CO2 Emission Reduction

[Franconicus]

Just a mind game:

Assumption: The world achieves the CO2 reduction targets

Conclusion:

• The consumption of oil and gas will decrease drastically
• The price for oil will drop (price before tax at least)
• Some oil companies will come into trouble as well as oil tank companies, pipeline operating companies etc.
• OPEC will have a much lower income
• They will compensate this by the introduction of taxes; political stability in these countries will decrease
• terrorism will increase
• They will antagonize this by pulling their money back from investments in Europe and the US
• and so on ...

I would like to hear youir opinion!

[CountArach]

I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. People will seek new forms of power, including those countries which currently rely on the Global Oil Market. What if they are the ones who discover some of this new technology? Crisis averted.

[Sigurd]

The goal should be to shut down all coal based powerplants and start building gas based powerplants with CO2 filters. Or plants with CO2 capturing devices that stores CO2 that we can pump back town into the oil/gas wells to bring up even more oil/gas.
A win win situation...

BTW can you tell I am working for a company named StatoilHydro?

[Husar]

Imagine this, one day oil will run out anyway and oil prices will rise and despite that we will be left with no oil anyway and then we didn't prepare for it and then?

[Rodion Romanovich]

The goal should be to shut down all coal based powerplants and start building gas based powerplants with CO2 filters. Or plants with CO2 capturing devices that stores CO2 that we can pump back town into the oil/gas wells to bring up even more oil/gas.
A win win situation...

BTW can you tell I am working for a company named StatoilHydro?

Hehe The capture devices/filters sound like a good idea, but is there no possibility to combine the capture+filter with a system to chemically bind the CO2 in a way that becomes a solid chemical compound, that would be easier to store (less volume, and less likely to leak)? If this were to be implemented, it would allow using the entire oil and coal reserves, which together are likely to be able to provide energy for over 100 years, thus solving both the oil shortage problem (from energy perspective) and too big amount of oil problem (from a global warming perspective). However, without checking population growth over the earth these 100 years may become less, and we'll be back at status quo when that point comes. In the ultra-long term, other alternatives are necessary, but in the medium-long term, I think capture - especially if it could be done into solid chemical compunds - is our best hope.

[doc_bean]

[*]OPEC will have a much lower income

I'll follow up to this point

[*]They will compensate this by the introduction of taxes;

Tax what ? Several OPEC countreis have a backup plan, they invest in chemical plants (Saudis) or Tourism (Gulf region), others just use that money to hand it out to the poor (Venezuela, Cuba), I'd hardly think taxing the general population more would be a solution, I doubt any of those countries think so.

political stability in these countries will decrease

Why ? Due to poverty ? Poverty often translates into political instability, but not always

[*]terrorism will increase

Are you lumping together all forms of terrorism ? I'd say revolutionary movements would increase (following your own logic), they will be focused mostly on their own state, not on the great Satan.

[*]They will antagonize this by pulling their money back from investments in Europe and the US

Wait, I thought the problem was they didn't have enough money ?

Sorry, too many 'leaps of faith' here for my taste. In any case our decrease of CO2 output will be gradual, so there's little chance for such 'overnight' disasters to occur.

[master of the puppets]

i actually agree with Franconicus on this. The whole of the middle east makes as much annually as Spain, even with oil sales, they do not have much land from which to grow sustainable crops and tourism can only employ so many people. If we meet those nonsense CO2 reduction requirments it will only drop CO2 by around .04 worldwide, that is miniscule but it will essentially strangle the middle east into action desperation causes risk, so terrorism, instability, uprisings and an even increased amount of fanatacism is expected tro rise.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Just a mind game:

Assumption: The world achieves the CO2 reduction targets

Conclusion:

• The consumption of oil and gas will decrease drastically
• The price for oil will drop (price before tax at least)
• Some oil companies will come into trouble as well as oil tank companies, pipeline operating companies etc.
• OPEC will have a much lower income
• They will compensate this by the introduction of taxes; political stability in these countries will decrease
• terrorism will increase
• They will antagonize this by pulling their money back from investments in Europe and the US
• and so on ...

