Stroll In the Park on a Sunday Afternoon

It seems some people believe that moving to a low carbon economy is something easy that just requires "political will," and that the way forward is to pressure politicians with tumultuous "climate marches."

Well, it is not that easy, not even close.

To get an idea of the barriers to a low carbon economy, let's focus at the personal level. Here are some things an individual can do to drastically reduce her / his carbon emissions. Bear in mind that reducing the carbon emissions of humanity would literally be many orders of magnitude more difficult than this.

1. Eliminate air travel. Period. No looking back. Vacations should be relatively local. If you are used to travelling for business, then use video-conference to be in touch with your customers. Sure, it won't be as effective as face to face interactions, but  it is one of the prices to be paid for a lower carbon footprint.
2. Have less children or none at all. Off the bat, a new person that lives 65 years and produces the current average annual CO2 emissions (4.5 tons) would add almost 300 tons to the atmosphere in her lifetime. One billion persons would add 300 Gigatons, and this is considering the average emissions stay at today's value.
3. Eat less meat.
4. Buy much less stuff.
5. Adjust the thermostat in your A/C: make a point to be colder in winter and warmer in summer (without actually freezing or dehydrating).
6. Use your car less, much less or make without it altogether.
7. Try to enjoy cold showers, or at least cool showers.
8. Turn off every light / device as soon as you are through using it.
9. Assimilate (properly vetted) GMOs. We need to produce more food with less land/energy input.
10. In summary, embrace a lower standard of living for you and your family.

However, when things are distilled at the personal level, many "greens" rebel. They are not willing to participate in the game anymore. They want to just join in two or three "climate marches," pressure their university to "divest" from fossil fuels, glue a bumper sticker in their car with the "#GoSolar" message and re-tweet some Greenpeace thoughts.

Well, that will never work.

In truth, very few people will downgrade the standard of living of themselves and their children to "save" their eventual great-grandchildren. This is just human nature. Thus, bar a black swan (or two), the best way to reduce emissions (in addition to decreasing population) is technology.

Technology can help in two ways:

1. Do more with less (e.g., an LED light bulb produces many more lumens per watt than an equivalent incandescent lamp).
2. New massive amounts of low carbon energy. Current nuclear and renewables are at the most a stopgap. We need much better nuclear (fission and fusion) and other types of energy in the near future.

A happy, high energy future (with much less reliance on fossil fuels) will only materialize via technology.

Feel free to add to the conversation in Twitter: @luisbaram

Role Models

Both at the personal level as well as in the energy discourse, we sometimes select a role model based more on his glibness of talk rather than on his actions.

This post here is an effort to focus on results rather than on PR respecting the carbon intensity of electrical grids in selected countries.

All graphs shown below correspond to the latest IEA Monthly Electricity Survey. The first six months of 2014 are now finalized and shown here. A link to the full report can be found at the bottom of this page.

We will be listing the selected countries from the "best" to the "worst" based on the percentage of their electricity generated with combustible fuels.


1. Norway: 2%

2. Switzerland: 4%

3. France: 6%

4. Sweden: 9%

5. Canada: 22%

6. Spain: 33%

7. Finland: 42%

Note: now come the countries in which combustible fuels exceed 50% of their generated electricity.

8. Denmark: 56%

9. Germany: 63%

10. USA: 68%

11. UK: 68%

Next are the countries that are hovering close to 90% of combustible fuels in their electricity generation.

12. Australia: 87%

13. The Netherlands: 90%

14. Japan: 90% (in 2010 they were at 63%, big step backwards).

Thank you. Feel free to add to the conversation on Twitter: @luisbaram


Full IEA Report (click on June 2014).
http://www.iea.org/statistics/relatedsurveys/monthlyelectricitysurvey/

The Real Green Role Models

There is lots of hype in the energy discourse. Here we present the real way selected countries are generating their electricity.

We may be surprised to find out which are the countries actually taming fossil fuels in their electricity production. These countries tend to be quiet and yet they are the real role models the rest of the world should follow. World, are you listening?

Let's start the "tour."

Note: all graphs are from the latest IEA report. A link to the full report is provided at the end of this page.


Australia: in the land of uranium, coal rules.

Canada: go, Canada, go!

Denmark: good green PR, but in reality fossil fuels are still #1.

Finland: not yet "there" but most of its electricity comes from low carbon sources.

France: stop the presses! France HAS arrived. They have nearly eliminated fossil fuels from electricity production. Félicitations!

Germany: going nowhere, fast.

Japan: TOTAL MELTDOWN! Fossil fuels have come home to roost.

The Netherlands: WTF? Seriously, people.

Norway: if you have the hydro resources, don't think twice. GO HYDRO!

Spain: the most balanced energy diet on Earth. They do seem to believe in: never put all your eggs in the same basket.

