Visit to the Life Cycle Carbon Minus House at the Building Research Institute

We recently visited the Life Cycle Carbon Minus House in Tsukuba, which has as aim to have negative carbon emissions once it is in operation, including the carbon dioxide generation during construction. We first had a lecture on the workings of the house in Japanese. Aside from applying renewable energy in the form of solar cells, the layout of the house uses different principles depending on the season.  

Viable technologies for 80% GHG emission reduction

As we saw previously, certain renewable energy sources are more in abundance than others. The biggest is solar, and one magnitude smaller is wind. One magnitude smaller again is biomass, and smaller than that in one magnitude again are geothermal energy, wave-tidal energy, and hydro-power. Abundance however does not solely determine which technologies are most viable to reach the 80% or more greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets by 2050. This also depends on the maturity of the technology, and whether or not it emits GHGs to begin with. Given these limitations, there are four main pathways to reach 80% GHG emission reduction by 2050.

Nuclear power generation

Nuclear power has as advantages that during generation there is no emission of the main GHG CO2 or methane (CH4), and it can be produced continuously, as opposed to intermittent renewables like solar and wind. Japan possesses over 60 years’ experience with this technique, a large amount of infrastructure and knowledge workers in the nuclear industry. Before the 2011 GEJET, Japan had 54 nuclear reactors in operation. Since then most of all had shut down for regular maintenance, after which the safety regulations have tightened and prevented restarting regularly scheduled operations. Due to the stricter regulations, some of the older plants have seen early retirement. 42 reactors remain capable of a restart, of which 24 have requested approval to restart. Plans from 2010 from the METI envisioned 50% of the total electricity coming from nuclear power; a plan that could be reawakened.

Disadvantages to nuclear power include Japan’s tectonically active location, leading not only to a high chance of natural hazards with potential disastrous effects as seen in the aftermath of the GEJET, but also a lack of safe storage space for the small amount of waste that remains unable to be processed further after nuclear power generation. A second issue is the reliance on imported uranium, as this resource cannot be mined in Japan itself. Some of the countries that have the most abundant uranium resources are Australia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, with whom political ties are likely to remain good. The environmental impacts of mining uranium however are often not factored into the cost of the resource. The third issue is that only several kg of nuclear material are needed in order to create nuclear weapons, and an large nuclear power plant produces several hundreds of kg annually. One the one hand, this makes any nuclear facility a potential target for terrorists and raises security issues until a more peaceful global society is created. On the other hand, the current reality is that Japan cannot fully abandon its nuclear power installations due to the necessity of using the hypothetical capability of producing nuclear weapons within several weeks as a potential threat for certain international political maneuvers, as instigated by other countries. This situation is unlikely to change in a significant way until the global powers are reorganized, or a stronger focus on global peace is enforced throughout citizens of all countries, including their governments. 

Japan's current energy use

Information from the Japan Center for Climate Change Actions shows that in 2015 most CO2 emissions came from the electricity generating sector and from industry, with 39 and 32% respectively. Transportation is another large contender at 17% of the total CO2 emissions. 

[Based on information from http://www.jccca.org/chart/chart04_04.html]

Road maps, visions, scenarios

Many policy plans and studies concerning the emission reduction of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases (GHG) rely on ideas of possible future energy production and consumption. There are many names for such ideas: road maps, visions, scenarios, forecasts and backcasts; and equally many different definitions. A main distinction can be made between an extension or a continuation of business as usual or projections made following current trends; and an ideal future situation, state or goal combined with steps as to how to reach this goal. McDowall and Eames [doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2005.12.006] describe this distinction as descriptive or normative, and apply the following definitions: 

"Descriptive:

• Forecasts use formal quantitative extrapolation and modelling to predict likely futures from current trends.
• Exploratory scenarios explore possible futures. They emphasise drivers, and do not specify a predetermined desirable end state towards which must storylines progress.
• Technical scenarios explore possible future technological systems. They emphasise the technical feasibility and implications of different options, rather than explore how different futures might unfold.

How fast should we start working on greenhouse gas emission reduction?

Climate change, though inevitable, can still be mitigated. If we are to enable the scenario with a maximum 2 °C increase, we need to construct emission targets corresponding to reaching that goal in a timely fashion. But how timely?

Already two years ago the New Climate Institute and the Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency compared the results of different organizations in determining the target years for greenhouse gas (GHG) and carbon dioxide (CO₂) net zero emissions.

• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in their Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) from 2014 that, if we want to have a 66% chance of meeting the 2 °C target, global GHG emissions should be net zero around 2100 and CO₂, the main contributor of GHG emissions, should be net zero around 2085. That is to say, if we start measures in 2010 to reach that target.
• The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) analyzed in 2014 what would happen if we started reducing emissions in 2020 rather than 2010, which is a more likely starting time for many countries. This led to global GHG emissions having to be net zero around 2075, and CO₂ around 2065.
• The Climate Action Tracker used the IPCC data but instead analyzed how we could have an 85% chance of meeting the 2 °C target. For this, GHG emissions would have to be net zero around 2070, and CO₂ around 2055. 

It seems that with our current research vision of 80% GHG emission reduction and beyond for 2050, we would not be able to achieve this target on time, and our emphasis should be on ‘and beyond’ even more. 

Figure based on Net phase out of global GHG emissions, NCI, 2015.