See the Tabbed Pages for links to video tutorials, and a linked list of post titles grouped by topic.

This blog is expressly directed to readers who do not have strong training or backgrounds in science, with the intent of helping them grasp the underpinnings of this important issue. I'm going to present an ongoing series of posts that will develop various aspects of the science of global warming, its causes and possible methods for minimizing its advance and overcoming at least partially its detrimental effects.

Each post will begin with a capsule summary. It will then proceed with captioned sections to amplify and justify the statements and conclusions of the summary. I'll present images and tables where helpful to develop a point, since "a picture is worth a thousand words".

Showing posts with label coal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coal. Show all posts

Friday, December 7, 2018

Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Continue Increasing

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from sources all around the globe are estimated to be increasing at a renewed, distressingly rapid, rate for 2018 to date, 2.7% for the year, after having been determined to be lower, about 1.6% for the full year of 2017. This evaluation is part of a detailed accounting of all sources of CO2 emissions and of planetary processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere.  The study is undertaken now an annual basis and reported in the “Global Carbon Budget 2018” (C. Le Quere and 70 coauthors, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 2141-2194, 2018).  The main sources of CO2 emissions are use of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) and the manufacture of cement.  The two largest factors that remove CO2 are absorption into the waters of the ocean, and plant and soil incorporation of CO2.  The net balance between all emitting and absorbing factors leads to the increase in man-made atmospheric CO2 that is the main concern when considering global warming.  The authors present the increasing trend of atmospheric CO2 in the following graphic:
 
 
Direct measurement of atmospheric CO2 concentration from 1958 to 2018. This graphic represents the difference between man-made sources of CO2 in the atmosphere and its removal by natural earth processes. The authors’ analysis shows that humanity’s use of fossil fuels is a main contributor to increased CO2, and is a main contributor to global warming.
Source: C. Le Quere and coauthors, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 2141-2194 (2018)
 
 
Why is CO2 emission such a problem?  This gas persists in the atmosphere for centuries, if not longer.  So the coal that was burned when the industrial revolution began produced CO2 that is still part of the atmosphere today, and the aggregate amount of fossil fuels we consume at present produces CO2 that will last for centuries.  The excess accumulation of CO2 shown above cannot be removed economically on the massive scale needed with currently existing technology: the annual growth of atmospheric in 2017 was 4.6±0.2billion metric tons measured as carbon/yr (or 16.8 billion metric tons measured as CO2/yr).

The increased heat-trapping ability of the additional atmospheric CO2 has alarmed scientists in the past couple of months.  They have issued two dramatic calls to action by the nations of the world (here and here) urging humanity to limit the overall rise in the long-term global average temperature to less than 1.5°C (2.7°F) by 2040 or 2050.  Voluntary national commitments were made by the members of the United Nations to reduce annual emission rates when the Paris Agreement was reached in 2015.  Even at that time, analysis of the commitments recognized that they were seriously insufficient to accomplish the limitation needed.  And in the succeeding three years, even those commitments have not been met.  This is made worse by President Trump’s intention for the U. S. to leave the Paris Agreement; the U. S. remains one of the three top annual emitters of CO2 in the world and its emissions would increase under the president’s policy.

Global warming depends on the total accumulated greenhouse gases (GHGs), not the annual emissions rate.  The heat-trapping effect of GHGs depends on their total accumulated amount in the atmosphere.  A goal of simply reducing the annual emission rate does not replace the need to stabilize the total accumulated amount as soon as possible at as low a level as possible.  As long as the emission rate is above zero, GHGs continue accumulating in the atmosphere, thereby raising the long-term global average temperature.  Only achieving zero GHG emission rates as fast as possible stabilizes the total GHG burden at the low level needed.  

This is shown in the model image below.  It assumes that we start at a value of 100 for the atmospheric GHG level.  From year 0 to year 10 the annual emission rate, shown in blue, is 4% of the amount of the previous year (in the image the rate is multiplied by 25 to scale it to 100).  Over this period the cumulative GHG amount, shown in orange, rises by the 4% amount based on the previous year’s level, resulting in a line curving upward: 
 
 

Magically, after year 10 all net atmospheric emission rates fall to zero (blue) – including those originating from electricity generation, transportation, heating and cooling, and cement manufacture. No new GHGs are added to the atmosphere.  As a result, the total accumulated GHG burden (orange) flattens out, stabilized at the year 10 level.  It’s important to note that reducing the annual emission rate to zero cannot lead to a reduction in the total atmospheric GHG level.  This idealized model illustrates the important fact that the sooner annual emission rates approach zero, the lower the stabilized GHG level will be, with the result that the long-term global average temperature likewise will stabilize at a lower value.
 
