Solar Radiation Modification challenges decarbonization with renewable solar energy
Geoengineering News
Abstract. Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) is increasingly being discussed as a potential tool to reduce global and regional temperatures to buy time for conventional carbon mitigation measures to take effect. However, most simulations to date assume SRM as an additive component to the climate change toolbox, without any physical coupling between mitigation and SRM. In this study we analyse one aspect of this coupling: How renewable energy (RE) capacity, and therefore decarbonization rates, may be affected under SRM deployment by modification of photovoltaic (PV) and concentrated solar power (CSP) production potential. Simulated 1-hour output from the Earth System Model CNRM-ESM2-1 for scenario-based experiments are used for the assessment. We find that by the end of the century, most regions experience an increased number of low PV and CSP energy weeks per year under SAI (Stratospheric Aerosol Injections) compared to the moderately ambitiously mitigated scenario SSP245. Compared to the unmitigated SSP585 scenario, while the increase in low energy weeks is still dominant, some areas see fewer low PV or CSP energy weeks under SAI. A substantial part of the decrease in potential with SAI compared to the SSP-scenarios is compensated by optically thinner upper tropospheric clouds under SAI. Our study suggests that using SAI to reduce high-end global warming to moderate global warming could pose increased challenges for meeting energy demand with solar renewable resources.
em...@lewis-brown.net
I'd like to inform you of our new paper published today in Climate
Policy which is free online at the link below. We researched the impact
of carbon offsetting on wider carbon management practices and outcomes
amongst universities. We find no moral licensing, moral hazard or
rebound effect amongst adopters of carbon offsets. In fact, adopters
undertook more carbon management practices, had earlier net zero targets
and reduced their carbon emissions slightly more than did non-adopters.
We argue that under the polluter pays principle polluters of carbon have
a duty to clean up their pollution and compensate those damaged. In
fact, plausibly, Not offsetting carbon is moral hazard as it involves to
a large extent wealthier groups, who are better insulated from impacts,
emitting pollution which places costs and risks on the most vulnerable
who have caused the least pollution.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2023.2268070?scroll=top&needAccess=true
To cite this article:
Emily Lewis-Brown, Neil Jennings, Morena Mills & Robert Ewers (2023)
Comparison of carbon management and emissions of universities that did
and did not adopt voluntary carbon offsets, Climate Policy, DOI:
10.1080/14693062.2023.2268070
Thank you and Kind regards,
Emily Lewis-Brown
Imperial College London
e.lewis...@imperial.ac.uk
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHJsh99mnZFVUxXHmU5zSpkP7HoiH6SfEw8TUaBb%3DCN%2B6CiiXg%40mail.gmail.com
> [1].
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHJsh99mnZFVUxXHmU5zSpkP7HoiH6SfEw8TUaBb%3DCN%2B6CiiXg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer