Meeting Electricity Demand While Complying with the Kyoto Protocol

1
Meeting Electricity Demand While Complying with
the Kyoto Protocol (or not) Presented by Eileen
Cronin ecronin_at_kentlaw.edu April 12, 2004 Energy
Law, Spring 2004 Professor Bosselman Chicago Kent
College of Law
2
Topic Examine the challenges presented by the
Kyoto Protocol, with particular focus on its
impact on electric utilities.
Focus on CO2 since its the primary greenhouse
gas (GHG) emitted, both by utilities and by all
sources overall. On the European Union (EU)
and the United States, since they represent the
opposite poles of opinion regarding the
advisability of implementing Kyoto (and also
because both have a lot of data available on the
Internet).
3
Disclaimers The data used for this presentation
came from several sources and were not always
consistent in terms of source categories, units,
net vs. gross values, etc. Because of the data
mixing and matching I had to do, the numerical
values given in this presentation should be
considered order-of-magnitude type information.
Also, many of these slides present my opinions/
comments. Theyll be in a pink box and
accompanied by my assistant, Chart-Man.
4
  The countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol
agreed to decrease GHG emissions by a specified
amount from the 1990 baseline by 2008-2012. For
example   1. EU 8 decrease   2. Japan 6
decrease   3. Canada 6 decrease  
5
II. Kyoto Overview (cont.)
Three industrialized countries participated in
the Kyoto negotiations and were assigned
tentative GHG emission targets, but they havent
ratified the Protocol yet   1. US 7
decrease   2. Australia 8 increase   3. Russia
0 increase  
6
II. Kyoto Overview (cont.)
By its terms the Protocol doesnt enter into
force until Annex I (industrialized) countries
accounting for at least 55 of the baseline GHG
emissions have ratified it. To date 121
countries have ratified, but they only account
for 44.2 of the baseline GHG emissions.
Either Russia (17.4) or the US (36.1) will
have to ratify to pass the 55 threshold.
7
II. Kyoto Overview (cont.)
Its fair to say that many of the ratifying
countries arent too happy about the US decision
to walk away from the Protocol.
8
II. Kyoto Overview (cont.)
In spite of this, the EU is firmly committed to
complying with Kyoto whether its formally in
effect or not. How are they going to do it?  
9

•  
• A significant proportion of total GHG emissions
  comes from CO2 generated as a result of
  combustion of fossil fuels for transportation,
  generation of electricity, and industrial
  processes (heat/power).
•  
•  

10
The amount of CO2 emitted is a function of the
amount of carbon combusted.    
For example, the equation CnHm (n m/4)O2
nCO2 (m/2)H2O gives a simplified
representation of the combustion of a simple
hydrocarbon fuel.    
11
The amount of CO2 emitted is a function of the
amount of carbon combusted.    
For example, the equation CnHm (n m/4)O2
nCO2 (m/2)H2O Within the range of accuracy
of air emission estimates,    
n moles C burned ? n moles CO2 emitted
12
The amount of CO2 emitted is a function of the
amount of carbon combusted.    
For example, the equation CnHm (n m/4)O2
nCO2 (m/2)H2O Within the range of accuracy
of air emission estimates,    
n moles C burned ? n moles CO2 emitted
n tons C burned ? 3.67n tons CO2 emitted
13
The same basic relationship applies to liquid and
solid carbon-based fuels too. End result the
CO2 emissions from fossil-fueled EGUs and large
industrial boilers are staggering.
   
14
For example, consider a coal-fired electrical
generating unit (EGU) with a rated heat input of
3,380 mmBtu/hr.    
15
For example, consider a coal-fired electrical
generating unit (EGU) with a rated heat input of
3,380 mmBtu/hr.    
This is about the same as the reported design
heat input for the coal-fired unit at Midwest
Generations Fisk Station on Cermak Avenue, just
southwest of the Loop.    
16
For example, consider a coal-fired electrical
generating unit (EGU) with a rated heat input of
3,380 mmBtu/hr. Based on USEPAs published
boiler conversion factors, this unit would have a
generating capacity of about 322 MW.
   
