Flatlined:The proportion of global energy consumption that comes from carbon-free sources.
28 Replies to “We Don’t Need No…”
I’d like to see a chart with tax dollars “invested” right beside it!
Further breakdown should show that’s the contribution of nuclear to total energy consumption, with a wee fringe of other carbon-free sources.
There’s a large rise between 1973 and 1995 from 6% to about 13%. Virtually all of that is nuclear power. In large measure it was displacing oil-fired generation, now just about eliminated from North America’s electricity supply, and some coal.
That large rise accounts for the reason why the oil companies funded the antinuclear lobby so lavishly. And with the suspension of new nuclear construction, so too was flatlined the growth in low or zero carbon emission sources.
It’s now ironic that the oil companies are being gored by their own creation.
Are there ANY carbon free sources?
And when the subsidies end, the trend will abruptly fall.
Those non-carbon sources (that’s such a stupid way to describe it) would include mostly hydro-electric and nuclear, with tiny portions of solar, geothermal, wind, etc.
I opened the pdf from here http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
and grabbed a few numbers.
Total world nuclear production 563.2, hydro (power dam) production 855.8 and renewables 279.3 in million tons oil equivalents. Since 279.3 is .1644 of the total carbon free output of 1,698.3 and carbon free sources are 13% of total energy .1644 x .13 = 0.0213, just over 2% of global energy, call it 2-1/8%. To get that small percentage Spain bankrupted itself, Britons are experiencing ‘energy poverty’ with rolling blackouts expected and Ontario is going to be paying billions of dollars per year for generations, et cetera.
Exactly … over 23 years of spending, what have we got and also, who has been rewarded for their continuously failed efforts?
Correction: … 23 years of flatlining …
Notice how carbon free usage (yeah really stupid term) has basically flatlined since the global warming con/scare came to the fore. $trillions wasted on watermelon windmill tilting. What a cruel joke.
On an absolute life-cycle basis, no. Any activity involves some emission of carbon dioxide. However, some sources like hydro and nuclear have such trivial emissions per kWh as to be not worth considering. Hydro is usually much higher than nuclear because of reservoir methane emissions, but it’s still vastly lower than even the most efficient of the fossil fuels.
On a life cycle basis, solar and wind are both higher than nuclear and hydro primarily because of the manufacturing inputs.
No it won’t. Most of the ‘carbon-free’ generation comes from nuclear and hydro. And it will continue long after the wind and solar subsidies are cut.
There is still considerable work being done to build new reactors, particularly in — but not limited to — China. Even with the loss of German reactors and the suspension of Japanese plants, there will still be a significant net gain in nuclear output.
That said, nuclear simply isn’t keeping up with coal and gas, while all the best spots for hydro have been taken or will never be built because of political backlash.
The billions “invested” in non carbon energy has been well spent, I see. It’s obvious that besides hydro and nuclear there is currently no viable alternative to carbon based energy. This is why I’d argue that carbon pricing of any kind is just a tax grab. The low hanging fruit of energy conservation has already been picked so, barring a technological breakthrough, only incremental gains are left.
The next great hope is carbon capture and storage which sounds great in theory but in practice it is proving to be uneconomical with current technology. I hear BDPS 3 is experiencing some problems. Frankly, modern coal plants with advanced pollution control aren’t the dirty villains that they are portrayed as in the media. The studies cited are either from the mid-20th century or are poorly designed to ensure the “social cost” of coal is high. The people of Estevan and surrounding area, for instance, have no statistically significant increase in disease when compared to other areas in Sask. But studies based on direct observation and solid numbers are out of fashion these days. Models and statistical augury are all the rage.
Nonetheless, I’d think that the most promising non carbon energy advancement will be in small scale nuclear, probably thorium, and methane hydrates. Wind and solar are niche sources, at best, that are more about cronyism and kickbacks than reliable, affordable energy.
Correction: methane hydrates are a carbon based fuel so obviously not a non carbon source. Though in a sane world the potential of energy sources like methane hydrates would not by hampered by it containing the great evil of our time … carbon.
Methane hydrates would be a boon for energy and lower CO2 emissions. Nat gas from fracking has already decreased America’s CO2 output. Nuclear OTOH is a subsidy-dependent bust like every other ‘renewable’.
More worthless nonsense from you.
“a subsidy-dependent bust like every other ‘renewable’.”
Really? Name and quantify them.
the most promising non carbon energy advancement will be in small scale nuclear, probably thorium, and methane hydrates. Wind and solar are niche sources, at best, that are more about cronyism and kickbacks than reliable, affordable energy. Posted by: LC Bennett
Best summary of the situation so far.
One could also add further development of hydroelectric resources to the ‘most promising’ list.
In Canada, there’s not much left except the Lower Churchill, Site C in BC, Conawapa in Manitoba and some things like NBR in Quebec. Aboriginal issues block most of them.
