Hydrogen
As an example, a recent report discusses hydrogen utilization in steel manufacturing. This would already be ‘nearly commercial’ in certain areas.
According to the paper, the availability of green hydrogen might have a significant economic impact. The intensive industry will emerge in areas where there is a sufficient supply of low-cost, long-term hydrogen. In some areas, there is excellent export potential. Consider Australia, North Africa, and the Middle East as examples.
Hydrogen can already help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 as part of alternative fuel in the industry. This might result in a yearly CO2 reduction of 2 gigatons (see graphic).
The research also views hydrogen as a viable fuel for shipping, aircraft, and land-based heavy transportation. Costs, on the other hand, must be reduced.
Hydrogen is frequently given a role in maintaining the stability of power networks. This is also a proposal made by the IPCC, the United Nations’ climate body. According to the research, fully switching to renewable energy poses “challenges.” Hydrogen might be one of those solutions. “Not well understood” is how the application will operate in practice.
Some proponents of hydrogen believe that it may be used to power automobiles and heat houses. However, the report does not allow for this. “Recent advancements in battery storage make electric vehicles the most attractive option for light transit,” says the author of an article about autos. “The most costly choice” when it comes to hydrogen in light automobiles.
The IPCC considers electrification to be the “primary method” for weaning buildings off of natural gas. Flowing hydrogen over existing natural gas connections to relieve power networks “may be an attractive solution.” However, the paper advises that this method of heating is more expensive than using a heat pump, which also has the advantage of being able to cool. In addition, pipelines and gas boilers need to be updated, and there are safety concerns. “The examined scenarios suggest a relatively minor role for hydrogen in buildings in 2050,” the authors conclude.
Nuclear power
In the Netherlands, there are both supporters and opponents of nuclear power. Opponents object to the perils of nuclear waste and the possibility of tragedies like the 1986 Chernobyl accident.
Nuclear power stations, in fact, are classified as “mitigation alternatives” by the IPCC since they can provide “large-scale” electricity with minimal emissions. The following are some of the benefits: Nuclear energy, for example, is advantageous in terms of the small quantity of land it needs.
The importance of nuclear energy in maintaining the electrical grid’s balance is also underlined. For example, it is said that one of France’s “significant advances” is the ability to swiftly turn nuclear power reactors on and off as needed.
Surprisingly, nuclear energy is almost entirely absent from the policymakers’ report. It is only mentioned once, and a comment is made in that circumstance. Nuclear power is considered a difficult technology due to its “large initial cost.” This means that the power plants will be very expensive to build. When governments refuse to give any form of financial assistance, it has frequently proven to be a stumbling block for potential power plant developers. The study goes into much detail on this. To offset the risks and expenses, approximately 90% of current nuclear power plants get public funding.
By 2030, nuclear energy will have prevented 1 gigatonne of CO2 emissions (see graphic). Nuclear energy has the potential to contribute considerably more in the long run. Sun and wind are the obvious choices in the near term. As a point of reference, each of these options contributes around 4 gigatons of CO2 per year.
Biomass
Biomass is a contentious alternative for combating climate change. The burning of wood chips, for example, to create power, is extremely sensitive. Many scenarios (finding out how to remain below 1.5 degrees) in earlier IPCC assessments rely on bioenergy paired with CO2 collection and storage. This approach, also known as BECCS (Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture Storage), is a crucial method for actively removing CO2 from the environment. After all, energy crops absorb CO2 as they develop (for example, the fast-growing elephant grass). Stopping the CO2 generated during combustion in an old gas field, for example, results in net CO2 emissions.
The authors state that there has been a “fervent discussion” concerning BECCS since the previous climate report in 2014. As a result, additional scenarios have been simulated this time in which bioenergy is used less in conjunction with CO2 storage. This possibility is treated with much greater caution in the revised study. It is the “most land-use intensive” energy choice, according to the authors. They also identify conflicts with environmental protection, biodiversity, food security, and water usage.
BECCS is predicted to deliver very little by 2030. (see graphic). Reforestation looks to be a far more successful and cost-efficient method of lowering CO2 levels in the environment.
Behavioral modification
Behavioral change: The climate report focuses on consumer behavior for the first time. The potential for behavioral change to reduce climate change is considerable. By 2050, people’s decisions might cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 70%. Implementing energy-saving measures, installing solar panels, taking public transportation, getting an electric car, and eating less meat and dairy are all examples of this. Behavioral modification is a key component in numerous settings to keep below 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius. This is an issue, according to the IPCC, because there is often a lack of desire, and a “cultural shift” is required.
CO2 capture: In the oil and gas industry, capturing CO2 and then storing it underground is termed “mature.” However, it is an ‘essential’ alternative that is also required to make power and cement production CO2 neutral, as well as the chemical sector.
Geoengineering: If the globe is to reach net-zero, methods of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere are “inevitable,” according to the research. CO2 may, for example, be extracted from the atmosphere using a vacuum cleaner, as suggested in two detailed scenarios. Solar radiation modification is another type of geoengineering. By reflecting incoming sunlight, the planet might theoretically cool very fast. However, there are “uncertain side consequences and complex international justice and governance concerns” as a result of this.
Religion: The report only mentions religions once. Churches, for example, might play a significant part in the “inner flip” to more sustainable behavior by offering “leverage points.”
According to the UN climate report, the image below demonstrates where CO2 gains may be realized. Here are a few key points to keep in mind to help you comprehend them better.
Other greenhouse gases, which heat the atmosphere more intensely, are transformed into CO2 equivalents (CO2).
In recent years, global greenhouse gas emissions have averaged roughly 53 gigatons of CO2 equivalents each year.
By 2030, this must have dropped to around 30 gigatons per year in order to meet the 1.5-degree objective. A decrease of around 23 gigatons is expected. A CO2 reduction of at least 15 gigatons is necessary to keep global warming below 2 degrees.
The graph depicts where the needed minimum of 23 or 15 gigatons may be met. The moral of the story is that one or two measures are insufficient. More has to be done.
The figures were determined on a worldwide level. Actual costs and opportunities may differ depending on the country.
Intervention possibilities are based on 2030. These may alter if a different time scale is chosen. Consider techniques like hydrogen, nuclear energy (including thorium), and CO2 capture and storage, which are still in their infancy or have yet to be developed.
For quite some time, the current CO2 price in Europe has been around or over 75 euros per tonne of CO2 emitted. Only the dark red measures would be fully out of reach in this case (see legend). 1 euro is now worth roughly 1.09 dollars. Only the energy and heavy industries sectors are subject to the European CO2 tax.