I would like to hear youir opinion!

Lower emission doesn't necessarily mean lowered oil prices or less oil consumption. CO2 capture is the most likely medium long term solution to emission problems, and capture allows continued usage of oil for energy production, until the oil runs out, that is. But oil prices will remain high as oil gets more rare, due to the fact that oil can't effectively be replaced for other usages than energy production, such as in certain machinery, for asphalt, for production of plastic, and several other applications: the list is incredibly long. Finally, terrorism is seldom caused by declining internal economy, unless that decline is caused by offensive, hostile, deliberate actions from an outside power that has as its aim to create this weakening. Internal decline in economy is unlikely to cause terrorism, but it may cause humanitarian disasters or - in case the weakening was reinforced by outside nations - cause hostility towards them, after a process of rebuilding. If the rebuilding is inhibited by continuous sabotage from outside nations, these nations are however likely to become victims of terrorism.

In short: lower CO2 emissions are completely unrelated to amount of terrorism and stability levels in the Middle East.

[Sigurd]

About 84% of the Petroleum that is pumped up from the bedrock is used for energy. Only about 16% is used for the other stuff like plastic etc.

But since we are talking about CO2 emission here I think the focus should be on coal and coal used to produce energy.
The total world oil reserves (discovered) will last around 45 years at the rate we use it today. But the coal reserves are vast and therefore cheap. It will take hundreds of years to spend it all.
Too many coal powered plants are being built today. Take China as an example, they are basically churning out a coal based power plant a week. Each producing more CO2 a week than the entire people of Norway (personal emissions) is able to produce during a year.
There is lot of talk about buying climate quotas abroad instead of reducing the emission at home. The reason is as follows: The technology to reduce emission from our oil industry (the prime polluter in our country) costs more pr ton reduced CO2 than say buying filter technology for the coal power plants in China that will reduce up to 10 times more pr currency unit. Also those bound to the Kyoto agreement has agreed to reduce and there are ample opportunities to help the countries not bound to this agreement (dev. countries). We are talking global here… what use is it for us to reduce our emissions (which is only a tiny spec compared to the total world emission) when countries like China and India churns out their coal based power plants unhindered?

We talk of what we can do personally. If every person in Norway stopped driving cars and stopped warming their houses with wood fire or oil a 12% reduction of the total Norwegian CO2 emission would be reduced. We have committed to a 30% reduction. Clearly other areas need to be looked into.

Some of the politicians don’t want to build gas powered plants because the result would be that our emission will increase. (Currently our energy comes from water powered plants).
The problem is; if we can’t build gas powered plants (which emits only a fraction of what a coal powered plant does) we will not be able to develop the CO2 capturing technology needed. Norway has tons of money and today these CO2 capturing devices costs too much. New and cheaper technology is needed. By doing this we can share this technology with other nations not having the resources to develop this technology themselves.
Today most of the oilrigs in the North Sea have their own power plant, mostly gas driven.
One of these rigs has expensive CO2 capturing technology which captures 100% of the CO2 and pumps it back into the sea bed.

I can easily see the possibility of having sea based gas power plants with 100% CO2 capture and sending the power by cable ashore.

The crux lies in getting the BIG CO2 emitters to reduce… that means the dev. Countries. They can’t afford it themselves, but rich nations can help by buying this technology for them… not for free but to buy percentage that they have committed to help reduce.

[Franconicus]

How promising and reliable is this CO2 capturing technology. To me it always sounds like a lousy trick!

[Odin]

How promising and reliable is this CO2 capturing technology. To me it always sounds like a lousy trick!

Tree's are promising and reliable, talk about a bang for the buck. Forests are the largest CO2 storage houses we have, deforestation is a huge problem in the CO2 equation.

Sadly, the media, government and corporations have a lot of people believing that oil consumption is the main culprit in CO2 emission and the negative impact on the environment. While its signifigant, its not nearly as alarming as the amazon delta loosing the equivelent of switzerlands land mass in tree's to deforestation.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Increased use of nuclear fission power; more systematic exploitation of hydro and geothermal sources were applicable; use of tidal systems where tides vary enough to be useful for this purpose.

