subject: Sturdy Energy Abatement Plans Would Be Tighter [print this page] Advocates for the protection of the environment argue that the EU is far ahead when it comes to energy abatement and carbon emissions reduction compared to the rest of the world. The European Union has an 80% emissions reduction which can be achieved by 2040, about 40 years from now. It is also perceived that the power sector needs to bring about the largest transformation in this area which will also benefit multiple sectors in terms of its consequent savings.
Highly respected analysts, McKinsey & Co. argued within their energy abatement curve documentation that alternative energy concepts must be embraced immediately. Included in this would be nuclear, hydro, biomass, offshore and onshore wind turbines, solar and geothermal. Traditional fossil fuel usage must be brought to near zero for power generation purposes.
Advocates for the environment could have the position on the European Union's efforts in carbon emissions reduction and energy abatement to be far ahead compared to the rest of the world. The European Union holds an emissions reduction of 80% that appears to be achievable by 2050, which is only 40 years from now. It is felt that the largest change must come in the power generation sector and the major changes will drive considerable savings in many other sectors, as a consequence.
The power sector needs to be 'fully decarbonized' quickly should the goal of carbon emissions reduction needs to be at 80% by 2050. Other major sectors of the economy must ditch the use of fossil fuels and replace with biofuel or alternatively generated electricity. Where fossil fuel cannot be "avoided," carbon capture and storage, or sequestration must be a feature of power generation plants.
As we all tend to live in the current time and find difficulty in making projections far into the future, there is a danger that we are collectively burying our heads in the sand when it comes to the concept of reducing our emissions and funding energy abatement by such high and lofty goals. If we use history as a guide, we can see that alternative energy implementation has often taken a generation or more to move from concept to reality and as such, the stakes are high. Is it possible to convert our major power generation plants to almost carbon neutral within a couple of generations? Should we put all our faith in the energy abatement concepts or should we rely on a heavy taxation in one way or the other to drive down carbon emissions? The reality probably lies somewhere in the middle and puts additional stress on the politicians trying to consider cap and trade or carbon taxation during 2010.
Carbon capture and storage is by itself quite a complicated concept and rather expensive to implement. The process itself requires a large amount of additional energy and as such, requires additional fuel use, associated with significantly high costs. The CO2 itself would be stored deep within the ocean or underground as mineral carbonates.
Energy abatement should be high on the list of priorities for everybody, including corporate decision-makers. They simply cannot sit back and wait for Congress to make decisions which have an impact on the cost of energy that they consume. They should look at alternative energy sources, significant projects to increase efficiency, software and services to adequately monitor energy use and carbon emissions.
Although the independent European Climate Foundation has basically ratified the European Union's aims, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting energy abatement through the year 2050, it points out that action must be taken now and that delays of only a few years could have significant repercussions.
