2050: What the experts are saying about climate change... and some technologies that might help improve matters.

Note: This was also posted on my new Substack page (click here). Please bookmark that page as I may eventually stop posting here. 

In my last post I set the stage for a conversation about what the world might look like in 2050. Population and climate were two big drivers. Today I’d like to look at what the experts are saying about climate, and the technologies that might serve to alleviate the problem.

In May 2021 the International Energy Agency (IEA) released “Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector” (click here). As the IEA focusses on energy, and as the energy sector is responsible for three-quarters of the global carbon emission problem, it makes sense they would be the experts here. And as policy wonks hired by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), which is an organisation whose members are First World countries, one would not expect any bombshells. Their customers are, after all, First World politicians worried about re-election.

One would be wrong. A key conclusion is we need to “leave it in the ground” – there is more than enough coal, oil and gas already discovered to exceed our maximum budgeted emissions if we want to remain below 1.5 °C. No new drilling is needed. This is exactly the point the environmentalists have been trying to make for a very long time now.  

In June 2021 I wrote up a review of this 224-page wonk-fest. At 13 pages, my review is still long for a blog post, but the keeners can find it by clicking here. For the rest of you, a summary in several parts follows. I look forward to your comments and discussion.

The IEA assumes the world economy is 40% larger in 2050 than in 2020, while using 7% less energy. Energy production and use are critical components of climate change as they led to emissions of 33.9 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (Gt CO₂) in 2020, about 75% of the global total. Getting this to zero, while maintaining energy supplies at just 7% below today’s level, is critical. Here are some energy technologies that the IEA thinks will help get us to net zero by 2050.

Solar photo-voltaic and wind power are commercial today and provide close to half the necessary savings; and the good news is that growth in these technologies since 2021 has been faster than expected as costs drop.

Maintaining existing hydroelectric capacity remains a part of the puzzle. But building new hydro plants takes a very long time. Furthermore, drought can affect the capacity of new and existing generating stations. So hydro may be part of the solution but it is itself at risk from climate change.

Several other technologies identified by the IEA present significant challenges, in my view.

Replacing coal with so-called residual biomass, such as bark or sawdust from sawmills, or crop residues from farms, allows coal-fired assets to switch to a “renewable” fuel, meaning we can grow some more; this technology is largely proven. Biomass can also displace petroleum-based liquid transportation fuels and natural gas in pipelines, although these technologies are still not completely ready for prime time. But carbon neutrality of biomass combustion is under threat, first because it does in fact emit CO₂, which we are trying to avoid, even if it is “renewable”; secondly, any benefit may be more than offset by unknown levels of new climate-driven emissions from forest fires, insect infestations, floods and desertification. Forests may not be the huge carbon sink we are all counting on. Biomass for energy use is particularly problematic where whole trees are chipped and pelletised as a coal substitute, or where so-called energy crops start to displace food crops.

Carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS) is essential for lime kilns used in the production of cement and other products, because CO₂ emissions come from the chemistry of the lime reaction and not combustion. CCUS is also essential for any combustion process, such as thermally-generated power, remaining post-2050. But CCUS requires energy to run the plant and the necessary compressors to store the captured CO₂. More rapid decommissioning of coal-fired plants would reduce the need for CCUS, which will be expensive, energy-intensive and time consuming to implement. Direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) is a variation in CCUS, and when located next to CO₂ storage sites, would not need pipelines, but the energy cost of removing CO₂ from air is much higher than from lime kiln or boiler exhaust stacks due to much lower CO₂ concentrations; these much larger plants will take that much longer to build and start up. And the cost per tonne of CO₂ removed will be much larger than with other options.

So the question is do we have the time to build and implement carbon capture technologies, which are still at an early stage? And should we be allocating precious energy resources to cleaning up emissions rather than preventing them in the first place?

There is a lot of talk about hydrogen these days, and not just from the IEA. On the face of it, “burning” hydrogen in an oxygen environment generates good old H₂O, a.k.a. water. But there are two issues: where do we get the hydrogen from in the first place, and how do we distribute it.

The classic hydrogen source is from hydrocarbons such as natural gas or oil. Processes to extract H₂ from hydrocarbons generate CO₂ as a byproduct; this will have to be captured (see CCUS above), otherwise we have simply shifted the emissions somewhere else. If burning hydrogen generates energy and water, we can also reverse that process by using energy, hopefully from a green source, to dissociate the H₂ from the O₂, but we return to the issue of needing more (hopefully green) energy to allow us to continue using energy, even though energy use is what got is into this pickle in the fist place.

Finally hydrogen is a very dilute gas, and needs to be compressed to very high pressures in order to get a reasonable amount of energy into a reasonably small package, such as a vehicle fuel tank. The first time a hydrogen-fueled vehicle explodes following an accident will be the day this approach loses public support, as the explosion is likely to generate a lot of hot, high velocity shrapnel, killing people over a wide radius. Hollywood movies notwithstanding, a gasoline tank explosion is far more contained than one involving a compressed gas.

To be fair, there is a niche market for hydrogen: industrial sites involving a combustion process, such as a lime kiln, with green power to generate hydrogen from water available onsite via solar or wind generation, and where the hydrogen is used onsite in a situation where industrial-level occupational health and safety rules can be implemented. Having an onsite process use for the oxygen would be a bonus. It is not a solution for the transportation sector (which I will address in a subsequent post).

Nuclear power, which the IEA expects to double by 2050, is needed to offload other technologies and to stabilise the grid. But the time to get new conventional reactors permitted, engineered and online is very long. So-called Small Modular Reactors (SMR) are a great idea on paper but none have been permitted or built yet, and the cost per installed MW may be very high. And the waste problem still needs to be sorted out.

Again: Assuming we are all OK with the disadvantages of nuclear power, do we have the time?

So several options for getting the world off combustion-based energy production and use are going to be expensive and energy intensive, and won’t get built fast enough to make much of a difference. But it’s not all doom and gloom; I’ll talk about some short-term opportunities in an upcoming post.

Reference: International Energy Agency (2021), Net Zero by 2050, IEA, Paris: Net Zero by 2050 Scenario - Data product - IEA. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.