Charting the World’s Developmental Deficit using the measures of electricity generation.

The following calculations and graphics are based on information on national CO2 emission levels, from 1985, energy sources and electricity generation, since 1985, worldwide published by BP in June 2014 for the period up until the end of 2013.

Or in terms electrical generating capacity / head for Developed as opposed to the Developing NationsScreen Shot 2014-09-29 at 13.27.27 These notes then aggregate the world nations into seven logical groups with distinct attitudes to CO2 control: developed

  • United States of America, attempting CO2 emissions control under Obama’s EPA.
  • The European Union, (including the UK), currently believers in action to combat Global Warming.
  • Japan, the former Soviet Union, Canada and Australia are developed nations, rejecting controls on CO2 emissions.

developing

  • South Korea, Iran, South Africa, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Indonesia and Taiwan: more advanced developing nations, still developing rapidly, (KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW).
  • China and Hong Kong: developing very rapidly.
  • India: developing rapidly from a low base.
  • Rest of World (~160 Nations): developing rapidly from a low base.

Screen Shot 2015-04-03 at 13.17.28

http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

To get an idea of the development deficit of the developing nations, these notes and figures provide a short commentary on National Electricity Generation capacity used as a proxy for the level of development of the various nation groups.

Screen Shot 2014-11-05 at 07.40.29
Screen Shot 2014-09-29 at 13.29.04 Screen Shot 2014-09-29 at 13.28.41 Screen Shot 2014-09-29 at 13.25.45

To get an idea of the development deficit of the developing nations, these notes and figures provide a short commentary on National Electricity Generation capacity used as a proxy for the level of development of the various nation groups. The following diagrams particularly show the real escalation of the development of generating capacity in China from the year 2000 onwards. It also shows the comparatively low rate of generating capacity development in India but for a similarly large population. When the electricity generating capacity per head of population is considered the scale of the development deficit and slow progress in both India and the great mass of underdeveloped “Rest of the World” Nations becomes very clear. Screen Shot 2014-09-29 at 13.28.25India and the Rest of the World ~160 Nations account for some 54% of the world population.  China and the Rapidly Developing Nations amount to further ~30% of world population. However when the electricity generating capacity per head of population is considered the scale of the development deficit in both India and the great mass of underdeveloped “Rest of the World” Nations becomes very clear. Screen Shot 2014-09-29 at 13.24.41 The following two graphs show the growth rate of generating capacity and the the growth  of generating capacity / head of ver the past 28 years.

Screen Shot 2014-09-29 at 13.28.07

Screen Shot 2014-09-29 at 13.27.47

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/India-to-pitch-for-right-to-grow-for-poor-nations-during-UN-Climate-Summit/articleshow/43248278.cms?

Renewable Energy – Solar and Wind-Power: capital costs and effectiveness compared

A comparison of both the Capital Cost and Energy Producing Effectiveness of the Renewable Energy investments of the USA, Germany and the UK.

The summary diagram below collates the cost and capacity factors of Renewable Energy power sources compared to the cost and output capacity of conventional Gas Fired Electricity generation.

US D UK comp

The associated base data is shown below:

Screen Shot 2014-11-03 at 16.16.32

In summary, these figures show that these three Western nations have spent of the order of at least  ~$0.5trillion in capital costs alone, (conservatively estimated, only accounting for the primary capital costs ), to create Renewable Energy electrical generating capacity.

Nominally, this total nameplate generating capacity at ~153GW should amount to about ~26% of their total electricity generation, were it fully effective.  However, because of there is an inevitable ~20% capacity factor applicable across the board for all renewables, the actual cumulative energy output by from these Renewable sources only results in ~5% of the total electricity generation for these nations.

Across the board overall solar energy is about ~34 times the cost of comparable standard Gas Fired generation and 9 times less effective.

Wind-Power is only ~12 times the comparable cost and about 4 times less effective.

The same total electrical energy output could have been produced using conventional natural gas fired electrical generation for ~$31 billion or ~1/16 of the actual capital costs expended on renewable installations.  Had conventional Gas Fired technology had been used, the full ~31 GW generating capacity would have provided non-intermittent and wholly dispatchable electricity production generated as and when needed.

The following calculations only provide conservative estimates of Renewable Energy installation capital costs.  They discount entirely the major additional costs of:

  • supporting backup generation
  • connection to the grid from remote locations
  • the large differentials in ongoing maintenance costs.