Dedicated & heavily funded research into practicable fusion power. Since this is the primary energy source of our universe -- all of our fossil fuels being mere "battery storage" of this energy, fusion would be the brass ring.

Preserve oil for all of the lovely distillates/byproducts we'll need.


I am not completely convinced about the risks of CO2 emission, but am willing to stipulate that a shift away from fossil fuel consumption would be beneficial on a number of other levels and that such a reduction certainly would be unlikely to harm the environment.

The <CO2 emission = > M.E. instability/terrorism link is tenuous.

Yes, reducing dependence on M.E. oil would result in a pullback in monies circulating in the M.E. However, ruling castes in the M.E. have fairly successfully diverted most of the "revolutionary" energy in their countries into terrorist efforts. Israel has been a god-send for them by allowing all of their "young turks" to focus most of their revolutionary fervor on an "external" target and not within their own borders. Terrorism has become a quasi-institution in the Middle East (I just thought of this, may need to separate the point into its own thread for discussion -- Dibs!) and would not, therefore, readily succumb to "environmental" change as it has become more integral than that. Terrorism is the counter to instability, not its ally.

[71-hour Ahmed]

BP were planning a CO2 capture scheme, but its been shelved now...
lack of government action to get it going, and laziness on the companies part. Still, no reason it shouldn't work, although I am concerned about the energy cost of compressing CO2 to an adequate pressure to enter the wells (I haven't done the energy maths but compression is expensive in energy terms, and might be up to 150 - 200 atm required), and the resulting high CO2 return to the surface would also be a nuisance if you injected into a producing reservoir. Exported oil CO2 would potentially also be badly affected as the pipeline companies only allow you to send so much to shore, too much CO2 in the oil would need offshore treatment (more energy used).

And Sigurd, no building giant fuel gas power plants in the north sea, we need that gas for our heating here in the UK!

[Sigurd]

Just to give you guys a sample here of emissions of climate gases (yes it is the new term for it). I just had a look at the live planet thing or what it was called on TV.
The focus was again on what the individual person can do to reduce their contribution to the climate gasses.
I have here an overview of the six worst mainland emitters of CO2 in Norway.



They are responsible for annually 9,3 million tons of CO2 and as a comparison
4,5 million people are responsible for 5,6 million tons of CO2 annually (number include heating, car-transport and food).
In total the mainland industry is responsible of 14,7 million ton CO2 and the offshore industry is responsible for 13,4 million ton CO2.
If you add them together the total Norwegian industrial emission is 28,1 million tonnes CO2. In addition to this you have the transport sector of witch I have no real numbers. Some sources suggest 17 million tonnes.

It seems like the environmentalists focus on what we as people can do to reduce these climate gasses.
It is true that they try to influence us in such a way that we consume less energy or products that need energy.
This is all good but it will take time. As I mentioned earlier new coal plants pops up in the Asian industrialisation, because the marked demands it. Coal is by far the cheapest resource for energy. They build them without catalysts or other filters in China.

Here back home we are trying to make the industry reduce their emission and I have mentioned some of the initiatives taken to realise this.

The petro-industry is developing better catalysts.
The cement plants are moving over from coal and oil to biofuel.

Hydro (the company I am working for - soon to be StatoilHydro) have committed to a 25% reduction within next year.
Statoil, the other giant petro company, are doing tests (the CO2 gases pumped back into the sea bed) and are building a gas power plant at Mongstad (there is a petroleum refinery there today). They are developing advanced CO2 filters for this power plant that will be finished in 2010 and plan on full CO2 cleansing by 2014. (The environmentalists are not too happy about that deal).

I am not seeing what we, the individual persons on this planet, can do to make a difference. As long as the developing countries are allowed to churn out their coal based energy that emits more climate gases a week than we as a nation of individuals are able to in a year, we are still going down the path to so-called destruction.

