User Tools

Site Tools


ESF Comments on 1st meeting of Joint Interim Committee On Carbon Reduction

Video of the meeting is available HERE

The core meeting agenda was to bring the committee up to a level starting point for joint deliberation over the upcoming 5 additional meetings before the end of 2018.

Both invited presenters and others contributed written testimony here

ESF testimony is here

The subjects and presenters were: ESF Opinion shown in GREEN

  • Baseline Facts of Climate Change
    • Phil Mote, Director, Oregon Climate Change Research Institute
      • Our take on this presentation: Dr. Mote is a fountain of knowledge of the patterns of change for Oregon, past and future. But, he sees little of economic impact in them. If the whole earth were benefiting from adjacency to the Pacific Ocean, and could ignore the Ocean's declining health, that might make sense. But we live in a world wide economy.
        • According to a recent article, the country would have it's GNP seriously damaged by even a temperature rise of 3 degrees, C.
        • One article says that containing rise to 2 degrees instead of 3 would save the global economy $30 TRILLION. Another says every dollar spent containing climate change pays back $30
        • More reading at: Climate Damage Costs
        • Dr Mote shows two of the UN's scenarios on slide #6
          Scenario RPC_8.5 is Business as Usual that would be expected to rise 3 degrees at 2040, 4 at 2045, 6 at 2080 and at 2100 would be over 8 degrees (Farenheight) higher.
          See information on tipping points
          • Most people believe rises of 6 degrees or more will cause a major extinction of most life.
          • If, instead we work like crazy to try to stay below 2 degree C rise, Dr. Mote thinks we will be able to overshoot slightly and return down by 2100.
            • That requires not only stopping use of carbon fuels, but removing about 1 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere.
              No one has demonstrated a way to sequester carbon – it will be a grand experiment. It will only succeed if we all band together to each do his part.
  • Understanding Oregon’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions – History, Trends, and What Oregon is Already Doing
    • Richard Whitman, Director, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
      • Slide 3 points out how recently Oregon started collecting data.
      • Slide 4: Industry reports numbers, DEQ collates them for Global Warming Commission and Legislature, uses 100-year GWP for Methane – by then tipping points may be old news.
      • Slide 5: Notes that Agricultural emissions, Refrigerants, and Wastewater are not collected. Lists reported as Industry, Transportation Fuels, Natural Gas, and Electricity. \\ I'm guessing that the reported Natural Gas is presumed to be sold as a fuel, and it is recorded as a CO2 emission?
      • Slide 6: Shows that we've had a slight rise in GHG since 1990, and that this is in spite of a 40% rise in population (in audio). That is interesting information for later.
      • Slide 7: In showing a CO2e rollup by Economic Sectors we see that
        • Electricity and Transporation are THE KEY SECTORS – adding to well over half of total.
        • Industrial and Residential and Commercial combine to be about the size of Electrical. Audio said that much of those are “Natural Gas”(methane) building heat.
        • Finally, Agriculture is listed, and there is no info on whether this is fuel reporting again, or any of the many important emissions from organic processes.
      • Slide 8: Taking Slide 7 as background, it adds “the plan” as an overlay.
        There is a green line that is what would be business as usual, but slightly modified by current legislation.
        Then there is a line that starts from most recent report and hopes for a dive to a lower point of 53 MMT/yr at 2022. We need this steep slope, but I don't know what would cause it.
        Then Clean Energy Jobs would slide from 53 MMT/year to about 15 MMT in 2050.
      • Slide 9: lists dates for climate bills of past
      • Slide 10: takes slide 8 and notes that the projected top of that graph does represent current law plus business as usual.

  • ESF feels this presentation could have addressed more – the strategy of going green
    What is the strategy for removing carbon emission? Generally, people agree that the strategy depends on electrification of all energy use, and supplying all that energy from green sources. Electricity will be supplied both through a modernized grid, and distributed sources at many points both on the grid and off of it. So:
    1. Green the Grid – The Grid Must Become 100% Green, and this can be done within 10 to 15 years. The grid may need to grow. See Mark Z Jacobson. (MZJ) MZJ shows that even with predicted growth of demand in some areas, efficiency is expected to increase in several ways and may compensate for needs, completely.
    2. Grid the Transportation – Transportation needs to be run on electricity. That is easiest for personal/family transportation, but trucks and vans that run on electricity already are in use and in further development. Norway is developing airplanes. The Max line and the trolley to PSU have always been electric. The source of the concentrated electricity for charging and running these vehicles must mostly come from the grid. (Though solar users in PDX are already running their EVs from the solar on their roof.)
    3. Grid the Methane users. For most uses of fossil fuel, there is a huge loss of efficiency when consumed in a Carnot process engine. For building heat methane can be quite efficient. However, it can't do the job without emitting CO2. Also, any methane lost to the atmosphere is a severe injury of the climate. Leakage information suggests heavy leakage in the well fields, in storage facilities, and in older city distribution systems. We can only fix that by using non-carbon driven heat sources. (See also notes on the problems of biofuel.) There is a fine solution. Electricity can drive Air Conditioners very nicely. Such air conditioners can be taught to reverse the heat flow so that instead of pushing excess heat out of a building, it can pump heat into the building. This heating benefits from supplying both the energy of the pump and the energy tranferred by pumping, so that the total energy brought into the house is more than double the energy of the electricity used. By making the pumping easier, this efficiency can be doubled again. That can be done simply by getting a good water-connection to the outside ground. “Ground-sourced heat pump.” To make that practical in residential communities we will need some sort of community wells, possibly supplied by a utility company.
  • Carbon Reduction Policy Options for Oregon
    • Dallas Burtraw, Darius Gaskins Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future
comments_on_1st_meeting_of_joint_interim_committee_on_carbon_reduction.txt · Last modified: 2018/06/09 18:44 (external edit)