FREDERIC HAUGE: Thank
you very much.
For me, it's a huge
opportunity to stand here.
What I will try to do today
is take you through from
pollution to solution.
I've been an environmental
activist for many years.
I think the discussion
if the climate change
is man-made is over.
The people who don't believe
that, they could continue to
not believe that, but the
politicians, the reports, the
scientific proofs,
are very strong.
So where does that take us?
I'm coming from a very rich
country, Norway, in the north.
I've been spending my life
on environmental issues.
I have been working on
environmental issues since
'83, then I quit school
and started with this.
I founded Bellona back in '86
after the Chernobyl accident.
And since I'm coming from the
Arctic, that's my background,
and the Arctic is a kind of
canary in the climate
change discussion.
We see a lot of change there.
And I've been working a lot in
Russia, I've been working a lot
with technology in oil and gas,
and I think sometimes it's
important to make access.
And I've been in arrested
many, many times.
That's what people in
Norway know me for.
But that's not enough.
Sometimes it's also
important to go further on.
I've been spending a lot
of my time in Russia.
And when I saw the Times today,
maybe Mr. Brown would like
to go on with the
nuclear strategy.
That's dangerous for me.
I've been spending quite
a long time on this.
I don't know if you remember
when France carried out
nuclear tests in the
Pacific in the '90s.
All the radical people, they
went on the barricades, and
they really went on to fight.
I think they boycotted
French wine for up to
a couple of weeks.
For me, the situation
is quite dangerous.
Just inside the border
of Norway, we have
a storage facility.
You have to explode 5,000
nuclear bombs of a similar size
as the French did at Mururoa to
create the amount of
radioactivity that
is in this storage.
We started up in '89 when
everything opened up, and
openness when it comes to
information on environment
is extremely important.
But in '96 we got into big
trouble, some of you have maybe
heard about Mr. Nikitin.
He was charged with secret and
retroactive laws because b
of the work he did for us.
We spent seven years in court
in Russia, and at the end
we won against the
security police.
But my background from this
work makes me very skeptical
of nuclear strategy.
And I had to find some
other solutions.
We need some long steps to
combat climate change.
And for those of you who
were up early this morning,
I looked at the telly.
It was a reportage by the
BBC on the ice melting.
A new big iceberg
floating in the Arctic.
Really, really scary.
The ice level is decreasing
very heavily in the Arctic.
We have a challenge.
80% of the global energy is
produced by fossil fuel.
1% percent of today is
the new renewables.
6% is the nuclear.
7% is hydropower and so.
But 80% is fossil fuel.
And the global energy demand is
increasing, and two-thirds of
the global population has
a legitimate need
for more energy.
And at the same time, we need
to cut the emissions between
50% to 80% to avoid an increase
of the temperature with more
than 2 degrees the
next 100 years.
Which itself is very scary.
So what it's going to make
us able to win that fight?
That's a very complicated task.
Maybe one of the most
complicated tasks we ever
have faced as human beings.
I think we all agree that
sooner or later we need to move
towards the sustainable energy
systems, renewable and so on.
But how are we going to
produce all the solar panels?
All the silicon that
is needed for this?
All the aluminium for the cast
around the solar panels, all
that cast-iron for the
windmills, or all the
fertilizer for the biomass, or
all hydrogen for the
nice car outside?
How are we going to do that?
How are we to make
this transition?
I think that the best way
to predict the future
is to invent it.
And that's why, since '93, I
have been working with one very
important issue that I would
like to spend most of my time
on today, because I think
that's the major solution
that's we need today, and
that is carbon capture.
Because this is a drawing
from Bellona, '93, on how to
build a pollution-free gas
power plant in Norway.
And this has been-- again, I
used Norway as an example, we
are only a little part of the
global CO2 emissions, but we
are third biggest oil and gas
exporter, and we the income of
close to 3% of all the global
CO2 emissions, so we have a
huge moral responsibility.
And Goldman's has left because
this case in Norway, and we
have created a political
situation where we know that
there is no technical
potential for this.
Underground in the North Sea,
we could store CO2 emissions
from Europe for at least
500 years of emissions.
And in my opinion, this
storage is very safe.
So if you have the technology
to split out the CO2 from the
emissions and take it down
under there, maybe this was a
part of the solution
we found out.
We had a lot of ideas, but this
turned out to be one of the
best options we could see.
For me, it's very important
when we fight on the
environmental scene that we
have realistic solutions
that could take us all
the way to the goal.
In Norway, we are
very privileged.