I am tired of the nagging from all sorts of enlightened people that we must buy cars that emits less and that we must build homes that uses less energy and … and … blalblallblalblabla.
It makes no difference globally.
I can buy a car that I have no enjoyment from, knowing that next week China will fire up a new coal plant that emits 1 000 000 times more CO2 a day than the car can do in its lifetime. Oh, yeah I am making a difference. Get off my back, I want to enjoy the time I have left on this earth.
Now where did I put the brochure of that Viper Venom 1000.

[Odin]

I am not seeing what we, the individual persons on this planet, can do to make a difference. As long as the developing countries are allowed to churn out their coal based energy that emits more climate gases a week than we as a nation of individuals are able to in a year, we are still going down the path to so-called destruction.

Sadly the issue of CO2 emission has been made very complex. While its a fair assesement to include energy consumption, its not a realistic vein in which to make a lot of headway.

Facing reality isnt always easy, and the energy based needs of humans are not going to evolve to the point of not needing fossils fast enough. The systems in which to employ fossils to increase production of goods is in place, and profitable.

That said there is one thing we can do, and that is work towards decreasing deforestation. Just an example, in 1600 about a billion acres of the US was forest, in 1962 it was 762 million acre's. source.

Basically CO, methane when not absorbed by plants creates a barrier in the atmosphere that traps the suns heat (greenhouse effect) that warms the earth. So there are a few approaches to take here, lower emission by humans (unlikely due the the economics of the issue) or increase the plants that absorb the excess carbon.

the later is possible, because anyone can plant a tree. There was a decent analysis done here when you scroll down a little you see that "Each person in the U.S. generates approximately 2.3 tons of CO2 each year. A healthy tree stores about 13 pounds of carbon annually -- or 2.6 tons per acre each year."

So per this study the theory bares out, if the numbers are accurate. So you specifically cant plant a tree or two and that will most likely cover your CO2 emission (you seem like a pretty clean guy Sigurd). As for the bigger picture, I dont think we need a lot of detailed research to come up with a CO emission conversion to tons per year.

With that data countries can calculate the needed forestation programs to cover thier emissions. Presto, all those shinny factories producing goods for us happy consumers chug along, and I dont have to sell my 76 vette either...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

To the original topic: What are the targets for emission reduction? One of those evil conservative American magazines published an article that said:

In order to decrease carbon emissions by 33 percent, we would have to remove every existing car and truck from the road (yes, that includes your hybrid), ground every airplane, and shut down every gas station in the United States. In order to bump up from there to a 73-percent decrease in emissions, we would have to shut down most of our electrical grid, with the exception of areas supplied only by nuclear plants, windmills, and dams.

(This is for America, mind you).

EDIT: Odin, there's an interesting powerpoint as the second link to this google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
We've lost forest since 1600 but we're doing a little better since 1962, it seems.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What a load of crap

Ice Core Studies Prove CO2 Is Not the Powerful Climate Driver Climate Alarmists Make It Out to Be

The results of their tedious but meticulous analysis led them to ultimately conclude that "the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years."

The sun not CO2 drives our climate.

Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming



NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE


More and more of this global warming crap is proven wrong every day just as many of you and everyone else are all wrapped up in and believing this junk science.

I urge those of you who care to watch this.Yes you maybe be able to pick some of it apart but it puts all this in its true light far more than Gores movie does. Heres the other side of the story

The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Caius]

terrorism will increase

Hah, nike joke.
Why do you think that? I dont think so.

The sun not CO2 drives our climate

Tell me, who did you teach geography?Do I have to explain which is the circle of the O3. Cmon Gawain, explain little Garcilaso how the sun drive the climate?

[Rodion Romanovich]

The sun not CO2 drives our climate.

Nice cutting job you (or your source) did with the graph! First of all, focus on the rightmost part of it. The sun curve goes sharpy down, yet the temperature steeper and steeper upwards. How does your model explain that? If you find yourself another graph, that hasn't cut off the time 2000 - 2006, you see this trend continuing even more visibly: the temperature increase is getting steeper and steeper, while the sun curve going down lower and lower.

