The Carbon Mitigation InitiativeSixth Annual MeetingFebruary 21-22, 2007

INTRODUCTIONSteve Pacala and Rob Socolow

Goal: The goal of the meeting is to understand progress to date, to exchange information about energy security, recent policy developments, and biofuels, and to produce a shared commitment to the objectives of Year-7 and beyond.

SIXTH ANNUAL MEETINGAGENDA – Friend Center, Convocation Room

Wednesday, February 218:30 - 8:45 am Welcome and Safety Moment (Dean Vince Poor)

8:45 - 9:00 am Introductions and Meeting Expectations (Pacala, Socolow, Hill, Chock)

9:00 - 10:00 am CMI Overview, accomplishments and new Princeton context (Pacala, Socolow)

10:00 - 12:00 noon Group Leaders

10:00 - 10:30 am Science (Jorge Sarmiento)

10:30 - 11:00 am Capture (Bob Williams)

11:00 - 11:30 am BREAK

11:30 - 12:00 noon Storage (George Scherer)

12:00 - 12:20 pm Discussion (Steve Pacala, Rob Socolow)

12:20 - 12:40 pm BP context (Steve Westwell and Tony Meggs)

12:40 - 1:00 pm Ford context (John Ginder)

1:00 - 2:00 pm LUNCH

2:00 - 2:30 pm New Harvard/BP/Princeton collaboration (Kelly Gallagher)

Deep Dive No. 1: Energy and Security

2:30 - 3:00 pm Coupling of energy security and climate change in U.S. politics (John Holdren)

3:00 - 3:30 pm A historian’s interpretation of the situation in Saudi Arabia (Bernard Haykel)

3:30 - 4:00pm Energy and China (Li Zheng, Tsinghua Univ.)

4:00 - 4:45 pm Discussion with Deep Dive Speakers

6:15 - 7:00 pm Reception at Prospect House

7:00 - 9:00 pm Dinner at Prospect House

Thursday, February 22

8:00 - 9:30 am Executive Session (closed)

9:30 - 10:15 am Report from Advisory Committee and Discussion (Hawkins, Holdren, Keith)Commentary on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) and the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2006

(WEO 2006) and Energy Technology Prospects for 2050 (ETP 2050)

10:15- 11:00 am Road Technology and Fuels to 2050 (Dolf Gielen, IEA/ETO)

11:00 - 11:45 am IPCC’s Fourth Assessment and the Case for Bold Measures (Michael Oppenheimer)

11:45 - 12:00 am Discussion

12:00 - 1:00 pm LUNCH

Deep Dive No. 2: Sustainable Biofuels

1:00 -1:30 pm Production: Low-input grasses (David Tilman)

1:30 - 2:00 pm Thermochemical conversion (Bob Williams)

2:00 - 2:30 pm The Promise of Energy Biosciences (Steve Koonin)

2:30 - 3:00 pm Wrap up

Outline

• CMI: Past, Present, and Future• Princeton Grand Challenges Project.• CMI Integration: Responding to a

Changing Context

Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton, 2001-2010

$21,150,000 funding from BP and Ford, plus new BP increment.Formal collaboration with Harvard.Well developed collaborations with Tsinghua, Milan Politecnico.

Carbon CaptureCarbon Capture

Carbon ScienceCarbon Science

Carbon StorageCarbon Storage

Carbon IntegrationCarbon Integration

“An environmental problem”

YEAR SEVEN: FINAL FUNDING IN HAND

BP:G. Hill

Ford:D. Chock

Directors:S. Pacala

R. Socolow

Research Team Leaders:M. Celia

M. OppenheimerG. Scherer

J. SarmientoR. Williams

External Advisory Board:

S. BensonD. HawkinsJ. HoldrenD. KeithF. Orr

Carbon SciencePersonnelBenderPacalaSarmientoSigman

ToolsEarth System Model

Inversion Methods

Trace Gas Analysis

ScoutsExplore possible Pliocene decoupling of carbon and climate.

Explore large-scale environmental consequences of new mitigation technologies.