As all Renewable Energy technologies are only viable with the support of costly government subsidies, market intervention and market manipulation, can this be a responsible use of public funds or a good reason for increasing energy costs for individuals or industry in the Western world ?

The following data sources for the USA, Germany and the UK were reviewed:

United States of America: data available 2000 – 2012

Germany: data available from 1990 to 2013

United Kingdom: data available 2008 – 2013

Note:  the Wikipedia sources are used because they normally have a green orientation and are unlikely to be questioned by the advocates of Man-made Global Warming.

These data listed above provide installed “nameplate” capacity measured in Megawatts (MW) and energy output measured across the year in total Gigawatt hours, (GWh). Thus they do not provide directly comparable values as Megawatt nameplate capacity and the actual energy outputs achieved. For this comparative exercise the annual Gigawatt hours values were revised back to equivalent Megawatts, accounting for the 8,760 hours in the year, as indicated by Prof David MacKay in “Sustainable Energy – without the hot air”, page 334.

Although this measure eliminates the unpredictable and variable effects of intermittency and non-dispatchability that characterise Renewable Energy sources, it gives a conservative comparative value of the actual energy output and thus potentially available.

It allows for the calculation of capacity factors in relation to Renewable Energy technologies in each nation. The following graph shows the history of Renewable Energy (Solar and Wind power combined) installations and shows the progress year by year of actual electrical energy generated. Screen Shot 2014-11-03 at 20.09.06 The Energy Information Association provides the capital cost information in US$ for the USA.  These capital costs are used for comparative purposes, but they take no account of currency variations and other local financial factors.

The USA Energy Information Association publishes comprehensive information on the capital costs of alternate electrical generation technologies, in Table 1 of their 2013 report. From that full list these notes consider three technologies:

  • Large Scale Photovoltaic: this is the most economic of the PV technologies at ~$3.8 billion / GW.
  • Combined Wind 80-20: merged onshore 80% and offshore 20% wind at ~$3.0 billion / GW.
  • Natural Gas Advanced Combined Cycle: the costliest technical option at ~$1.0 billion / GW.

Screen Shot 2014-10-30 at 10.19.25

“Overnight Capital Cost”, (just as if an power generating installation has been created overnight), is the standard comparative measure for capital costs used in energy industries. The specific Overnight Capital Costs used include:

  • Civil and structural costs
  • Mechanical equipment supply and installation
  • Electrical and instrumentation and control
  • Project indirect costs
  • Other owners costs: design studies, legal fees, insurance costs, property taxes and local electrical linkages to the Grid.

However for this comparison “Overnight Capital Costs” specifically do not include:

  • Provision of Back-up power supply, “spinning reserve” for times when renewable power is unavailable.
  • Fuel costs for actual generation and the spinning reserve
  • Remote access costs
  • Extended electrical linkages to the Grid
  • Maintenance
  • Financing   etc.

These further costs for Renewable Energy excluded from Overnight Capital Costs mean that its use probably significantly less economic than the comparisons provided in these tables. In addition for these comparisons the Energy Information Association data denominated in US$ is used. These brief results are primarily for comparative purposes and do not purport to give precise actual expenditures in the various nations and by governments. However, they do  clearly indicate the order of magnitude of the capital sums involved.

They also allow for the calculation of comparative figures to be established between renewable energy generation and standard Gas Fired electricity generation. The results for the individual Nations in tabular form using the EIA Overnight Capital Cost data are shown below: Screen Shot 2014-11-03 at 16.15.34 In graphic terms the results for renewable Energy generation in each country is shown below.Screen Shot 2014-11-14 at 17.10.58 Solar power is comparatively successful in the USA, because it is mainly installed in Southerly latitudes, but in Germany its very serious renewable investment in Solar amounting to more than 50% of all renewables is twice as expensive and half as effective as in the USA.  Solar energy in the UK is 55 times more expensive and half as effective again as in Germany.  Fortunately the UK only has about 25% solar generation in the Renewable mix. Wind power is about 26% effective in the USA  and about 11 times more costly than Gas Fired generation. In Germany Wind power at less than 50% of its renewable commitment is 50% more expensive and substantially less effective in the USA.  Wind power in the UK is also about 11 times more costly, similar to the USA, and rather more effective than in Germany, because of wind conditions.

In addition, there is also a very large discrepancy in maintenance costs shown in the Energy Information Association table 1. When compared to a standard Natural Gas plant, maintenance cost comparisons are as follows:

  • Photovoltaics                     times ~1.6
  • Onshore Wind-Power        times ~2.6
  • Offshore Wind Power        times ~4.9
  • Combined Wind  80 – 20    times ~4.0
  • Coal (without CCS)            times ~1.9   (included for reference)
  • Nuclear                              times ~6.1   (included for reference)

There are also significant questions to be answered about the longevity and engineering robustness of the Solar and Wind-Power technologies: this is particularly problematical for off-shore wind farms.

http://notrickszone.com/2014/09/11/spiegel-germanys-large-scale-offshore-windpark-dream-morphs-into-an-engineering-and-cost-nightmare/

In addition a more detailed analysis might well indicate that, in spite of the cost of fuel being essentially free, the development, fabrication and installation of both Solar and Wind-power installations involves the release of substantial amounts of CO2.  The actual savings of CO2 emissions may be hardly exceeded over their installed working life of these Renewable technologies.

http://sunweber.blogspot.fr/2014/11/prove-this-wrong.htm

Intermittancy and Non-dipatchability

However there still remains a further major problem with all Renewable Energy sources. Their electrical output is intermittent and non dispatchable. Their electrical output cannot respond to electricity demand as and when needed. Energy is contributed to the grid in a haphazard manner dependent on the weather.  This effect can seen from German electrical supply in the diagram below, for a week in August 2014, an optimum period for any solar energy input. Power certainly not necessarily available whenever required.

Screen Shot 2014-09-07 at 15.09.47Solar power inevitably varies according to the time of day, the state of the weather and also of course radically with the seasons.  Solar power works most effectively in latitudes nearer the equator and it certainly cannot be seriously effective in Northern Europe. In the example above in August 2014 wind power input varied from 15.5 GW to 0.18 GW and the Solar contribution varied from nil to some 15 GW. Thus this Renewable Energy variability combined with the “Renewables Obligation”, which mandates that the electricity grid has to take energy from renewable sources preferentially, if available, resulted in demands on conventional generation in Germany varying from ~23GW to ~47GW over the period. In Germany, its massive commitment to solar energy can briefly provide up to ~20% of country wide demand for a few hours either side of noon on some fine summer days, but at the time of maximum power demand on winter evenings solar energy input is necessarily nil. But at the same time the output from wind power is equally variable as in the summer months.

Germany has similar insolation and cloudiness characterists as Alaska and the UK being even further North has an even worse solar performance. Electricity generation from wind turbines is equally fickle, as in the week in July 2014, clearly shown above, where Wind-Power input across Germany was close to zero for several days. Similarly an established high pressure system, with little wind over the whole of Northern Europe is a common occurrence in winter months, when electricity demand is at its highest. Conversely, on occasions Renewable Energy output may be in excess of demand and this has to dumped expensively and unproductively. This is especially so, as there is still no solution to electrical energy storage on a sufficiently large industrial scale. That is the reason that the word “nominally” is used throughout these notes in relation to the name plate capacity outputs from Renewable Energy sources.

Overall these three major nations that have committed massive investments to Renewable Energy.  Conservatively this amounts to at least ~$0.5 trillion or ~2.2% of combined annual GDP.  

This investment has resulted in a “nominal” ~31Gigawatts of generating capacity from an installed Nameplate Capacity of ~150Gigawatts.  This is “nominally” almost a quarter of the total installed nameplate generating capacity.

But this nominal 31GW of Renewable Energy output is ~5.4% of the total installed generating capacity of ~570Gigawatts.  Even that 31GW of Renewable Energy production is not really as useful as one would wish, because of its intermittency and non-dispatchability.