Sweden: Almost paradise!

Switzerland: better than a Swiss watch! Looow carbon electricity.

UK: one year late, and one nuclear plant short.

USA: there is really nothing new to see here. Move on.

Conclusion: we can make mental exercises, scheme in a piece of paper and develop catchy slogans but actual results show who are the real green leaders (at least in the electricity sector). Let's quiet down the hype and focus on realities. Thank you.

Feel free to add to the conversation in Twitter: @luisbaram

Link to full IEA report: (click on May, 2014).

http://www.iea.org/statistics/relatedsurveys/monthlyelectricitysurvey/

Bottom Line

Many things are continually being said in the energy discourse but, bottom line, which are the countries that are really producing low carbon electricity and which are not?

Take a look below, you may be surprised.

In red are all the countries whose electricity is more than 50% produced with combustible fuels.

Note: all data is from the IEA. A link to the full reports can be found at the bottom of this page. Thanks.

Australia:

Denmark:

Finland:

France:

Germany:

Japan:

Spain:

Sweden:

Switzerland:

UK:

USA:

Sometimes, as children, we select the wrong role models. Could this also be happening to adults in the energy discourse?

What do you think?

Feel free to add to the conversation on Twitter: @luisbaram

http://www.iea.org/statistics/relatedsurveys/monthlyelectricitysurvey/

Is the Renewable Revolution Over?

All graphs in this blog post are from the Renewables 2014 Global Status Report. A link to the full report can be found at the bottom of this page.





It is obviously premature to declare the renewable revolution over, however, the latest data on the subject does indicate a substantial deceleration in investments as well as on new installed capacity.

Below, we show some highlights from this report:

For the second year in a row, investments in renewables dropped. 

It could be argued that part of the reason for this drop is that prices of these technologies have been dropping, however, the growth year over year of Solar PV (photo-voltaic) and of Wind are beginning to moderate.

In Solar PV, the percent growths year over year have been:

2005: +38%

2006: +37%

2007: +29%

2008: +78%

2009: +44%

2010: +74%

2011: +75%

2012: +43%

2013: +39% (+26%)

In Wind, the percent growths year over year have been:

2005: +23%

2006: +25%

2007: +27%

2008: +29%

2009: +31%

2010: +25%

2011: +20%

2012: +19%

2013: +12% (+7%)

Sure, the bigger the installed base the more difficult it it to maintain youthful growth rates.

On the other hand, it was China, almost single-handedly that supported the growth of both PV and Wind in 2013. The numbers above in parenthesis don't consider China.

On the positive side, Solar + Wind + Geothermal + modern biomass have finally exceeded 1% share of global final energy consumption: 

Here is the link to the full report:

http://www.ren21.net/Portals/0/documents/Resources/GSR/2014/GSR2014_KeyFindings_low%20res.pdf

Renewables for Australia

Let's make our homework at what it would take to convert Australia to 100% renewable energy.* Not to make the exercise extremely complex, let's simplify it a bit by using only solar photo-voltaic (PV) in our calculations.

According to the IEA (International Energy Agency) Australia's electrical energy supply in 2013 was 228,152 GWh. To convert this to average power consumption we divide it by 365 and then by 24 to arrive at a figure of ~26 GW average power consumption.

If we consider that the capacity factor (CF) of solar PV in Australia is 20%, then the solar PV capacity that needs to be installed is:

26GW / 0.20 = 130 GW.  At $2 dollars per watt that would add up to $260 billion dollars (~$11,000 per person).

Let's also consider that at peak hours, Australia actually consumes 50% more than the average power and thus their typical peak consumption would be 26 GW x 1.50 = 39GW.

This means that, say, at noon in central Australia, we would have a surplus of 130 - 39 = 91 GW.

Thus, at many instances during the year most of the solar capacity would have to be disconnected to prevent destroying the electrical grid. This would mean that the effective capacity factor of solar would be considerably lower than 20% and thus more capacity would need to be installed but this would make the excessive production at many instances during the year even more problematic.

On the other hand and obviously, during the night there would be no energy production.

So, OK, by themselves the solar panels would not be able to supply the energy Australia requires but we can always use storage to smooth the power delivered.

Considering that in winter days are shorter let's add enough storage for 14 hours of the average consumption. That would be 14 x 26 GW = 364 GWh. 

Considering Tesla S grade batteries for the above, a total of approximately 2,330,000 tons of batteries would be required. The above would represent ~100 kgs per person. Sure, lithium batteries are among the lowest weight technology, other chemistries would be heavier.

According to IEA's latest electric vehicle report, the cost of this type of battery could reach ~$200 dollars per kWh by 2020. That would represent a total cost of ~$73 billion dollars. Sure, other chemistries might be less expensive. This would represent ~ $3,100 dollars per person. 