Core ResearchCalculate Stabilization Emissions

Measure Natural Sinks

Predict Future of the Natural Sinks

CO2 Fertilization in Tropics and Dynamics of the Southern Ocean

Carbon-cycle Feedbacks on Climate

Improve Carbon and Climate Models

Carbon CaptureCore ResearchCatalyzing early commercialization of CCS

Thermochemical conversion of biomass

Co-firing with coal

Power or synfuels

Sustainable feedstocks

DF-x collaboration (advanced capture, low-rank coals)

Polygeneration of electricity and synfuels (with Tsinghua)

Baseload wind (with natural gas)

H2 and DME combustion

PersonnelWilliamsSocolowLawConsonni (Milan) Li (Tsinghua)

ToolsAspen Plus and GS (Milan): plant design

Markal: energy forecasting

Combustion Laboratory

ScoutsPulp Mill Biorefineries

Carbon StoragePersonnelCeliaSchererPrevost

Core ResearchPotential for CO2 Leakage From Existing

Wells Focusing on Cement

1. Analysis of field collected cement samples (with BP)

2. Laboratory experiments on cement in the presence of CO2.

3. Numerical models for the areas surrounding the interface between sequestration reservoir and well.

4. Fast reservoir models for basin scale risk analysis.

5. Co-leadership of US effort to prioritize research on geologic storage.

ToolsGeochemistry and geomechanicsmodule for CO2 reservoir/well interface that runs within industry-standard reservoir simulation codes.

Carbon IntegrationPersonnelSocolowPacalaOppenheimerCollaborators in

economics and Near Eastern Studies

Core ResearchThe Wedge Model

Optimal magnitudes and timing of mitigation

Impacts assessment

Integrating climate change, air pollution and energy security

Tools Modified versions of the RICE

MiniCAM (PNL) and Merge (EPRI)

New game-theoretic integrated assessment model.

ScoutsOpportunities for carbon mitigation from information technology

Rapid deglaciation

Grand Challenges Integrating Environment, Policy and Engineering:

Approved November 2006Energy

MiddleEasternConflict

ClimateChange

Air Pollution

African Poverty

Water

Biodiversity

Disease

Undergraduate TeachingGraduate and Postdoctoral Fellows

Faculty Research

Pacala/Slaughter/Poor

GC Undergraduate Program

• Freshman seminars, often with travel, preceded by direct mail and orientation week advertising.

• Paid internships with a corporation, cooperative research team, partnering NGO or other organization during first two summers.

• Experiential learning courses for Juniors.• Funding for Junior/Senior Research

Goal: An experience as deep and rich as the major without disrupting the major. Hands-on inter-disciplinary problem solving to complement rigorous disciplinary education.

GC Graduate and Post-doctoral Program

• Honorific Fellowship Program (30)• Disciplinary PhD., but interdisciplinary

milieu.

GC Research

• Each research and teaching cooperative lasts 10 years (like CMI). 3-4 in parallel.

• Research must provide teaching infrastructure.

• Multi-year grants from endowment earnings (unprecedented)

Three interdependent problems:

Princeton Assets: Princeton Assets: PEI, CMI, SEAS, PEI, CMI, SEAS, WWS, NES, WWS, NES, GFDL, PPL GFDL, PPL

The Energy Security Problem The Air Pollution ProblemThe Climate Problem

Energy

MiddleEasternConflict

ClimateChange

Air Pollution

The Energy Grand Challenge

CMI and the Grand Challenges• CMI inspired GC

– CMI provided the opportunity for basic scholars to contribute to a critical applied problem without giving up their day job.

• GC will allow CMI to leverage University funds, much as it has already leveraged sponsored-research funds

• GC will increase participation by Princeton faculty in CMI– Existing faculty – Recruitment of new energy faculty in Engineering

• GC should increase student interaction with CMI sponsors recruitment.