17
For example, consider a coal-fired electrical
generating unit (EGU) with a rated heat input of
3,380 mmBtu/hr. Based on USEPAs published
boiler conversion factors, this unit would have a
generating capacity of about 322 MW. And based
on other USEPA factors for typical boilers, if
this unit operates at an average of 70 of
capacity it will...    
18
generate 1,974,000 MW-hr of electricity,
   
19
generate 1,974,000 MW-hr of
electricity, consume 797,000 tons of coal,
and    
20
generate 1,974,000 MW-hr of
electricity, consume 797,000 tons of coal,
and emit 2,407,000 tons of CO2.    
21
generate 1,974,000 MW-hr of
electricity, consume 797,000 tons of coal,
and emit 2,407,000 tons of CO2. Per year.
   
22
Currently the only practical ways to reduce CO2
emissions from EGUs are
23
Currently the only practical ways to reduce CO2
emissions from EGUs are
CO2 sequestration (e.g., injecting it deep
underground) may ultimately prove to be viable,
but that remains to be seen.
24
Currently the only practical ways to reduce CO2
emissions from EGUs are 1. Improve the
efficiency of the EGU and/or reduce electrical
demand.
25
Currently the only practical ways to reduce CO2
emissions from EGUs are 1. Improve the
efficiency of the EGU and/or reduce electrical
demand. 2. Switch to a carbon-based fuel that
has a lower CO2 intensity
26
Currently the only practical ways to reduce CO2
emissions from EGUs are 1. Improve the
efficiency of the EGU and/or reduce electrical
demand. 2. Switch to a carbon-based fuel that
has a lower CO2 intensity Intensity is
the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of output,
e.g., tons/MW-hr
27
Currently the only practical ways to reduce CO2
emissions from EGUs are 1. Improve the
efficiency of the EGU and/or reduce electrical
demand. 2. Switch to a carbon-based fuel that
has a lower CO2 intensity 3. Replace with
non-carbon fueled generating capacity
28
Currently the only practical ways to reduce CO2
emissions from EGUs are 1. Improve the
efficiency of the EGU and/or reduce electrical
demand. 2. Switch to a carbon-based fuel that
has a lower CO2 intensity 3. Replace with
non-carbon fueled generating capacity Or
some combination of these options.
29
Applying these approaches to the example 322 MW
EGU, the reductions would be
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
Doesnt sound like much, but presumably
modifications with a positive rate of return have
already been done...
34
(No Transcript)
35
This is more realistic and may be under-ambitious
36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
Based on USEPA emission factors, for EGU
combustion natural gas has about half the CO2
intensity of coal.
40
If the unit isnt already capable of dual-fuel
firing, there will be a cost associated with
retrofitting or replacing equipment for operation
on natural gas.
41
And fuel costs will increase. As of November
2003, coal 1.08/mmBtu (IL avg.) gas
4.87/mmBtu (US avg.)
42
But there should be reductions in operating costs
from
elimination of coal handling and processing
costs reduced emission control
costs elimination of ash disposal costs
43
Potential downside having to compete on the open
market with giant utility companies for the fuel
used to heat most residences in this part of the
country (including mine!)
44
(No Transcript)
45
(No Transcript)
46
But what kind of non-carbon fueled EGU(s) can
replace a 322 MW power plant???
47
Hydro?
This is Graue Mill in Hinsdale.
There just isnt much hydropower potential in
Illinois.
48
Geothermal?
This is actually just vapor from a sewer.
(And the sewer is actually in St. Louis it was
the only picture I could find.)
There just isnt much geothermal power potential
in Illinois.
49
Wind?
There is some wind in Illinois...
But if you installed turbines rated at (say) 5
MW each, you would need 65 of them to replace a
322 MW plant (when the wind is blowing).
This appears to be about the maximum size
turbine currently being installed
50
Turbine size and locations not to scale... for
illustration only
Thats a lot of turbines.
Of course they wouldnt really be downtown...
51
Turbine size and locations not to scale... for
illustration only
They would probably be built out on the lake (or
out in the boonies)
But you get the picture
52
Solar?
There is some sun in Illinois...
But if you installed thin film PV panels capable
of producing (say) 100 W/m2 of array, you would
need 8 km2 of panels to replace a 322 MW plant
(when the sun is shining).
This is a near-term efficiency projected for
thin film PV technology currently under
development.
53
Thats a lot of area for PV panels.
Of course they wouldnt really be downtown...
But you get the picture
54
And this would be just to replace 322 MW of
generating capacity.
As of 2000, Illinois had 30 coal-fired EGUs with
a total nameplate capacity of 5,947 MW.
Replacing all of this capacity would require
1,200 5-MW wind turbines, or 150 km2 acres of
100 W/m2 PV panels.
Those numbers dont seem very plausible (at
least for any time soon).
55
On the other hand, realistic limitations for
solar and wind power only range from 10-25 of a
utilitys capacity, so replacing that fraction of
the states nominal coal-fired generating
capacity seems like a more plausible scenario
56
Given the limits of existing technology, it
looks like (for the time being at least) the only
non-carbon fuel that realistically can replace a
substantial fraction of baseload fossil-fired
generating capacity is nuclear power.
!
?
?
!
!
!
Assuming you could get the plants built...
57
  Implicit in the foregoing discussion is the
assumption that we would be aiming at a
stationary output target. But in reality, the
demand for electricity is almost certainly going
to be increasing.    
58
The DoE Energy Information Administration
projects that worldwide electricity consumption
will increase at an average annual rate of 2.4
between 2001 and 2025.
59
Note that the High Economic Growth scenario
(which is based on a global increase of 3.3)
results in doubling of electricity usage in the
span of 24 years.
60
Note that the High Economic Growth scenario
