California Governor Jerry Brown announced last week a new plan for reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. The executive order calls on the Golden State to decrease carbon emission rates by 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030.
“I’ve set a very high bar, but it’s a bar we must meet,” the governor told onlookers when he announced the executive order last week.
The goal sets a national precedent and is on par with the benchmark set in place by the European Union last year — the most ambitious target in the world.
Executive orders aren’t technically law, but rather set mandates around which legislation can be written.
The proposal will serve as an interim goal established by the governor as the state works toward reaching its target of reducing emissions by 80 percent by 2050.
That’s the more long term plan laid out in Senate Bill 32, legislation introduced by Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) at the end of last year.
What does the governor’s announcement mean for the state? Getting halfway to that 2050 benchmark within the next 15 years.
Has the governor set the bar too high, or is this simply an expression of his faith in California’s climate change policy?
“This is basically saying we need a new industrial revolution,” Dan Kammen, Professor of Energy at UC Berkeley told NBC Bay Area. “The last one took about 150 years. Now we need to do it between now and 2050.”
Kammen says despite the ambitious target, the state can reach the governor’s goal, but getting there by 2030 isn’t going to be easy.
California has already begun plucking at the ‘low hanging fruit’ to bring carbon levels down, like incentivizing cleaner cars, implementing stingier fuel standards and promoting renewable energies—the state sources 24 percent of its power from solar, wind, biomass and geothermal power. In light of the governor’s new demand, Kammen says California must majorly increase its use of these technologies, and leverage them in new ways.
“Finding ways to do these things together is really kind of the magic of California innovation on the technical and policy side,” he said. “Because the more we can find opportunities to do both of these things together, like electric vehicles charged up by solar, wind and other renewables, that means that you win twice over. That’s literally a win-win strategy.”
According to figures from the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the state’s carbon emissions dropped nearly 7 percent between 2004 and 2012, the year that data is most recently available. If the state keeps at the same rate, it will actually beat the 2020 carbon emissions benchmark set forth by CARB.
So for now, California is ahead of the game in making carbon reductions.
But the real challenge as meeting Governor Brown’s benchmark comes into action will be convincing everyday citizens to play a significant role in cutting back on emissions, said Abby Young, Climate Policy Manager at the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Most of the energy nationwide — around 70 percent — is consumed in buildings, and the Bay Area is home to a number of older office spaces and residential properties. Due to their age, these types of buildings are rarely energy efficient.
While requirements have been established for new construction to meet energy efficiency standards, real progress could mean state and local governments incentivizing homeowners to jump on board with retrofitting their homes, Young said. That means installing solar panels and taking other steps to increase energy efficiency, she added.
“What’s great about the governor making this kind of bold statement is it motivates and inspires…individuals to realize how important the individual behaviors and actions they take every day are to helping the state meet this goal,” Young said.
This paper presents the first detailed long-term stock turnover model to investigate scenarios to decarbonize the
residential water heating sector in California, which is currently dominated by natural gas. We model a mix of
water heating (WH) technologies including conventional and on-demand (tank-less) natural gas heating,
electric resistance, existing electric heat pumps, advanced heat pumps with low global warming refrigerants and
solar thermal water heaters. Technically feasible policy scenarios are developed by considering combinations of
WH technologies with efficiency gains within each technology, lowering global warming potential of refrigerants
and decreasing grid carbon intensity. We then evaluate energy demand, emissions and equipment replacement
costs of the pathways. We develop multiple scenarios by which the annual greenhouse gas emissions from
residential water heaters in California can be reduced by over 80% from 1990 levels resulting in an annual
savings of over 10 Million Metric Tons by 2050. The overall cost of transition will depend on future cost
reductions in heat pump and solar thermal water heating equipment, energy costs, and hot water consumption.
The Washington Post,
October 13, "We’re placing far too much hope in pulling carbon dioxide out of the air, scientists warn"
In the past decade, an ambitious — but still mostly hypothetical — technological strategy for meeting our global climate goals has grown prominentin scientific discussions. Known as “negative emissions,” the idea is to remove carbon dioxide from the air using various technological means, a method that could theoretically buy the world more time when it comes to reducing our overall greenhouse-gas emissions.
