SODBatch A&B SPM Comments co-chair response final ... - ipcc-wg3

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
545
SPM-
546
para
6
F
4
6
F
4
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
geothermal energy to 2050 (greatly exceeding cumulative world
energy consumption in that period, whereas in SPM.4 (in twice the
timeframe!) the mitigation potential of these technologies is a
trivially small fraction of the total mitigation effort.
(Donald Pols, Friends of the Earth Netherlands/Milieudefensie)
A 7 25 0 0 Figure SPM.4: This figure expresses a vision from two models
only, which rely on questionable assumptions. It seems based on
the hypothesis of important technical improvements in the
production of biofuels while taking all other renewable
technologies at their current level of development. The literature is
very diverse from this point of view, and other renewable energy
technologies are as likely to play an important role in this century
as biofuels. In particular, the three main solar technologies, thermal
solar for heat, concentrated solar power and possibly even PV could
each invidually provide as much emission reductions than biofuels -
and the three together are likely to provide more. The use of the
term "biofuel" is itself misleading if the category, as the precision
"incl. CCS" suggests, include various forms of biomass, including
for power production. For most readers biofuels means liquid fuels
from biomass, and will more likely all go to transportation.
Moreover, attributing to biomass the emission reductions that
would come from the use of CCS in conjunction with biomass
burning is analytically flawed. There is no fundamental difference
between capturing CO2 from fossil fuel or biomass burning and the
challenge about storage are similar. It would be clearer to have a
category "biomass" on one hand, and a category CCS (for all fuels)
on the other.
(Cédric PHILIBERT, International Energy Agency)
A 7 25 7 25 Figure SPM.4 should also include other scenarios aiming at
stabilization levels as low as 375 ppmv CO2eq. If this is not
possible, this figure should be deleted because it seems to
recommend a stabilization levels of 500 and 650 ppmv CO2 eq.,
which would not guarantee not to breach the 2 C threshold.
(Giulio Volpi, WWF International)
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
See A-434 and 537 See comment
SPM 434 A and
537 A.
(4)
REJ; this is to illustrate the
portfolio of technologies needed
in a least cost framework; it
should be mentioned that there
is choice, but at a price
Rejected. This is
to illustrate the
portfolio of
technologies
needed in a least
cost framework;
Page 140 of 348