Both reports are classic examples of how badly numbers are reported. What do they mean by renewable energy? Does this include hydro-electricity and biomass? A rather necessary distinction.
When should this tripling occur by? 2030, 2050? This is not stated.
But let’s say we tripled renewable energy, including hydro, by 2030. By itself this is highly unlikely to stop carbon dioxide emissions being higher in 2030 than they are today. Renewables, including hydro, are below 10% of global primary energy consumption currently. Tripling this is fine, but remember that total primary energy consumption increased by 30% in the last decade.
In fact in the last decade coal consumption alone increased by 1319 Mtoe. This is greater than the total consumption, not the increase, from all renewables. See how tripling renewables will not achieve as much as many think? As Hans Rosling has demonstrated most people think renewables deliver far more of our energy than it does.
The IPCC report is coming online shortly, evidently. And then I can find out what they really mean by a “tripling” of renewable energy. My guess is that they mean a tripling of the percentage of total energy consumption from renewables. Or at least I hope that’s what they mean.
It is time for me provide my somewhat irregular list of reading material. Continue reading
“We can only avoid catastrophic climate change if we reduce our dependency on fossil fuels – we’re already on track for four degrees warming, which will be impossible for human society to adapt to. We have the technology to prevent dangerous climate change. What we lack is the political will of our leaders to strongly champion renewable power and energy efficiency.”
- Friends of the Earth’s executive director Andy Atkins in response to the latest IPCC report.
Do we really need leaked IPCC documents to tell us what we already know? Apparently the Guardian thinks so.
Today they have a story about how a leaked IPCC report shows that “Greenhouse gas emissions grew nearly twice as fast over the past decade as in the previous 30 years.” Is this news? If I wanted to find out how much greenhouse gas emissions have risen over this period it is incredibly easy. No IPCC leak is necessary. I could simply have a look at the UNFCC data, or perhaps the Edgar data set, or CDIAC. All of these data sets will tell you what this IPCC leak tells you. In fact there is no need for an IPCC leak to tell us this, you could simply look up research that the Guardian itself has reported on multiple occasions.
Is this journalism? Poking through a leaked IPCC report to find a statement of the obvious and publishing it as news?
Perhaps as a follow up we will have a story about how a leaked IPCC story shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are in fact increasing, or that rain is a particular feature of the climate of Scotland.
And the headline is particularly delightful: “UN: greenhouse gas emissions nearly doubled in first decade of 21st century.” No they did not. The growth in emissions doubled. Naturally the Guardian’s environment website editor has not picked up the error and is tweeting it, as is the author of the original story. Is such innumeracy part of the training for the modern journalist?
We are inveighed to keep emissions below a certain level, but we cannot make the effort to get the growth in emissions accurate to within even a factor of two. What hope is there?
However when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions the Guardian is particularly sloppy. Their environment editor recently reported atmospheric carbon dioxide levels reaching a record high as carbon dioxide emissions reaching a record high. These of course are fundamentally different things. Even if carbon dioxide emissions fell next year atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would keep going up.
When it comes to climate change the numbers really do matter. Gigatonnes, terawatts, trillion cubic metres. Such orders of magnitude demand care, not sloppiness. But unless that sloppiness is being made in the Daily Mail, and not the Guardian, no one does any complaining.
Observing the endless stream of nonsense and wishful think uttered in the name of sustainability is often enough to make me wonder why I continue to think, let alone make observations, about this whole business. Today the Guardian provides me with yet more annoyance, a predictable event perhaps.
Solar planes. Yes, that thing again. Last year a Swiss guy flew across America in a time that would not have impressed Benjamin Franklin all that much, but he did it in a solar powered plane. This would make it a planet saving endeavour, not a totally mis-appropriate use of energy technology.
And here he is this week, telling us about his effort to fly one of these things around the planet:
“It’s not the easiest way to fly around the world, but probably the most spectacular to attract the awareness … to show what we can do with renewable energies.”
This is an inversion of reality. Solar powered planes do not show us what we can do with renewable energy, they show us what we cannot do. Instead of pointing this out environment journalists provide fawning coverage. Easy copy, and easy reading. Meanwhile Britain continues to burn far more coal, and far less gas, to produce electricity. Perhaps that story will be covered tomorrow.
This is the question I’m asking: Do Americans live twice as long because they consume twice as much energy as Europeans? Are you people twice as smart as the average Frenchman? Do you enjoy life twice as much as the average Danish guy?
What have we gotten for consuming twice as much energy as Europe? What have we gotten in return?
The always interesting Vaclav Smil being interviewed by Jeffrey Ball.
I have been rather busy with my day job modelling plankton, so have been neglecting my column at Energy Collective. But my first piece in a month is available for those interested in the size of power plants. I look at the size of Ivanpah solar farm in California, the world’s biggest.
Hopefully I can get another one out next week looking at the decline of coal in Britain in the last century. A fascinating subject, but no doubt it will have a readership of one.
The Guardian reports today that the next IPCC report might suggest using biomass to suck CO2 out of the air, burn the trees for electricity, and then shove the CO2 under ground. Naturally these reports are full of assertions by various concerned parties, but numbers are glaringly absent.
So, here is a very straightforward calculation that can test the limits of biomass. Globally we consume fossil fuels at a rate of almost 15 terawatts, that is 15 trillion watts. Possible yields of bio-energy are relatively well understand. Without massive improvements through genetic engineering we cannot get anything above 0.5 watts per square metre. This 0.5 watts per square metre is achieved partly through subsidising bio-energy with fossil fuel based fertilizers and machines such as tractors.
100% biomass energy would require something like 15 trillion divided by 0.5 square metres. In other words 30 million square kilometres. This is roughly two times bigger than Russia. It is also six times bigger than the Amazon Rainforest. It is also around 20 times bigger than the area of the planet that is currently forest plantation.
So, converting all global forest plantation over to quick growing trees so that we can harvest them to generate electricity could offset perhaps a couple of years of growth in global carbon dioxide emissions. And this assumes that biomass is carbon neutral, a questionable assumption.
Clearly this is not much of a solution to anything.