Recent models of future climate scenarios have assumed that this technique will be widely used in the future. Few have explored a world in which we can keep the planet’s warming within at least a 2-degree temperature threshold without the help of negative-emission technologies. But some scientists are arguing that this assumption may be a serious mistake.
In a new opinion paper, published Thursday in the journal Science, climate experts Kevin Anderson of the University of Manchester and Glen Peters of the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research have argued that relying on the uncertain concept of negative emissions as a fix could lock the world into a severe climate-change pathway.
“[If] we behave today like we’ve got these get-out-of-jail cards in the future, and then in 20 years we discover we don’t have this technology, then you’re already locked into a higher temperature level,” Peters said.
Many possible negative-emission technologies have been proposed, from simply planting more forests (which act as carbon sinks) to designing chemical reactions that physically take the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. The technology most widely included in the models is known as bioenergy combined with carbon capture and storage, or BECCS.
In a BECCS scenario, plants capture and store carbon while they grow — removing it from the atmosphere, in other words — and then are harvested and used for fuel to produce energy. These bioenergy plants will be outfitted with a form of technology known as carbon capture, which traps carbon dioxide emissions before they make it into the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide can then be stored safely deep underground. Even more carbon is then captured when the plants grow back again.
The idea sounds like a win-win on paper, allowing for both the removal of carbon dioxide and the production of energy. But while more than a dozen pilot-scale BECCS projects exist around the world, only one large-scale facility currently operates. And scientists have serious reservations about the technology’s viability as a global-scale solution.
First, the sheer amount of bioenergyfuel required to suit the models’ assumptions already poses a problem, Peters told The Washington Post. Most of the models assume a need for an area of land at least the size of India, he said, which prompts the question of whether this would reduce the area available for food crops or force additional deforestation, which would produce more carbon emissions.
When it comes to carbon capture and storage, the technology has been used already in at least 20 plants around the world, not all of them devoted to bioenergy. In fact, carbon capture and storage can be applied in all kinds of industrial facilities, including coal-burning power plants or oil and natural gas refineries. But the technology has so farfailed to take off.
“Ten years ago, if you looked at the International Energy Agency, they were saying by now there would be hundreds of CCS plants around the world,” Peters said. “And each year the IEA has had to revise their estimates down. So CCS is one of those technologies that just never lives up to expectations.”
This is largely a market problem, according to Howard Herzog, a senior research engineer and carbon capture expert at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“There’s no doubt you can do it,” he said. “We have coal plants that do CCS, you can have biomass that can do CCS — the technology’s not a big deal. The question is the economics.”
Because it’s more expensive to produce energy with carbon capture than without it, there’s little incentive for the private sector to invest in the technology without a more aggressive policy push toward curtailing emissions, he pointed out. A carbon price, for instance, would be one way of creating a market for the technology.
It’s not that the modelers have no reason for incorporating BECCS so heavily, though. Over a long enough time period, and at the scale needed to make a dent in our global climate goals — especially assuming a high enough carbon price in the future — it may be the cheapest mitigation technology, Peters said. But this may not be enough for policymakers to invest in its advancement now.
“Decision-makers today don’t optimize over the whole century,” he said. “They’re not asking: What technology can I put in place now to make a profit in 100 years? So the sort of strategic thinking in the model is different from strategic thinking in practice.”
Additionally, the models that are commonly relied on to project future climate and technological scenariosassume that the CCStechnique works perfectly within the next few decades, when it’s only just emerging.
“The models don’t have technical challenges; they don’t run into engineering problems; the models don’t have cost overruns,” Peters said. “Everything works as it should work in the model.”
The bottom line, he and Anderson note in their paper, is that all these assumptions make for a huge gamble. If policymakers decide we’re going to meet our climate goals only with the aid of negative-emission technologies, and then these technologies fail us in the future, we will already be locked into a high-temperature climate scenario.
In this light, the authors write, “negative-emission technologies should not form the basis of the mitigation agenda.” Indeed, they conclude, nations should proceed as though these technologies will fail, focusing instead on aggressive emissions-reduction policies for the present, such as the continued expansion of renewable energy sources.
