The carbon budget and the future
of fossil fuels
Glen Peters (CICERO)
Paris-avtalen og norsk petroleumspolitikk (Seminar på Stortinget, 4/04/2017)

The future is uncertain, and we use scenarios to explore these future uncertainties
Emission Scenarios

Source: IEA World Energy Outlook (2016)
IEA Emission Scenarios (energy only)
Current Policies: Policies in place as of mid-2016;
New Policies: includes Nationally Determined Contributions (consistent with Paris Agreement);
450 Scenario: Keep global average temperature increase below 2°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100 (50% chance)

IPCC assessed about 1200 scenarios, and about 120 different 2°C scenarios (IEA assesses one)!
Different scenarios cover different models, policy start dates, technology portfolios, etc
Light lines: The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report assessed about 1200 scenarios using Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs)
Dark lines: Detailed climate modelling was done on four Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)
Source: Fuss et al 2014; CDIAC; IIASA AR5 Scenario Database; Global Carbon Budget 2016
There are many options to stay below 2°C

IPCC assessed about 1200 scenarios, and about 120 different 2°C scenarios (IEA assesses one)!
Different scenarios cover different models, policy start dates, technology portfolios, etc
Light lines: The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report assessed about 1200 scenarios using Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs)
Dark lines: Detailed climate modelling was done on four Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)
Source: Fuss et al 2014; CDIAC; IIASA AR5 Scenario Database; Global Carbon Budget 2016
There are many options to stay below 2°C
“Negative emissions” are
a fundamental feature
with fundamental
consequences…

• “Holding the increase … to well below 2°C … pursue
efforts to limit … to 1.5 °C …”
• “global peaking … as soon as possible … undertake rapid
reductions … achieve a balance between … sources
and … sinks … in the second half of this century”
• This is roughly consistent with 2°C, 66% chance
– This gives a median temperature of about 1.6-1.8°C
• IEA seems to suggest the same
The Paris Agreement

The cumulative CO2 emissions in a 2°C scenario from today to time of peak temperature gives the “carbon budget”
A “carbon budget” depends on definition, non-CO2 emissions, technology pathways, etc
More details in two blog posts, here and here
Carbon Budget and 2°C (66%)

• Policy Assumptions
– Global uniform carbon price in 2010, 2020, or 2030
– Models respond quickly (generally, peak when CO2 price starts)
• Behaviour
– Energy demand quite “rigid” (in my view)
• Energy system
– Large-scale CCS
– Large-scale bioenergy (generally all “carbon neutral”)
– Model variations with specific technologies
Key characteristics of 2°C (IPCC)

CO2 removal starts in 2020-2030 and rises to 15 billion tonnes CO2 per year in 2100
Less CO2 removal requires more rapid reductions in fossil fuel and industry emissions
Source: Anderson & Peters (2016)
The importance of “Negative Emissions”

A typical CCS facility today is about 1MtCO2/yr storage (e.g., Sleipner) → 1000 facilities per 1GtCO2
Scenarios assessed by the IPCC use much more CCS than IEA (but, IEA is a 50% scenario)
Today, there is capture capacity of 28MtCO2/yr, but only about 7.5MtCO2/yr is verified as stored (IEA).
Source: Based on IIASA AR5 Scenario Database
Carbon Capture and Storage

A typical CCS facility today is about 1MtCO2/yr storage (e.g., Sleipner) → 1000 facilities per 1GtCO2
Scenarios assessed by the IPCC use much more CCS than IEA (but, IEA is a 50% scenario)
Today, there is capture capacity of 28MtCO2/yr, but only about 7.5MtCO2/yr is verified as stored (IEA).
Source: Based on IIASA AR5 Scenario Database
Carbon Capture and Storage
IEA when CCS was in vogue… (2009)
IEA in 2016 (approximate)
Statoil Energy Perspectives (2016)

A lot of disagreement on how much bioenergy can be produced sustainably
Different literature, different fields, different answers
Source: Based on IIASA AR5 Scenario Database
Bioenergy

Carbon budget and fossil fuels

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and “Negative Emissions” allows the budget to be exceeded
Note: Totals are not always consistent because medians are not additive, and some columns have different numbers of scenarios
Source: Peters (2016)
Consequences of CCS and BECCS

CCS allows greater use of fossil fuels, and BECCS offsets previous emissions or postive emissions (e.g., CH4)
If CCS doesn’t live up to scale, fossil fuels use has to decline much more rapidly
Source: Peters (2016)
No CCS means less fossil fuels (or no 2°C)

Future fossil fuel demand versus supply

Climate change is a long-term problem, fossil fuel industries have long-term investments
Can’t stop the discussion in 2040…
Light lines: The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report assessed about 1200 scenarios using Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs)
Dark lines: Detailed climate modelling was done on four Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)
Source: Fuss et al 2014; CDIAC; IIASA AR5 Scenario Database; Global Carbon Budget 2016
There are many options to stay below 2°C

Source: Statoil Energy Perspectives (2016); IIASA AR5 Scenario Database
Oil: Looking beyond 2040…

Because oil consumption declines faster after 2040, existing assets become stranded
Source: Statoil Energy Perspectives (2016); IIASA AR5 Scenario Database
Oil: Looking beyond 2040…

Because oil consumption declines faster after 2040, existing assets become stranded
Building infrastructure to meet 2040 demand will come with high risk in the follow decades
Source: Statoil Energy Perspectives (2016); IIASA AR5 Scenario Database
Oil: Looking beyond 2040…

Gas has a more promising future, depending on the scale of CCS
Source: Statoil Energy Perspectives (2016); IIASA AR5 Scenario Database
Gas: Looking beyond 2040…

A rapid decline in coal gives more space for oil and gas, CCS dependent
Though, coal producers have a different view…
Source: Statoil Energy Perspectives (2016); IIASA AR5 Scenario Database
“depending on what you think about coal”

Scenarios assessed by the IPCC have large-scale bioenergy,…
…much of which is combined with CCS, to give “negative emissions” (BECCS)
Source: Statoil Energy Perspectives (2016); IIASA AR5 Scenario Database
Bioenergy: Potentially important role

“The world needs more energy”
Yes, but there are multiple ways to meet that need!
Source: Statoil Energy Perspectives (2016); IIASA AR5 Scenario Database
The role of energy efficiency

• Short-term: Yes
• Long-term: No
• Medium-term: The “pointed questions”…
– “When do you stop exploring?”
– “When do you start investing quickly to rapidly empty the
resources that you have?”
– Quotes from Eirik Wærness
Should we invest in new oil?
Source: Columbia Energy Exchange (13/03/2017)

Discussion

• We will need some more fossil fuels, but limited
– Coal (CCS?), Oil (yes – shorter), Gas (yes – longer)
• At some stage, will have to stop investing in new fields
• Fundamental questions:
– When to stop investing?
– Who decides?
• Stakeholders have different risk profiles
– State versus a company
What I think we will agree on!

• Where will policy/progress go? (not where it is today)
– 3°C, 2.5°C?, 2°C 50%, 2°C 66%, 1.5°C
– Misreading future policy changes could be costly!
• Future technologies
– CCS (on bioenergy, coal, gas) of fundamental importance
– Renewables, unexpected breakthroughs, etc
• How to position a country in a climate context?
– Not unique to Norway, many struggle with the same issue
– How fast to “venture” into the next “nest egg”?
Key Uncertainties

Peters_Glen
cicero.oslo.no
cicerosenterforklimaforskning
glen.peters@cicero.oslo.no
Glen Peters