The Significance of Carbon Dioxide CO2

All plant life and thus the whole biosphere is dependent on atmospheric CO2. At 400 ppmv, (400/1,000,000), CO2 is still a trace gas. It is at a very low concentration when compared with the geologic past. A widely accepted diagram of global temperature and CO2 concentration in the geologic past 600 million years is shown below. Screen Shot 2014-09-17 at 13.42.47 Plants evolved about 500 million years ago, when the CO2 levels were much higher. Increased CO2 levels markedly improve plant growth and reduce their water requirements for transpiration, as plants need fewer and smaller, water releasing, stomata to ingest their essential CO2. Plants cannot survive at CO2 levels of less than ~200 ppmv and are stressed by low CO2 levels. Horticulturalists deliberately add extra CO2 to their greenhouses up to a level of some 1200 ppmv to enhance plant growth and fertility. It is estimated that the CO2 increases since 1850 have already enhanced all planetary plant growth and promoted greening of deserts by ~15%. In the past the world has seen much higher CO2 levels that were not necessarily associated with higher temperatures.

Whatever politicians and Global Warming advocates may think, promote with extreme alarm and may be convinced of, atmospheric CO2 is “clean”, essential to life and is anything but “a pollutant”.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/11/co2_greens_the_deserts/ http://townhall.com/columnists/craigidso/2014/09/23/mr-president-co2-is-not-pollution-its-the-elixir-of-life-n1895157/page/full

So atmospheric CO2 is the essential plant food and is thus fundamental for all life on the planet.

That is the real stuff of life. Global Warming advocates who deny that also negate the ability of the world’s entire biosphere to exist on planet earth.

Photosynthesis in plants consists of chemical reactions that use atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O), catalysed by chlorophyll to store the sun’s output as chemical energy, initially in the form of sugars. This chemical reaction then leads onto all the other organic compounds within the biosphere. The Oxygen (O2) essential for animal life is a by-product of photosynthesis and is released into the atmosphere. The following equation summarizes photosynthesis:  

                           sun light                                                           

                                          ↓                  

                          6 CO2 + 6 H2O    =  6 (CH2O) + 6 O2

                                           ↓       

                          sugars, thus leading to all other organic molecules

This amazing, almost miraculous, photosynthetic process has been working for half of the existence of the Earth, about 2.5 billion years. Land plants however have only existed for about a half billion years.

Photosynthesis is quite inefficient. Plants only absorb and convert about ½% to ¼% of the sun’s energy falling on their leaves. Geologic processes have created fossils fuels over many millions of years, and concentrated the energy from that inefficient photosynthetic process and stored it in accessible forms gas, oil, coal, etc.

But it is as if many western politicians, much of the scientific establishment, and all Green Global Warming advocates have all collectively and conveniently forgotten all their elementary school biology about photosynthesis and the carbon cycle. As a result of the failure to appreciate the elementary biology, the Western world has been forced into a massive guilt trip with endless predictions of impending global overheating catastrophes from the over-production of CO2 by mankind.

In reality any added atmospheric CO2 is just essential and increasingly useful food for plants.

Mankind’s use of fossil fuels simply releases the very diffuse and intermittent energy derived from sunlight by plants in previous eons. The release of CO2 back into the biosphere now is to the benefit of all plant life and thus to the livelihood of the planet. With the increase from ~300ppmv to ~400ppmv it has been assessed that planetary plant life has already increased by >10% worldwide. As an aside, this means that:

  • Carbon Capture and Storage, CCS, is a chemically difficult and very costly way to try to trap and to throw away comparatively miniscule quantities of useful plant food.
  • as opposed to taking the simplistic view that the fuel itself is for free, it is not evident that renewable energy technologies (solar or wind power) are necessarily that “clean”, non polluting and produce less CO2 for the equivalent energy output, when compared to fossil fuel use and viewed in the round.

Geophysical Research Letters Volume 40, Issue 12, Article first published online: 19 JUN 2013

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenergy/writev/517/m59.htm

http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf

http://junkscience.com/2013/11/12/ethanol-is-stupid-really-stupid-ask-sel-graham/

Graphic presentations of the history of CO2 emissions worldwide

The following calculations and graphics are based on information on national CO2 emission levels worldwide published by BP[i]in June 2014 for the period from 1965 up until 2013. The data is well corroborated by previous similar datasets published by the CDIAC, Guardian [ii] and Google up until 2009 [iii]. These notes and figures provide a short commentary on that CO2 emissions history. The contrast between the developed and developing worlds is stark in terms of their history of CO2 emissions and the likely prognosis for their future CO2 output. Screen Shot 2014-06-22 at 12.20.39 Screen Shot 2014-06-29 at 16.23.31This presentation divides the world nations into seven logical groups with distinct attitudes to CO2 control: developed

  • United States of America, attempting CO2 emissions control under Obama’s EPA.
  • The European Union, (including the UK), currently believers in action to combat Global Warming.
  • Japan, the former Soviet Union, Canada and Australia are developed nations, rejecting controls on CO2 emissions.

developing

  • South Korea, Iran, South Africa, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Indonesia and Taiwan: more advanced developing nations, still developing rapidly, (KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW).
  • China and Hong Kong: developing very rapidly.
  • India: developing rapidly from a low base.
  • Rest of World (~160 Nations): developing rapidly from a low base.

