This article describes five major items regarding the adequacy of COP-21 requirements: a survey of historic temperatures of the past 420,000 years; the status of the world renewable energy; the impact of COP-21 CO2 emission reduction measures on the US economy; and the US leaving COP-21.
- MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change and Bjorn Lomberg, a professor in Denmark, independently performed their analyses of COP-21, and reached almost identical conclusions regarding the impact of COP-21 on global warming by 2100, based on IPCC computer programs.
- Historic Temperatures of the past 420,000 years indicate 4 major cycles of temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere.
- The world is moving very slowly towards renewable energy during the past 10 years. A cost estimate of the investments required for the world to have 90% of all of its primary energy from renewables by 2050 or 2100.
- The future impact of reducing CO2 emissions on US international competitiveness.
- The US leaving COP-21
Paris COP-21 Conference in 2015
COP-21 is a non-binding, CO2 emission reduction agreement, which aims to limit the world temperature to 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level during the 1861 – 1880 period. By 2015, the increase was about 1.1 C. That leaves just 0.9 C to go. This may appear minor, but is not, as any CO2 emitted today would not have a GW impact until many years later.
Based on present CO2 emission, population growth, and economic growth trends, the 2 C increase likely would be reached by about 2045, and a 4.3 C increase likely would be reached by 2100, based on the MIT and Lomberg analyses.
Future Impact of COP-21 on World Temperature: MIT claims, with FULL implementation of the voluntary, Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) agreed to during the COP-21 conference, and kept in place till 2100, COP-21 would prevent about 0.2 C of any warming that would occur by 2100, i.e., instead of 4.3 C from pre-industrial baseline, it would be 4.1 C by 2100. See Page 2 of MIT URL. BjornLomberg estimates COP-21 would prevent about 0.17 C, in close agreement with the MIT estimate.
That means the COP-21 emission reduction during the 2015 – 2100 period would be grossly insufficient. In fact, the COP-21 emission reduction would have to be increased by about a factor of 100 to achieve the 2 C target, according to Bjorn Lomberg. Based on outcomes of about a dozen prior COPs, the RE investments required for such a huge CO2 emission reduction likely will not take place. See Lomberg URL.
US INDC: As part of COP-21, the US offered* an INDC to reduce US CO2 emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The INDC CO2 emission reduction would be at a 14% more rapid rate during the 2015 – 2025 period, than during the 2005 – 2015 period, which greatly benefitted from the reduced burning of coal and increased burning of natural gas. See below table with 2025 targets based on data from Page ES-10 of URL.
* Obama did not submit the COP-21 agreement to the US Congress for ratification. Thus, COP-21 is not a US treaty obligation. Many other nations also have not ratified COP-21, including Russia.
| Year |
2005, base year
|
2015
|
2025
|
| CO2 eq |
MMt
|
MMt
|
MMt
|
| Sources – Sinks |
6582.3
|
5827.7
|
4805.1
|
| Decrease, % from 2005 |
11.5
|
27.0
| |
| Decrease, % from 2015 |
17.5
| ||
| Decrease, %/y |
1.45
|
1.65
| |
| More rapid CO2 decrease, % |
14.0
|
More Near-CO2-Free Renewable Systems: In the US, the more rapid CO2 emission decrease would be accomplished by more rapidly displacing low-cost coal, and natural gas, and nuclear with much more costly, mostly wind and solar renewables, which, because of their weather and sun dependent variability and intermittency, need massive TWh-scale storage systems, and a nationwide HVDC overlay grid (a $500 billion item), and other grid investments, to ensure reliable electricity service remains available throughout the US, Alaska, Hawaii, on a 24/7/365 basis. See URL regarding storage in Germany
During the past 420,000 years, there were 4 major glaciation and thawing cycles. The world temperature was about 2 – 3 C above and about 8 – 9 C below, the reference value of the past 10,000 years. The past four cycles indicate, the world, surrounded by outer space at near absolute zero, has a hard time warming up above reference, but a much easier time cooling down below reference, i.e., computer model global warming predictions of 4.3 C above pre-industrial likely are on the high side. During each cycle, CO2 in the atmosphere increased from a low of about 180 ppm to a high of about 280 ppm as temperature increased, because of subsequent biomass growth.
| Cycle |
High Temp
|
Low Temp
|
BP
|
BP
| |
| 1 |
420,000
|
355,000 – 330,000
|
| 2 |
325,000
|
265,000 – 260,000
|
| 3 |
240,000
|
180,000 – 140,000
|
| 4 |
125,000
|
26,500 – 19,000
|
| 5 |
11,200
|
?
|
However, during the last 150 years, CO2 in the atmosphere has increased to 400+ ppm, due to various factors, such as totally unsustainable population explosion (1.0 billion in 1800 to 7.3 billion in 2015, heading towards 10 billion by 2050), which required deforestation, urbanization, industrial agriculture, and the production and transport of goods and services, all requiring the burning of huge quantities of fossil and bio fuels, which release CO2 and methane, CH4, well beyond the 280 ppm of prior cycles.