The relationship between the accumulated GHG level and the  global average temperature.  The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, issued in 2013-2014, modeled the relationship between total accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere and modeled temperature increases (referred to the value during the early industrial revolution (1861-1880)).  The modeling included four “scenarios”, ranging from the most stringent (zero annual emission rate after 2030-2040; shown in navy blue in the image below), to a “business as usual” scenario (no meaningful policy to reduce emission rates; shown in red below).
 

Historical (black; 1870-2010) and modeled (2010-2100) temperatures (°C) projected for four “scenarios” of differing trends for man-made CO2 concentrations with greatest to essentially no limitations on annual emission rates.  Data point dots are given every 10 years.  The most stringent (navy blue) falls to a near zero emission rate by 2030-2040; the light blue and orange lines are progressively less stringent, and the red line models the absence of meaningful constraints on emission rates.

 
 
Three important conclusions emerge from the modeling shown.  First, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at any point along the horizontal axis does not depend on the scenario, that is, it is independent of the annual emission rate.  Second, all four scenarios follow more or less the same path along the CO2-temperature relationship.  This dependence is nearly a linear one: the higher the CO2 level in the atmosphere, the higher the projected temperature.  Indeed, the most stringent scenario (navy blue) shows no significant increase in CO2 level between 2050 and 2100 (those points are all bunched together in the image) and consequently no further increase in projected temperature in those decades.  This projection mirrors the results in the model image shown further above.  Conversely, the unconstrained scenario (red) continues to emit CO2 to 2100, leading to a drastic temperature increase of more than 4.5°C (8.1°F) by the end of the century, a truly frightening possibility.
 
Third, bringing annual emission rates to near zero does not reduce the accumulated CO2 level after reaching a plateau, nor does this lower the projected global average temperature.  It only keeps the CO2 level and the temperature stabilized.  

Many countries in the world are not fulfilling the pledges they made under the Paris Agreement.  The New York Times reports,  based on the most recent evaluation by the International Energy Agency, that major emitting countries around the world, including China and India, are continuing to build new coal-fired electricity plants instead of migrating to renewable energy on the scale needed. In fact, China and Japan are exporting them, building new coal plants in many developing countries.  The United States is reneging on its emissions-reducing policies put in place under former President Obama, and is opening federal lands to new fossil fuel extracting leases.  France is showing how difficult  the political scene is for pursuing policies to address global warming; rioting citizens are opposing a small, scheduled increase in taxes on vehicle fuels.

Conclusion 

This post demonstrates that continuing to emit GHGs at high annual rates inexorably adds to higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere, which leads to higher long-term global average temperatures in a straight-line fashion.  Currently there are no technologies ready to be deployed at scale to remove CO2 from emitting facilities or from the air, and permanently to store it away from the atmosphere.  Only reducing annual emission rates to near zero in the coming two decades, according to the two reports cited at the outset, (some advocate an even shorter schedule) will keep the world from entering a regime of unacceptably high global average temperatures.  All stakeholders need to coalesce around this objective to achieve this goal. 

© 2018 Henry Auer











 













 













Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Shipping Coal Abroad Is Banned by Oakland, California

 
The city of Oakland California has unanimously turned down permitting of a large coal transshipping terminal on its waterfront.  Earlier, an even larger terminal project in Washington State was rejected because it would have infringed Native American rights.

In view of the undisputed and urgent need to limit the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, governments at all levels, local, state or provincial, and national, must act to limit greenhouse gas emissions.  The action by Oakland is fully consistent with, indeed was driven by, this necessity for action.
 

Oakland, California.  Development of an export terminal in the city of Oakland, California for the shipment of American coal to China and other overseas users was unanimously rejected by the Oakland City Council on June 27, 2016 (The New York Times, June 29, 2016 ).  The coal is being mined in Utah and other western states.

A principal reason for voting the terminal down was that it, and thereby the city, would be facilitating the worsening of global warming and rising sea levels.  This would have been the consequence as the coal was burned in the destination countries if the terminal were allowed to operate.  Coal is the worst of the fossil fuels from this regard, emitting almost twice as much carbon dioxide (CO2), a major greenhouse gas, as natural gas.  The Oakland City Council understood that, once emitted, CO2 is distributed worldwide in the atmosphere, worsening the effects of global warming for all nations, not just the country burning the coal.

During the Council’s deliberations one of the developer’s lawyers called the city’s concerns that coal exported from Oakland would increase emissions of CO2 “nonsensical and absurd” because foreign power plants could obtain their fuel elsewhere if it were not shipped from Oakland.  The lawyer also argued that by Oakland’s reasoning, “the city would have to hold gas station owners responsible for greenhouse gas emissions from cars that refuel at their facility”.