(which is based on a global increase of 3.3)
results in doubling of electricity usage in the
span of 24 years.
This rate of growth basically cancels out the
50 decrease in CO2 emissions that could be
achieved by replacing coal-fired generating
capacity with natural gas.
61
Most of this increase will occur in developing
countries, but growth is expected in all regions.
62
Some of EIAs Reference Case predictions
are US 1.6 EU 1.6 Japan 1.3
Russia 2.2 China 4.3 India 3.4
World 2.4
63
So what are the US and EU GHG emissions, anyway?
64
1990
2001
Other 10
Other 11
Electricity generation
40
36
19
23
(2,243 Tg)
(1,805 Tg)
31
30
Total US CO2 emissions increased by 16, 1990-2001
Transportation
Industry
Industry
total CO2 emitted 1990 4,970 Tg
total CO2 emitted 2001 5,741 Tg
65
1990
2001
Other 10
Other 11
Electricity generation
40
36
19
23
(2,243 Tg)
(1,805 Tg)
31
30
US CO2 emissions from electrical generation
increased 24, 1990-2001
Transportation
Industry
Industry
total CO2 emitted 1990 4,970 Tg
total CO2 emitted 2001 5,741 Tg
66
(No Transcript)
67
other
3,411 TWh
6
hydro
2,864 TWh
23
10
nuclear
Electricity generation fuels used, 2001
Electricity generation fuels used, 1991
21
13
gas
9
oil
40
36
(1,805 Tg)
(2,243 Tg)
coal
54
54
This is the percentage and total CO2 emissions
from electrical generation, 1990
2001
1990/91
68
other
3,411 TWh
6
hydro
2,864 TWh
23
10
nuclear
Electricity generation fuels used, 2001
Electricity generation fuels used, 1991
21
13
gas
9
oil
40
36
(1,805 Tg)
(2,243 Tg)
coal
54
54
This is the total electrical output, 1991
2001
1990/91
69
other
3,411 TWh
6
hydro
2,864 TWh
23
10
nuclear
Electricity generation fuels used, 2001
Electricity generation fuels used, 1991
21
13
gas
9
oil
40
36
(1,805 Tg)
(2,243 Tg)
coal
54
54
And this shows the percentage of the total output
obtained from each fuel, 1991
2001
1990/91
70
3,411 TWh
The CO2 emission data are from 1990 but the
output and fuel data are from 1991 (sorry!)
6
2,864 TWh
23
10
Electricity generation fuels used, 2001
Electricity generation fuels used, 1991
21
13
9
40
36
(1,805 Tg)
(2,243 Tg)
54
54
2001
1990/91
71
3,411 TWh
These are the corresponding emissions, output,
and fuel data for 2001
6
2,864 TWh
23
10
Electricity generation fuels used, 2001
Electricity generation fuels used 1991
21
13
9
40
36
(1,805 Tg)
(2,243 Tg)
54
54
2001
1990/91
72
3,411 TWh
6
2,864 TWh
23
10
Electricity generation fuels used, 2001
Electricity generation fuels used, 1991
21
13
Recall from a few slides ago that CO2 emissions
from electrical generation increased by
24 (1990-2001)
9
40
36
(1,805 Tg)
(2,243 Tg)
54
54
2001
1990/91
73
3,411 TWh
6
2,864 TWh
Electricity output increased by 19 (1991-2001)
23
10
Electricity generation fuels used 2001
Electricity generation fuels used, 1991
21
13
Recall from a few slides ago that CO2 emissions
from electrical generation increased by
24 (1990-2001)
9
40
36
(1,805 Tg)
(2,243 Tg)
54
54
2001
1990/91
74
3,411 TWh
6
2,864 TWh
23
10
Electricity generation fuels used, 2001
Electricity generation fuels used, 1991
21
13
9
40
36
(1,805 Tg)
(2,243 Tg)
54
54
2001
1990/91
The overall mix of fuels didnt change much
75
(No Transcript)
76
2001
1990
Other
Other
Energy Industries
20
20
33
34
This includes emissions from refineries in
addition to EGUs
(1,119 Tg)
(1,144 Tg)
22
24
25
21
Transport
Industrial ()
Industrial ()
total CO2 emitted 2001 3,384 Tg
total CO2 emitted 1990 3,329 Tg
77
2001
1990
Other
Other
Energy Industries
20
20
33
35
(1,119 Tg)
(1,144 Tg)
22
24
Total EU CO2 emissions increased by 2, 1990-2001
25
21
Transport
Industrial ()
Industrial ()
total CO2 emitted 2001 3,384 Tg
total CO2 emitted 1990 3,329 Tg
78
2001
1990
Other
Other
Energy Industries
20
20
33
35
(1,119 Tg)
(1,144 Tg)
22
24
25
21
EU CO2 emissions from electrical generation
decreased by 2, 1990-2001
Transport
Industrial ()
Industrial ()
total CO2 emitted 2001 3,384 Tg
total CO2 emitted 1990 3,329 Tg
79
(No Transcript)
80
2,370 TWh
1
wind
1,882 TWh
15
0
hydro
Electricity generation fuels used 2001
15
Electricity generation fuels used 1990
Recall from a few slides ago that CO2 emissions
from electrical generation decreased by
2 (1990-2001)
38
nuclear
38
35
33
(1,144 Tg)
(1,119 Tg)
19
gas
8
10
oil
7
20
coal
29
2001
1990
81
2,370 TWh
1
wind
1,882 TWh
15
Electricity output increased by 26 (1991-2001)
0
hydro
Electricity generation fuels used 2001
15
Electricity generation fuels used 1990
Recall from a few slides ago that CO2 emissions
from electrical generation decreased by
2 (1990-2001)
38
nuclear
38
35
33
(1,144 Tg)
(1,119 Tg)
19
gas
8
10
oil
oil
7
20
coal
29
1990
2001
82
2,370 TWh
1
A key factor enabling the EU to reduce CO2
emissions from electrical generation (-2) while
increasing electricity output significantly
(26) was the availability of natural gas from
the North Sea fields (and to a lesser extent
Russia) for fuel switching.
wind
1,882 TWh
15
wind
0
hydro
hydro
Electricity generation fuels used 2001
15
Electricity generation fuels used 1990
38
nuclear
38
35
33
(1,144 Tg)
(1,119 Tg)
19
gas
8
10
oil
7
20
29
coal
83
2,370 TWh
1
wind
1,882 TWh
15
0
hydro
Electricity generation fuels used 2001
15
Electricity generation fuels used 1990
Usage of of coal and oil decreased both
absolutely and relative to total fuel consumption.
38
nuclear
38
35
33
(1,144 Tg)
(1,119 Tg)
19
gas
8
10
oil
7
20
coal
29
84
(No Transcript)
85
IX. Comparison between EU and US, 2001 (cont.)
3,411 TWh
The US is much more dependent on coal, the
worst-case fuel for CO2 emissions.
hydro
nuclear
2,370 TWh
Electricity generation fuels used 2001
Electricity generation fuels used 2001
gas
15
oil
38
33
40
(1,119 Tg)
(2,243 Tg)
coal
19
7
20
US - 2001
EU - 2001
86
IX. Comparison between EU and US, 2001 (cont.)
EU 2.12 TWh/Tg CO2
3,411 TWh
hydro
nuclear
US 1.52 TWh/Tg CO2
2,370 TWh
Electricity generation fuels used 2001
Electricity generation fuels used 2001
gas
15
oil
38
33
40
(1,119 Tg)
(2,243 Tg)
coal
19
7
20
US - 2001
EU - 2001
87
IX. Comparison between EU and US, 2001 (cont.)
EU 2.12 TWh/Tg CO2
3,411 TWh
hydro
nuclear
US 1.52 TWh/Tg CO2
2,370 TWh
Electricity generation fuels used 2001
Electricity generation fuels used 2001
