 | Lies, Damned Lies and Government Oil Production Forecasts? | The Oil Drum: Europe | ASPO-USA: Support for Global Energy Flow modelling and a Net Energy database |  |
More Coal Equals More CO2
Posted by Chris Vernon on October 22, 2006 - 12:01pm in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
Tags: carbon dioxide, coal, electricity, united kingdom [list all tags]
The office of John Hemming MP has recently considered the impact this increased coal burn has had on UK carbon dioxide emissions.
"It is not surprising", said John Hemming "that more carbon was emitted by burning pure carbon rather than a mixture of carbon and hydrogen. The government's failures in the gas market do not only hit people's gas bills, but they also hit the environment."
| Fuel | Tonnes of carbon per GWh |
|---|---|
| Coal | 238 |
| Oil | 207 |
| Gas | 99 |
| All fossil fuels | 167 |
| All fuels (inc nuclear and renewables) | 124 |
Remembering that 12 tonnes of C is equivalent to 44 tonnes of CO2.
The same publication also states:
It is estimated that carbon dioxide emissions from power stations accounted for 29½ per cent of the UK’s total carbon dioxide emissions in 2005.
Considering the total amount of electricity generated from both coal and gas:
- Winter 2004/05 Coal generated 77.84TWh
- Winter 2004/05 Gas generated 75.74 TWh
- Winter 2005/06 Coal generated 89.62TWh (+15.1%)
- Winter 2005/06 Gas generated 64.60 TWh (-14.7%)
"Winter" is taken here to be Q4+Q1 (Oct-Mar).
The 15.1% increase in coal generated electricity represents an additional 2.8 million tonnes of carbon emitted into the atmosphere. The reduced gas burn mitigated just 1.1 million tonnes to produce a net increase of 1.7 million tonnes of carbon. A further 0.3 million tones were added by a 65% increased oil burn with oil fired generation up from 2.55 to 4.22TWh.
Although this oil burn is quite small compared to the coal and gas the fact that we burnt so much, especially given the price illustrates how tight things were last winter. Also, just last week an oil fired power station at Fawley in Hampshire was reopened after being mothballed for 12 years (BBC News report). You know things aren't great when we increase oil burn for electricity.
We can calculate the total carbon (and also CO2) emissions of electricity generation from coal, gas and oil during both winters:
- Winter 2004/05 fossil fuel electricity generation 26.6 million tonnes of carbon or 97.5 million tonnes of CO2.
- Winter 2005/06 fossil fuel electricity generation 28.6 million tonnes of carbon or 104.9 million tonnes of CO2 (+7.7%)
Perhaps it is unfair to blame this increase entirely on the structural shift from gas to coal. After all, more electricity was generated in 2005/06 compared with 2004/05. After adjusting for the additional 2.8TWh generated by assuming the increase is borne proportionately by each generating source the CO2 emission percentage increase directly attributed to the fuel switch reduces to 6.3%, still a significant increase.
We had an extra 2 million tonnes of carbon (7.3MT of CO2). How significant is that? This chart from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) illustrates UK CO2 emissions:
In 2004 net CO2 emissions were 559.1 million tonnes. In 2005 the emissions have been provisionally given as 561.0 (+1.9, +0.34%) million tonnes. I expect this will turn out to be a slight underestimation when the data is firmed up.
Commenting on this data DEFRA say:
Carbon dioxide emissions in 2005 are provisionally estimated to have been about ¼ of one per cent higher than in 2004, resulting from an overall increase in energy consumption combined with increased use of coal in electricity generation at the expense of gas. The change between 2004 and 2005 however is smaller than the range of uncertainty associated with the provisional estimate.
It's hard to be critical when such small differences are involved though it's not fair to describe 0.34% increase as "about ¼ of one per cent higher".
The additional 7.3MT of CO2 emitted last winter due primarily to coal substitution for gas is equivalent to 1.3% increase over the provisional 2005 figure.
With further indigenous gas depletion guaranteed and the gradual decommission of the nuclear fleet it seems impossible for the CO2 emissions from electricity generation to do anything thing other than rise. Add to this the dramatic rise in CO2 emissions from aviation and it is hard to see how the UK domestic goal will be met and although the Kyoto target is currently being met it isn't unrealistic to suggest that by the turn of the decade the UK could also miss the international target.
Tony Blair, UK Prime Minister
Speaking for the last time as Prime Minister at the Labour Party conference last month (26th Sept) Tony Blair said this on carbon dioxide:
We will meet our Kyoto targets by double the amount; and we will take the necessary measures, step by step by step, to meet one of the most ambitious targets on the environment set anywhere in the world - a 60% reduction in emissions by 2050.Full text of the speech available here: labour.org.uk
With the trend of coal substitution for gas, decommissioned nuclear likely replaced with fossil fuel at least in the short term and growth in aviation I fail to see how Blair can justify his Kyoto optimism.