Other scientists agree. Daniel Kammen, an energy professor at the University of California in Berkeley and director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, has published several recent papers on BECCS technology, and agrees that it is “nowhere near ready to be considered a component of a viable carbon reduction strategy.”
For Kammen and RAEL's papers on BECCS using both the SWITCH model and based on a chemical engineering feasibility assessment, see: the RAEL publications link, here.
“The paper is right,” he continued in an emailed comment to The Washington Post. “A run to endorse BECCS as a key component of the needed 80 percent or greater decarbonization we need by 2050 is unproven, premature and potentially costly. It is worth research, but has a ways to go before it can enter the realm of a solutions science for climate change.”
Herzog also agreed that “the focus of today should be on mitigation as opposed to worrying about negative emissions sometime in the future.” In the future, he said, as we approach the end of our decarbonization schemes, negative emissions could still have a place when it comes to offsetting carbon from those last activities it’s most difficult or most expensive to decarbonize.
But Herzog added that, in his opinion, we’ve likely already overshot a 2-degree temperature threshold, to say nothing of the more ambitious 1.5-degree target described in the Paris climate agreement. At the very least, he noted, a reliance on renewables alone would be unlikely to get us there, if it were still possible. Indeed, multiple recent analyses have suggested that the combined pledges of individual countries participating in the Paris Agreement — very few of which have even considered negative emissions — still fall short of our temperature goals.
“I think what you’re going to see in the long run is a mix of technologies coming in to help solve the problem,” he said. “You need a mix of renewables, efficiency, nuclear, CCS, lifestyle changes — just a whole litany.”
We explore the operations, balancing requirements, and costs of the Western Electricity Coordinating Council power system under a stringent greenhouse gas emission reduction target. We include sensitivities for technology costs and availability, fuel prices and emissions, and demand profile. Meeting an emissions target of 85% below 1990 levels is feasible across a range of assumptions, but the cost of achieving the goal and the technology mix are uncertain. Deployment of solar photovoltaics is the main driver of storage deployment: the diurnal periodicity of solar energy availability results in opportunities for daily arbitrage that storage technologies with several hours of duration are well suited to provide. Wind output exhibits seasonal variations and requires storage with a large energy subcomponent to avoid curtailment. The combination of low-cost solar technology and advanced battery technology can provide substantial savings through 2050, greatly mitigating the cost of climate change mitigation. Policy goals for storage deployment should be based on the function storage will play on the grid and therefore incorporate both the power rating and duration of the storage system. These goals should be set as part of overall portfolio development, as system flexibility needs will vary with the grid mix.
A video abstract for the paper is available here.
The global carbon emissions budget over the next decades depends critically on the choices made by fast-growing emerging economies. Few studies exist, however, that develop country-specific energy system integration insights that can inform emerging economies in this decision-making process. High spatial- and temporal-resolution power system planning is central to evaluating decarbonization scenarios, but obtaining the required data and models can be cost prohibitive, especially for researchers in low, lower-middle income economies. Here, we use Nicaragua as a case study to highlight the importance of high-resolution open access data and modeling platforms to evaluate fuel-switching strategies and their resulting cost of power under realistic technology, policy, and cost scenarios (2014–2030). Our results suggest that Nicaragua could cost-effectively achieve a low-carbon grid (≥80%, based on non-large hydro renewable energy generation) by 2030 while also pursuing multiple development objectives. Regional cooperation (balancing) enables the highest wind and solar generation (18% and 3% by 2030, respectively), at the least cost (US$127 MWh−1). Potentially risky resources (geothermal and hydropower) raise system costs but do not significantly hinder decarbonization. Oil price sensitivity scenarios suggest renewable energy to be a more cost-effective long-term investment than fuel oil, even under the assumption of prevailing cheap oil prices. Nicaragua's options illustrate the opportunities and challenges of power system decarbonization for emerging economies, and the key role that open access data and modeling platforms can play in helping develop low-carbon transition pathways.
By Tamara Straus
Ten years ago, Scott Zimmermann left an eight-year career as an oil industry engineer to attend law school at UC Berkeley, retool, and try to save the planet. Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” was just about to come out, and the nation was buzzing with newfound information on the connections between fossil fuel consumption and climate change. Zimmermann said he chose Berkeley because “it was easily the best place in the country for people working on interdisciplinary climate mitigation solutions, especially in the energy space. Virtually every department across campus was making important contributions to climate change research.”