gas
15
oil
End result As of 2001, the EU is getting about
40 more electrical power per unit of CO2 emitted
than the US is.
38
33
40
(1,119 Tg)
(2,243 Tg)
coal
19
7
20
US - 2001
EU - 2001
88
IX. Comparison between EU and US, 2001 (cont.)
So far the EU has managed to reduce overall GHG
emissions by a little more than 2 relative to
the 1990 baseline  
This puts the EU on schedule with Kyotos
requirements
Although if recent trends continue the EU may
have difficulty meeting its 2010 target reduction
of 8
89
IX. Comparison between EU and US, 2001 (cont.)
Meanwhile, US GHG emissions are increasing,
although according to USEPA they have been
falling in relation to real GDP and holding
steady per capita  
This line also approximates the absolute increase
in US GHG emissions
Real GDP
140 130 120 110 100 90 80
Population
Index (1990 100)
Emissions per capita
Emissions per GDP
1990
1995
2001
90
IX. Comparison between EU and US, 2001 (cont.)
Meanwhile, US GHG emissions are increasing,
although according to USEPA they have been
falling in relation to real GDP and holding
steady per capita  
This is how the increase in US GHG emissions
looks relative to the EUs performance through
2001
And relative to the US Kyoto target
x
91
IX. Comparison between EU and US, 2001 (cont.)
So not a particularly impressive showing by the
US. However, a few points should be noted  
92
IX. Comparison between EU and US, 2001 (cont.)
1. A non-negligible fraction of the GHG
reductions achieved by the EU during the period
1990-2001 came from  
switching coal-fired generating capacity in
the UK over to North Sea gas, and
shutdown of inefficient plants in the former
East Germany.
Not to knock the EUs overall effort, but these
changes would have happened for economic
reasons, with or without Kyoto, and provided a
good running start toward meeting the target.
I couldnt find exact data but it appears that
these circumstances accounted for at least
20-25 of the overall EU reduction.
93
IX. Comparison between EU and US, 2001 (cont.)
2. The US has some disadvantages that would make
it difficult to meet its Kyoto target even if it
were trying
heavy dependence on coal for electricity
generation but no good alternatives for the near
term (i.e. 2008-2012 time frame)
-- limited natural gas supplies and delivery
infrastructure
-- public resistance to nuclear power
-- current renewables technologies unsuitable
for replacing substantial fraction of baseload
capacity
94
IX. Comparison between EU and US, 2001 (cont.)
2. The US has some disadvantages that would make
it difficult to meet its Kyoto target even if it
were trying
a relatively harsh climate that requires more
energy for heating and cooling and a population
thats accustomed to getting plenty of both
95
IX. Comparison between EU and US, 2001 (cont.)
3. Also, as discussed in Noga Morag-Levines book
Chasing the Wind, the US also has what might be
considered a cultural/legal disadvantage its
common law heritage.
Under the common law tradition, harm from
pollution must be proven before liability can
be imposed.
Covered in Environmental Law Policy II
96
IX. Comparison between EU and US, 2001 (cont.)
3. Also, as discussed in Noga Morag-Levines book
Chasing the Wind, the US also has what might be
considered a cultural/legal disadvantage its
common law heritage.
In contrast, countries with a civil law tradition
(i.e., most of the EU) are more likely to accept
technical feasibility and the precautionary
principle as adequate justification for imposing
controls.
97
IX. Comparison between EU and US, 2001 (cont.)
3. Also, as discussed in Noga Morag-Levines book
Chasing the Wind, the US also has what might be
considered a cultural/legal disadvantage its
common law heritage.
This difference in approach becomes especially
stark in the case of climate change, where there
is controversy regarding potential impacts, and a
diffuse chain of responsibility for whatever
impacts there may be.
98
In the US, last year the federal government
announced its Climate VISION program.  
Voluntary Innovative Sector Initiatives
Opportunities Now
How many tax dollars are being wasted every year
thinking up these dopey acronyms?
99
X. What about the future? (cont.)
The Climate VISION program establishes a
voluntary goal of reducing GHG intensity
(relative to economic output -- not absolute
emissions) by 18 by 2010.
Many industry trade associations have endorsed
the program and announced their intention to
comply.
100
X. What about the future? (cont.)
The Climate VISION program establishes a
voluntary goal of reducing GHG intensity
(relative to economic output -- not absolute
emissions) by 18 by 2010.
Note there was about an 18 decrease relative to
economic output between 1990 and 2001
Emissions per GDP
Even without a snappy acronym
101
X. What about the future? (cont.)
The Climate VISION program establishes a
voluntary goal of reducing GHG intensity
(relative to economic output -- not absolute
emissions) by 18 by 2010.
In order for EGUs to achieve this reduction
with respect to electricity output, fuel
switching would be necessary.
Alternatively (or in addition), electricity
consumers would have to reduce their consumption
relative to their economic output.
Doable? Maybe... but it wont be easy or
painless.
102
X. What about the future? (cont.)
EU - 2001 2,370 TWh
1
The EU isnt necessarily in a position to relax
either.  
wind, etc.
15
hydro
Consider the mix of fuels currently used by the
EU for electricity generation
nuclear
38
19
gas
oil
7
20
coal
103
X. What about the future? (cont.)
EU - 2001 2,370 TWh
1
The EU isnt necessarily in a position to relax
either. First, the output of the North Sea gas
and oil fields may have peaked (although
production should continue through 2025 and
beyond).  
wind, etc.
15
hydro
38
nuclear
19
gas
oil
7
20
coal
104
X. What about the future? (cont.)
EU - 2001 2,370 TWh
The EU isnt necessarily in a position to relax
either. First, the output of the North Sea gas
and oil fields may have peaked (although
production should continue through 2025 and
beyond). Result gas supplies could tighten.
 