University Assets Already in Hand

Current Endowment Earnings for Grand Challenges: $ 540,000 per year

Five-Year Term Funding

Replaced by Endowment

Pending Successful Launch: $1,500,000 per year

Initial Endowment Target to Yield ~ 2 million/year (at 5%)

Plus term funds of ~1.5 million per year

CMI Integration: The Changing Context

• The U.S. is waking up• Coal is cheap

Year Year

BAU

US Share = 2 Wedges

500 PPM Stabilization

1.5

2.5

Em

issi

ons

GTC

/y

2006 2056

0.5

Sanders-Boxer regulatory standard

Lieberman-McCain –Obama – Clinton (presidential)Cap and trade

Bingaman Includes a safety valve

Vertical scale: GtCO2/yr, USA. Source: The New York Times

The first two are trajectories consistent with our wedges work.

The Rush to Coal

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2003-2010 2011-2020 2021-2030

GW

Co

al

World WEO 04 World WEO 06Source: IEA,WEO 2004, 2006

221

500

670

411

Incremental new coal capacity by decade

767

622

* Preliminary

“Am I holding up the future of energy or the past?”

Governor Schweitzer (Montana), at a recent conference of coal-dependent industries in Phoenix, held up a lump of coal and warned:

"You are the people who represent the companies who will decide whether I'm holding up the future of energy or the past. Take a look at all the other people sitting at your table. You know who you see? You see the last remaining people on the planet who don't believe CO2 is a problem. ... The only way you will make this the energy of the future is to recognize CO2 as a problem and that you have to be part of the solution."

And by the way, he added:

“There is a lot of money in it for you guys. You can sell this technology all over the world."

Source Thomas Friedman, Op Ed., New York Times, Jan 10, 2007

Responses to the Changing Context

• Analyze acceleration of CCS– Readiness for full-scale deployment (Carson)– Connection via EOR to energy security– Importance of CCS at coal-to-liquids plants

• Communicate with U.S. Congress• Increase interaction of Capture and

Storage groups with BP Alternative Energy• Expand outreach via variants of the

wedges game

Graphics courtesy of DOE Office of Fossil Energy

Steam plant by river

Gasifier

Oxygen plant

Coal feeder ramp

Gas turbinepowered by CO + H2

Readiness: Carson builds on IGCC plants

BP will use petcoke and add, at its Carson refinery, California, USA: 1) CO2 capture [CO + H2O CO2 + H2, CO2 - H2 separation, CO2 absorption ]; 2) H2 to turbine for power; 3) CO2 pressurization and export off site for EOR.

Hydrogen Power + CO2 for EORfrom Refinery Petcoke in California

Los Angeles

Carson refinery (BP)

BP will: gasify 4500 t/day of petcoke, producing H2 and CO2, at its 260,000 bbl/day Carson refinery

burn 800 tons/day of H2 in turbines for 510 MW of power

export off-site 4 MtCO2/yr for enhanced oil recovery (EOR).

CCS for EOR and energy security1000 MW coal plant: 6 MtCO2/yr emissions. If captured and directed to EOR, at 2 to 5 bbl/tCO2, produces 30,000 to 80,000 b/d.

With a high price on CO2 emissions, how different will EOR be? Store as much CO2 as possible.

The mischief molecule in the atmosphere may turn out to be the

miracle molecule below ground.

Coal-based Synfuels only with CCS**Carbon capture and storage

Coal-based Synfuels only with CCS**Carbon capture and storage

Why “synfuels only with CCS”? Twice as much CO2 is emitted per kilometer when driving the same car with a coal-based synfuel as with a petroleum fuel.

The “second CO2” can be captured at the synfuels plant and stored below ground, making synfuels no less bad for climate than petroleum fuels.

Effort needed for 1 Mb/d:

120 Mt/yr coal to synfuels, capture and store 40 MtC/yr (150 MtCO2/yr).

World coal consumption, 2002: 4.8 Gt/yr

Sasol South Africa output: 165,000 b/d.

Effort needed for 1 wedge:

Capture and store the CO2byproduct at plants processing 3 billion tons of coal per year and producing 24 million barrels per day of coal-based synfuels

24 Mb(oil)/d ≈ 1 GtC/yr

Retrievable storage

Site: Surry station, James River, VA; 1625 MW since 1972-73,. Credit: Dominion.

The nuclear industry may soon seek to renegotiate its social contract regarding nuclear waste, asking for a change of goal: retrievable storage instead of irretrievable storage.

