Environment & Safety Gas Processing/LNG Maintenance & Reliability Petrochemicals Process Control Process Optimization Project Management Refining

Pursuing a 2°C pathway: the climate challenge - ExxonMobil & Stanford

Many uncertainties exist concerning the future of energy demand and supply, including potential actions that societies may take to address the risks of climate change. The analysis featured here is intended to provide a perspective on hypothetical 2 degree C scenarios.

Considerable work has been done in the scientific community to explore energy transformation pathways. A recent multi-model study coordinated by the Energy Modeling Forum at Stanford University (EMF 27) brought together many energy economic models to assess technology and policy pathways associated with various climate stabilization targets (e.g., 450, 550 ppm CO2 equivalent or CO2e), partially in support of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Potential CO2 emission trajectories under EMF 27

The chart to the right illustrates potential CO2 emission trajectories under EMF 27 full technology scenarios targeting a 2°C pathway (Assessed 2°C Scenarios) relative to the 2018 Outlook, and baseline pathways (Assessed Baseline Scenarios) with essentially no policy evolution beyond 2010. The 2018 Outlook incorporates significant efficiency gains and changes in the energy mix, resulting in a projected CO2 emissions trajectory that resides between the pathways illustrated by the baseline and 2°C scenarios.

A key characteristic of the Assessed 2°C Scenarios is that energy-related CO2 emissions go to zero, or potentially negative, by the end of the century.

As shown, the 2°C pathways represent a stark and fairly rapid transition from the baseline scenarios, while also illustrating significantly different emission trajectories toward a 2°C ambition.

Download the full 63-page report at this link on the ExxonMobil website. To learn more about the Energy Modeling Forum, click here.

(synopsis by Bob Andrew, Technical Editor, Hydrocarbon Processing magazine)

From the Archive

Comments

Comments

{{ error }}
{{ comment.name }} • {{ comment.dateCreated | date:'short' }}
{{ comment.text }}