No doubt you speak with great knowledge of what you know.
I didn’t limit comments to mega-projects at all. I was referring to more hydroelectricity for local needs not export.
AHH……. in a word no. there are inputs that all require carbon. the steel that is used to build things like wind turbines, dams, and every other component used to create the machinery needed.
L C Bennet……….. without carbon we would cease to exist.
Fair comment, N60. Yes, there’s a fair amount of small hydro that can be still used. There’s two problems here. First, these projects are still hit with the full weight of environmental assessment and permitting. Second, these are largely run-of-river, and this means no or very little electricity production for much of the year, particularly summer and winter. So the capital recovery can be very long.
LC..I’m on board with you on the Thorium – 100%. An old and quite feasible technology that in my mind must be explored further. It is to me the ONLY alternative that is capable of producing “sustainable” baseload power – clean coal notwithstanding.
Industrial wind continues to be a colossal financial drain on those that must pay for the subsidies handed out as we can see happening in Ontario right now. As McItrick noted recently, the Wind Industry does not run on wind, rather it runs on subsidies. Until such time that efficient power storage can be utilized and the obvious health effects of those that live near them mitigated..wind is Dead – as it should be.
One wonders what was going through Merkels head however, shutting down all the nukes in Germany..?? And ramping up construction of Coal palnts..that simply blew me away.
And Germany hasn’t done it either. From your article:
“The week was unusually hot with highs of 37C and Rothacher put the record down to the warm weather and the fact it was a public holiday.”
So this achievement was for one day only early in June, a holiday when industry and commercial loads were at dead minimum, and for Germany the day was freakishly warm. That’s not nearly the same as meeting 50% of demand on an ongoing 24/7 basis.
Some of you have noted the possibility of using thorium fuel. Existing CANDU reactors are perfectly capable of using thorium fuel without any change in reactor configuration. Something which light water moderated reactors cannot do.
“We can’t afford any more Chernobyls or Fukushimas.”
Fukushima was caused by a tsunami which the designers did not construct their plant to withstand and the Chernobyl disaster was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel. Chernobyl was a unique event, the only accident in the history of commercial nuclear power where radiation-related fatalities occurred.
As of March 13 20014 there are 435 nuclear power plants operating world wide and 72 more presently under construction.
I’d like to see a chart with tax dollars “invested” right beside it!
Further breakdown should show that’s the contribution of nuclear to total energy consumption, with a wee fringe of other carbon-free sources.
There’s a large rise between 1973 and 1995 from 6% to about 13%. Virtually all of that is nuclear power. In large measure it was displacing oil-fired generation, now just about eliminated from North America’s electricity supply, and some coal.
That large rise accounts for the reason why the oil companies funded the antinuclear lobby so lavishly. And with the suspension of new nuclear construction, so too was flatlined the growth in low or zero carbon emission sources.
It’s now ironic that the oil companies are being gored by their own creation.
Are there ANY carbon free sources?
And when the subsidies end, the trend will abruptly fall.
Those non-carbon sources (that’s such a stupid way to describe it) would include mostly hydro-electric and nuclear, with tiny portions of solar, geothermal, wind, etc.
I opened the pdf from here
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
and grabbed a few numbers.
Total world nuclear production 563.2, hydro (power dam) production 855.8 and renewables 279.3 in million tons oil equivalents. Since 279.3 is .1644 of the total carbon free output of 1,698.3 and carbon free sources are 13% of total energy .1644 x .13 = 0.0213, just over 2% of global energy, call it 2-1/8%. To get that small percentage Spain bankrupted itself, Britons are experiencing ‘energy poverty’ with rolling blackouts expected and Ontario is going to be paying billions of dollars per year for generations, et cetera.
Exactly … over 23 years of spending, what have we got and also, who has been rewarded for their continuously failed efforts?
Correction: … 23 years of flatlining …
Notice how carbon free usage (yeah really stupid term) has basically flatlined since the global warming con/scare came to the fore. $trillions wasted on watermelon windmill tilting. What a cruel joke.
On an absolute life-cycle basis, no. Any activity involves some emission of carbon dioxide. However, some sources like hydro and nuclear have such trivial emissions per kWh as to be not worth considering. Hydro is usually much higher than nuclear because of reservoir methane emissions, but it’s still vastly lower than even the most efficient of the fossil fuels.
On a life cycle basis, solar and wind are both higher than nuclear and hydro primarily because of the manufacturing inputs.
No it won’t. Most of the ‘carbon-free’ generation comes from nuclear and hydro. And it will continue long after the wind and solar subsidies are cut.
There is still considerable work being done to build new reactors, particularly in — but not limited to — China. Even with the loss of German reactors and the suspension of Japanese plants, there will still be a significant net gain in nuclear output.
That said, nuclear simply isn’t keeping up with coal and gas, while all the best spots for hydro have been taken or will never be built because of political backlash.
