Wednesday 16 December 2009

Skeptics, Standards, and Peak “Everything”


“… No debate can be considered ‘healthy’ without an equal voice given to both sides. “ Such was my thought as I read about the recent meeting of global warming skeptics. However, the article quickly dispelled the notion that the climate change skeptics would put forward a convincing argument for their denial of a warming planet. The article portrayed an almost comical scene where the small number of delegates debated the various aspects of their theories and data without giving a cohesive view that would balance the ‘warming planet’ COP15 consensus.
Within the COP15 conference there is little sign that the contrarian view holds much sway: the long-term economic impacts of continuing with the current thinking on energy supply chain and demand security is simply too high, even by pessimistic estimates.
With the skeptic’s arguments in mind, I attended the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) workshop entitled “Climate Change and Energy to 2020.” Clearly the Oil & Gas industry has a stake in the climate change debate given that their core business is the production and marketing of ‘fossil’ fuels. It was with surprise, then, that I found myself in a large room with about 20 people, where there was seating for at least 200. Presentations from Total, Chevron, Statoil, Petrobras, and Nexen highlighted the efforts these companies are undertaking with regards to GHG emissions reporting and identifying the main risks to the energy supply chain over the next decades. The presenters provided an overview of the size of the investment challenge – $20 trillion in order to meet the energy and CO2 reduction targets for the ‘450 ppm’ scenario – and the reduction in energy system R&D investments by OECD countries over the past 20 years. The presenters were clearly knowledgeable and passionate about the need to focus on energy efficiency, CCS, and flaring/venting reductions in order to help achieve carbon emissions targets. Although small, the audience was engaged and asked a number of questions about CCS and its implementation window: all presenters were in agreement that for CCS to work there would need to be carbon price certainty, where that carbon price ranges from $50/tonne up to $500/tonne depending on the CO2 mitigation scenario. I asked about the challenges of reporting GHG emissions within a multi-company Joint Venture (JV) and also about how the rebound effect is (or is not) accounted for within their energy efficiency projections. Regarding the first question, the panel referred to the IPIECA guidelines. On energy efficiency, the panel answered that the rebound effect is not applicable within an industrial setting, although the panel described their activities to help petroleum product users increase their efficiency.
But all this discussion on energy efficiency got me thinking about how it is we define ‘energy efficiency’. From a technical perspective, the term has a thermodynamic context – i.e. the First Law of Thermodynamics. However, various definitions abound, which can lead to confusion. The International Standards Organisation (ISO) has recognised that the success of energy conservation projects will depend on the standardisation of the definition of ‘energy efficiency’. At one of the ISO side event sessions, the ISO reported on the progress towards a global standard on energy efficiency terminology and application. Complementary to the work on energy efficiency terminology will be the forthcoming standard on energy management – ISO 50001 – that will bring consistency to energy system performance measurement and reporting.
Upon reading about the ISO work, I reflected on the concept of “Peak Everything." Of course, the term ‘Peak Oil’ has been in the media since the ‘70s and as recently as this week’s article in the Economist. But why should our terminology be limited to only talking about oil? Walking within the display areas of the COP15 conference centre, I am reminded that our world is finite and that, along with climate change, we are rapidly approaching a convergence of ‘Peak Everything’ concerns. Questions that come to my mind, then, concern CCS, the Arctic, and the energy supply chain. Namely, “Instead of burying CO2 at various locations around the world, could we not convert CO2 into a fuel?” and, “Is all the public focus on CO2 emissions justified, given the threat of a warming Arctic?” and, finally, “Why is it that wind, solar, and biofuels are more expensive than coal, oil, and natural gas when the supply chain efficiency for the first three is much greater than the last three?”
The answers to these three questions and an update on the ‘CCS in CDM’ debate will be the subject of my next blog.
I am still watching and hoping for success at Copenhagen, especially after the walkout by the G77 parties. The mood at the conference yesterday was subdued, but positive. And with the arrival of world leaders – such as US Energy Secretary Chu – the pressure to achieve a positive outcome is evident.

No comments:

Post a Comment