Screen Shot 2014-09-13 at 14.03.19 Screen Shot 2014-09-15 at 11.45.02 Screen Shot 2014-09-15 at 11.42.53Screen Shot 2014-09-15 at 11.42.35 Screen Shot 2014-06-23 at 13.01.26 Screen Shot 2014-09-15 at 11.44.29 Screen Shot 2014-09-15 at 11.45.45 Screen Shot 2014-09-15 at 11.46.04
Screen Shot 2014-09-15 at 11.46.26 Screen Shot 2014-09-15 at 11.46.47 Screen Shot 2014-09-15 at 11.47.08 [i] http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

[ii] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2#data

[iii] https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdFF1QW00ckYzOG0yWkZqcUhnNDVlSWc&hl=en#gid=1

Growth of Renewable Energy installation in the USA, UK and Germany

In order originally to get a fairly clear idea of the capacity factors for Renewable Energy sources Wind and Solar the data provided on Wikipedia were reviewed.

These data sets provide historic data since 1990 in Germany but only since 2008 in the UK.

These data provide installed nameplate capacity measured in Megawatts and energy output measured across the year in Gigawatt hours. The referenced do not provide directly comparable values as Megawatt input and outputs. The values were revised to Megawatts for comparative purposes, accounting for the 8,760 hours in the year.

A normal fossil fuelled power station can be rated with a nameplate capacity of about 1000 Megawatts or 1 Gigawatt.

The development of the USA, the UK and German renewable energy since the year 2000 is shown below, (note these data do not include additional German offshore wind installations in 2013):

Screen Shot 2014-09-13 at 17.16.05The graphs below summarise the available data for each country:

Screen Shot 2014-09-13 at 17.20.49

Screen Shot 2014-09-13 at 17.21.06

Screen Shot 2014-09-13 at 17.21.28

Screen Shot 2014-09-13 at 19.23.29

So the 25 year investment in Germany’s the renewable energy has contributed about the equivalent from windpower of about 6 normal power stations and solar power contributes about 3 normal power stations.

So the UK the contribution from wind is now about 3 normal power stations and only about ¼ of a normal power station is provided by UK solar power.

However there is a problem in the use of renewable energy sources. The output is not dispatchable. It cannot respond to electricity demand as and when needed. For example solar power in Germany might provide up to ~20% of country wide demand for a few hours on fine summer afternoons, but at the time of maximum power demand on winter evenings solar input is virtually nil.

See: http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/456961/reality-check-germany-does-not-get-half-its-energy-solar
Similarly electricity generation from wind turbines is equally fickle, as shown for this week in July this year below:

See: http://notrickszone.com/2014/07/21/germanys-habitually-awol-green-energy-installed-windsolar-often-delivers-less-than-1-of-rated-capacity/

Overall both in the Germany and the UK solar power only produces ~7% of nameplate capacity.

Wind energy in Germany has supplied only about 17% of its installed name plate capacity over the years since 1990, and in the UK the more recent results have been rather more productive at ~23% of nameplate installed capacity since 2008.

The record of recent Man-made CO2 emissions: 1965 -2013

The following calculations and graphics are based on information on national CO2 emission levels worldwide published by BP[1]in June 2014 for the period from 1965 up until the end of 2013.  The data is well corroborated by previous similar datasets published by the CDIAC, Guardian [2] and Google up until 2009 [3].

These notes and figures provide a short commentary on that CO2 emissions history.

The contrast between the developed and developing worlds is stark in terms of their history of CO2 emissions and the likely prognosis for their future CO2 output.

Screen Shot 2015-03-26 at 09.41.32

Since 1980 CO2 emissions from the developed world have shown virtually no increase, whereas the developing world has had a fourfold increase since 1980: that increase is accelerating.
Similarly the CO2 output per head is declining in the developed world whereas it is accelerating the developing world.