The Most Recent Cycle: The peak temperature of the most recent cycle (the fourth) was about 125,000 years BP, and its maximum glaciation was from 26,500 – 19,000 BP. The low temperature was about 9 C BELOW reference. Sea levels were about 120 meter (470 feet) below present levels. The world’s desert areas, including the Sahara, were much larger than at present. The world population (likely about 1 – 2 million) during that low temperature period (lasting about 7,500 years), likely had a tough time dealing with the cold. A rapid warming trend, similar to the prior cycles, to about 1 C to 2 C above reference occurred from 19,000 – 11,200 BP.
Based on a recent study, the temperature gradually increased from the low point until about 7000 BP and then gradually decreased until about 1870, after which it increased by about 1 C, concurrent with the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, as mentioned above. According to the graph in the URL, the 7000-year downward trend in temperature is being interrupted by manmade activities of the past 100 years. See URL.
Unlike the prior cycles, this time the temperature did NOT rapidly decrease, but has been lingering for about 11,200 years. The present temperature is influenced by 1) the long-term downward trend, 2) coming out of the Little Ice Age, and 3) warming due to various factors, including burning fossil fuels. See upper left corner of URL.
About 15000 – 12000 BP, most of northern Asia, northern Europe, northern America, etc., were still covered with about one MILE of ice. Almost all of the world’s population, likely about 1 to 3 million, lived in small groups, mostly in hunter-gathering mode, with some agriculture, in areas of southern France, Spain, Italy, Turkey, the Caucasus, the Middle East, northern Africa, Iraq, Iran, southern India and Asia. North of those areas, with few trees, much frozen tundra and ice, there lived very few people.
By about 5000 BP, much of the ice had melted, and the world population had increased to about 10 to 15 million people. The big question remains: Why is the temperature lingering for 11,000 years, unlike the prior cycles? Why are we not yet into another ice age?
The World Making Almost No Progress Towards RE
Here is a table of global primary energy consumption percentages (fuels, electricity, etc.) during the 2011 – 2014 period, which, indicates hardly any progress towards RE, despite worldwide investments in renewables of $250 – $300 billion in each of these four years. The fossil fuel percentage likely remained about the same in 2015 and 2016. Google: “REN 21 Renewables 2016” report. See page 28 of report.
| Year | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 |
| Percent | % | % | % | % |
| Fossil fuels | 78.2 | 78.4 | 78.3 | 78.3 |
| Nuclear | 2.8 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.5 |
| Total renewables | 19.0 | 19.0 | 19.1 | 19.2 |
| Modern renewables | 9.7 | 10.0 | 10.1 | 10.3 |
| – Biomass, geo, solar heat | 4.1 | 4.2 | 4.1 | 4.2 |
| – Hydro electricity | 3.7 | 3.8 | 3.9 | 3.9 |
| – Wind, solar, bio, geo electricity | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 |
| – Biofuels, such as corn ethanol | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Traditional biomass | 9.3 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 8.9 |
Capital Cost Estimate of Renewables Energy for All: Many people think we can have 90% of ALL primary energy from renewables for 10 billion people and their economies by 2050, or by 2100. Prorating the $33 billion cost of Vermont’s energy transformation* for 10 billion people would be $33 b x 10000/0.625 = $528 trillion, adjusting for per capita income would be 12,380/47,000 x 528 = $139 trillion.
*The Vermont goal is 90% of ALL primary energy from renewables by 2050, not just electrical energy.
NOTE: The gross world product was about $78 trillion, or $78 trillion/6.3 b = $12,380/capita, in 2014. Vermont’s GDP/capita was about $47,000 in 2015.
World Spending on RE is Grossly Inadequate for COP-21 Goals: World spending on renewables was about $300 billion in 2015 of which about $100 billion by China Some RE people, during and after COP-21, called for RE spending to be increased to $1.0 trillion/y. The numbers indicate the world is under-spending by large factors.
- $139 trillion/34 y = $4.09 trillion/y would be required until 2050; under-spending factor of 13.6
- $139 trillion/84 y = $1.65 trillion/y would be required until 2100; under-spending factor of 5.5
However, significant categories of costs are not included in above estimates, such as having a transformed transportation system and other infrastructures, various transformed industries, healthcare systems, defense systems, education systems, etc., all that to be transformed with renewable energy, which is generally more expensive than traditional energy sources, if storage and grid costs are added and subsidies are taken away.
Huge Nuclear Build-Outs Are Needed: Such RE build-outs will never happen, unless massive nuclear plant capacity, MW, is built, and that capacity would have to provide about 70% of all world energy (not just electrical energy) to replace fossil fuels with syn-fuels, plus generate about 70% of the world’s electricity. Modern renewables (wind, solar, hydro, etc.) would provide the other 30% of all world energy. At present modern renewables provide about 10%. See below table.
NOTE: France generates about 80% of its electricity with nuclear plants, equivalent to about 35% of its primary energy. France has the lowest electric rates in west Europe.
Coal Particulate Air Pollution: The world’s fossil fuel consumption has been a steady 78% of all primary energy* for the past 10 years, despite several trillion dollars of investments in renewable electricity systems.
Current coal consumption is about 8000 million metric ton per year. China and India use about half of that IN AN INEFFICIENT AND DIRTY MANNER; low efficiency plants with high CO2/kWh, and low efficiency pollution control systems with high pollution/kWh.
Modern coal plants in Europe and the US have pollution control systems with efficiencies of 0.995 (about 5 lbs per 1000 lbs of fly-ash particulates is released to the atmosphere), whereas in China and India the norm is 0.950 or less (about 50 lbs or more is released to the atmosphere).
*The fuel energy fed into power plants, cars, buildings, etc., is primary energy. The energy from mines, wells, forests, etc., is source energy.
Energy Efficiency Better For CO2 Reduction Than Wind and Solar Build-outs: It would be much more cost-effective to concentrate on:
- Increasing the energy efficiency of existing buildings.
- Requiring “zero-net-energy”, and “energy-surplus” of all NEW buildings.
- Increasing the mileage of the vehicle population.
These measures would reduce the energy bills of households and businesses, and likely would reduce CO2 emissions by at least 50%, with:
- Minimal government regulations, taxes, fees and surcharges.
- Minimal capital cost.
- Near-zero visual and other adverse impacts.
COP-21, US Competitiveness and World Trade
The big political debate is: should the US stay with the COP-21 agreements to reduce CO2 emissions or not. The real issues are about international trade, bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US and paying for world peacekeeping. The US would be less competitive in world markets if:
- The US invested more in RE, such as expensive offshore wind, which would increase its cost structure.
- The US continues to over-invest in defense to maintain world peace, while others do not.
NOTE: The Trade Expansion Act, signed by Kennedy in 1962, significantly reduced US import tariffs, opened US markets to a flood of imports, and led to decades of increasing US trade deficits ever since 1967, the demise of trade unions, and the creation of rustbelt conditions in many parts of the US.
NOTE: Massachusetts has a new energy law requiring utilities to procure electricity generated by 1,600 MW of offshore wind turbines (name plate capacity) by June 30, 2027. The turnkey capital cost of such wind turbine plants, plus wiring to shore, plus onshore grid modifications would be at least $9 billion (not counting financing costs, return on investment, O&M, etc.), and the electricity cost would be at least 25 c/kWh (NE wholesale prices have been a steady 5 c/kWh for the past 5 years). Construction would require huge sea-going tugs, cranes and other specialized vessels to assemble those 600-ft tall wind turbines. Europe has perfected that equipment, but the US does not even have it. European companies, such as Vestas, Siemens and others will be making big profits. Wall Street financiers will collect fees for managing the tax shelters for the multi-millionaire investors. New Englanders get to pay for the outrageously high cost of electricity. Just another way for Europe, Japan and others to hamstring the New England and US economy into a higher cost structures and make them less competitive, all under the false flag of fighting GW and saving the world. Read thisarticle about the Rhode Island wind turbine folly.
The Trump administration aims to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US, increase goods exports and reduce trade deficits, primarily with bi-lateral trade agreements, but Europe, Japan and others prefer to apply WTO rules (more to their advantage) and presented uniform opposition during the G-7 meeting of May 2017.
Europe, Japan and others have invested for decades to built up the skills of their technical personnel, the technologies and production facilities to support the most profitable part of the value chain of goods supply (paying good wages, benefits and profit taxes in home countries).
They ship sub-assembles all over the world, including the US and Mexico, for assembly into end products, such as cars, which is the much less profitable part of the value chain of goods supply (assembly labor jobs, mediocre benefits and paying almost no profit taxes in host countries). Europe, Japan and others have dug their way to the vault and do not want Trump to move the vault.
The US Leaving COP-21
If the world is making so little progress towards RE, then the US, “doing its RE part” by staying with COP-21, would be engaging in an expensive exercise in futility.
The RE movement is primarily driven by Europe, Japan and others, because they have insufficient domestic energy resources. Europe, Japan and others want the US to stay with COP-21, because they would become less competitive versus the US, if they increased investments in RE and the US did not.
The US, with chronic budget deficits of about $500 billion/y, already has a huge trade handicap, largely due to overinvesting in defense spending to maintain its world leadership peacekeeping role, and underinvesting in the goods and service sectors. For decades, Europe, Japan and others have underinvested in defense, because of the US protection guarantee; only 5 of 28 NATO nations spend at least 2% of GDP on their own defense.
Europe, Japan and others have been shirking the world peacekeeping burden, as it would divert investments from their goods and services sectors. Instead, they invested in producing and exporting superior goods and services, which the US did not. This causes the US, hamstrung by having to adhere to World Trade Organization rules, to have chronic trade and budget deficits, each about $500 billion/y.
Europe, Japan and others want to keep the good times rolling, i.e., have the US protect them for free, if possible, in hamstrung mode with chronic trade and budget deficits, WTO rules and COP-21 requirements.
Photo Credit: Kevin Talec via Flickr
No comments:
Post a Comment