The "solar cycles" theory was a nice try from the deniers back in the 90ies, but anyone looking at the entire graph up till now can clearly see the absurdity of that theory by a quick glance.

I'm also a bit curious how deniers can say that temperature measurements from 1850 are considered unreliable, but believe that solar activity measurements from that time (a LOT more complex measurement!) are correct. The choice to only include 1 temperature graph and 1 solar activity graph is also suspicious, giving the graph constructor the possibility of choosing the temperature and solar activity measurement source that fits his own theory best.

Here's another solar cycle curve, which completely disagrees with yours:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cycle-data.png

[Sigurd]

That said there is one thing we can do, and that is work towards decreasing deforestation. Just an example, in 1600 about a billion acres of the US was forest, in 1962 it was 762 million acre's. source.

There was a decent analysis done here when you scroll down a little you see that "Each person in the U.S. generates approximately 2.3 tons of CO2 each year. A healthy tree stores about 13 pounds of carbon annually -- or 2.6 tons per acre each year."

So per this study the theory bares out, if the numbers are accurate. So you specifically cant plant a tree or two and that will most likely cover your CO2 emission (you seem like a pretty clean guy Sigurd).

and

In order to decrease carbon emissions by 33 percent, we would have to remove every existing car and truck from the road (yes, that includes your hybrid), ground every airplane, and shut down every gas station in the United States. In order to bump up from there to a 73-percent decrease in emissions, we would have to shut down most of our electrical grid, with the exception of areas supplied only by nuclear plants, windmills, and dams.

I am sorry I have to rip up this again...
Why do you (not the original posters of the quotes but you as in people having something to say about greenhouse gases) focus on the people of the nation... how much CO2 each citizen of a nation is emitting?

From Odin's quote it says that the people of the US are generating about 2.3 tons of CO2 each year. I bet that is accurate. And then the solution is to plant an acre of trees pr capita to balance it all....
Well that is not the total US emission number pr capita. If you dump the industry numbers in there you suddenly get a 20,18 ton pr capita and hence need 10 times as much acres of trees.

As of the article in Alexander’s post it clearly refers to the 20,18 ton pr capita…
It basically says you have to just stop living to meet the Kyoto agreement (which bytehway US has withdrawn from).

Hello!!!?
There is so much you can do to reduce significantly without touching the everyday life of us mere mortals.

The Kyoto agreement says: Reduce emission to about 5 percent lower than your 1990 level.
For the US this is down to a 4763 Mega ton level. I don’t really know what the current US emission level is today but it was 5912 mega tons in 2004. That is an increase of 1149 mega tons or about 20%.
Remember the agreement applies to the 2012 numbers… Those bound to this agreement have a serious task at hand.

And again I propose that money strong nations help the large contributors of CO2 emission in the developing countries (including China) to reduce their quota (Kyoto agreement)

The numbers I use I got from EIA. There are two interesting Excel sheets that are particular interesting even though the numbers are old (2004)
It is the Total Emissions sheet and the Per capita Emissions.

You see that even though India and China are two of the top 5 emitters (1113 and 4707 mega ton) they have a low emission pr capita (1.04 and 3,62 ton). Norway which is pretty low on the total emission (51 mega ton) is high on the pr capita list (11 ton).

The top 5 emitters are (2004 numbers in mega tons):
US ------ 5 912,21
China ----4 707,28
Russia --- 1 684,84
Japan --- 1 262,10
India ---- 1 112,84

The latest news is that China has already passed USA.

[Odin]

and

I am sorry I have to rip up this again...
Why do you (not the original posters of the quotes but you as in people having something to say about greenhouse gases) focus on the people of the nation... how much CO2 each citizen of a nation is emitting?

From Odin's quote it says that the people of the US are generating about 2.3 tons of CO2 each year. I bet that is accurate. And then the solution is to plant an acre of trees pr capita to balance it all....
Well that is not the total US emission number pr capita. If you dump the industry numbers in there you suddenly get a 20,18 ton pr capita and hence need 10 times as much acres of trees.

