Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
• The major difference between the two models is in the prospects
for coal CCS and wind, which involve questions of cost and fu-
ture availability.
I would highlight two major features of the study. First, the models re-
quire very high CO
2
prices to induce electricity suppliers to restructure
their capital to meet the sharp emissions reductions. The prices in 2050
range from $150 to $500 per ton of CO
2
to meet the objectives. The lower
end is approximately the price shown in Figure 33 and is consistent
with many of the global integrated assessment models, while the higher
number is at the high end of estimates and would impose serious eco-
nomic stresses on energy markets.
The most important point to emphasize is the size of the techno-
logical transition that will be necessary to meet the objectives. Tech-
nologies that comprise 70 percent of current electricity generation
(coal and natural gas) will need to be completely replaced. Fully half of
the projected generation will be provided with technologies that are
not currently operated at anywhere near the required scale. Another
quarter (nuclear) will be provided by a technology that is generally
unacceptable to the American public; indeed, not a single U.S. nuclear
power plant was licensed between 1978 and 2012. The balance of the
electricity will be generated by sources that are presently much more
expensive than current technologies (wind) or are really just a gleam
in the eyes of engineers (large-scale solar photovoltaic and geother-
mal power).
In reality, a technological transition of this magnitude requires years
to go through the many stages of technological, political, regulatory,
and economic approvals—and must pass the test of public acceptability
and private profi tability along the way. A technology like CCS might
require a decade of research and development (R&D), another decade of
pilot plant testing, continuous public and environmental and board-
room scrutiny, perhaps another decade of roll-out of large-scale plants
in many countries, and only then—if it passes all the tests along the
way—would it be ready for deployment on the scale needed to capture
and store billions or tens of billions of tons of CO
2
every year.