Zimmermann took some good early steps. First, he got Professor Daniel Kammen to serve as his advisor. Kammen had a triple appointment at the Goldman School of Public Policy, the Energy & Resources Group, and the Nuclear Engineering Department, and recently had been named Class of 1935 Distinguished Chair in Energy and co-director of the Berkeley Institute of the Environment. He was also about to win the Nobel Peace Prize as a contributing lead to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Second, Zimmermann met a Berkeley attorney and activist by the name of Tom Kelly. In 2004, Kelly and his wife Jane had started Kyoto USA, a nonprofit to get local jurisdictions to abide to the carbon caps laid out in the Kyoto Protocol. Kelly wanted to institute the caps that the U.S. government wouldn’t at UC Berkeley, and according to Zimmermann, “It fit really, really well within the university and its politics.”
The state also was moving where the federal government refused on climate change policy. California Assembly Member Fran Pavley presented AB32, which would soon become the 2006 California Global Warming Act, the first law of its kind in the country. It would require California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Kammen, Zimmermann, Kelly, and two other graduate students from the College of Natural Resources—Brooke Owyang and Eli Yewdall—decided that the UC Berkeley should commit to the same reductions and, if possible, get ahead of them to prove the university’s leadership in environmental sustainability. They drafted a letter to Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, gathered signatures from 13 professors, lecturers, and deans as well as from Professor Cathy Koshland, vice provost for academic planning and facilities, and requested that the administration “formally endorse the Kyoto Protocol and adopt its underlying principles.” The administration replied with a challenge: to put together a feasibility plan.
“Getting a university to commit to and administrate this kind of goal is not just a really interesting political problem,” remembers Zimmermann. “It’s also a really interesting technical problem.” The first technical problem was quantifying the actual on-campus emissions and understanding them in terms of transportation, consumption, waste, electricity, and so on. The second problem was figuring out how to reduce the emissions through technology, behavior, and other methods.
To tackle these problems, a student-faculty-staff group called the Cal Climate Action Partnership (CalCAP) was formed. As usual, money was scarce. Zimmermann and fellow students Brooke Owang, Sasha Gennet, and Sam Arons applied for a BigIdeas@Berkeley prize and won $5,000, enough to pay a student group to measure the campus’ carbon footprint. Student oversight came from Kammen, Civil and Environmental Engineering Professor Arpad Horvath, Energy & Resources Group Chair William Nazaroff, and 10 other faculty, all of whom were doing cutting-edge work on emissions analysis and technology. Fahmida Ahmed, a recent graduate of UC Santa Barbara’s environmental science and management program, was hired to manage the process. And for 18 months, momentum grew. There were large department and school head meetings, and many hours volunteered from every corner of the campus.
By the spring of 2007, CalCAP was done with its reporting and placed a 117-page plan on the desk of Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau. He signed it, even though Nathan Brostrom, the vice chancellor of administration, didn’t know where about half the money was going to come from.
“This was one of the most collaborative efforts of students, faculty, and staff I’ve ever seen or been involved in,” remembers Koshland. “It happened because we had a multi-pronged strategy and an amazing group of graduate students who led the charge.”
Koshland went on to chair the CalCAP steering committee, comprised of a 35-member group and overseen by the UC Berkeley Office of Sustainability & Energy. In its first few years, CalCAP produced detailed reports on the path to meet carbon reduction goals and the mechanisms to report the emissions, including the 2009 Sustainability Plan and Climate Action Plan. The efforts led to hundreds of projects across campus on energy efficiency, transportation, procurement, water, and travel. And at each stage, the projects were individually evaluated for feasibility and measured for goal completion.
Kira Stoll, who became involved in CalCAP in 2006 as transportation staff and is now the campus’ sustainability manager, said that one of the largest efforts has focused on buildings, which account for 39 percent of C02 emissions in the United States. There were plenty of surprises. For example, Stoll and her colleagues originally assumed that there wouldn’t be much financial payback from lighting retrofits. “But what we found through tracking those projects,” says Stoll, “is that we were getting 60 percent faster better payback.”
