Keep Grinding Out that Sausage


Year in, year out we keep grinding out that sausage that the only solution to combat global warming is reducing our CO2 emissions, and thus to reduce our fossil fuel consumption (or, even more to the fringe, to massively implement CCS).

Well, we have news for you: bar a black swan or two, significantly reducing our FF consumption in the next few decades ain't gonna happen. Period. End of story. Elvis has left the (choose one: coal mine, oil rig, gas well). 

Renewables are growing fast but at the same time going nowhere.

Hydro has pretty much maxed out in percent of out total energy.

Nuclear seems promising but it is taking forever to ramp up. Will nuclear be the energy of the 22st century? Probably. But that is still far in the future. 

Consequently, fossil fuels will continue to provide most of our total primary energy supply at least through 2050 and possibly for the rest of the century.

Let's, as an example, review projections for China. Since China is, by far, the #1 CO2 global emitter, the example is pertinent:

Between now and 2035 these are the energy projections for China: 

"Demand for all fossil fuels expands with oil (+67%), gas (+270%) and coal (+21%) covering 66% of demand growth. Renewables in power (+580%), nuclear (+910%) and hydro (+50%) also grow strongly." *

However, even though renewables grow like crazy, and nuclear just seems to go off the charts, in absolute terms fossil fuels grow even more and thus:

"China’s CO2 emissions increase by 37% and by 2035 will account for 30% of world total with per capita emissions surpassing the OECD by the end of the Outlook." *

(This increase in China's emissions are loosely equivalent to 25 current Australias worth of emissions).

Thus, on the one hand that dream that some have of a 350 ppm future is impossible.  On the other we should really be preparing for an atmosphere with CO2 concentrations of 500, 600 ppm, maybe even higher.

Is that good or bad? We don't really know. Like everything else, it will probably have negative and positive consequences. What we do know is that, bar our friend in the picture above, it is the world our civilization will deal with in the short / medium term.

Burying our head in the sand won't do us any good. Let's confront the brutal facts. Let's prepare for that new reality. Just saying "it won't happen" or "it can't happen" is useless, and irresponsible.

Feel free to add to the conversation on Twitter.

*http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/Energy-economics/energy-outlook-2015/Country_insights_China_2035.pdf




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Starved for CO2

Image
This article is speculation, and yet, it is something to ponder about. During millions of years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had been dropping. Actually the drop had been quite dramatic between the late Jurassic (more than 2,000 ppm) to recent times (less than 400 ppm). This is no fine tuning, the difference is in the range of five to one. Important reserves of carbon in the form of ancient life remains had been trapped "forever" inside the Earth. These reserves were in the form of coal, oil and natural gas. No natural mechanism could pump back to the atmosphere those "forever" sequestered amounts of carbon. No natural mechanism...  but could the Earth naturally create unnatural occurrences to return to the biosphere that long lost carbon or, would the Earth itself slowly starve due to insufficient CO2 in the atmosphere? It was inconceivable for any plant or animal species of the time to actually extract billions of tons of ca
Read more

550.org

Image
We are launching an alternate organization to 350.org because we believe that just wishing for something to happen (in other words for the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to go back to 350 ppm) is absurd in the light that we break a new CO2 emissions record every year. So, it makes no sense to invest time, effort and money in pursuing an impossible objective.  Let's state here in what we firmly believe: nobody alive today will ever see again 350 ppm. So, if not 350, where are we headed?  We are "easily" headed for 550 ppm, thus the name of our non-profit. Before we proceed further, let us state why we believe our non-profit will be more attractive than 350.org: We will not, ever, under any circumstances ask for donations. Hell, we won't even accept them even if somebody volunteers some money. We won't be dogmatic. We won't believe blindly in models, organizations (e.g. IPCC) or the Pope. We will strive to actually list
Read more

Going Solar

Image
Some people insist that solar PV has achieved "grid parity" but to claim this they obviously have to consider grid connected PV. The real cost of solar PV is masked when grid connected. In order to better understand the real cost of solar PV, let's make a simplified exercise here. What would be needed to go off grid? The following: Obviously, the solar PV panels. Storage batteries A gasoline electric generator (unless you plan to store heroic amounts of electricity, you would need the backup generator). We'll consider the following parameters in our installation (feel free to substitute your own numbers): Annual solar capacity factor: 18%. Cost of the PV installation (including inverters, installation, etc.): $3 per Watt. We'll use Tesla storage batteries (the 7kW version) at a cost of $6,000 including installation. Solar panel useful life: 20 years. Batteries useful life: 10 years. Annual electricity usage: 8,400 kWh. So, this ho
Read more