Whilst the lights did stay on last winter in the face of tight gas supplies the pain of indigenous gas depletion was felt in other ways, customers (domestic and commercial/industrial) experienced dramatic price rises and the atmosphere received additional CO2.
Peak Oil and Climate Change
This brings me to a related point about the environmental impacts of potential peak oil solutions. Whilst there is considerable overlap between sensible actions in the face of the twin challenges of peak oil and climate change (in the broadest sense both would be benefited by reduced energy consumption) there are some actions which clearly benefit just one of these problems.
Burning more coal (without CO2 sequestration) is one such action, whilst coal is relatively abundant and capable of making a meaningful contribution to energy security as oil and gas supplies decline the CO2 impact would be unacceptable.
It is wise to consider peak oil and climate change as two sides of the same problematic coin, not only to recognise the broad correlation of useful actions but also to flag up any actions which serve one challenge to the detriment of the other.
we are having on average much milder winters, reducing our winter
heating demand and leaving more gas for use in power generation. Could
someone work out the net saving in gas for say a 1 degree C rise above
average winter temperature (current level of local warming) and also a
2 degree C rise (probable rise in the next 20 - 30 years) ? How far would
this go to offset the rise in coal consumption ?
A few more summers like the last one, and I expect people will begin to introduce home AC. Already there are window units.
Office air conditioning is obviously ubiquitous, and with the very hot summers we have been having, being retrofitted.
If Britain's heating and electric needs could both be met from heating fuel (and wind electricity when it was available), how would that change the calculus? Is UK gas depleting so rapidly that the respite wouldn't be worth the effort?
- for Peak Oil, until now, the world oil supply has risen every year. Since supply + change in inventories = demand,
that is trivially true.
There hasn't been any big change on the delta of inventories (where publicly available). If anything the evidence is that they have been rising (US and China).
So oil supply has risen to the challenge of meeting oil demand.
Granted the price has gone up a lot. But then, oil is a price inelastic commodity (both supply and demand), characterised by long lags to bring on new supply or to structurally reduce demand. The evidence so far is that there have been few supply production restrictions on oil, the price has risen because of Chinese and Indian demand, and the strength of the US economic recovery.
So the jury is out on Peak Oil. Maybe. Maybe not. The date of Hubbert's Peak remains uncertain.
Indeed oil prices have fallen sharply and OPEC is cutting quotas, suggesting there is still enough supply out there.
(I should add to that I am sure Peak Oil is inevitable: this is an exhaustible resource, and exhaustible resources deplete. The question of when is what is at issue).
- Global Warming there is no reasonable doubt. There is no serious glaciologist or geographer who doubts that the world is warming. There is no serious climatologist who doubts that the cause of this warming is human action.
(2 exceptions AFAIK: Lindzen at MIT and Gray at Colorado. But Lindzen doesn't deny global warming, he simply says it isn't a problem because increased cloud cover will offset it-- and admits he may be wrong. Gray says we are too reliant on computer models, we don't have enough empirical data. I don't know what he says about rising CO2 levels and rising average temperatures).
What is at issue with Global Warming is how fast, how far, how much?
The prudent man would look at the extreme cases of Global Warming and the geologic evidence we do have. In particular, CO2 levels were at 1,000 PPM during the time of the great Permian Extinction, when 90% of all animal species died. CO2 levels now are at 380ppm (from 280ppm in 1750) and rising at 2ppm pa.
At current rates of acceleration of CO2 emission, we will cross 1,000ppm early in the 22nd century.
The particular tipping point is the mass release of permafrost methane-- there is 100GT of methane under the permafrost. It appears that over a relatively short period at the end of the Permian era, this is what happened.
More seriously, a number of biologists and climatologists believe the world is stretching its capacity to absorb excess atmospheric CO2. At some point, the process becomes a positive rather than negative feedback cycle-- human action becomes irrelevant.
When I first started looking at this, consensus was 550ppm was a level we could live with avoiding the worst consequences of global warming. Scientists are now talking 450ppm, a level we will have reached in the 2040s on current trends. The truth is we don't know.
There are other, less alarming, scenarios than the mass methane release, such as a 10 degree centigrade rise in average surface temperature, which would make much of the planet uninhabitable, and potentially kill billions.
As The Economist argued a few months ago, any prudent man (or woman) looking at that, would suggest that we do something, and a lot, to try to forestall that moment when we cross the 450ppm line.