The billions “invested” in non carbon energy has been well spent, I see. It’s obvious that besides hydro and nuclear there is currently no viable alternative to carbon based energy. This is why I’d argue that carbon pricing of any kind is just a tax grab. The low hanging fruit of energy conservation has already been picked so, barring a technological breakthrough, only incremental gains are left.
The next great hope is carbon capture and storage which sounds great in theory but in practice it is proving to be uneconomical with current technology. I hear BDPS 3 is experiencing some problems. Frankly, modern coal plants with advanced pollution control aren’t the dirty villains that they are portrayed as in the media. The studies cited are either from the mid-20th century or are poorly designed to ensure the “social cost” of coal is high. The people of Estevan and surrounding area, for instance, have no statistically significant increase in disease when compared to other areas in Sask. But studies based on direct observation and solid numbers are out of fashion these days. Models and statistical augury are all the rage.
Nonetheless, I’d think that the most promising non carbon energy advancement will be in small scale nuclear, probably thorium, and methane hydrates. Wind and solar are niche sources, at best, that are more about cronyism and kickbacks than reliable, affordable energy.
Correction: methane hydrates are a carbon based fuel so obviously not a non carbon source. Though in a sane world the potential of energy sources like methane hydrates would not by hampered by it containing the great evil of our time … carbon.
Methane hydrates would be a boon for energy and lower CO2 emissions. Nat gas from fracking has already decreased America’s CO2 output. Nuclear OTOH is a subsidy-dependent bust like every other ‘renewable’.
More worthless nonsense from you.
“a subsidy-dependent bust like every other ‘renewable’.”
Really? Name and quantify them.
the most promising non carbon energy advancement will be in small scale nuclear, probably thorium, and methane hydrates. Wind and solar are niche sources, at best, that are more about cronyism and kickbacks than reliable, affordable energy. Posted by: LC Bennett
Best summary of the situation so far.
One could also add further development of hydroelectric resources to the ‘most promising’ list.
In Canada, there’s not much left except the Lower Churchill, Site C in BC, Conawapa in Manitoba and some things like NBR in Quebec. Aboriginal issues block most of them.
No doubt you speak with great knowledge of what you know.
I didn’t limit comments to mega-projects at all. I was referring to more hydroelectricity for local needs not export.
AHH……. in a word no. there are inputs that all require carbon. the steel that is used to build things like wind turbines, dams, and every other component used to create the machinery needed.
L C Bennet……….. without carbon we would cease to exist.
Fair comment, N60. Yes, there’s a fair amount of small hydro that can be still used. There’s two problems here. First, these projects are still hit with the full weight of environmental assessment and permitting. Second, these are largely run-of-river, and this means no or very little electricity production for much of the year, particularly summer and winter. So the capital recovery can be very long.
Quick! Somebody tell Germany it can’t be done.
http://www.thelocal.de/20140619/germany-produces-half-of-electricity-needs-with-solar-power
LC..I’m on board with you on the Thorium – 100%. An old and quite feasible technology that in my mind must be explored further. It is to me the ONLY alternative that is capable of producing “sustainable” baseload power – clean coal notwithstanding.
Industrial wind continues to be a colossal financial drain on those that must pay for the subsidies handed out as we can see happening in Ontario right now. As McItrick noted recently, the Wind Industry does not run on wind, rather it runs on subsidies. Until such time that efficient power storage can be utilized and the obvious health effects of those that live near them mitigated..wind is Dead – as it should be.
One wonders what was going through Merkels head however, shutting down all the nukes in Germany..?? And ramping up construction of Coal palnts..that simply blew me away.
Germany isn’t really embracing coal.
http://energytransition.de/2014/06/german-coal-conundrum/
Also, Germany is investing in research into fusion and other kinds of atomic power.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-31/germany-boosts-energy-research-spending-77-to-938-billion.html
And for the record… I support research into things like thorium and other forms of nuclear, but it’s pretty clear we need to get it right. We can’t afford any more Chernobyls or Fukushimas.
And Germany hasn’t done it either. From your article:
“The week was unusually hot with highs of 37C and Rothacher put the record down to the warm weather and the fact it was a public holiday.”
So this achievement was for one day only early in June, a holiday when industry and commercial loads were at dead minimum, and for Germany the day was freakishly warm. That’s not nearly the same as meeting 50% of demand on an ongoing 24/7 basis.
Some of you have noted the possibility of using thorium fuel. Existing CANDU reactors are perfectly capable of using thorium fuel without any change in reactor configuration. Something which light water moderated reactors cannot do.
“We can’t afford any more Chernobyls or Fukushimas.”
Fukushima was caused by a tsunami which the designers did not construct their plant to withstand and the Chernobyl disaster was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel. Chernobyl was a unique event, the only accident in the history of commercial nuclear power where radiation-related fatalities occurred.
As of March 13 20014 there are 435 nuclear power plants operating world wide and 72 more presently under construction.