As of the article in Alexander’s post it clearly refers to the 20,18 ton pr capita…
It basically says you have to just stop living to meet the Kyoto agreement (which bytehway US has withdrawn from).

Hello!!!?
There is so much you can do to reduce significantly without touching the everyday life of us mere mortals.

The Kyoto agreement says: Reduce emission to about 5 percent lower than your 1990 level.
For the US this is down to a 4763 Mega ton level. I don’t really know what the current US emission level is today but it was 5912 mega tons in 2004. That is an increase of 1149 mega tons or about 20%.
Remember the agreement applies to the 2012 numbers… Those bound to this agreement have a serious task at hand.

And again I propose that money strong nations help the large contributors of CO2 emission in the developing countries (including China) to reduce their quota (Kyoto agreement)

The numbers I use I got from EIA. There are two interesting Excel sheets that are particular interesting even though the numbers are old (2004)
It is the Total Emissions sheet and the Per capita Emissions.

You see that even though India and China are two of the top 5 emitters (1113 and 4707 mega ton) they have a low emission pr capita (1.04 and 3,62 ton). Norway which is pretty low on the total emission (51 mega ton) is high on the pr capita list (11 ton).

The top 5 emitters are (2004 numbers in mega tons):
US ------ 5 912,21
China ----4 707,28
Russia --- 1 684,84
Japan --- 1 262,10
India ---- 1 112,84

The latest news is that China has already passed USA.

Well thats just it, at least for me the numbers can be painted any number of ways. Yet the will to act still remains with the individual at least in the U.S. as CO2 reduction is not yet on the national adgenda.

So breaking it down in terms of what an individual can do, is a grassroots approach that needs to take root to sprout a larger discussion. Again my perspective is an american one, and we have had our head up our rectums on this issue for a long time.

The numbers become the focus of the discussion, and what can be done on macro scales to combat this. While its fun banter, the will to enact, and the ability to enact major reform on CO2 emission is in its infancy here in the states, and I am willing to bet in the countries you listed as the top 5 emitters.

My brother in law is a Brit, and he has friends from London who know thier own "footprints". They know exactly what they emit via CO2 and actively take alternatives to reduce that footprint.

As I participate in these CO2 discussions thats how i try and frame my responses on an individual basis. I understand your followup post was not directed at me at all, but certainly you must be able to see that the issue is dynamic and frankly very large given the content of data.

The avarage bloke in London, Oslo, and Seattle are probably a lot a like in many regards but each one has a different awareness level of the CO2 issue. Dumbing down the conversation to the indvidual consumers level makes for a more viable long term positive outcome.

Sure the data bares out that reducing CO2 by 33% requires we remove all autos, okay, but thats a hard sell and when you frame it differently such as "planting 1 tree helps reduce CO2 into the atmosphere" thats a bit easier for the blokes to swallow, and actually do.

[Sigurd]

Sure the data bares out that reducing CO2 by 33% requires we remove all autos, okay, but thats a hard sell and when you frame it differently such as "planting 1 tree helps reduce CO2 into the atmosphere" thats a bit easier for the blokes to swallow, and actually do.

Yes I see your point of view, and I hope you see mine.

The article with the hopless 33% reduction black paints the issue and it clearly states that whatever you do, you will not be able to stop the inevitable.
It's like being informed that you have a terminal illness and that you will die no matter the treatment. What do you do? Ignore it and live a whole life in the time you have left.

I see your point in starting somewhere, with the people. We have done that and the mentality of the average people is to think green. But we have come to the point realising that whatever you do it makes for spit in the ocean. It is time for the government to act and demand that the industry starts taking actions with their emissions. This is where every nation has the most to gain from. The real reductions can't be done with everyday Joe or Ola Normann; not by a fraction.

We need to start with the coal industry, then move over to the oil and gas industry. Then Cement and Fertilizers. by then we might even have reached our goal.
The other way by starting with the people takes too long.