15
hydro
nuclear
38
?
gas
oil
7
coal
20
105
X. What about the future? (cont.)
EU - 2001 2,370 TWh
The EU isnt necessarily in a position to relax
either. Second, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, and the
Netherlands have all declared that they intend to
shut down their nuclear plants.  
15
hydro
nuclear
38
?
gas
oil
7
coal
20
106
X. What about the future? (cont.)
EU - 2001 2,370 TWh
The EU isnt necessarily in a position to relax
either. Second, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, and the
Netherlands have all declared that they intend to
shut down their nuclear plants. This would
take a big bite out of the EUs current
capacity.  
15
hydro
?
nuclear
?
gas
oil
7
coal
20
107
X. What about the future? (cont.)
EU - 2001 2,370 TWh
The EU isnt necessarily in a position to relax
either. And demand will probably rise by 15
overall by 2010 if EIA's prediction of a 1.6
average increase per year is correct.  
15
hydro
?
nuclear
?
gas
oil
7
coal
20
108
X. What about the future? (cont.)
EU - 2010 2725?? TWh
The EU isnt necessarily in a position to relax
either. And demand will probably rise by 15
overall by 2010 if EIAs prediction of 1.6
average increase per year is correct.  
109
X. What about the future? (cont.)
The EU is taking aggressive action in an attempt
to meet its 2008-2012 Kyoto target. Steps
implemented or proposed to date include  
development of a GHG trading program
incentives for renewable fuels, with a goal of
22 renewables for electricity generation by 2010
incentives for combined heat and power (CHP)
units, with goal of 18 of electricity generation
by 2010
110
X. What about the future? (cont.)
The EU is taking aggressive action in an attempt
to meet its 2008-2012 Kyoto target. Despite
this, it is far from certain at this point that
the EU will be able to achieve its Kyoto target.
 
