183
The top six emitters in 2018 are listed below with emissions in millions of tons
of carbon dioxide, along with the percent change in emissions between 2007 and
2017: China: 9429 (+2.5%), United States: 5145 (−1.5%), European Union: 4248
(−1.5%), India: 2479 (+5.4%), Japan: 1148 (−0.8%), and Russia: 1550 (−0.3%)
(BP p.l.c. 2019). Clearly, the world must improve on these numbers if there is to be
any hope of managing climate change.
The future of fossil fuel is almost certainly going to require that the carbon
dioxide gas produced as a combustion product be kept out of the atmosphere. There
are two options for doing this: (1) use less fossil fuel in the first place and substitute
non-GHG sources of energy for it as much as possible, and (2) for the fossil fuel that
is being used, capture the combustion products and store them underground or in
some other form to keep the GHG from entering the atmosphere. Both of these will
help reduce GHG, but both will also result in higher costs.
So-called “carbon capture and storage” technology or CCS can be used to capture
the CO 2 from fossil fuel combustion and place it deep underground instead of
allowing it to escape into the atmosphere. The U.S. Department of Energy has been
working on this for many years (e.g. USDOE 2012) to develop methods for capturing the emissions and assessing subsurface storage options for carbon dioxide.
Because the implementation of CCS would raise the price of coal-fired electricity,
research is also focused on finding uses for the captured CO 2 to help offset the costs
and improve the economics. This is called carbon capture, use and storage or CCUS,
and both acronyms are used in various DOE publications on the subject. Turning
carbon dioxide from a waste product into a valuable commodity is arguably one of
the most challenging aspects of the program. Ironically, the most common industrial use for captured CO 2 at present is to inject it into old oil fields to re-pressurize
the reservoir and recover additional amounts of fossil fuel petroleum.
Although CCS would increase the cost of coal-fired electricity, it would still be
within the price range of many other sources of electricity, including renewables
and nuclear (USEIA 2018). In addition, by making coal-generated electricity more
expensive, the implementation of CCS would improve the cost-competitiveness of
renewables and nuclear, possibly expanding their percentage of the U.S. energy
grid, reducing national GHG emissions. CCS could also be required on gasoline and
diesel vehicles. This would increase their cost as well, but perhaps it would provide
incentives for the development of advanced electric systems, compressed or liquefied natural gas, or even hydrogen fuel cells to power vehicles. If CCS was required
on all fossil fuel combustion to prevent the emissions of GHG, the future of fossil
fuels might be a little bit brighter. There is still a finite supply, but as society transitions to cleaner, more sustainable forms of energy, eliminating GHG emissions
from the fossil fuels that remain to be burned will improve their acceptability.
Climate contrarians of course argue against the implementation of CCS because
they claim it is unnecessary. The more important, underlying reason for their concern is that it will raise the cost of fossil fuels. The energy companies can be expected
to simply pass this price increase along to consumers, so it is doubtful that it will
affect their bottom lines directly. However, if fossil fuels become more expensive,
people will conserve more and use less. More expensive fossil fuels will also make
9.3 The Future of Fossil Fuel
The top six emitters in 2018 are listed below with emissions in millions of tons
of carbon dioxide, along with the percent change in emissions between 2007 and
2017: China: 9429 (+2.5%), United States: 5145 (−1.5%), European Union: 4248
(−1.5%), India: 2479 (+5.4%), Japan: 1148 (−0.8%), and Russia: 1550 (−0.3%)
(BP p.l.c. 2019). Clearly, the world must improve on these numbers if there is to be
any hope of managing climate change.
The future of fossil fuel is almost certainly going to require that the carbon
dioxide gas produced as a combustion product be kept out of the atmosphere. There
are two options for doing this: (1) use less fossil fuel in the first place and substitute
non-GHG sources of energy for it as much as possible, and (2) for the fossil fuel that
is being used, capture the combustion products and store them underground or in
some other form to keep the GHG from entering the atmosphere. Both of these will
help reduce GHG, but both will also result in higher costs.
So-called “carbon capture and storage” technology or CCS can be used to capture
the CO 2 from fossil fuel combustion and place it deep underground instead of
allowing it to escape into the atmosphere. The U.S. Department of Energy has been
working on this for many years (e.g. USDOE 2012) to develop methods for capturing the emissions and assessing subsurface storage options for carbon dioxide.
Because the implementation of CCS would raise the price of coal-fired electricity,
research is also focused on finding uses for the captured CO 2 to help offset the costs
and improve the economics. This is called carbon capture, use and storage or CCUS,
and both acronyms are used in various DOE publications on the subject. Turning
carbon dioxide from a waste product into a valuable commodity is arguably one of
the most challenging aspects of the program. Ironically, the most common industrial use for captured CO 2 at present is to inject it into old oil fields to re-pressurize
the reservoir and recover additional amounts of fossil fuel petroleum.
Although CCS would increase the cost of coal-fired electricity, it would still be
within the price range of many other sources of electricity, including renewables
and nuclear (USEIA 2018). In addition, by making coal-generated electricity more
expensive, the implementation of CCS would improve the cost-competitiveness of
renewables and nuclear, possibly expanding their percentage of the U.S. energy
grid, reducing national GHG emissions. CCS could also be required on gasoline and
diesel vehicles. This would increase their cost as well, but perhaps it would provide
incentives for the development of advanced electric systems, compressed or liquefied natural gas, or even hydrogen fuel cells to power vehicles. If CCS was required
on all fossil fuel combustion to prevent the emissions of GHG, the future of fossil
fuels might be a little bit brighter. There is still a finite supply, but as society transitions to cleaner, more sustainable forms of energy, eliminating GHG emissions
from the fossil fuels that remain to be burned will improve their acceptability.
Climate contrarians of course argue against the implementation of CCS because
they claim it is unnecessary. The more important, underlying reason for their concern is that it will raise the cost of fossil fuels. The energy companies can be expected
to simply pass this price increase along to consumers, so it is doubtful that it will
affect their bottom lines directly. However, if fossil fuels become more expensive,
people will conserve more and use less. More expensive fossil fuels will also make
9.3 The Future of Fossil Fuel