The State of Washington.  In May 2016 the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers denied the permit for what would have been the world’s largest coal shipping terminal to be constructed 90 miles north of Seattle, Washington.  The Corps found that treaties between the U. S. and Native Americans governing use of their lands and waterways preserve their rights for fishing.  The terminal’s facilities would have endangered these rights.  The coal for this terminal would have originated in the states of Montana and Wyoming.  Cities along the rail route to the intended terminal also raised concerns over possible disasters from derailments, especially in urban areas crossed by the railroad.

Domestic American demand for coal has been declining for many years.  A major use for coal has been in generation of electricity, but utilities have spontaneously switched to natural gas because it is cheaper than coal and is more efficient in generating electricity.  In April 2015 31% of electricity generation was fueled by natural gas, exceeding use of coal, at 30%, for the first time.  As seen in the following graphic, the proportional use of coal in generating electricity has been falling steadily since 1988, during the administration of President Reagan.  It has fallen more sharply since about 2008, as natural gas became more abundant and cheaper as a result of hydraulic fracturing.

For decades, coal has been the dominant energy source for generating electricity in the United States. EIA's Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) is now forecasting that 2016 will be the first year that natural gas-fired generation exceeds coal generation in the United States on an annual basis.
Source: U. S. Energy Information Agency. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=25392

 
As a result of the decreased demand for coal in the U. S. American producers have sought to sell their product abroad.  Even so, Peabody Energy, the coal mining company that was a major sponsor of the Washington State terminal project, filed for bankruptcy in April 2016.  Arch Coal, a mining company that had been backing yet another terminal project on the Columbia River, the border between the states of Washington and Oregon, declared bankruptcy in January 2016.

Foreign demand for coal.  In addition to falling domestic demand, foreign demand for coal is also falling.  China imported 33.7% less coal in June 2015 than a year earlier, due to decreased Chinese demand.  Other factors contributing to falling demand for U. S. coal exports include a stronger U. S. dollar, which makes foreign coal purchases from the U. S. more expensive, and the fact that other sources of coal, such as Australia and Indonesia, are closer to China.

Discussion

The decision by the Oakland City Council is a principled action that recognizes the need for all jurisdictions, local, state or provincial, and national, to take positive steps to reduce annual rates of emission to near zero as soon as possible.  This need is based on the fact that most CO2, once emitted into the atmosphere, resides there for centuries or longer; there is no natural mechanism that removes it from the air.  Therefore the total accumulated amount of CO2 keeps increasing as long as the rate of emission is higher than zero. 

The need to achieve near-zero rates of emission was recognized early, for example, by the California Science and Technology Council.  It has been reasserted in the strongest of terms in the most recent findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its Fifth Assessment Report.  This necessity was embraced by almost all countries of the world in the United Nations-sponsored Paris Agreement of December 2015.  In fact this necessity is precisely why, ultimately, the argument of the Oakland terminal’s proponent, that gasoline service stations promote further global warming, is correct!  In the not too distant future service stations will be charging electric cars and providing hydrogen for fuel cell-driven cars.

The developer of the Oakland terminal project presented a false argument.  It stated that denying the terminal was useless because foreign customers could obtain coal from other sources.  This argument is morally wrong, indeed empty, because it seeks incorrectly to place blame on future emissions from coal obtained other than by shipping through Oakland back on the city.  Every jurisdiction must act in the interests of its citizens and those of others affected by its decisions.  Given the worldwide effects of CO2 emissions regardless of where it is emitted, facilitating further emissions instead of resisting them damages all humanity.  This author has commented in the same way when the exact same argument was used by TransCanada, the proponent of the XL oil pipeline.
Oakland’s action was needed especially because the U. S. Congress has perennially failed to legislate a pathway to reducing emission rates or to accede to international agreements to do so.  That leaves American states and cities to act to fill the void.  And indeed, many states and localities are doing so.  This will continue, addressing imminent needs, at least until Congress acts, and perhaps even after in complementary ways.

© 2016 Henry Auer

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

President Obama’s Clean Power Plan to Reduce Emissions


The Administration’s Clean Power Plan will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electric power industry over the next fifteen years.
 
Global warming affects all humankind.  Changing weather patterns, consisting of greater and more frequent weather extremes have become more and more common in recent years and decades.  Around the world, extreme rains and floods, droughts and unprecedented sea level rise have occurred in ways that we are now accepting as being “new normals” of weather which humanity did not experience in earlier years.  While we cannot point to individual events as being caused by global warming, the frequency of occurrence and patterns around the world are all consistent with the predictions that global warming will worsen extremes of weather and climate going forward.  The warming arises because of humanity’s burning of fossil fuels for energy as well as from other human activities, not from any natural cycling of climate patterns.