Global Warming has become the challenge of our generation, the legacy we will leave to all future generations. What we do in the next few years as a society will be absolutely critical.
Peak Oil will come, some day. Global Warming is here, and now.
Peak oil is used as a goad to encourage alternatives, but many of those alternatives may be good at replacing oil but maybe not so good at replacing fossil fuels. Replacing oil with ethanol while burning coal to run ethanol plants may not be such a great tradeoff unless your only concern is oil.
Peak oil mostly translates into politicians talking about how we need to get off oil and come up with what they call renewable alternatives. As long as global warming is not part of the equation, we may invest our money in things which have short term benefits for oil but do little to deal with global warming.
We have had over 30 years to do something serious about oil, all the while becoming more dependent upon those who hate us year after year after year. If we only have a few years to deal with global warming, it ain't gonna happen. We as a species are not capable of moving that fast.
Consider Russia in the winter of 1941-42 (entire industrial base moved east, Army reconstructed more than once). Or Britain throughout WWII (higher level of industrial mobilisation than Nazi Germany).
Or the North Vietnamese during the 'American period' of the Vietnam War.
What we are proposing here is that we might go back to a standard of living of the 1950s: but the 1950s with the internet, the 1950s with 2000 medical technology, etc. The big changes are we have to revamp the electric power system, the domestic heating and air conditioning system, and how and what we drive.
The problem is as a society, or a collection of societies, we are not willing to make that jump-- the public thinks global warming is a complex subject about which there is much debate, and is a threat maybe to our grandchildren. The glaciology/climatology people think global warming is the biggest threat humanity has ever faced.
Sure we can do it. Where is that certain trumpet?
History shows people willingly sacrifice for a common good, as long as they feel everybody is together doing the sacrificing. Getting them together is what leaders do. Where are they?
There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tiny blasts of tiny trumpets, we have met the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.
Walt Kelly
US animator & cartoonist (1913 - 1973)
Sums it up perfectly. the enemy is ourselves, and our way of life.
Beautiful example in the Guardian today. Swale Borough Council in Kent has blocked the London Array, a 1000MW offshore windfarm. Why? Because they don't fancy having a power cable come onshore on their beach. Oh and it might spoil the view.
The locals are entirely rallied around this, and the law means Swale can block the interests of the nation.
I must admit I had this fantasy of building nuclear power plants in Kent as sweet revenge-- of course they will have to be on the beach (cooling water). ;-).
By logical extension of the argument, windfarm protestors are effectively terrorists! ;-)
Sucking Kool-Aid out of the Poll straws.
If you're a heretic, what am I?
When I first started noticing the debate, the IPCC I think settled on the 550 level. It was something of a political compromise.
Now the leading climate scientists are talking 450, but some are talking lower.
Positive feedback loops are not something that politicians understand, nor most laymen.
http://web.mit.edu/jsterman/www/cloudy_skies1.pdf
I can't pluck the abstract out of the pdf, but it's really all you need to know. A relative rate problem with a bathtub, a running tap and a drain-- and most graduate students still get it wrong.
I guess President Bush (HBS class of 1973) wasn't in the test group?
;-).
- Fear itself
- Peak Oil
- Global Warming
- Global Dimming
- Kim Jong-Il and the Pilsbury Dough Boys (rock on dudes),
some asshole gets on the TV and starts telling me how the Earth's magnetic field is collapsing and soon our planet will be just like Mars.Damn. Can't a fellow finish off his remaining years simply believing in the life eternal?
If you smoke, you should still give up smoking. As a society, we should still do something about global warming.
Whatever kills you, it probably isn't what you expect.
The Kyoto targets really seem quite pointless and meaningless. They have brought CO2 awareness onto the political scene, but we seem to have been given a license to continue churning out CO2 at an unsustainable rate.
As a general point, it seems that peak oil and gas production is ironically going to mean more CO2 - not just from burning coal but from a lowering of EROEI of oil and gas production everywhere, from developing tar sands and other measures such as coal to liquids.
My question is can you elaborate on the basket of greenhouse gasses - what this comprises - guess CFCs - may be in there - and hey presto - the hole in the ozone layer seems to be healing.
Would also note that dash for gas was effective in lowering SO2 and helped solve the acid rain problem. CO2 is just much more tricky to deal with. We should consider an expose on all political parties suppor for the expansions of Heathrow, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester and Aberdeen airports.
