Tweet

Glen Peters

20 Nov, 11 tweets, 7 min read

@IEA

THREAD: Does the @IEA 1.5°C scenario (Net-Zero Emissions 2050) need carbon dioxide removal?

See my presentation at #WEOWeek or read this thread...

Video:
Slides: www2.slideshare.net/GlenPeters_CIC…

2. Background: Most scenarios have positive emissions (brown) & carbon dioxide removal (green) to get a net (black).

Because of hard-to-mitigate sectors, CDR is needed to:
1. Offset residual emissions
2. Bring temperatures down (optional)

cicero.oslo.no/no/posts/klima…

3. (bonus extra). It is not necessary to have so much CDR that it causes temperature overshoot (light green in previous figure) because of net-negative emissions.

Here is a scenario which just goes to net-zero, & has enough CDR to stay there.

4. The IEA net-zero scenarios (2050 for 1.5°C, 2070 for ~1.65°C) stop when they get to zero.

Questions:
* What happens post net-zero?
* When does CDR start being deployed?
* How much CDR is used at net-zero?

The focus on NZE2050 has been the period 2020-2030 (which is critical)

5. When compared to 1.5°C scenarios with no & low overshoot assessed for the #IPCC #SR15, the NZE2050 scenario is rather consistent to 2050. But, all the IPCC scenarios go below zero (net negative). Since they have to offset residual emissions, these scenarios have even more CDR!

6. (bonus extra) Here are the same scenarios for the IPCC 'lower 2°C' category (66% chance below 2°C in 2100). The IEA SDS is completely consistent with these scenarios, which leads to warming of the order ~1.65°C (depending on non-CO₂ emissions & climate response)

7. The IEA Energy Technology Perspectives, details the SDS further. The residual emissions in 2070 are ~3GtCO₂ in 2070, meaning CDR of ~3GtCO₂ is needed for net-zero.

The SDS mainly gets CDR from bioenergy with carbon capture & storage (BECCS).

iea.org/reports/energy…

8. Piecing together the data from several reports, the BECCS pathway in SDS is much lower than in comparable scenarios assessed by the IPCC.

The SDS has quite slow build up of CDR (vs IPCC):
* Starts 2030
* ~0.095 GtCO₂ in 2040
* ~0.25 GtCO₂ in 2050
* ~3 GtCO₂ in 2070

9. (bonus extra) Here is BECCS in the SDS compared to the IPCC 1.5°C scenarios. They have more BECCS, but not hugely different to the 2°C scenarios (ie, BE is already maxed in 2°C scenarios).

What will BECCS be like in the IEA 1.5°C NZE2050? We don't know yet...

10. What I would like to see in WEO2021:
* Fully detail NZE2050 to net-zero in 2050 (at least). How much coal, oil, gas, CDR, etc
* When does CDR scale up?
* Give some thoughts on post-2050 & scale of continued CDR
* Full assessment of CDR potential (scale & rate of deployment)

@Laura_Cozzi_

11. You can find my presentation here
www2.slideshare.net/GlenPeters_CIC…

Or take an hour to watch the presentations with @Laura_Cozzi_: 10 minutes on NZE2050 (@TofMcGlade, @djgcrow), then 4x 5 minutes inputs from @sladislaw, Ed Webber (BEIS), Zou Ji (China)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @Peters_Glen

Glen Peters

@Peters_Glen

18 Nov

Where does the European (EU27+UK) land sink come from?

It is mainly forest land remaining forest land. This is essentially managed forests, but also includes update from environmental factors (eg warmer climate & CO₂ fertilisation).

1/

There are large variations across countries. Ireland has a large source from grasslands (not sure of the background, but I am guessing drained peat lands essentially?).

2/

The Nordics all have large forest sinks, and their sinks are large relative to domestic emissions. Sweden, for example, is nearly has net-zero CO₂ emissions if the land sink is included.