Screen Shot 2015-03-26 at 13.08.02

In October 2010 Professor Richard Muller made the dilemma for all those who hope to control global warming by reducing CO2 emissions clear: in essence he said[4]:

“the Developing World is not joining-in with CO2 emission reductions nor does it have any intention of doing so.

The failure of worldwide action negates the unilateral action of any individual western Nation”.

Screen Shot 2013-07-11 at 09.30.34

This presentation divides the world nations into seven logical groups with distinct attitudes to CO2 control:

developed

  • United States of America, attempting CO2 emissions control under Obama’s EPA.
  • The European Union, (including the UK), currently believers in action to combat Global Warming.
  • Japan, the former Soviet Union, Canada and Australia are developed nations, rejecting controls on CO2 emissions.

developing

  • South Korea, Iran, South Africa, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Indonesia and Taiwan: more advanced developing nations, still developing rapidly, (KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW).
  • China and Hong Kong: developing very rapidly.
  • India: developing rapidly from a low base.
  • Rest of World (~160 Nations): developing rapidly from a low base.

Screen Shot 2015-04-03 at 14.31.32

Screen Shot 2014-06-23 at 13.01.26These graphs of total CO2 emission history show that up until 2013:

  • there has been a stabilisation or reduction of emissions from developed economies since 1980.
  • the USA, simply by exploiting shale gas for electricity generation, has already reduced its CO2 emissions by some 9.5% since 2005[5]. That alone has already had more CO2 emission reduction effect than the entire Kyoto protocol[6] [7].
  • CO2 emissions from the developed economies rejecting action on CO2 have hardly grown since 2005.
  • the European Union (27) has reduced its CO2 emissions by ~14% since 2005.

However

  • CO2 emissions from the developing world as a whole overtook the developed world in 2007 and are now a third larger than the developed world’s CO2 emissions.
  • there has been a very rapid escalation of Chinese CO2 emissions since the year 2000[8].
  • China overtook the USA CO2 emissions in 2006, and Chinese emissions are now ~62% greater than the USA, the escalation in Chinese CO2 emissions continues. Chinese emissions have grown by +75% since 2005 and China continues to build coal fired powerstations to supply the bulk of its electricity as demand grows.
  • India has accelerating emissions[9], growing from a low base by +63% since 2005. India too is building coal fired powerstations to increase the supply of electricity as 25% of its population still has no access to electric power.
  • there is inexorable emissions growth from the Rest of the World economies, from a low base, they have grown by +30% since 2005.

So any CO2 emissions reduction achieved by the Developed Nations will be entirely negated by the increases in CO2 emissions from Developing Nations.

However probably more significant than the total CO2 emissions output is the comparison of the emissions/head for the various nation groups.

Screen Shot 2015-04-03 at 15.47.02

  • The EU(27) even with active legal measures have maintained a fairly level CO2 emission rate but have managed to reduce their CO2 emissions/head by ~16% since 2005. Much of the recent downward trend is largely attributed to their declining economies.
  • The USA has already reduced its CO2 emissions/head by ~22% since in 2005, mainly arising from the use of shale gas for electricity generation. And now Mr Putin is actively involved in backing anti-fracking campaigns in Europe so as to protect his largest Gasprom market and to have an energy stranglehold on the West, as he has demonstrated recently in the Ukraine[10].
  • Russia, Japan, Canada and Australia have only grown their emissions/head by ~1% since 2005.
  • China’s CO2 emissions/head have increased ~11 fold since 1965. China overtook the world-wide average in 2003 and surpassed the rapidly developing nations in 2006. China’s emissions / head at 7.0 tonnes / head are now approaching the level of the EU(27) nations.
  • India’s CO2 emissions have grown by 4.7 times over the period and are now showing recent modest acceleration. That increasing rate is likely to grow substantially with increased use of coal for electricity generation[11].

When the participating nations particularly EU(27) are compared with Chinese CO2 emissions/head, an interesting picture arises:

Screen Shot 2015-04-03 at 15.53.14

Chinese CO2 emissions at 7.01mt/head for its 1.4 billion population are already ~43% greater than the worldwide average. Those emissions are still growing fast.

At 5.5mt/head, France, with ~80% nuclear electricity generation, has the lowest CO2 emission rates in the developed world and is at only ~12% above the world-wide average.

