming to generate power for local homes by burning vegetation such as wood or straw and then burying the carbon dioxide it produces deep underground.

“It’s like drilling for natural gas, but in reverse,” says Niclas Mattson of Chalmers University, Sweden, co-author of the study.

Because trees and other plants absorb carbon dioxide while they grow, the technology, known as BECCS - Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage - is “carbon negative”.

The bio-energy plants will capture thousands of tons of CO2 per day, and then pipe the gas down into rock formations, or depleted oil and gas wells. By 2050, the researchers believe, the BECCS plants could bury billions of tons of CO2 per year.

The first BECCS plants will be here within a decade, Mattson says. They are likely to be expensive relative to coal-burning power stations - but the researchers say that even if the technology only becomes widespread in 2050, it would enable governments to beat current climate goals.

Study author Professor Christian Azar said: “We can reverse the warming trend and push temperatures back below the 2°C target by 2150.”

Around 60 per cent of global CO2 emissions come from power plants fuelled by coal, natural gas and oil.

“Bioenergy plants are already widespread, especially here in northern Europe,” says Mattson. “The new part is applying carbon capture. This could be done by retrofitting existing plants, but we believe this will primarily happen by building dedicated new plants.”

“After being separated in the power plant, the CO2 needs to be transported (by pipeline or shipped in liquid form) to an underground storage facility. Alternatively, you can build new power plants directly by the storage sites. Then you pump the CO2 underground (same as drilling for natural gas, but in reverse). Suitable storage sites that can keep the CO2 intact underground can be: depleted oil and natural gas wells, coal beds or possibly saline aquifers.”

Plants that burn a mixture of coal and vegetation (such as straw or wood), could also be “carbon negative”.

“Carbon dioxide separation, transport and storage are already being done for various purposes on a fairly large scale, but only individually,” says Mattson. “The first combined full-scale power plants will probably be here within a decade, so it will take several decades for this to become significant on a global scale. We consider this delay in our model, however, and still find that the technology has the potential to help us meet or even beat the two-degree target.”

“Even if current political gridlock causes global warming in excess of 2°C, we can reverse the temperature trend and reach targets later,” Azar says.

Azar says that the technology shouldn’t be used as an argument against reducing emissions.

Azar says: “BECCS can only reverse global warming if we have net negative emissions from the entire global energy system. This means that all other CO2 emissions need to be reduced to nearly zero.

“To do so requires both large-scale use of BECCS and reducing other emissions to near-zero levels using other renewables – mainly solar energy – or nuclear power.”

1 comment:

  1. Climate has always changed. The mistake is believing that human activity has any significant influence.

    Four papers on the web provide some eye-opening insight on the cause of change to average global temperature and why it has stopped warming. (The latest perceived up tick must be considered in light of historical average global temperature measurement uncertainty, equivalent s.d. approximately +/- 0.1 K arising from the measurement methodology) The papers are straight-forward calculations using readily available data up to May, 2013.

    The first paper is 'Global warming made simple' at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com/ . It shows, with simple thermal radiation calculations, how a tiny change in the amount of low-altitude clouds could account for half of the average global temperature change in the 20th century, and what could have caused that tiny cloud change. (The other half of the temperature change is from net average natural ocean oscillation which is dominated by the PDO)

    The second paper is 'Natural Climate change has been hiding in plain sight' at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html . This paper presents a simple equation that, using a single external forcing, calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 90%, irrespective of whether the influence of CO2 is included or not. The equation uses a proxy which is the time-integral of sunspot numbers. A graph is included which shows the calculated trajectory overlaid on measurements.

    Change to the level of atmospheric CO2 had no significant effect on average global temperature.

    A third paper, ‘The End of Global Warming’ at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/ expands recent (since 1996) measurements and includes a graph showing the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising average global temperature.

    The fourth paper http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com/ exposes some of the mistakes that have been made by the ‘Consensus’ and the IPCC

    The predictive ability of the equation in the second paper can be tested. When calibrated to the data prior to 1995 and using actual sunspot numbers, it predicted the temperature trend in 2012 within 0.04 K.

    ReplyDelete