Comments by David Hone Subscribe

On COP 21: A Pathway for 1.5°C

Yes, agree. I should have made that a bit clearer.

December 13, 2015    View Comment    

On COP 21: A Pathway for 1.5°C

Mark,

This is based entirely on cumulative emissions, not observed temperature. Although we don't know the exact relationship, I have assumed a base climate sensitivity of 2C per trillion tonnes carbon emitted (Allen et. al, 2009), which implies we have locked in 1.2C already as emissions from 1750 are some 600 billion tonnes carbon (trillionthtonne.org). Of course we haven't actually observed 1.2C yet.

This relationship implies that 750 billion tonnes carbon is 1.5C, which we get to in about 2028, assuming a 600 billion tonne starting point and 11+ billion tonnes carbon per annum.

It may of course transpire that the relationship is not 2C per trillion.

David

December 13, 2015    View Comment    

On One Million Tonnes of CO2

Bruce, The point of this project is not just to reduce the emissions footprint of our oil sands projects, but also to clearly demonstrate the feasibility and operation of a medium scale CCS facility. Whether or not oil sands is the right place for CCS application is an issue for the market to ultimately decide, driven by the more widespread application of a government carbon price, such as now seen in Quebec and British Columbia, as well as in Alberta. David
November 20, 2015    View Comment    

On One Million Tonnes of CO2

Or we could follow the real guidance of the model work below the IPCC press releases and summary documents and build CCS on a much larger scale than is currently the case. While I agree with your main point, the clear message from IPCC is that 2 C is at best very challenging and probably very expensive without CCS.
November 19, 2015    View Comment    

On After the INDCs, is 2°C Possible?

Joris, Looking at our current scenarios, a 2C world would build heavily on the trends in Mountains, but also encompass many aspects of Oceans - hence the issues we face in that the scenarios represent very different societal pathways. Mountains is quite top down but Oceans is more market driven bottom up. But you will note that Mountains is heavily weighted towards nuclear and CCS through top down pressure, so I would expect a 2C world to have strong similarities. David
October 21, 2015    View Comment    

On After the INDCs, is 2°C Possible?

Joris, Looking at our current scenarios, a 2C world would build heavily on the trends in Mountains, but also encompass many aspects of Oceans - hence the issues we face in that the scenarios represent very different societal pathways. Mountains is quite top down but Oceans is more market driven bottom up. But you will note that Mountains is heavily weighted towards nuclear and CCS through top down pressure, so I would expect a 2C world to have strong similarities. David
October 21, 2015    View Comment    

On After the INDCs, is 2°C Possible?

Joris, As Jeremy says in his interview, a normative 2C forced outcome is more mathematics than scenario building. Quite a few organisations have already done this in one way or another to show the steepness of the 2C mountain. By contrast, what we show in our scenarios is an evolution of the whole energy system over the remainder of the century, which is feasible from a societal perspective - assuming of course that is the direction that people wish to go. David
October 20, 2015    View Comment    

On After the INDCs, is 2°C Possible?

I agree - just reflecting on how MIT interpret this.
October 20, 2015    View Comment    

On Carbon Pricing: Accounting Isn't Enough

Bob, You are probably right - it's what we need but the stars aren't aligned to deliver it. However, the proposal that IETA outline is not a top down Euro (Kyoto) type implementation, but something more akin to the way the rest of the international monetary system works - i.e. a virtual international currency (US$) with linkages by exchange rate. David
April 20, 2015    View Comment    

On Climate and Global Energy: The Answer Lies After 2050, Probably Not Before

Bob,

Clearly that is where we are heading, but building that much CCS by 2020 isn't feasible. However, to get there, I personally think we need to start with such a concept. I discussed the same idea in a recent post.

http://blogs.shell.com/climatechange/2014/11/twoviews/

Regards

David

January 15, 2015    View Comment    

On Climate and Global Energy: The Answer Lies After 2050, Probably Not Before

In fairness, you should quote sentences in their entirety, rather than just picking out one bit to change the meaning. There are two pretty major caveats there which you ignored.

With such CCS infrastructure in place and given the size of the remaining ultimately recoverable resources (which the Letter puts at ~4,000 Gt for coal alone), fossil fuel use could continue into the 22ndCentury hardly impacting the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, assuming it remains competitive with the alternatives available at that time.

January 15, 2015    View Comment    

On Climate and Global Energy: The Answer Lies After 2050, Probably Not Before

Bob,

I am sorry you think that of me Bob, it wasn't the intention of the article. I fully agree that continued release of geological carbon into the atmosphere is a big issue and clearly not a sustainable proposition. Equally, we depend totally on doing so for everything that goes on in the world today. There are only two solutions to this problem; stop using fossil fuels for energy production or capture and return the carbon to the geosphere after the energy it delivers is used. Clearly both of these pathways need to be explored - the fact that Shell happens to focus on one of these shouldn't in itself be a reason for criticism. Certainly there are plenty of other entities focusing on the other route forward.

David

January 15, 2015    View Comment