And since I worked in Russia, I
had to-- I don't know how-- in
the earlier days, the Russians
tested you out when they wanted
to make business with you.
Since I worked very much with a
nuclear icebreaker fleet, the
director there wanted me to
meet one of the icebreaker
captains at lunch.
That's heavy stuff, because
it's big glasses of vodka.
So he told me, you eat a
lot of that cod liver.
OK, I said.
And then you only
drink clean alcohol.
Stay away from the champagne,
the mineral water and the beer.
OK, why?
I said.
Well, you just get a little bit
drunk very long, drink what's
containing CO2, that will
release alcohol from the cod
liver, you will be very drunk.
So I ate a lot of cod liver
and stayed away from
all the mineral water.
But the point of that the
CO2 has a chemical effect.
And we could use that for
enhanced oil recovery.
And that is a way to
pay the extra cost.
In Norway, we have six
oil fields that we
could empty much more.
Business sector, Norwegian
sector, most of the oil fields
we're just attempting 50%
before the oil companies would
like to go to the Arctic and
drill in the virgin
areas there.
We have sixteen more fields,
only on the Norwegian coast,
where we think that the CO2
could go from being a waste
to being a resource.
We have four points where
all the gas exported
to Europe is passing.
We could take out a lot of CO2
from these four points and
remove it from the market,
without any changes in the
infrastructure in Europe.
So for us, living in the
richest country in the world,
with some of the biggest
pollutions of CO2 per capita
globally, I think we are only
beaten by Kuwait if you take
with us the income of the oil,
I've been fighting thing with
the oil industry to implement
these new technologies.
Today there are three big
projects going on in Norway,
for capturing the CO2
from power production,
petrochemical plants.
We see the beginning
of a new era.
Of course, the first plants
will be very expensive.
But again, if you look at the
cost of not making anything,
they're much bigger.
This is a scheme from the IPCC,
the united climate panel.
I think that illustrates very
much what kind of tools we have
to combat climate change.
Energy, efficiency, and
conservation will be important.
Little bit disappointing
with the renewables.
I'm more optimistic.
I think that's little
play a bigger role.
Mr. Brown should really read
this, because nuclear is not
going to take us to the goal.
There's not capacity
enough to sort it out.
I think nuclear will
be the solution.
I don't like it, but I think
it still will be the solution
for some big cities.
But I think we have to move to
the distributed energy systems.
Then the panel said, well, we
could shift from coal to gas.
But what's happening now
is directly the opposite.
We are moving more and more
to the coal industry.
So in my opinion, this is the
potential for capturing CO2.
Maybe as much as 50% of the
weapons we have when we are
going to combat climate
change is probably carbon
capture and storage.
Three years ago, the European
Commission changed their
views on carbon capture.
For me, that was a big victory.
They had laughed a lot at
first, the same way that
people had laughed at
Google when they started.
But they established a
technology platform, and for
some reason, Norway is not even
with the European Union, I was
appointed to sit on the board,
and I'm the vice-chairman of
this technology platform.
With the [? demodeling, ?]
how much could carbon capture
do to take this to the goal,
to cut emissions in
Europe before 2050?
That's 30 billion tons
of CO2 it's possible
to capture and store.
That means, at the spring
council, the European
Commission admitted
this was a strategy.
They say that all power plants,
new power plants from 2014,
must be built so they could be
retrofitted with
carbon capsule.
All power plants that are built
after 2014 will be forced to
carbon capture from 2020, and
all the old coal plants will be
forced to retrofit from 2030.
At the same time, we can clean
petrochemical plants, steel
plants, concrete plants, and we
could produce the hydrogen.
When we did the modeling for
the commission, we in Bellona
were also quite surprised
how big the potential was.
56% of the reduction within
the European Union could
come from carbon capture.
And maybe as much as
37% to 40% globally.
So this'll be a new technology
introduced into energy markets.
We didn't know about this
technology when we negotiated
the Kyoto agreement.
I am of course in favor of
the emission trading system.
It gives us a prize in the
carbon, but it doesn't take
us all the way to the goal.
And for me, it's very
important to show that it's
possible to do something.
But then, of course, as Al Gore
in his movie, and in his
speeches, we all have a
personal responsibility.
Definitely.
And you guys have a much
bigger responsibility
than many other people's.
But if you look at the
stationary sources of CO2.
There's 4,900 power plants that
you could do carbon capture on.
And there is 1,175 hundred
and cement plants.
All these big utilities could
to be cleaned, and the storage
of CO2 should be possible.
