The full solution to global warming, from Climate Progress

[bananas]

How the world can (and will) stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm: The full global warming solution (updated)

<snip>

I also agree with McKinsey Global Institute’s 2008 Research in Review: Stabilizing at 450 ppm has a net cost near zero.

<snip>

This is what the entire planet must achieve:

* 1 wedge of albedo change through white roofs and pavement (aka “soft geoengineering) — see “Geoengineering, adaptation and mitigation, Part 2: White roofs are the trillion-dollar solution“
* 1 wedge of vehicle efficiency — all cars 60 mpg, with no increase in miles traveled per vehicle.
* 1 of wind for power — one million large (2 MW peak) wind turbines
* 1 of wind for vehicles –another 2000 GW wind. Most cars must be plug-in hybrids or pure electric vehicles.
* 3 of concentrated solar thermal (aka solar baseload)– ~5000 GW peak.
* 3 of efficiency — one each for buildings, industry, and cogeneration/heat-recovery for a total of 15 to 20 million GW-hrs. A key strategy for reducing direct fossil fuel use for heating buildings (while also reducing air conditioning energy) is geothermal heat pumps.
* 1 of solar photovoltaics — 2000 GW peak
* 1/2 wedge of nuclear power– 350 GW
* 2 of forestry — End all tropical deforestation. Plant new trees over an area the size of the continental U.S.
* 1 wedge of WWII-style conservation, post-2030

Here are additional wedges that require some major advances in applied research to be practical and scalable, but are considered plausible by serious analysts, especially post-2030:

* 1 of geothermal plus other ocean-based renewables (i.e. tidal, wave, and/or ocean thermal)
* 1 of coal with biomass cofiring plus carbon capture and storage — 400 GW of coal plus 200 GW biomass with CCS
* 1/2 wedge of next generation nuclear power — 350 GW
* 1/2 wedge of cellulosic biofuels for long-distance transport and what little aviation remains in 2050 — using 8% of the world’s cropland .
* 1 of soils and/or biochar– Apply improved agricultural practices to all existing croplands and/or “charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass.” Both are controversial today, but may prove scalable strategies.

That should do the trick. And yes, the scale is staggering.

<snip>

Note to all: Do I want to build all those nuclear plants. No. Do I think we could do it without all those nuclear plants. Definitely. Therefore, should I be quoted as saying we “must” build all those nuclear plants, as the Drudge Report has, or even that I propose building all those plants? No. Do I think we will have to swallow a bunch of nuclear plants as part of the grand bargain to make this all possible and that other countries will build most of these? I have no doubt. So it stays in “the solution” for now.

<snip>

[NYC_SKP]

1. The Princeton Wedge Stabilization Game.

The Princeton Wedge Stabilization Game is pretty fun.
http://www.princeton.edu/wedges/
We played this at an IPCC conference in SF in 2007.

My criticism of it was that, as it was presented, the goal was to identify 7 or 8 wedges that would fill the "stabilization triangle".
Filling this triangle would flatten the graph of GHG emissions.
I argued that we need to do more, we need to flatten (reduce to zero the rate of annual growth of emissions) AND go further to begin lowering emissions year by year, which would take many more wedges.
I hope the Princeton Game becomes clearer in what we need to do.

The Climate Progress wedges are of a different "denomination", I believe, with different values than Princeton.

Here's a chart:


Flattening at 11 GtC/Year is better than accelerating output, but it's still pumping 11 GtC/Year into the atmosphere.

So how long can that go on?

[bananas]

2. In the long term we'll bring emissions down to zero

This poster (PDF) gives the long-term outline: http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/research/Vancouver04/Socolow_Poster%20v2-1.pdf

The Climate Progress article in the OP calls for 12-14 wedges:

It would require some 12-14 of Princeton’s “stabilization wedges” — strategies and/or technologies that over a period of a few decades each reduce global carbon emissions by one billion metric tons per year from projected levels (see technical paper here, less technical one here). The reason that we need twice as many wedges as Princeton’s Pacala and Socolow have said we need was explained in Part 1. That my analysis is largely correct can be seen here: “IEA report, Part 2: Climate Progress has the 450-ppm solution about right.”

[Nihil]

3. I'd support that and meet you more than half way ...

Get the 14 core wedges and I'd be happy to drop the 1/2 wedge of nuclear.

If you get the geothermal, soils/biochar "additional wedges" then I'd
go along with the 1/2 wedge of biofuels to keep the 1/2 wedge of next
generation (presumably cleaner/more acceptable) nuclear.

Please don't try for a wedge of coal though and put the money wasted
on "CCS" con-tricks to better use in one of the other wedges instead.

Mind you, this is me in optimistic mood and thinking that 350-450ppm
stabilisation is achievable rather than just waffle to cover up the
ongoing situation while maximising the profits of polluters.
:hi:

[kristopher]

4. McKinsey Report

http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/research_in_review_2008.asp

Registration required to download IIRC.