111
X. What about the future? (cont.)
Furthermore, the realities of the global climate
situation suggest that even heroic reductions in
GHG emissions by developed countries will make
little difference  
Developing countries are exempted from any
targets under Kyoto  
Electricity growth in many of these countries
is expected to grow in the range of 3-5 per
year.  
At least two China and India are in a fuel
fix similar to that of the US plentiful coal
supplies but limited access to natural gas  
112
X. What about the future? (cont.)
Modeling indicates that even if all of the
countries assigned a Kyoto target meet those
targets, it will have little effect on climate
change without the participation of the
developing countries plus implementation of far
more extreme GHG cuts by everyone  
113
X. What about the future? (cont.)
One model predicts the following potential
changes in average global temperatures  
? No action
? Implement Kyoto
? Freeze global GHG emissions at 2000 levels
? Reduce global GHG emissions 25
Temperature change ºC
? Reduce global GHG emissions 75
Year
114
X. What about the future? (cont.)
One model predicts the following potential
changes in average global temperatures  
? No action
? Implement Kyoto
This really doesnt appear to be worth extreme
measures
Temperature change ºC
Year
115
X. What about the future? (cont.)
One model predicts the following potential
changes in average global temperatures  
And this appears to be wholly implausible given
the needs and aspirations of the developing
countries
? Freeze
? Reduce 25
Temperature change ºC
? Reduce 75
Year
116
X. What about the future? (cont.)
One model predicts the following potential
changes in average global temperatures  
Not to mention the hurdles the developed
countries would face in implementing such steep
cuts
? Freeze
? Reduce 25
Temperature change ºC
? Reduce 75
Year
117

