Before Covid 19
via https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019
The International Energy Agency has calculated that emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels was 33,000,000,000 or 33 Gigatonnes in 2019. These emissions came about because the following fuels were burned
| Fuel | Kilotonnes (oil equivalent) |
| Coal | 3,789,934 |
| Natural gas | 3,106,799 |
| Biofuels and waste | 1,329,064 |
| Oil | 4,449,499 |
Fatih Birol, commenting that emissions in 2019 were the same as 2018, observed
“We now need to work hard to make sure that 2019 is remembered as a definitive peak in global emissions, not just another pause in growth,” said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s Executive Director. “We have the energy technologies to do this, and we have to make use of them all. The IEA is building a grand coalition focused on reducing emissions – encompassing governments, companies, investors and everyone with a genuine commitment to tackling our climate challenge.”
After Covid 19
The Covid 19 pandemic will ensure that 2020’s emissions will be less than last years, as:
- Demand for electricity on a global basis will be some 10 to 20% below what it was in 2019,
- Transport will be reduced due to restrictions on movements of people
- Consumption of all but a few goods will be lower in 2020,
- Heating and cooling, and energy for manufacture will be lower
The reduction in emissions in 2020 could be similar to the reduction that occurred in 2009.
This was a blip and increasing emissions continued their formerly upward trend from 2010 to 2018.
A flat curve is not a reducing curve
As with everything in life, the glass can appear to be half full or it can be half empty, depending on one’s outlook.
It is to oversimplify the issues that are at stake, to talk in terms of half full or half empty. What was good about the flat emissions in 2019 was that the world actually experienced GDP growth of 2.9%. This tells us that the carbon intensity of electricity production had reduced. This is good and shows that the green electricity technologies, of wind, solar and nuclear are beginning to make themselves felt.
The bad is that carbon dioxide resides in the atmosphere for hundreds, indeed thousands of years, and any additions we make to the current amount of CO2 increases it’s concentration in the atmosphere and enhances global warming. It is premature to celebrate flatlining of global emissions. The 33 Gigatonnes emitted in 2019 is a net addition to the atmospheric concentration of CO2.
It now stands at 412 PPMV.
Shared Problems need Shared Policy
The real question for policy makers is “how can we get to net zero emissions in time to prevent the breakdown of society, by which we mean the creation of a world largely unfit for human occupation”.
Policy makers are aware that the costs associated with global warming, which really is an over-energetic atmosphere, mount with each passing year. A report published in Feb 2020, by Greenpeace Asia calculated the annual cost at $2.9 trillion or 3.3% of global GDP.
Each tonne of CO2 that is put into the atmosphere costs someone, somewhere on the planet’s surface in the order of $80. And yet with few exceptions, the polluter doesn’t pay for this damage. The big and small fossil companies get away free.
Current Renewables Contribution – a drop in the ocean but growing
The easy to build technologies, like wind and solar are capable of providing the full solution. They exist in sufficient quantity, everywhere in the world. Especially as wind and sun does not stop at the country border and neither should renewable systems built to decarbonise the globe.
Unfortunately they currently only provide a small fraction of what is needed to decarbonise. The current contribution of wind and solar to world electricity production is a mere 1.83%
There are some barriers to the more rapid rollout of wind and solar and these are the issues that have to be addressed by economists, politicians, and by the broader policy community. The simple motivating factor, apart from ceasing CO2 production, is that wind and solar are cheaper than any other way of making electricity.
The Problem – High level intent but the wrong incentive structure
The barriers fall into 3 categories
1. Logistics
- Wind and solar are variable and intermittent respectively,
- While being globally abundant, they are not present within the national boundaries of some individual countries,
- Up to now wind and solar have used spare capacity on the transmission grids that were built for another purpose, i.e. carrying power from large fossil fired plant to cities.
2. Economics
- They are forced to compete with coal and gas fired generation as if they equally polluted the world,
- The foundations of the wind and solar industries are the companies who manufacture the generation kits. Their profitability is a collective zero. Their ability to withstand an economic downturn is vanishingly small,
- Rational investors need an economic return on invested capital. Investments in renewable plant manufacturing cannot compete with oil and gas investments. JP Morgan, a heavy investor in coal fired plant, issued an advice note to investors in Oct 2019 not to invest in renewables,
- Renewable plant manufacturers, have no method of partaking in the financial benefits of pollution abatement they alone bring to the humankind.
3. Organisational
- The collective wind and solar industry, including OEMs, developers, service providers, and owners do not behave as an industry. There is no single voice that competes with the polluters. The industry looks more like a collection of project developers than a coherent industrial strategic space,
- In Europe, in particular, there is no appropriately resourced organisation at Regulator or Grid level to make best use of the resources on the doorstep, i.e. to coordinate accelerated development for wind in the adjacent seas, and for solar along the Mediterranean belt at a scale that will deliver decarbonisation
In addition the EU is under the impression that there is great scope for further wind developments on land. They seem to be suggesting that there is scope for a further 550,000MW to be built on land at a capacity factor of 50%. This claim is at some variance with reality.
There will be between 450,000 and 900,000MW built offshore in the EU and there is currently no plan whatsoever to provide a grid to transport this enormous quantity of power.
What to do?
Confront the issues with the fundamentals and deliver on the opportunity for more jobs, better quality air, free fuel, local industry and a liveable planet in 50 years.