A Low-Carbon Future
A client asked me to read this report from mega-consulting form McKinsey, concerning pathways by which the four top CO2-emitting commodity-producing industries (ammonia, cement, ethylene and steel) can move to a low-carbon future. Here are a few comments:
• As time passes, the imperative to reduce CO2 emissions will continue to rise; there is really no way around this. It will happen whether or not we see new government regulation, though that could dramatically change the calculus re: energy prices and the consequent choice of resources. In any case, this means that investment in companies like Windfuels (CO2 –> fuels) will become more attractive as each year goes by.
• This will be even further amplified by the production of hydrogen by reformation of methane, whether steam reformation or partial oxidation, as both wind up with large streams of highly pure CO2 (far more pure than these industrial sources).
• The report begins by stating, “The vast majority of industry’s GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions, 90 percent, consists of CO2.” On a molecule-to-molecule basis, this is correct, but methane (e.g., that which is being produced in the meat industry) is 25 – 30 times more potent a GHG than CO2.
• Apparently, the very term “nuclear energy” is taboo in today’s world, which is a tragedy.
• The report is extremely kind to carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), for reasons that aren’t clear, given that many industry analysts think it’s completely misguided. See CCS pros and cons here.
Again, assuming that the world’s governments will allow a business-as-usual scenario over the next 30 years seems extremely unlikely. Three decades is an eternity in the evolution of the planet’s politics, business, and technology, and thus a “black swan” (huge but unpredictable) event is quite probable.
Hi Craig,
Your above post is one of the most well-reasoned, relevant and most balanced observations you have posted for a long time.
Well done!
You are quite correct to lament the prejudice against advanced nuclear energy , (especially thorium). Negative economic dynamics with advanced nuclear energy are created solely by political, not scientific or environmental considerations.
I also appreciate your attempt to understand the various aspects concerning the disposal or re-use of industrial emissions.
Utilizing a reference source like ProCon.org. is also a positive step. ProCon.org enjoys a reputation for trying to be fair, impartial and honest.
However, the site is a little behind the times with information, which is only to be expected with reporting on industries were developments in technology are moving at a very fast pace.
Likewise, the report prepared by McKinley and Co. While the report is both comprehensive and factual, the analysis was first published in early 2018, from material gained during the period 2012-2015.
McKinley predicated the modelling on erroneous assumptions ie;
“Companies that increase their costs by adopting low-emission processes and technologies will find themselves at a price disadvantage to rivals that do not”.
While in many instances that may be accurate, developments in technology and newly created markets for by-products once requiring sequestration, have the potential to completely change the economic dynamics.
It’s becoming a very real possibility for coal fired power stations to exceed the environmental benefits of both wind and solar, while economically undercutting natural gas.
Newly developed technology has the potential to turn once toxic or CC/GW substances like Methane, CO2 etc, into valuable industrial by-products.
Although economic benefits to industries such as Cement, Concrete, and Steel, along with industrial products such ammonia, ethylene etc, will be important, the potential of environmental benefit is of far greater importance.
Clean(er)Coal energy, along with all fossil fuels are recovering from the neglect of short-sighted “prohibition” policies enacted by Obama era governments and politicians.
All over the world, between 2007 and 2016, governments panicked and instituted policies to solve environmentally harmful emissions by ‘banning’ old, but essential industries.
Not only were these policies ineffective and raised unrealistic expectations with enormous costs to taxpayers, but harmed the ability of those industries to deploy resources and investment to develop environmentally beneficial technologies.
Investment in new technology became selective and followed and ideological agenda, rather than achieving realistic objectives.
Advocates, like yourself, became deliberately blind (even antagonistic) to any emerging environmentally beneficial technology from the old industries, preferring to ship the industrial overseas, along with the employment and economic activity.
As wind and solar begin to show the limitations of their potential, emerging fossil fuel technologies are transforming these once despised sources of energy into environmental saviours!
It’s very good to see you at least opening your eyes to the benefits of these new technologies.