Well, couldn't this
CO2 leak out again?
Well, it's possible to
investigate the geological
structures very well, up front.
And today we have 100% leakage.
So how much does this cost?
It'll cost around $2,500
billion to do the carbon
capture on the 4,900 power
plants that are located close
to storage facilities.
That's not very much more
than today is spent
on the war in Iraq.
And that's will reduce
the global CO2 emissions
with close to 40%.
And that is the decision that
the politicians have to make.
But the politicians very often,
would like to make this
only into your and
my personal problem.
But we need some more
industrial ways of thinking.
For me, it is important when
I'm talking about the carbon
capture and [? secstation ?]
technologies, to show that
this is a wide range
of technologies.
As I said, we could clean
gas plants, coal plants,
petrochemical plants, cement
production, and also
hydrogen production.
We could also use hydrogen.
And I think coal is what's
going to the world with a lot
of energy the next 100 years.
I hope that's not true,
but we have to plan that
that could be the case.
So what could we do with
the coal industry?
We could clean it, we could
use the CO2 to empty the
oil reservoirs that we
already have started on.
And remember, it's a huge
energy investment in all
this steel construction,
so everything that could
prolong their lifetime,
we save a lot of energy.
We could just store the CO2,
but, and that is what I think
is going to happen, we see that
the world, globally, has a lot
of deep, unmineable coalfields.
And, I explained to you about
the chemical effect of CO2 that
I learned on the icebreaker, we
could inject CO2 down to these
deep coal fields, and
run off the methane.
Then we could use the methane
for production of hydrogen,
for power, on put
back the CO2 again.
This is probably the
way that the U.S.
will have.
I see now a lot of investments
in Illinois and other states
that have a lot of huge
resources of these
unmineable coal resources.
Putting money into this.
If we manage this, we could
combat climate change and
supply the need of energy for
all the world's population.
We could steam
reform methane gas.
You see the car outside here.
How are we going to produce
the hydrogen for that car?
Back in '94 I made the
back of the envelope
calculation, and I saw, oh.
The commission wanted us
to have 30% of the cars
by 2013 on hydrogen.
So the normal way to produce
this hydrogen is to make it
put the electricity into an
electrolyser, and
get out hydrogen.
You burn the hydrogen
in the car, the only
emission is water.
Well, it's 10,000 windmills
globally today, and our
calculation was that we have to
build 67,000 1.5 Megawatt
windmills every year to manage
to produce all that hydrogen.
So we started to investigate
the potential of using steam
reforming of methane gas for
production of hydrogen.
And I'm sure that when the oil
area is over at the British
shelf, Norwegian shelf,
it's a lot of gas.
And I'm sure that in the
future, we will have floating
production facilities producing
hydrogen for the transport
sector on all the stranded
gas that is left over.
Or that the hydrogen will be
produced by methane, run off
deep coal mines with steam
reforming and injecting
the CO2 back again.
This year, too, from this
hydrogen production,
could be stored.
That's changed a lot.
So when I said that I could
take 40% on the [? poly ?]
generation, that's
just the beginning.
Because this is the way
they're going to supply
the transport sector.
The fuel cell technology
we are now introducing in
Norway on supply ships.
We could run them 70%
hydrogen, 30% methane.
We can store the CO2, we reduce
the CO2 emission from the
shipping industry
by more than 50%.
I was in China recently.
It's more than 200 million tons
of coal, just burning in mines,
because they can't manage
to put the out the fire.
See if I have the carbon
capture technology, I can
inject it in these mines
and stop the fires.
And this is the same amount of
CO2 as all the aviation traffic
globally, or all the
cement production.
So this is one off the
markets that we see coming.
This is a way of looking
at the future from again,
the United Nations.
I have added some of it,
because I think that if we are
going to produce enough solar
panels and windmills and so on.
we need to be decarbonize
the fossil fuel.
And we could do
it on bioenergy.
Bioenergy is carbon neutral,
because it absorbs the
CO2 from the atmosphere.
If we then make energy or
hydrogen of it, capture the CO2
and store it we built the first
plant that is carbon-negative.
And since the best way to
predict the future is to invent
it, I have created such a
plant, and we would now like to
invite business to come and
build together with us the
first plant that removes
CO2 from the atmosphere.
Because if the greenhouse
effect is really dangerous,
then we need to produce a lot
of fertilizers, grow a lot of
biomass, produce energy,
and do carbon capture.
So let's go carbon negative.
Thank you.
