We're sorry but this page doesn't work properly without JavaScript enabled. Please enable it to continue.
Feedback

Committed emissions from existing and planned power plants and asset stranding required to meet the Paris Agreement

00:00

Formal Metadata

Title
Committed emissions from existing and planned power plants and asset stranding required to meet the Paris Agreement
Title of Series
Number of Parts
29
Author
License
CC Attribution 3.0 Unported:
You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
Identifiers
Publisher
Release Date
Language

Content Metadata

Subject Area
Genre
Abstract
Over the coming decade, the power sector is expected to invest ~7.2 trillion USD in power plants and grids globally, much of it into CO2-emitting coal and gas plants. These assets typically have long lifetimes and commit large amounts of (future) CO2 emissions. Here, we analyze the historic development of emission commitments from power plants and compare the emissions committed by current and planned plants with remaining carbon budgets. Based on this comparison we derive the likely amount of stranded assets that would be required to meet the 1.5 °C–2 °C global warming goal. We find that even though the growth of emission commitments has slowed down in recent years, currently operating generators still commit us to emissions (~300 GtCO2) above the levels compatible with the average 1.5 °C–2 °C scenario (~240 GtCO2). Furthermore, the current pipeline of power plants would add almost the same amount of additional commitments (~270 GtCO2). Even if the entire pipeline was cancelled, therefore, ~20% of global capacity would need to be stranded to meet the climate goals set out in the Paris Agreement. Our results can help companies and investors re-assess their investments in fossil-fuel power plants, and policymakers strengthen their policies to avoid further carbon lock-in.
SpaceflightElectric power distributionFuse (electrical)Video
PaperMeeting/Interview
PaperMeeting/Interview
EmissionsvermögenPower (physics)SpaceflightMeeting/Interview
Power stationEmissionsvermögenField-effect transistorPlant (control theory)GasFossil fuelCoalMeeting/Interview
Fossil fuelCoalPlant (control theory)Meeting/Interview
PaperPlant (control theory)Meeting/Interview
Pickup truckPlant (control theory)EmissionsvermögenMeeting/Interview
Hot workingPlant (control theory)Meeting/Interview
Meeting/Interview
Alcohol proofMeeting/Interview
Rolling-element bearingAlcohol proofMeeting/Interview
Energy levelMeeting/Interview
Stock (firearms)Power stationMeeting/Interview
Power stationMeeting/Interview
Power stationEmissionsvermögenPlant (control theory)Meeting/Interview
Plant (control theory)EmissionsvermögenMeeting/Interview
Plant (control theory)Meeting/Interview
Shutdown (nuclear reactor)Energy levelPlant (control theory)Pickup truckMeeting/Interview
Plant (control theory)Meeting/Interview
Plant (control theory)Pickup truckEnergy levelTiefdruckgebietMeeting/Interview
Plant (control theory)Meeting/Interview
Stellar atmosphereMeeting/Interview
Stellar atmosphereClimateMeeting/Interview
Ground stationMeeting/Interview
Meeting/Interview
Fossil fuelPlant (control theory)Meeting/Interview
Plant (control theory)Source (album)Meeting/Interview
Source (album)Meeting/Interview
Transcript: English(auto-generated)
Hi, my name is Cameron Hepburn. I'm a professor of environmental economics here at the University of Oxford And I'm happy to tell you about this paper that's been led by Alex Pfeiffer here at Oxford about Committed emissions of the power sector so by committed emissions We mean the embodied emissions of all the fleet of power plants
So we already have installed around the world the coal plants and the gas plants the other fossil fuel plants And what we've done in this paper is to look at all of those plants How old they are, how long they're likely to run, what the utilization factors are likely to be and work out how many emissions we should anticipate from those plants and We expect around 300 billion tons of carbon dioxide
Now this turns out to be a problem because to achieve the Paris goals of limiting warming to less than well below two degrees of above pre-industrial levels We've got a budget of around 240 billion tons of co2 so with the existing stock of power plants
We're already 60 billion tons over the budget So that's not good, but even worse is coming down the pipeline We've got over seven trillion US dollars worth of potential spend on new power plants and if you add up the power plants that are already in planning or
pre-constructional financing around the world a lot of them in Asia and You look at the embodied emissions in those plants they would add another 270 billion tons of co2 to a budget that has already been exceeded That leaves us with a pretty difficult dilemma. Either we build those plants coming down the pipeline and we have to then
Shut down other plants to keep within the budget or run all the plants at lower utilization levels or put Carbon capture and storage at the back end of those plants, which is very expensive We'll come up with other clever ways to suck co2 out of the atmosphere which are untested and potentially expensive
Or we give up on the Paris climate goals. So In my view probably the cheapest thing to be doing the most economically efficient thing to be doing is not to be building Putting lots of money into assets that you're likely to have to scrap anyway And instead of allocating those trillions of dollars into fossil fuel investment plants allocate that money instead
into clean energy sources