Like Valuethinker, I think we need to be concerned about melting permafrost. Don't know what the weather is like for you, but it is still very warm in Aberdeen - I am still cutting grass - which is growing like grass. And here's the reason - seasurface temperature anaomalies form 17th Oct. Look at all that warm surface water in the N Atlantic and the North Sea. Also note a big El Nino forming in Pacific.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.10.17.2006.gif
The 2004 break down expressed as million tonnes of carbon equivalent was:
So, CO2 is ~84% of the basket.
However methane breaks down in the atmosphere in about 10 years (one of the decay products is CO2, unfortunately). CO2 sits around for 100+ years.
The swing away from conventional light crude oil to super heavy oil, tar(sorry oil)sands and kerogen (sorry oil)shale have a double impact far more energy (and therefore CO2 emissions) are required to extract it and the lower yield of light products per barrel of input mean that more must be extracted per barrel of useful energy.
Thus peak useful energy will precede peak oil extraction by some years and peak CO2 production will trail peak oil extraction by some years.
Given the available reserves of coal, tar sands and heavy oil, how long do you think will be that trail? I can easily guesstimate it up to a century or so.
Title:
Climate Change, Peak Oil and Canadian Oil Sands
I would appreciate any comments/suggestions/corrections.
Regards
Calvin Jones
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/climatechangeaction/web/peak-oil-climate-change-and-canadian-oil -sands
Gray is not a climate scientist. He was (and probably is) very good in hurricane predictions, but that is not the same as being a climate scientist.
The Canadian oil sands do have a lot of oil, However, the investment required to get it out and the time required to get the sand to your tank make it no real alternative. The energy requirements, the water requirements... 80% of all capital expenditure in the oil sands is towards the water management, treatment, etc... Then there is the issue that the entire oil industry is having to deal with, the lack of qualified people. Th head of Shell in Fort McMurray said they need about 40,000 people to develop their site and run it. That's just the Shell site.
The oil sands won't be saving the world.
I actually think equilibrium will be around 3.5m b/d, for all the reasons you identify. It will be c. 2030 before that is realised (and the production will be somewhere between 3.5m b/d and 5.0m b/d). At which point that production will go on until the end of the age of Oil.
I think there is something over 2m b/d of new projects or expansions on the drawing boards, announced, started etc. Not all of that will prove economic for the reasons you cite above.
If necessary, they will bring gas down from the Mackenzie Delta for the processing bit. Or build a small nuclear steam generator. Water can be recycled (but most people don't realise it is, effectively, a cold desert up there).
Skilled labour is the biggest logjam but they are bringing in crews from India, Latin America etc.
I live on an island (Tasmania) that was all hydro and windpower with a natural gas peak load generator. A single cement factory uses some local lignite. Then in April 2006 an underwater HVDC connected the island to the mainland with the hub and presumed key supplier being a cluster of lignite burning power stations. These stations produce 1.25 kg of CO2 per kwh compared to effectively nil for hydro. Referring to lowering dam levels the hydro execs announced 'at least we don't have to worry about climate change any more'.
What seems to be going on is
the Connect... from clean energy to coal fired
the Disconnect.. between coal and climate change.
Personaly I think that the average Joe doesn't give a s%*#t about GW. This hype is just a response to the need of the populace to have an indulgance for continuing our irresponsible way of life. Tragedy of the commons over and over again.
Various powerful interest groups have made a huge effort to spread misinformation, disinformation and confusion about GW, eg the US ads 'Carbon Dioxide, we call it life'.
Senator James Inhofe, as well as President Bush, believe Global Warming is a conspiracy to destroy the American economy and way of life. I have had that quote thrown at me more than once on the internet.
www.climatedenial.org is a good site on this. His basic point is that we think we can keep piling on facts, to win the argument, but actually we are making no emotional connection with the other side or with the undecided.
Ironically, groups of American evangelicals are starting to pay attention. But more conservative voices will continue to argue that anything that happens is God's punishment for man's sinfulness-- as on 9-11 when 2 senior leaders of the movement (Falwell and Robertson) said 9-11 was God's punishment of America for tolerating homosexuality. When you don't even believe in the theory of evolution, it's difficult to argue with someone about the geologic record before the Bible says the world existed.
* But then, if you are of the more extreme evangelical elements and of the 'Rapture' persuasion (Book of Revelations), our time on this planet is limited anyways, and we should expect the Resurrection relatively shortly. (Tim LaHaye's 'Left Behind' series of novels has sold over 50 million copies
http://www.leftbehind.com/ )
What about Foley's new book: "No Child's Behind Left (Subtitle: Shucks)"?
Guaranteed to be a kick ass seller.
OK. Kidding aside. I agree with you. Humans respond to emotional messages, not to dry logic.
So where is our compelling emoticon for Peak Oil?
This?
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-6-129-2455.jsp