The movement to sustainability is driving companies involved in the lubricant industry to develop approaches for becoming carbon neutral in the near future. Carbon neutrality means that the amount of carbon dioxide removed by a specific organization is equal to the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the organization.

One of the benefits of moving to carbon neutrality is an improvement in air quality. In a previous TLT article,¹ researchers developed six model scenarios to assess how the use of electric vehicles in the U.S. will affect air quality and the health of individuals. The researchers built these models by assuming that the electric vehicles comprised 0%, 25% and 75% of the total U.S. light-duty passenger car vehicle fleet and then including three different energy generation scenarios. If 25% of electric vehicles are used in the U.S., the researchers estimated a cost savings of $17 billion in damages due to air pollution, health and climate change annually. This figure increases to $70 billion annually if the percentage of electric vehicles in use is 75%.

For the U.S. to become carbon neutral, emissions reduction must occur in two key segments. Jim Williams, associate professor in Energy Systems Management at the University of San Francisco in San Francisco, Calif., says, “More than 80% of current gross U.S. carbon dioxide emissions originate in the energy and industrial sectors.”

Williams and researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Evolved Energy Research have developed eight different decarbonization scenarios for the U.S. to achieve carbon neutrality by the year 2050. As part of this process, the researchers also indicated what steps will need to be taken over the next decade to make sure the U.S. is headed in the right direction to become carbon neutral by mid-century.

Figure 1 shows the eight actions that need to occur by 2030, which then need to continue for the next 20 years, thereafter. These steps include increase solar and wind energy capacity, eliminate coal as a fuel for power generation, maintain current natural gas generating capacity, increase the share of zero-emission vehicle sales by 50%, increase the share of building heat pump sales by 50%, ensure all new buildings and appliances meet strict energy efficiency goals, develop techniques for carbon capture and sequestration and develop carbon-neutral fuels and build infrastructure to transport and utilize carbon dioxide and hydrogen in power generation.


Figure 1. The eight action steps shown in this figure must be followed over the next 10 years for the U.S. to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Figure courtesy of Jenny Nuss/Berkeley Lab.

Central case
The lowest-cost scenario developed by Williams and his colleagues to achieve carbon neutrality is designated as the central case. Williams says, “This scenario represents the path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 that our modeling shows to be the most cost-effective, given current forecasts for technology and fuel costs. Our models start by analyzing energy demand bottom-up in 64 different demand subsectors. Then the models optimize the energy supply needed to meet this demand over time, including hourly operation of the electricity system, using all available sources of primary energy (such as natural gas, oil, coal, solar and wind), while meeting the requirement for overall carbon dioxide emissions to decline every year.”

The researchers divided the U.S. into 16 separate geographical regions in doing this study. The central case analysis showed that carbon neutrality can occur by 2050 at a cost of $1 per person per day, which represents 0.4% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Williams says, “The important aspect is that our scenarios do not require overnight changes in the energy infrastructure. Coal power needs to be retired in this decade, but all other changes are based on natural retirement and replacement cycles over 30 years. When equipment is retired, it needs to be replaced by the most efficient, low-carbon technologies available. For example, the expansion of electric vehicle adoption is rapid, but that comes by increasing the share of electric vehicles in new car sales—no one is expected to scrap their existing vehicles.”

Five additional scenarios were generated with various parameters that might delay the transition to carbon neutrality. Two scenarios represent evaluating the sensitivity of the central case to low fossil fuel pricing and to low renewable costs. Another addresses the concern about the sustainability of biomass and land requirements for renewable energy generation. Delays in electrification were examined in another scenario based on the assumption that consumers might slowly adopt low carbon technologies. An opposite scenario considers what happens if consumers demonstrate high levels of conservation.

The last two scenarios were designed to produce negative net energy and industrial carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. The first evaluates the cost of having an energy and industrial sector based entirely on renewable energy. The second is a scenario designed to rapidly reduce carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.

Serious attention is being paid to capturing carbon dioxide and storing it as an effective way to quickly move toward carbon neutrality. Williams says, “In our study, we consider carbon capture to be important but not over the next 10 years. Carbon capture is not a standalone strategy for reaching carbon neutrality, but it will be important for dealing with remaining emissions after energy and industry are mostly decarbonized. The technology needs to be improved in the next decade to make it more cost-effective when it is really needed in bulk.”

Use of hydrogen as a fuel and feedstock will be important in leading to carbon neutrality. Williams says, “The more intermittent renewable energy is on the system, the more value there is in producing hydrogen by using electricity to split water, so it is important to develop low-cost electrolysis facilities. The same is true for chemical processes to convert sustainable hydrogen into fuels through procedures such as the Fischer-Tropsch reaction.”

In the conclusion of the study, the researchers indicate that all scenarios follow a similar pathway for the next 10 years. Williams says, “Near-term objectives such as ramping up wind and solar generation capacity, maintaining current natural gas and nuclear energy capacity and electrification of vehicles should be pursued. Our scenarios do not start to diverge in big ways until 2035.”

Williams believes this modeling study provides the framework for moving to carbon neutrality by 2050. He says, “We are hoping to do an annual refresh of this study each year to incorporate the latest data and provide an update on what needs to be done. Another objective is to regionalize the study by analyzing what each U.S. state needs to do over the next 30 years.”

Additional information can be found in a recent article² or by contacting Williams at jhwilliams4@usfca.edu.

REFERENCES
1. Canter, N. (2020), “How will electric vehicles use affect air quality and the health of individuals?,” TLT, 76 (12), pp. 18-19.
2. Williams, J., Jones, R., Haley, B., Kwok, G., Hargreaves, J., Farbes, J. and Torn, M. (2021), “Carbon-neutral pathways for the United States,” AGU Advances, 2 (1), click here.