Carbon Emissions? Don't Worry, Be Happy

With yearly carbon dioxide emissions of 14 tons per person, Canadians lead the world in driving climate change. Yearly carbon dioxide emissions attributable to the average Canadian family of four, if frozen solid, would yield a cube of dry ice ten feet on a side, and weighing 56 tons.

But then there are the forest fires, which, to date, have added more than 50 tons of carbon dioxide emissions for every Canadian citizen and are still burning. At a rough estimate, therefore, we can say that Canadian carbon emissions in the current year will total something like 250 tons for a family of four.

How does that translate to national terms? There are 38.25 million Canadians occupying a country of approximately 10 million square kilometers, which means there is approximately one quarter of a square kilometer, or 250 thousand square meters, per person. The atmosphere weighs about 10 tons per square meter, so for for every Canadian resident there are 2.5 million tons of air located over the Canadian land mass. Thus the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere each year as the result of human activity and forest fires raises the carbon dioxide content of the air over the Canadian landmass by one part in fifty thousand, or 20 parts per million. Continued at that rate for twenty years, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide would double in 20 years.

This trend is counteracted in part by natural processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. These include both biotic and abiotic processes that result in the deposition of atmospheric carbon dioxide in both dead plant and animal matter accumulating in swamps and peatlands, in limestone rocks and in some disgusting ooze at the bottom of the oceans. Mostly, however, thanks to the global atmospheric circulation, carbon dioxide generated in Canada simply blows away, to be shared by all humanity.

As a long term solution, sharing our pollution with the world is clearly problematic, which fact drives development of technology for extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and pumping it into exhaused natural gas fields or other suitable repositories. In particular, we have in Canada Carbon Engineering, a government and charity funded company building a plant that will use renewable energy in the direct capture and sequestration of one hundred million tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year. 

So once Carbon Engineering's plant is in operation, we'll just need 19 more the same size to handle Canada's total emissions. Which sounds crazy but need not be, depending on where the cost of large scale direct air carbon capture bottoms out. If, as some estimate, the cost could fall to as little as $15 - 20 per ton (15 to 20 cents per kg), then financing recapture of atmospheric carbon emissions becomes entirely bearable. It would mean, for example, a carbon capture charge of around 50 cents a litre for gasoline. So yes, don't don't worry, be happy. 

Rev'd Nov 24, 2023

Related:

Natural CO2 Emissions Nearly Six Times Higher Than Man-Made Sources

American “Scientist” Engaged in Evil Plot to End Life on Earth

Battery Electric Automobiles: A Passing Fad?

Virtue is widely attributed to those driving an electric car rather than a carbon-emitting gas-guzzler. It is questionable, however, whether propulsion dependent on half a ton or more of lithium ion batteries is any easier on the environment than use of an internal combustion engine. For one thing, battery electric cars come with a substantial up-front carbon-emission cost relating to the mining of lithium for the battery. For another thing, much of the electricity that powers battery electric cars, whether in the US, China, or Europe, is generated by carbon-dioxide-emitting, coal-fired generating stations. 

But batteries are not the only way to power electric cars. This is evident from the recent development of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles (and here) that offer the power and performance of a Tesla S without the massive weight, cost and negative environmental impact of a battery. These are one off vehicles, but they demonstrate an electric vehicle technology with which Tesla and other battery electric car makers may soon find themselves having to compete. 

Another way to make automobile use carbon neutral would be to remove from the atmosphere carbon dioxide equivalent to that emitted by gas-powered automobiles. The cost of so doing could be very much less than the cost of switching to electric propulsion. For example, combustion of a litre of gasoline produces 2.3 kilograms of carbon dioxide. The cost of extracting 2.3 kilograms of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere with technology now at an advanced stage of development would be around 15 cents. Thus a moderate charge added to the price gasoline (about 50 cents per US gallon), if applied to the creation and operation of carbon capture plants, would make gas-powered automobiles carbon neutral. For the motorist driving 10,000 kilometers per year, that would add $580.00 to their yearly motoring cost, which is less than the cost of trading a standard automobile for a Tesla.

But whatever may be the outcome of technology competition at the high end of the electric vehicle market, it will be at the bottom end of the market that electric vehicles with small batteries and short range are most likely to win out, as they already have in China. There, the clunky looking, short-range Hongguang Mini is selling a million copies a year at a cost competitive with the cheapest gas powered automobiles. Such vehicles, if made available with better styling will likely prove hugely popular as city runabout/commuter cars in Western markets. Introduction of such vehicles to Western markets will be delayed however, as established automakers strive to avoid undercutting sales of more expensive family-sized sedans and SUVs, whether gas or electric.

Another type of low emission vehicle is the plug-in hybrid for which there is a considerable present demand. There is no doubt such vehicles can save much gas. But the plug-in hybrid is, like the big battery electric, a clunky solution, having two full drive trains, one electric, the other dependent on an internal combustion engine. This makes for high cost, high vehicle weight, and hence a vehicle with a high embodied carbon content. so although the plug-in hybrid will play an interim role in the transition to low carbon transportation, it does not constitute an likely end product of automobile evolution.

Related:

Electric Vehicles May Present Major Problem During Natural Disaster Evacuations

Electric Cars – Want One? I don’t think so!!

Decarbonizing Energy: BP's Solar Investment -- One Small Step

The British-based company, BP, has for many years sought to transition from being primarily a producer of oil to a producer of low or zero-carbon energy.

Initially the focus was on increasing the production and distribution of natural gas, a fuel that, on combustion, yields about a third more energy per unit of carbon dioxide emitted than does oil. Furthermore, due to higher plant efficiency, replacement of natural gas for coal in electricity generation lowers by half the amount of carbon emitted per unit of power generated.

In addition, BP has invested in most areas of alternative energy including wind, solar, ethanol, carbon-free hydrogen and landfill methane. Among these investments, the most promising results thus far have been in the field of solar power. Through a 50% stake in Lightsource BP, BP now has a stake in two gigawatts of solar power generating capacity, with something like another half gigawatt to be installed this year -- that's about 5% of the World's total capacity.

A simple way to understand the significance of BP's solar investments is to translate installed solar capacity to power production measured in barrels of oil equivalent. Then the solar power business can be directly compared with BP's original business of oil production.

Although we do not know the power output per unit of installed capacity for Lightsource BP, we know that worldwide, the average year-round electrical energy production per kilowatt of installed solar capacity is around 1200 kilowatt hours. Applying that value to Lightsource BP's plant indicates that electrical production by the end of this year will be at a yearly rate of around 3000 gigawatt hours. One gigawatt hour is equivalent in energy to 588 barrels of oil. Therefore, the solar power generated by BP's share in Lightsource BP amounts to around 1.75 million barrels of oil per year.

How does that compare with BP's oil and gas production?

Its about 12 hours worth.

So, yes, BP is looking in the right direction, but for their solar investments to change the world is gonna take a while.