• The US should continue to abstain from ratifying
  the Kyoto protocol. This at least has the virtue
  of being honest about what the Protocol is likely
  to accomplish, as well as the likelihood that the
  US would be able to meet its commitments.

2. Assuming GHG emissions do cause global
warming, then it looks like the globe is going to
warm.
118
XI. Conclusions (cont.)
That said, its probably safe to say that theres
room for improvement in US GHG emitting habits.
 
Transportation might be a good place to start --
it accounts for 31 of US GHG emissions
119
XI. Conclusions (cont.)
Transportation might be a good place to start --
it accounts for 31 of US GHG emissions,
-- compared to 25 for the EU,
120
XI. Conclusions (cont.)
Transportation might be a good place to start --
it accounts for 31 of US GHG emissions,
-- compared to 25 for the EU,
-- (too) much of the fuel is coming from
unstable parts of the world
121
XI. Conclusions (cont.)
Transportation might be a good place to start --
it accounts for 31 of US GHG emissions,
-- compared to 25 for the EU,
-- (too) much of the fuel is coming from
unstable parts of the world
-- practical alternatives are already
commercially available or getting there
122
XI. Conclusions (cont.)
With regard to the electricity supply, the
government could do more to encourage changes
that will be beneficial in their own right while
having a secondary bonus of reducing GHG
emissions  

tax incentives for use of non-carbon renewable
fuels
assist expansion of the natural gas import and
transmission infrastructure
start putting the squeeze on older and less
efficient grandfathered coal-fired EGUs, to get
the plug pulled someday
123
XI. Conclusions (cont.)
With regard to the electricity supply, the
government could do more to encourage changes
that will be beneficial in their own right while
having a secondary bonus of reducing GHG
emissions  

etc. the possibilities are numerous and
widely discussed
laissez-faire reliance on the invisible hand
and/or pandering to the usual energy in-crowd are
not likely to be helpful, though.
124
XI. Conclusions (cont.)
As for Kyoto itself, we can wish those pursuing
it luck, but...  

125
XI. Conclusions (cont.)
Chart-man and I think its an impossible dream.