In 2012, the Office of Sustainability launched the Energy Management Initiative, including a campaign called My Power. My Power is a simple behavioral program that has incentivized Cal departments to reduce emissions by showing them detailed reports of how much energy they use—and then giving them money back, if they go below specific targets. Stoll reports that the Energy Management Initiative has saved UC Berkeley more than $2 million since it was launched.
Also part of the Energy Management Initiative is a platform called Energy Office, which aggregates 100 real-time energy dashboards that change on 15-minute intervals. In 2012, Assistant Professor Duncan Callaway and his class noticed an inexplicable bump up of energy use on Barrows Hall’s dashboard, and notified the Energy Office. Stoll says her colleagues used the dashboard software to sort through possible causes of the increased use. They quickly found an equipment problem, went to the building, and resolved it. The avoided annual energy costs to Cal were up to $45,000.
By November 2013, UC Berkeley announced it had reduced its carbon footprint to 1990 levels. The CalCAP-initiated goal was met two years ahead of schedule and beat the state the deadline by eight years. Because of its data management, CalCAP knew exactly how and why goals were met. It gave three main reasons. First, through energy efficiency investments, building retrofits, and sustainable transportation practices, the university saved 20 million kilowatt hours of electricity and 1 million gallons of fuel. Second, Pacific Gas & Electric, which provides the campus electricity and is required by state law to provide 33 percent renewable energy mix by 2020, helped out in reducing emissions as it began to replace coal and oil with wind and sun energy. And third, and perhaps most instructive, reductions came through improved data and reporting methods.
“This shows that if you don’t measure it, it’s incredibly hard not only to act on it but to have a substantive conversation,” says Kammen. “You really need to have targets and goals. Setting them—doing the analysis to figure them out, and then doing the measurement work and adjusting—is what CalCAP has proved.”
Kammen is speaking not just about UC Berkeley’s first set of carbon emissions goals—but about the next set of goals, which UC President Janet Napolitano announced in November 2013. They demand that the entire University of California system commit to carbon neutrality by 2025.
Matt St. Clair, who was part of the original CalCAP team and who in 2004 became the first sustainability director for the University of California’s Office of the President, believes the goals are reachable but there are plenty of challenges ahead. “Energy efficiency is hard work and complex and requires investment,” says St. Clair. “We’ve done a lot of it, and we plan to do a lot more. We also don’t want to rely just on supply side solutions, where we use as much energy as we want because we can directly procure carbon-free sources of energy. That’s a big, ongoing challenge.”
Both St. Clair and Stoll say that UC Berkeley reached its first carbon reduction goals in part by grabbing at low-hanging fruit: cost-effective methods that were as dependent on behavioral changes as much as on new technologies. What the University of California needs now, they say, is financial investment and continued ingenuity.
“We really need to find a way to finance new renewable energy initiatives,” says Stoll. “The technology is available, so it’s feasible if we can find the finances for it and do it in a 10-year time frame.”
Stoll mentions that Stanford University is about to finish a $438 million electric heat recovery system to replace its cogeneration plant. The new Stanford Energy Systems Innovation project is expected to reduce carbon emissions by 68 percent and save the university an estimated $300 million over the next 35 years. Of course, these kinds of upfront costs are not something the University of California can contemplate in the midst of the budget crisis.
Stoll and St. Clair say there are other tactics UC might employ, including purchasing more solar and wind power from energy wholesalers and developing a biomethane substitute for natural gas.
“What’s exciting about a system-wide carbon neutrality policy and office of sustainability,” says St. Clair, “is that each campus has its own strengths that the others can learn from.”
St. Clair notes that Berkeley was the first to do a climate action plan, which his office used to help the other nine campuses develop their own plans. Whereas, UC Santa Barbara pioneered green building efforts with the country’s first Platinum LEED certified building, and UC Irvine developed a smart laboratory program, through which it has retrofitted more than a dozen laboratory buildings and cut energy consumption in those buildings by on average 60 percent, becoming a national and international model.
