Methane mitigation timelines to inform energy technology evaluation

Energy technologies emitting differing proportions of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) vary significantly in their relative climate impacts over time, due to the distinct atmospheric lifetimes and radiative efficiencies of the two gases. Standard technology comparisons using the global warming potential (GWP) with a fixed time horizon do not account for the timing of emissions in relation to climate policy goals. Here we develop a portfolio optimization model that incorporates changes in technology impacts based on the temporal proximity of emissions to a radiative forcing (RF) stabilization target. An optimal portfolio, maximizing allowed energy consumption while meeting the RF target, is obtained by year-wise minimization of the marginal RF impact in an intended stabilization year. The optimal portfolio calls for using certain higher-CH4-emitting technologies prior to an optimal switching year, followed by CH4-light technologies as the stabilization year approaches. We apply the model to evaluate transportation technology pairs and find that accounting for dynamic emissions impacts, in place of using the static GWP, can result in CH4 mitigation timelines and technology transitions that allow for significantly greater energy consumption while meeting a climate policy target. The results can inform the forward-looking evaluation of energy technologies by engineers, private investors, and policy makers.

[1]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Emission pathways consistent with a 2[thinsp][deg]C global temperature limit , 2011 .

[2]  N. Meinshausen,et al.  Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne , 2009, Nature.

[3]  Jessika E. Trancik,et al.  Climate impacts of energy technologies depend on emissions timing , 2014 .

[4]  J. Shoemaker,et al.  The danger of overvaluing methane’s influence on future climate change , 2013, Climatic Change.

[5]  M. Allen,et al.  Equivalence of greenhouse-gas emissions for peak temperature limits , 2012 .

[6]  E. Stehfest,et al.  RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2°C , 2011 .

[7]  Jessika E. Trancik,et al.  Energy technologies evaluated against climate targets using a cost and carbon trade-off curve. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[8]  Michael A. Levi.  Climate consequences of natural gas as a bridge fuel , 2013, Climatic Change.

[9]  J. Rogelj,et al.  Disentangling the effects of CO2 and short-lived climate forcer mitigation , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  Christina Karapataki,et al.  Effectiveness of a segmental approach to climate policy. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[11]  J. Overpeck,et al.  Abrupt Climate Change , 2003, Science.

[12]  Henning Rodhe,et al.  A Comparison of the Contribution of Various Gases to the Greenhouse Effect , 1990, Science.

[13]  Kristin Seyboth,et al.  Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation: Reviewers of the IPCC Special Report , 2011 .

[14]  M. Allen,et al.  The role of short-lived climate pollutants in meeting temperature goals , 2013 .

[15]  S. Solomon,et al.  Limitations of single-basket trading: lessons from the Montreal Protocol for climate policy , 2012, Climatic Change.

[16]  Jan S Fuglestvedt,et al.  Comparing the climate effect of emissions of short- and long-lived climate agents , 2007, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[17]  Alan S. Manne,et al.  An alternative approach to establishing trade-offs among greenhouse gases , 2001, Nature.

[18]  James J Winebrake,et al.  Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  Keith P. Shine,et al.  The global warming potential—the need for an interdisciplinary retrial , 2009 .

[20]  Martijn Gough.  Climate change , 2009, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[21]  W. R. Morrow,et al.  The Technology Path to Deep Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cuts by 2050: The Pivotal Role of Electricity , 2012, Science.

[22]  J. Fuglestvedt,et al.  Emission metrics under the 2 °C climate stabilization target , 2013, Climatic Change.

[23]  S. C. Jackson.  Parallel Pursuit of Near-Term and Long-Term Climate Mitigation , 2009, Science.

[24]  Wolfgang Lucht,et al.  Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  R. B.,et al.  The United Nations , 1947, Nature.

[26]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation , 2011 .

[27]  J. Shoemaker,et al.  What Role for Short-Lived Climate Pollutants in Mitigation Policy? , 2013, Science.

[28]  J. Doyne Farmer.  Dynamics of technological development in the energy sector , 2007 .

[29]  Barry Turner.  United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , 2009 .

[30]  Bas Eickhout,et al.  Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs , 2007 .

[31]  Alissa Kendall,et al.  Time-adjusted global warming potentials for LCA and carbon footprints , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[32]  Kaarle Kupiainen,et al.  Simultaneously Mitigating Near-Term Climate Change and Improving Human Health and Food Security , 2012, Science.

[33]  A. Thomson,et al.  The representative concentration pathways: an overview , 2011 .

[34]  K. Calvin,et al.  The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300 , 2011 .

[35]  Daniel J.A. Johansson,et al.  Economics- and physical-based metrics for comparing greenhouse gases , 2011, Climatic Change.

[36]  John P. Weyant,et al.  Multi-gas scenarios to stabilize radiative forcing , 2006 .

[37]  Jan S. Fuglestvedt,et al.  Does black carbon abatement hamper CO2 abatement? , 2010 .

[38]  E. Kort,et al.  Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems , 2014, Science.

[39]  P. Sands.  The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , 1992 .

[40]  Gian-Kasper Plattner,et al.  IPCC Expert Meeting on the Science of Alternative Metrics: Meeting Report , 2009 .

[41]  T. Lenton.  Beyond 2°C: redefining dangerous climate change for physical systems , 2011 .

[42]  J. Trancik,et al.  Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress , 2012, PloS one.

[43]  Jessika E. Trancik,et al.  Determinants of the Pace of Global Innovation in Energy Technologies , 2012, PloS one.

[44]  John P. Weyant,et al.  Overview of EMF-21: Multigas Mitigation and Climate Policy , 2006 .

[45]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis , 2013 .

[46]  Russell W Stratton,et al.  Impact of aviation non-CO₂ combustion effects on the environmental feasibility of alternative jet fuels. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[47]  Brian C. O'Neill,et al.  The Jury is Still Out on Global Warming Potentials , 2000 .

[48]  Jiyong Eom,et al.  Sensitivity of multi-gas climate policy to emission metrics , 2013, Climatic Change.

[49]  Andrew H. Mizrahi,et al.  Near-term climate mitigation by short-lived forcers , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[50]  Christian Solli,et al.  Alternative "global warming" metrics in life cycle assessment: a case study with existing transportation data. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[51]  Brian C. O'Neill.  Economics, Natural Science, and the Costs of Global Warming Potentials , 2003 .

[52]  Nadine Unger,et al.  Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions , 2009, Science.