Renegotiation discussions could coincide with goal-setting discussions for CCS, complicating the permitting of irretrievable storage of CO2.

Recommendations to U.S. Congress• Policies should be prescriptive for a decade or more.

– Periodic revision is desirable, but not “foot in the door” for two or three years followed by unspecified ratchets.

• Policies should be stringent enough to be technology-forcing.– “Mitigation Lite” is a tax-collection mechanism.

• Any Cap-and-trade policy should be supplemented with sectoral policies: “Carbon Price, Plus.”– Examples: efficiency standards, renewable portfolio standards,

CCS portfolio standards,…• Policies should reach far upstream.

– No unregulated refinery emissions, while paying for CO2 at the gas pump. No flaring, while paying for CCS.

$100/tC or $30/tCO2

Form of Energy Equivalent to $100/tC or $30/tCO2

Natural gas $1.50/1000 scf

Crude oil $12/barrel

Coal $65/U.S. ton

Gasoline 25¢/gallon (ethanol subsidy: 50¢/gallon)

Electricity from coal 2.2¢/kWh (wind and nuclear subsidies: 1.8 ¢/kWh)

Electricity from natural gas 1.0¢/kWh

Carbon emission charges in the neighborhood of $100/tC can enable scale-up of most of the wedges, if supplemented with sectoral policy to facilitate transition.

$100/tC was the approximate EU trading price for a year ending April 2006, when it fell sharply.

BP-Princeton-Milan Capture EffortPlanned areas of research:

1. Cryogenic CO2-H2 separation 2. Petcoke + low-rank-coal blends for slurry-feed gasifiers3. Biomass + low-rank-coal blends for dry-feed gasifiers

First tasks (partial list):1. Share work on cryogenics2. Align software assumptions3. Define baseline/benchmark "generalized DF-2" (BP)

Collaboration modes:1. Regular videoconferences2. BP visit to Princeton, March 14-15, and joint visit to Coffeyville,

Kansas, gasification plant, March 16.

A B CA: Proprietary business activity

B: Technology-based contributions to policy

C: Traditional academic pursuits

BP-Princeton Storage Effort: Field studies of “effective wellbore permeability”

Dissemination of “Wedges”

• Department of Energy• Inconvenient Truth• The Game

Stabilization triangle in CCTP

“Potential Scale of CO2 Emissions Reductions to Stabilize GHG Concentrations:Hypothetical Unconstrained and Constrained Emissions Scenarios,” Fig 3-11, p. 37, Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan, US DOE, September 2006

2056

U.S. Wedges

Source: Lashof and Hawkins, NRDC, in Socolow and Pacala, Scientific American, September 2006, p. 57.

Note: Approximately the same diagram was shown in Vice-President Gore’s Inconvenient Truth.

DOE National Youth Science Camp

Climate Conference Melbourne

1st Wedges Game CMI Annual Meeting

The many faces of the wedges game…

February 2: The 22nd Annual New Jersey Environmental Education ConferenceFebruary 18: Town Hall, AAAS Annual Meeting, San FranciscoRoberta Hotinski, blogger!

AAAS Annual Meeting, Feb 18, 2007

The Game in Progress

Clickers for Voting

Today almost 7 billion people emit about 7 billion tons of carbon per year to the atmosphere as CO2: 1 ton of carbon per person per year. U.S. per capita emissions are 5 times larger. The U.S. will have to reduce its emissions.

You will practice with our clickers by voting to determine which one of these five “cut-by-half” campaigns the audience would find most difficult to join.

1 ton carbon/yr

Cut by half

How?

a) Drive 10,000 mi,30 mpg

60 mpg Lighter, less power(?)

b) Drive 10,000 mi, 30 mpg

5,000 miles

Live closer to work

c) Fly 10,000 miles 5,000 miles

Video-conference

d) Heat home

Nat. gas, av. house, av. climate

Insulate, double-pane windows, fewer leaks, condensing furnace,

e) Lights 16 100W bulbs, 6hr/day, coal power

2/3 compact fluorescents (¼ as much electricity for same lumens)

Carbon savings from efficiency?

First vote: Which efficiency campaign would you least wish to join?

Disaggregation of vote by profession

The Consensus Seven