China’s CO2 emissions/head exceeded France’s CO2 emissions/head in 2009 and are now ~22% higher.

The UK at 7.2mt/head is now only ~48% higher than the world-wide average and only about ~3% higher than China. So China is likely to overtake the UK in the near future.

Germany, one of the largest CO2 emitters in Europe, has emissions/head ~100% higher than the worldwide average and is still ~49% higher than China. Germany’s emissions/head have increased recently because they are now burning much larger quantities of brown coal to compensate for the “irrational” closure of their nuclear generating capacity.

This must question the logic of Green attitudes in opposing Nuclear power. Following the Fukushima disaster, the German government position of rapidly eliminating nuclear power in a country with no earthquake risk and no chance of tsunamis should not be tenable.

If CO2 emissions really were a concern to arrest Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming / Man-made Climate Change, these results particularly from France show starkly the very real advantage of using Nuclear power for electricity generation.

Professor Fritz Vahrenholt was CEO of RWE Innogy, the major German windpower supplier, he had pioneered Germany’s significant advances in renewable energy, especially in the development of wind power.

Previously Professor Vahrenholt had fully accepted the IPCC reports as the foundation of his understanding of mankind’s effect on climate change. However, with his scientific background as chemist, he re-examined IPCC reports in detail. He found many errors, inconsistencies and unsupported assertions.

Accordingly he has now entirely revised his position.

 

Professor Vahrenholt’s diagram below is from his July 2012 lecture at the Royal Society [12] [13].

It shows the miniscule impact of the enormously costly efforts at decarbonisation in Germany, (die Energiewende), in comparison with the inevitable escalation of CO2 emissions from the rest of the world.

The underdeveloped nations are bound to become progressively more industrialised and more intensive users of fossil fuels to power their development and widen their distribution of electricity throughout their populations.

This is the only rational way that those nations can advance their development status.

Screen Shot 2014-09-13 at 14.12.41

The futility of the expenditure of vast resources on Green activities in Germany becomes clear.

German actions with its increasing risks to energy security and the growing risk to the German economy as its manufacturing industries seek more congenial energy / business environments, could only ever reduce Germany’s CO2 emissions by ~150,000,000 tonnes between 2006 and 2030.

That would only amount to ~1/100 of the concomitant growth in other CO2 emissions from the developing world.

According to Bjorn Lomborg the ~€125billion German investment in solar power alone, not including other renewable investments, can only reduce the onset of Global Warming by a matter of about 37 hours by the year 2100[14].

Screen Shot 2015-04-04 at 11.42.05

This point is re-emphasised above, by cross comparing the annual growth in emissions from China and India with the full annual emissions from key European countries. Chinese CO2 emissions growth in some years can exceed the total UK and French emissions level and even approach the German level on occasions.

Professor Varhenholt is now convinced that it is nature and in particular the behaviour of the sun that is responsible for our continually changing climate, and as he said as the final point of his Royal society lecture:

“This change can only develop first with a revolution of our minds.”

and to paraphrase Bill Clinton

“It’s not mankind creating climate. It’s the sun: stupid.”

Professor Varhenholt and his colleague Sebastian Luening have now published a best seller in Germany “Die Kalte Sonne”, the book now released in English as

“The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe”[15].

[1] http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2#data

[3] https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdFF1QW00ckYzOG0yWkZqcUhnNDVlSWc&hl=en#gid=1

[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5m6KzDnv7k

[5] http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/07/a-fracking-revolution-us-now-leads-world-in-co2-emission-reductions-.html

[6]http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2012/09/thanks_to_fracking_u_s_carbon_emissions_are_at_the_lowest_levels_in_20_years_.html

[7] http://www.oilandgasonline.com/doc/u-s-fracking-has-carbon-more-whole-world-s-wind-solar-0001

[8] http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/pressreleases/2011/steep-increase-in-global-co2-emissions-despite-reductions-by-industrialised-countries

[9] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-10/global-warming/29642669_1_kyoto-protocol-second-commitment-period-

[10] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fracking/10911942/Russia-in-secret-plot-against-fracking-Nato-chief-says.html

[11] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/India-invokes-right-to-grow-to-tell-rich-nations-of-its-stand-on-future-climate-change-negotiations/articleshow/36724848.cms

