Energy & Nuclear

Below is a graph of per capita carbon dioxide emissions for various countries around the world. Which countries have an emissions level consistent with an 80 percent reduction from the world’s current total emissions?

The answer is is Haiti and Somalia.

From Prometheus: ‘Carbon Emissions Success Stories’

Professor Ross Garnaut says that Australia should promote strong global action on climate change and be prepared to match the commitments of other developed nations. Well, 80 per cent, rather than 60, seems to be the preferred rate, so good luck!

In his Interim Climate Change Review for the Australian government Professor Ross Garnaut is looking to the world stabilising emission levels at year 2000 levels “soon after 2020”. Following this he sees a need for halving them by 2050 and reducing them to a quarter of 2000 levels by 2100.

He also considers that emissions must be based on some level of equality on a per capita basis. Realistically he recognises that there would need to be a phase to this and that population trends would need to be taken into consideration.

But, notwithstanding the cheer squad who were able to comment on detail about the report as soon as it was released, Garnaut barely scratches the surface in recognising the enormity of the task. Throw away lines like stabilisation at a uniform per capita level mask economic turmoil.

Australia’s emissions per capita are presently 16 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Largely because much of the OECD has (unlike Australia) outsourced its heavy energy intensive industries, the OECD average is 11.5 tonnes. The world average is 4.5 tonnes. Given population growth, that would have to fall to under 4 tonnes by 2030 to get to stabilisation.

In other words, to meet the level that Garnaut sees as necessary, Australia would be emitting only one quarter of its present level of CO2.

That degree of self discipline is possible only by accepting returning the economy to living standards similar to those currently experienced in the developing world. Nobody purposefully emits CO2 (though until a few years ago it was not a concern). The simple fact is that its emission is a by-product of earning income. We know of no other way to enrich ourselves and raise living standards of the poorest countries than to do so using energy and that means carboniferous sources.

As Garnaut acknowledges, easy gains in emission reductions have been made, especially with the dismantling of the command economies of the Soviet bloc and China. Those countries’ CO2 intensities have now stopped falling, in fact are rising. Indeed, China ahs already surpassed the magic 4 tonnes per capita and has only pulled a fifth of its population out of poverty. It is a pipe dream to think that Indonesia and PNG could become vast sinks to offset other countries’ emission levels. Only by foregoing the use of oil, gas and coal is it possible to reduce CO2 emissions.

For Australia this is even more difficult. Our economy is built on low cost coal based energy. Coal is also one of our most important exports. Even if we were to restructure our electricity industry so that it became fundamentally nuclear based (forget the fairies at the bottom of the garden calling for solar) we would still be twice the 4 tonnes per capita level.

And in moving to that position the corollary must be a vast jump in prices. There is no other way of ensuring the constricted use of the energy. Already in Australia with what to the environmental lobby is seen as totally inadequate measures at mitigation, prices of electricity are rising. Anticipating the measures foreshadowed the wholesale price of electricity for delivery in the first half of 2011 in Victoria and NSW is 50 per cent above present levels. And we have seen nothing yet.

Garnaut is surely correct in those of his recommendations that council gradualism and further study. He is also correct that the Kyoto agreement that all signatories including Australia have found it impossible to meet without cheating is only the start. But achieving the goal, even with the loathed nuclear future, is Mission Impossible unless some totally unexpected technical breakthrough comes along.

Alan Moran
Melbourne

Some readers of this blog may recall that Louis Hissink sometimes brings up the subject of at least some oil being ‘abiogenic’ or ‘abiotic’ rather than fossil in origin. Most of us remain sceptical of such claims, which seem to be backed by anecdotal evidence at best.

However, an article published in Science on 1st February 2008 entitled, ‘Abiogenic Hydrocarbon Production at Lost City Hydrothermal Field’ states in the Abstract that, ” Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water, and moderate amounts of heat.”

So, there is now evidence of a mechanism for the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons. This is not to say that significant amounts of oil are abiotic in origin, but it is interesting nevertheless.

Readers may also remember my recent blog post, ‘Natural Gas from Bacteria: A Renewable Resource Linked to Climate Change?’

Imagine that – oil and natural gas as renewable resources!

Following on from the rumour that the plans for the siting 181 wind turbines on the Isle of Lewis are to be rejected due to environmental concerns, offshore wind farms have come under attack for the UK’s Ministry of Defence on the grounds that turbines interfere with its radar.

The story was reported in The Times newspaper: Wind farms ‘a threat to national security’

“The MoD has lodged last-minute objections to at least four onshore wind farms in the line of sight of its stations on the east coast because they make it impossible to spot aircraft, The Times has learnt. The same objections are likely to apply to wind turbines in the North Sea, part of the massive renewable energy project announced by John Hutton, the Energy Secretary, barely two months ago. They would be directly in line with the three principal radar defence stations, Brizlee Wood, Saxton Wold and Trimingham on the Northumberland, Yorkshire and Norfolk coasts.

Giving evidence to a planning inquiry last October, a senior MoD expert said that the turbines create a hole in radar coverage so that aircraft flying overhead are not detectable. In written evidence, Squadron Leader Chris Breedon said: “This obscuration occurs regardless of the height of the aircraft, of the radar and of the turbine.” He described the discovery as alarming.”

So it seems that whether wind farms are sited onshore or offshore, they will face strong objections.

Many thanks to readers who have donated to the upkeep of the blog using the ‘donate’ button.

“To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology. (Applause.)

“Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil. Last year, I asked you to pass legislation to reduce oil consumption over the next decade, and you responded. Together we should take the next steps: Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. (Applause.)

“Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power. (Applause.) Let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future. (Applause.)

“Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases. (Applause.)

This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride. (Applause.)

The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change. And the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology. (Applause.)

To read the last ‘State of the Union’ address from US President George Bush click here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080128-13.html

According to ABC Online this represents a commitment of US$2 billion (A$2.25 billion).

Europe’s environment chief has admitted that the EU did not foresee the problems raised by its policy to get 10% of Europe’s road fuels from plants.

Recent reports have warned of rising food prices and rainforest destruction from increased biofuel production.

The EU has promised new guidelines to ensure that its target is not damaging.

BBC Website: EU rethinks biofuels guidelines