3/

Read 6 tweets

Glen Peters

@Peters_Glen

17 Nov

@benmsanderson

@benmsanderson I guess it depends who the user is.

If it is just an academic exercise, then assuming this & that, to find what happens to coal is fine. This will also vary by model, given assumptions.

SSP2-45 from 6 models, very different answers... Academically interesting.

1/

@benmsanderson

@benmsanderson If I am a user, what do I do with that spread? Same socioeconomics, same effective climate policy, completely different outcomes (SSP is sort of current trends continue). Coal could rise or decline... Which may be true, but one would want to dig deeper...

2/

@benmsanderson

@benmsanderson Of course, every other year the path looking forward may differ depending on events, so need to redo scenarios again (& again)... But, that is just the way it is.

You can do scenarios which include current policies, I have not plotted those here.

3/

Read 4 tweets

Glen Peters

@Peters_Glen

17 Nov

Where will coal go in the next decade?

Baseline scenarios without climate policy can still have declining coal, if the socioeconomics (colours) are favourable (SSP1, SSP2, etc): low population, preference for clean air, etc.

Unlikely coal will grow SSP3 or SSP5 style...

1/

Under weak mitigation (colours are radiative forcing levels in 2100, bold are marker scenarios), coal can either decrease or increase...

But, given what we know today, what is the narrative that would have increasing or decreasing coal?

2/

Given the current pressure on coal, I would expect coal to be flat & then declining slowly (in the current policy environment), faster if policies are ramped up (like China, US, etc, net-zero).

Which scenarios should I use to get a realistic picture of coal?

3/

Read 6 tweets

Glen Peters

@Peters_Glen

15 Nov

@MichaelEMann

The world's top (male) climate researchers quoted in an article by the Norwegian public broadcaster on the permafrost paper (@MichaelEMann @hausfath, @richardabetts @bjornhs)

Most interesting is how Randers responds.

1/

by @NRKHallvard
nrk.no/norge/klimafor…

"Nothing would have been better than us being wrong"

"If we are right, as I am pretty sure we are, then we have helped to improve climate models and can provide better input on policy"

"It is wrong to say that our model cannot be used to analyze this type of question"

2/

"The point is that it is a different model that is casual, dynamic & based on fundamental physical causal models"

"The reason we are writing this is because we are begging on our knees that they investigate whether this is present in their models. Now we have attention."

3/

Read 5 tweets

Glen Peters

@Peters_Glen

3 Nov

@Equinor

What was the big news you missed yesterday?

@Equinor is going to net-zero in 2050...

There are a range of measures. The system boundary is expanded to include Scope 3 (use of oil by third-parties), but then allow offsets for third-party CCS.

1/

equinor.com/en/how-and-why…

On the Scope 1 (&2) the ambition is to "achieving carbon neutral global operations by 2030", which allows the use of carbon markets, but to go "near zero" by 2050 in Norway (no offsets).

This is likely required by legislation anyway (eg EU may require net-zero GHG in 2050)?

2/

On Scope 1 (&2) in global operations by 2050, the ambition is not clear but presumably net-zero allowing offsets. This is perhaps ok, as some global operations may be in countries that have no or weak policy, so it would be more ambitious than the host country policy.

3/

Read 13 tweets

Glen Peters

@Peters_Glen

19 Oct

1. We have heard the mantra that net-zero CO₂ is needed to get stable temperatures, but nearly all mitigation scenarios have negative net emissions. Why?

This means that the temperature declines when emissions go negative.

2. In this scenario, by 2100, the large scale negative net emissions shaves of 0.2°C. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) at scale has many potential non-climate impacts & may be costly.

Would the world generate so much CDR to slowly bring temperatures down by 0.2°C?

3. It is more likely, in my view, that the world would simply stabilise temperatures.

CDR is still needed to offset hard- or expensive-to-mitigate emissions, but the scale is greatly reduced.

Read 7 tweets

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!