Back by popular demand, here’s a look at the carbon dimensions of two climate change horror shows in the making: the Keystone XL Pipeline and new coal export terminals in the Northwest. From the “King Kong versus Godzilla” files, here’s my analysis of their carbon impacts.
Original Sightline Institute graphic, available under our Free Use Policy.
The result surprised me: coal exports look to be an even bigger climate disaster than the pipeline. We can ill afford either one of these projects, but until we have a clear energy policy that respects climate science we’ll be wrestling with these kind of deadly proposals one at a time.
Now, for geeks out there, here’s the methodology I used to generate these numbers.
To calculate the carbon dioxide emissions from coal exports, I assumed that 100 million metric tons of Powder River Basin coal are exported each year. (That’s just the sum of the 48 million tons planned for Cherry Point, Washington; 44 million tons planned for Longview, Washington; and 8 million tons planned for the Port of Morrow, Oregon.) Then I estimated that each ton of coal would produce nearly 2 tons of CO2, on average, a figure that is consistent with data published by the US Energy Information Administration, which reports that burning subbituminous coal results in emissions of 97.2 kilograms of CO2 per million BTUs. Assuming that export-grade US coal contains 9,300 BTUs per pound, each metric ton would produce 1.99 tons of CO2, on average. (Incidentally, Environment Canada reports carbon intensities for western Canadian subbituminous and other forms of coal; those figures are similar.)
Given my assumptions, the math is straightforward and yields an estimated 199 million metric tons of CO2 from export coal on an annual basis. My coal emissions accounting leaves out a lot. I did not count the emissions associated with mining, processing, rail shipping, storing, maritime shipping, constructing new port or rail facilities, or any other related activities. I also didn’t count any non-CO2 or fugitive emissions. All I counted, in short, was the CO2 that will be directly released by burning the coal.
To estimate the CO2 emissions from oil moving via the Keystone XL pipeline, I assumed that the pipeline moves 830,000 barrels of oil per day (about 303 million barrels per year), which is what the US State Department says, and that it would transport mostly bitumen derived from oil sands. When burned, each barrel of bitumen releases an average of 0.521 metric tons of CO2; see Table 1 of the report, “The Carbon Contained in Global Oils,” by Deborah Gordon of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (Note, however, some technical details that make my estimates uncertain to a degree. For example, the pipeline may transport fuels produced from a range of different sites, and that the carbon content of different bitumen products may vary. Also note that estimates of carbon intensity of bitumen fuels vary; see, for example, Table 1 of the NRDC report, “GHG Emission Factors for High Carbon Intensity Crude Oils.” What’s more, my estimates do not account for diluents, which are hydrocarbons that are processed and/or transported before being blended with pure bitumen for pipeline transport, although the US State Department concludes that diluted bitumen is only 6 percent less carbon intense than pure bitumen on a “well-to-wheels” basis; see Appendix W of its initial assessment of the Keystone XL pipeline.)
Crunch the numbers and you wind up with an estimated 158 million metric tons of CO2 for oil moved in the pipeline. As with coal, my estimates do not account for the additional emissions associated with bitumen extraction, upgrading, processing, transporting, handling, or refining. Nor do they include the emissions from coal-fired power plants’ combustion of low-price petroleum coke, which is derived from bitumen refining and upgrading; see OilChange International’s report, “Petroleum Coke: The Coal Hiding in the Tar Sands.”
I cross-checked my figures with the State Department’s greenhouse gas estimates in Chapter 4 (page 4.14-4 and following) of the Keystone XL’s recently-released Environmental Impact Statement. State estimates that on a “lifecycle basis”—that is, including production and refining, as well as combustion—the pipeline’s oil would result in emissions of 147 to 168 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
To maintain a roughly apples-to-apples comparison between my coal and oil calculations, I did not factor in emissions from shipping, refining, distributing, constructing infrastructure, or any other related activities. And again, I didn’t count any non-CO2 or fugitive emissions. All I counted, in short, was the CO2 that will be directly released by burning the coal and oil. Comments and suggestions (and corrections) are very welcome.
A big thanks to Goodmeasures.biz for graphic design work on the chart.
Sam Bliss
Of course it’s beyond the scope of these back-of-the-envelope calculations, but if it has not been done already, I’d love for some energy economists to run analyses of the ghg impacts of KXL, Cherry Point, etc. In the absence of these projects, it’s not as if all that coal and tar-sands oil would stay in the ground, but new infrastructure affects global energy markets, price adjust, and the total amount of fossil fuels burned changes according to price elasticities. Also, a comprehensive analyses would include the changes in transportation emissions. Keystone XL would perhaps decrease transport emissions because it would ease pressure on oil-by-rail and tanker trucks, while the emissions of coal trains and transpacific mega-vessel traffic would significantly enlarge the climate impact of coal export terminals.
All in all, I think that even if a comprehensive study on the potential climate impacts of these projects does not come up with a number as big as 199 million metric tons/year for the coal ports or 158 million metric tons/year for Keystone XL (because it wouldn’t pretend that all the fuels transported are the sole responsibility of the new infrastructure), the numbers would still clearly show that these projects are huge mistakes. What’s more, when counting lifecycle emissions and all ghgs in CO2-equivalent, we might discover just what you’re proposing: fossil fuel export from the PNW is an even bigger climate disaster than KXL.
Juana Sanchez
IHS CERA have done extensive research on the life cycle emissions of the tar sands. In November 2013 they report that bitumen produces an average of 12% more CO2 than the average barrel of crude oil consumed in the US. According to EIA the average barrel of oil in the US genertates .43 MT of CO2 per barrel and 112% of this is .48 tonnes of CO2 per barrel of bitumen.
If we assume that the alternative to the US importing Keystone tar sands would be importing “average” CO2 emitting crude oil from somewhere else, then the amount of CO2 emissions we would be saving is 35,976 MT. In 2014 the world emitted 36 billion tonnes of CO2 and so the amount of CO2 you would save would be the equivalent of 31.5 seconds of global CO2 emissions. A more optimistic scenario might involve an assumption where the US reduced consumption by 830,000 barrels. In this case 5 minutes and 50 seconds of global emissions would be spared.
Canadian tar sands production is expected to be 2.1 million barrels per day in 2014. This represents 2.27% of world oil consumption and 11.1% of US oil consumption. It also represents over a million tonnes of CO2 emissions, or .003% of global emissions.
If the tar sands disappeared tomorrow, the US will consume the same amount of oil. When 75% of America’s 128 million commuters drive in a car alone to work everyday it is apparent that people don’t associate their driving behavior with global warming. The same can be said about their consumption generally – people don’t associate consumption with global warming. Either by nature or by retail nurture we’ve become addicted to consumption.
People are the problem and they are also the solution. Rather than waiting for leadership from governments who are loathe to risk votes we can have a huge impact. For example we have the technology in place for many of us to work from home rather than from the office. If the companies who employ 10% of America’s 128 million commuters would let their workers work from home on four days per week, and the average commute used 2 gallons of fuel, this would result in a decrease in demand for gasoline of 102.8 million gallons. If another 10% of these folks could be convinced to carpool, you could save another 128 million gallons from being combusted. At 8777 grams of CO2 emissions per gallon of gasoline we would have just saved just over 2 million tonnes of CO2… twice what the tar sands generate.
I would also argue that from a foreign policy perspective the best thing that could possibly happen would be for the US to buy it’s imported oil from Canada. Military attacks on countries who stand in the way of US energy security generate quite a lot of CO2.