[12] http://www.thegwpf.org/gwpftv/?tubepress_page=2&tubepress_video=cR434ddtrMI

[13] http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/vahrenholt-2012-annual-gwpf-lecture.pdf

[14] http://www.lomborg.com/content/2013-03-germany-pays-billions-delay-global-warming-37-hours

[15] http://notrickszone.com

Temperature reduction outcomes from de-carbonisation

To quantify what might be achieved by any political action for de-carbonization by Western economies, the comparative tables below show the remaining effectiveness of each 100ppmv tranche up to 1000ppmv, with the total global warming in each of the five diminution assessments.  These estimates depend on the calculations set out in the following associated essay:

https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2014/09/13/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-co2-on-temperature/

The table below shows the likely range of warming arising from these divergent (sceptical and IPCC) views, (without feedbacks, which are questionably either negative or positive: but probably not massively positive as assumed by CAGW alarmists), that would be averted with an increase of CO2 for the full increase from 400 ppmv  up to 1000 ppmv. Screen Shot 2014-08-10 at 11.33.54 The results above for countries and country groups show a range for whichever scenario of only a matter of a few thousandths to a few hundredths of a degree Centigrade.

However it is extremely unlikely that the developing world is going to succumb to non-development of their economies on the grounds of reducing CO2 emissions. So it is very likely that the developing world’s CO2 emissions are going to escalate whatever is done by developed nations.

These figures show that whatever the developed world does in terms of decreasing CO2 emissions the outcome is likely to be absolutely immaterial.

The table below assumes that the amount of CO2 released by each of the world’s nations or nation is reduced universally by some 20%: this is a radical reduction level but just about conceivable. Screen Shot 2014-08-07 at 12.40.39

The extreme, economically destructive and immensely costly efforts by participating western nations to reduce temperature by de-carbonization should be seen in context:

  • the changing global temperature patterns, the current standstill and likely impending cooling.
  • the rapidly growing CO2 emissions from the bulk of the world’s most populous nations as they continue their development.
  • the diminishing impact of any extra CO2 emissions on any temperature increase.
  • normal daily temperature variations at any a single location range from 10°C to 20°C.
  • normal annual variations value can be as much as 40°C to 50°C.
  • that participating Europe as a whole only accounts for ~11% of world CO2 emissions.
  • that the UK itself is now only about ~1.5% of world CO2 emissions.

As the margin of error for temperature measurements is about 1.0°C, the minuscule temperature effects shown above arise from the extreme economic efforts of those participating nations attempting to control their CO2 emissions. Thus the outcomes in terms of controlling temperature can only ever be marginal, immeasurable and thus irrelevant.

The committed Nations by their actions alone, whatever the costs they incurred to themselves, might only ever effect virtually undetectable reductions of World temperature. So it is clear that all the minor but extremely expensive attempts by the few convinced Western nations at the limitation of their own CO2 emissions will be inconsequential and futile[i].

Professor Judith Curry’s Congressional testimony 14/1/2014[ii]:

“Motivated by the precautionary principle to avoid dangerous anthropogenic climate change, attempts to modify the climate through reducing CO2 emissions may turn out to be futile. The stagnation in greenhouse warming observed over the past 15+ years demonstrates that CO2 is not a control knob on climate variability on decadal time scales.”

Professor Richard Lindzen UK parliament committee testimony 28/1/2014 on IPCC AR5[iii]:

“Whatever the UK decides to do will have no impact on your climate, but will have a profound impact on your economy. (You are) Trying to solve a problem that may not be a problem by taking actions that you know will hurt your economy.”

and paraphrased “doing nothing for fifty years is a much better option than any active political measures to control climate.”

As global temperatures have already been showing stagnation or cooling[iv] over the last seventeen years or more, the world should now fear the real and detrimental effects of global cooling[v] rather than being hysterical about limited, beneficial or now non-existent warming[vi].

[i] http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.fr/2013/11/lomborg-spain-wastes-hundreds-of.html

[ii] http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=07472bb4-3eeb-42da-a49d-964165860275

[iii] http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/28/uk-parliamentary-hearing-on-the-ipcc/

[iv] http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3436241/the-inescapable-apocalypse-has-been-seriously-underestimated.thtml

[v] http://www.iceagenow.com/Triple_Crown_of_global_cooling.htm

[vi] http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/28/global-cooling-consensus-is-heating-up-cooling-over-the-next-1-to-3-decades/