In my posting last week I talked about the climate action paradigms that exist. This followed on from a business association meeting where it was clear that there were two very different schools of thought on the issue of reducing emissions. One is to focus on energy efficiency and renewables and attempt to race fossil fuels out of the market. This felt to me as rather wishful thinking, given both the scale of the existing industry and its competitiveness. The other is to recoginise the reality of the fossil fuel industry and begin to impose an increasingly stringent requirement on it to manage (i.e. capture and store) emissions, ideally through a carbon price. This would then draw in energy alternatives and accelerate improvements in energy efficiency.
I can certainly understand those who take the view that the promotion of renewable energy is a must. While I don’t agree that it will significantly (if at all) drive down global fossil fuel consumption (and therefore emissions) in the short to medium term, it is nevertheless clear that this energy is essential to help bolster overall global supply and therefore meet development needs.
But some seem to take the view that energy efficiency itself is a viable emissions reduction strategy and therefore interchangeable with technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS). I saw an example of this at another industry group meeting very recently. In a discussion about energy efficiency a guest speaker talked about the closure of older less efficient power stations in China. A slide was put up which claimed emission reductions in China of 100 million tonnes as a result. Of course China’s emissions haven’t reduced at all and I doubt very much that even one gram less of coal is being burned as a result of these closures. The likely reality is that the same coal is being used more efficiently in newer power stations to generate even more electricity. Nor is the move likely to result in a long term emissions reduction as the coal system in China (mines, railroads, import terminals etc.) is pretty much at maximum capacity all the time, so there is a huge incentive to make better use of the available coal. At least for a Chinese power generator, waiting for more coal supply may not be the favoured route for generating more electricity.
This is not unlike government attempts to cut deficits. Many countries have seen deficits rise constantly in absolute terms since the idea of deficit spending was first introduced. Yet successive governments have all implemented efficiency drives to “reduce the deficit” and claimed some success. The problem is that the reductions are more often than not against projected spending rather than current spending, so a reduction can be claimed at the same time as the reality of an absolute increase in spending. As such, the total deficit continues to rise. Real deficit reduction will probably only come with major structural changes in government policy (e.g. welfare, defense etc.), but these are much more difficult to implement. At least with government spending there is a relief valve of sorts in that the economy can grow and therefore the cumulative deficit can shrink as a fraction of GDP. Unfortunately this isn’t the case with the atmosphere.
The IEA did a bit of this in their recent report, Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map. They projected a particular “business as usual” emissions by 2020 and then illustrated how a focus on energy efficiency could reduce this. Nevertheless emissions continue to rise, but the chart seemingly shows energy efficiency as the most important contributing factor to change. The question that really needs to be asked is “Which fossil fuel production actually declined or new project shelved because of this?”. Only then are cumulative emissions potentially impacted. A further perverse outcome is that when viewed in such a short timeframe, when technologies like CCS can make almost no difference because of the implementation time lag, some observers leave with the message that energy efficiency is the major contributor to tackling global emissions.
One unintended consequence of energy efficiency policy can be to exacerbate the emissions problem. A colleague of mine produced an analysis of this about a year ago and I wrote about it in a post at that time. In the worst case, an energy efficiency improvement in the power generation supply chain can actually incentivize the resource holder (e.g. coal mine) to expand the resource base and therefore the potential tonnes of carbon that will ultimately be released into the atmosphere. This won’t always be so, but it’s an interesting take on the issue.
Energy efficiency is a key driver for development, primarily through the reduction in cost of energy services. This increases access and availability of energy and therefore spurs development. Arguably it has been the single most important element of the industrial revolution, underpinned of course by key inventions along the way. But we now seem to have got it into our heads that this is also a critical part of the solution set for climate change, when it may not be at all.
David,
To know which technologies are on the path to the “ultimate solution to the CAGW problem”, it is essential to know what the “ultimate solution to the CAGW problem” is, expressed in global annual TCE emissions by some date certain. Then, once we all know where we are going and when we have to be there, intermediate goals can be established as required.