Adding the panels ($11,000) plus the storage ($3,100) gives a total of $14,100 per person. Sure, this is only the upfront investment. Every so many years the batteries would have to be replaced, as well as the panels. 

However, the above system wouldn't provide reliable electricity on an annual basis, as we know the insolation in Australia is relatively low from April to August. More storage would make it somewhat more reliable but the total cost would increase. 

Feel free to make your own calculations and share your comments if you get different numbers.

* We are considering only electricity which is a fraction of Australia's total energy consumption that includes fuel for transportation, for industrial processes, etc.

References:

http://www.iea.org/stats/surveys/elec_archives.asp

https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,37024,en.html

http://www.teslamotors.com/fr_CA/forum/forums/model-s-battery-0

http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/sydney-au.html   (data for individual cities).

Interview with an Oil Company CEO

This is a fictional (but very feasible) interview to an oil company CEO.

GNWR: Thank you, Mr. Oil for accepting to participate in this interview.

CEO: It is my pleasure.

GNWR: In this day and age of global warming, why do you continue to drill and produce oil.

CEO: I ultimately have two bosses, our millions of customers and the board of directors. Customers demand more and more oil in the form of gasoline, diesel, airplaine fuel and other feed stuff. We have to listen to our customers and provide them with what they want. Even though fuel use in the USA and Europe has shown little growth lately, other areas of the world literally can't get enough of the substance. I'm talking of China, LATAM, Africa and India to name only a few.

GNWR: And your second customer?

CEO: Yes, they are the board of directors together with all stockholders. They are VERY demanding, you don't have an idea how much, and they want higher returns on their investments.

GNWR: But, why don't you move your company toward renewables?

CEO: Are you kidding? Renewables almost fully depend on government subsidies. The minute those subsidies are removed, and I mean the minute, that industry will come crashing down. As a CEO I would never gamble with my multi-billion company that way.

GNWR: But, aren't we eventually running out of oil?

CEO: There is no argument with that, but I have to face the market every quarter, I have no time to waste mulling what will happen in 100 years or so. The market is relentlessly harsh and I have to face it four times a year, at the very least. If the company is not performing financially the CEO is the first one to be blamed and frankly, I don't want to lose my job.

GNWR: Is there anything that would conceivably make you decide to move your company away from oil?

CEO: Certainly. If people massively stopped buying gasoline, diesel, all the other final products of oil then we would have to move to something else or maybe even go bankrupt. But thank goodness this is far from happening. Actually every year the consumption of oil goes up, so we are still safe for a long time to come.

GNWR: But, what about global warming?

CEO: I am a believer in global warming but, what are we going to replace oil with? We have nothing in the pipeline and for the people alive today the consequences of energy scarcity would be worse than the consequences of global warming.

GNWR: Would a carbon tax affect your company?

CEO: Yes, it would tend to increase efficiency and reduce consumption but the energy requirements of the world are still booming. A carbon tax wouldn't be fatal for most private oil companies. Actually it wouldn't even be that harmful to us as we would obviously pass the higher costs to the ultimate consumer.

GNWR: What is your vision for the future of the industry?

CEO: For the next 30 to 50 years, it would continue to operate in an almost business as usual way. Eventually humanity WILL have to move away from oil.

GNWR: What are the alternatives.

CEO: Aside from other fossil fuels which would nonetheless continue to be high carbon emitters, the obvious alternative is nuclear. I don't mean nuclear like the current reactors in operation, I mean more advanced designs.

GNWR: Mr. Oil, thank you very much for your time.

CEO: It is always a pleasure.

A Tale of Two Countries

In the energy discourse we hear a lot about renewable energy, zero emissions, Energiewende, installed capacity, etc. However, today we are trying to clear the air a little bit by publishing the results. Yes, here we are removing the hype and the wishful thinking and presenting just the results.

Luckily, we do have two countries that pursued different paths toward a low carbon electric generation system.

The first is Germany that committed to eliminating nuclear and producing most of its electric power with renewables (sun and wind), the other is France that decades ago decided to go mainly nuclear.

Here we can see the latest report from the IEA (International Energy Agency) in which we can see the actual energy generated during 2013 by each type of fuel. First we have Germany:

As we may see, combustible fuels continue to lead in German electricity production. Nuclear is still in second place. Sun + wind, on the other hand, barely increased their actual output in spite of the fact that their installed capacity continued to increase.

Now, let's take a look at France:

Think what we may about nuclear, it is a low carbon electricity producer. So France overwhelmingly produces its electricity via low carbon means and it shows.

If we now take a look at the ultimate climate result, we may see that German electricity is more than six times more carbon intensive than the French one.

This Tale of Two Countries is trying to point out which approach is actually working in the real world.

Thank you.