This year, Costa Rica became the first nation to use only clean energy. The country’s state utility company announced in late March that it went the first 75 days of 2015 without using fossil fuels like coal or oil for electricity, and expects to rely on renewable energy for more than 95 percent of its electricity for the remainder of the year.
Can the University of California one-up this hydropower-reliant country and achieve carbon neutrality by 2025? For many involved, it’s the ultimate hot potato question. Daniel Kammen, however, says the answer is “unambiguously yes.”
“It sounds like a revolutionary number to make the energy system carbon free by 2025,” says Kammen. “But if the UC system can really innovate and use its physical campuses as living laboratories, I think it’s absolutely doable. What it will take is a scale-up in efficiency—solar, wind, biomass, geothermal—that we have been talking about for a while. Ten years is an incredibly tight timetable. It makes you gasp a little. But we’ve seen these transitions happen on this scale already.”
Scott Zimmermann, Kammen’s former student who is now an energy lawyer at the San Francisco firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, argues that getting to carbon neutrality is a bigger step. “It’s not something you can necessarily do while saving money,” he says. “The earlier steps at UC Berkeley were easier because they enabled departments to save money. Now, if there’s extra money, the question is: Do you put the money into carbon reducing facilities or hire another professor? Those decisions are harder to make.”
Carbon emissions signal inefficiency in a system, an energy expert said in Chicago this week, so reducing emissions usually means increasing savings.
“In household after household and small businesses and schools, we’ve consistently found that carbon- or water-saving operations are good for the bottom line,” Daniel Kammen, a professor of energy at the University of California Berkeley, told about 150 people at the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute on Monday.
Kammen is backed up, in part, by a study he published in 2011 in the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. Kammen and co-author Chris Jones found that a 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions resulted in $2,100 per year in potential financial savings for a household.
“What we found, no surprise, is that actions that save you on carbon almost always save you on money,” Kammen said. “Because after all those emissions are a waste.”
The savings hinge on a number of actions that reduce waste: change diet, telecommute, take transit, eco-drive, maintain vehicles, ride bike, turn up thermostat, turn down thermostat, reduce flying, trade in vehicles, use compact fluorescent bulbs, line-dry clothes, use Energy-Star refrigerator.
“Average financial savings are frequently greater than $100 per metric ton of CO2e conserved for this set of actions,” the authors write. Some of these actions require an upfront investment—$4,800 for the average American household—which the authors say will pay back in 2.6 years and then continue to pay off.
The greatest savings come from changes in diet—$850 per year on average—which entail giving up carbon-intensive meat and dairy products and “non-essential food items.” The authors urge a reduction in overeating, from 2,500 calories per day to 2,200, and contend that dietary change will not only reduce carbon and save money but combat health problems associated with obesity.
The authors modeled these changes for about 2,000 types of households in 78 different regions of the U.S.
Dietary change produced the most dramatic effect across all regions, but other changes showed more variability.
For example, they compare a two-person household earning $90,000 in the San Francisco Bay Area (Household A) to a five-person household earning $50,000 in St. Louis, MO (Household B):
The Carbon footprint of household A is dominated by emissions from motor vehicles and air travel. Emissions from household energy are about half of the U.S. average due largely to the relatively clean fuel mix of California’s electricity grid and moderate San Francisco Bay Area climate. The household has essentially no emissions from cooling. Emissions from goods and services outstrip emissions from food due to the household’s relatively high income and low number of household members. The total ∼20% footprint reduction potential modeled corresponds to about $2100/yr in potential financial savings. As could be expected, transportation dominates total carbon footprint reduction potential (8 out of 10 tCO2e/yr total).
The carbon footprint of household B is dominated by emissions from electricity. This is largely a product of high emissions per kWh of electricity in St. Louis and larger than average heating and cooling demands. Emissions from food also outstrip direct and indirect emissions from motor vehicles, due to the large household size. This modest income family has lower than average emissions from goods and services. The household can save $1400 per year and reduce its carbon footprint by almost 3 tCO2e/yr by reducing overeating and waste from food and reducing the amount of meat, dairy, and nonessential food items consumed. Further savings of $500 per year and 3 tCO2e/yr can be obtained by increasing the family’s average fuel efficiency from 20 mpg to 25 mpg, reducing total vehicle miles traveled and practicing fuel-saving driving and vehicle maintenance habits. The household has virtually no emissions from air travel. Carbon footprint savings of 2 tCO2e can be achieved by adjusting the thermostat, replacing light bulbs, and line-drying clothes; however, financial savings are less than $200/yr due to relatively low energy prices in the state of Missouri.