Knowledge of the “ultimate solution to the CAGW problem” and the date for its achievement are essential for rational RDD&D planning and for rational investments in long life assets (40-60 years). For example, it make no sense to conduct RDD&D on improved efficiency combined-cycle gas power plants if the “ultimate solution” requires total elimination of their emissions before the end of their useful lives. As another example, it makes no sense to invest in RDD&D on more efficient ICEs if the continued use of ICEs would be proscribed by the “ultimate solution”. That would also include higher efficiency ICEs for use in hybrid vehicles.
If we are headed toward the James Hansen “ultimate solution”, which requires zero TCE emissions globally, then RDD&D on any fossil fuel technology which is not amenable to 100% CCS, such as motor vehicle and small distributed end use appliances and equipment, is an economic dead loss, since they have no place in the “ultimate solution” world of the future. On the other hand, if we are headed toward an “ultimate solution” which requires only a 50% or 80% reduction in TCE emissions from current levels, some of those technologies might still have a role in the “ultimate solution” world ahead.
“You’ve got to be careful, if you don’t know where you’re going, because you might end up someplace else.”, Yogi Berra, American philosopher
Read 1981_Hansen_etal.pdf
In it are the three major mistakes that created the fake IPCC science.
Para 2 claims CO2 blocks IR emissions to Space from 7 to 14 microns. Apart from two small bands near 10 microns, that is not true.
They then go on to claim the GHE is lapse rate warming and derive the false claim by implying that without ghgs surface temperature would fall to the imaginary -18 deg C of the upper atmosphere in radiative thermal equilibrium with Space.
This is a confidence trick. If you were to take out ghgs there would be no cloud or ice albedo, 43% increase in SW solar energy reaching the surface. This makes the equilibrium temperature 4 to 5 deg C, a real GHE of ~11 K.
Hence the 3 times positive feedback is a clever lie. Correct many other physics’ mistakes and there is near zero CO2 climate sensitivity.
So, David, you must tell your masters that SHELL is to be hit by the real science.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE MEN WHO CAUSED IT!
Do men have the ability to effect climate change on the planet earth? Are heat waves, cooling temperatures, earth quakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, gale-force winds, and snow storms the result of man’s mismanagement of the planet?
Is it not naive and arrogant to assume that puny man can effect climate change? Man-made climate change is a grand hoax, at best.
HAVE MEN BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR CHANGES IN WEATHER PATTERNS? YES, HOWEVER, THEY HAVE HAD NO POWER TO EFFECT THE CHANGES THAT OCCURRED.
Genesis 6:13 The God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.
Were men responsible for the change in the weather pattern? Yes. Did men effect the change of the weather? No, God caused it to rain for 40 days and 40 nights, not men.
Genesis 18:20 And the Lord said, :The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.
Genesis 19:24 Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven,
Were men responsible for the weather change in Sodom and Gomorrah? Yes. Did men cause the weather to change? No, God effected the change in the climate.
1 Kings 8:35 “When the heavens are shut up and there is no rain; because they have sinned against You….
Men are sometimes responsible for droughts, however, God effects the weather changes.
Matthew 27: 51,54 And behold , the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. 54 Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”
Notice, the centurion did not attribute the earth quake to man-made climate change.
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.
Men are responsible for the global warming that is coming.
No amount of green initiatives will stop the final global warming. Puny men will have no effect on the final climate change.
THE MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE HOAX WAS INVENT BY 1.DISHONEST MEN 2.NAIVE MEN 3.ARROGANT MEN 4.OR ALL OF THE ABOVE.
GOD IS IN CONTROL OF THE WEATHER.
YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY CHRISTIAN BLOG. Google search>>>>steve finnell a christian view
Energy-efficient fossil power
Growing global energy demands put pressure on both the supply and the prices of oil, gas, and coal. As fossil energy sources are an important part of maintaining a stable energy network in the U.S., it is crucial to use these resources in a sustainable manner.
http://www.usa.siemens.com/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency.html