The differences lead the authors to suggest that policymakers tailor policies and incentives to different objectives in different regions instead of trying to craft a blanket policy for all.
Kammen spoke Monday in Chicago at a forum sponsored by the University of Chicago Center for International Studies and other campus groups. He told me in a subsequent email that Berkeley’s Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, which he founded, has also modeled carbon savings for business and industry, with similar results.
Some companies have caught on to the financial value of sustainability—Kammen mentioned Pepsi and Walmart—but most have not because “the data isn’t widely out there yet.”
Jones and Kammen used the data to build calculators that enable individuals and business owners to compare their carbon footprint to their neighbors and competitors. When faced with comparisons, Kammen said, people will often reduce carbon emissions voluntarily.
For example, the first brewer to use their calculator was Sierra Nevada Brewing Company, which has long emphasized sustainability.
“The next brewer said, ‘This data has to be wrong, no one can be this green.’ So we provided a little more information, they figured out which brewer it was, and a number of others decided to catch up. They only did it because a peer competitor had done it,” Kammen said.
“This process of egging each other on is an area of behavioral economics for which all of these energy teams have been scouring the landscape for behavioral economists who want to play.”
The large-scale utilization of electricity generated from biomass partnered with carbon capture technology — dubbed bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS) by the researchers — could result in greatly reduced emissions and a “carbon-negative” power system in the western US, according to new research from the University of California at Berkeley.
Study lead author, Daniel Sanchez, noted in a recent press release that this combination could potentially offset the carbon emissions associated with other sources as well — such as fossil fuel power plants, and the transportation sector (diesel- and gas-powered vehicles).
o be specific, the new research found that BECCS when combined with aggressive renewable energy deployment and fossil fuel–associated emissions reductions could result in a “carbon-negative power system” in Western North America by the year 2050 — with an up to 145% emissions reduction as compared against 1990 levels.
Reductions that significant could occur with as little as 7% of total electricity coming from BECCS, according to the new findings — which were arrived at via computer modeling.
In many of the other scenarios explored by the new research, the offsetting of carbon emissions provided by BECCS was more valuable to the electric system than the electricity produced itself was. Of course this kind of “value” is a relative one — as all values are. If governments don’t value the offsetting of carbon emissions, for instance,…
Those behind the new research admit that biomass + carbon capture is still a bit of an unknown in many ways, so the findings are tentative ones, until put into practicem that is — which is what the researchers want.
“There are a lot of commercial uncertainties about carbon capture and sequestration technologies,” stated researcher Sanchez. “Nevertheless, we’re taking this technology and showing that in the Western United States 35 years from now, BECCS doesn’t merely let you reduce emissions by 80% – the current 2050 goal in California – but gets the power system to negative carbon emissions: you store more carbon than you create.”
Possibly… that is. I admit to having some doubts about this, but interesting work nonetheless.
Image Credit: UC Berkeley
Carbon management is of increasing interest to individuals, households,
and communities. In order to effectively assess and manage their climate impacts,
individuals need information on the financial and greenhouse gas benefits of effective
mitigation opportunities. We use consumption-based life cycle accounting techniques
to quantify the carbon footprints of typical U.S. households in 28 cities for 6 household
sizes and 12 income brackets. The model includes emissions embodied in transportation,
energy, water, waste, food, goods, and services. We further quantify greenhouse
gas and financial savings from 13 potential mitigation actions across all household types.
The model suggests that the size and composition of carbon footprints vary
dramatically between geographic regions and within regions based on basic demographic
characteristics. Despite these differences, large cash-positive carbon footprint
reductions are evident across all household types and locations; however, realizing this
potential may require tailoring policies and programs to different population segments
with very different carbon footprint profiles. The results of this model have been
incorporated into an open access online carbon footprint management tool designed to
enable behavior change at the household level through personalized feedback.