Relative effectiveness of fossil fuels.  Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the principal greenhouse gas contributing to global warming.  The fossil fuels used to produce energy yield different amounts of heat per weight of CO2 resulting from combustion.  This is a consequence of the intrinsic chemical properties of each fuel, and cannot be changed by engineering or ingenuity.  These differences are shown in this table: 

           Relative Emission Efficiency of Fuels  
 
 

 Fuel
Relative amount of CO2 released per unit of heat obtained, compared to natural gas

 Natural gas

1.00

 Petroleum (fuel oil,  gasoline)

1.55-1.61

 Coal

2.00-2.03
                     Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion

The table shows that burning coal produces twice as much CO2 as does natural gas when burned for energy.  (Other references give slightly different numbers without affecting this overall conclusion.)  In other words, use of coal as a fuel, say, for generating electricity, releases twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere as does burning natural gas to obtain the same amount of heat, i.e., to generate the same amount of electricity.  If humankind is concerned about minimizing the worsening of global warming, we would benefit greatly by reducing the use of all fossil fuels, and especially coal.
 
Coal demands of electric generation.  A typical coal-fired electricity generating plant has a power capacity in the megawatt (MW) range.  To have this capacity, it burns large amounts of coal.  The largest coal-fired plant in the U. S. is the Robert W. Scherer Power Plant in Juliette, Georgia .  When operating to capacity, the facility burns almost 1,300 tons of coal every hour, or 11 million tons a year.  The coal used at Scherer comes from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.  It is transported by train to the plant, a trip of 1,800 miles.  The coal arrives in trains 124 cars long; such a train can reach as long as two miles in length.  A picture of a coal train is shown here.


     http://tcktcktck.org/2014/02/coal-train-photo/

The Scherer facility consumes 3-5 such trainloads of coal every day.  When burned, this coal yields 27 million tons of carbon dioxide annually.  The facility has four separate generating units, each with a capacity of 880 MW.   So smaller facilities might use perhaps one-quarter, or one-half, for example, of the amount of coal that the Scherer plant uses. Overall, the U. S. has about 1,000 fossil fuel-fired generating plants, and, since many plants have more than one generator, a total of about 3,100 generating units that fall under the CPP.
 
The U. S. Clean Power Plan.  President Obama heralded the release of the Final Rule for the Administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) on August 3, 2015.  The proposed rule was released over one year earlier and is described here.  The CPP addresses greenhouse gas emissions, primarily CO2, produced by electricity generation in the U. S.  Emissions from this sector of the energy economy are a main component of overall greenhouse gas emissions in the U. S.
 
Over 4.3 million comments from stakeholders and the public on the proposed rule were received by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), many of whose considerations were incorporated in the Final Rule. 
 
The CPP’s goal is to reduce emissions from electricity generation by 32% below the levels of 2005 by the year 2030.  Importantly, the plan does not dictate how these goals are to be met.  Rather, it recognizes that the features of each state’s generation infrastructure differ from one another.  As a result, the specific reduction goal for each state has been assigned differently to account for these distinctions.  In addition, each state is given the responsibility of devising its own specific plan for attaining its particular reduction goal.  Among the general paths to reducing emissions, the CPP names retrofitting existing power plants, eliminating noncompliant power plants, and installing renewable energy facilities.   Additionally, states can trade emission allowances among themselves to help attain their objectives.
 
Opposition to CPP.  Legislative and industrial opponents of the CPP began expressing their concerns as soon as the Final Rule was issued.  Here are some arguments being presented.
 
The CPP is illegal or even unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency and others (2007) interpreted the Clean Air Act, originally passed in 1970, as including the authority to regulate CO2 as an atmospheric pollutant if EPA found it to endanger the welfare of American citizens.  Following up on the Supreme Court’s decision, EPA did subsequently find that the gas threatens the health and welfare of Americans, and of our environment, in 2009.  As a result of this finding, EPA has the legal authority to regulate CO2 emissions.
 
To the knowledge of this writer the question of the constitutionality of this rulemaking power is not being considered by the courts at this time.
 
Opponents have called the CPP a “War on Coal”.  In doing so they seek to place the burden of reorganization of the electricity generating industry on President Obama and his administration.  Use of coal in generating electricity has been declining for more than a decade, as has been the number of working coal miners.  A graphic representing the decreasing use of coal is shown here:

Comparison of the use of coal (blue bars) and natural gas (red bars) from 2002 to 2012. 
Source: http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/nat-gas-takes-market-share-coal.jpg?00cfb7

 
The graphic shows that the percent share of use of coal in electricity generation has been declining since well before President Obama took office in January 2009.  Perhaps opponents may wish to call this finding “Bush’s War on Coal” (not appropriate) or “Capitalism’s War on Coal”.  In fact the principal factor underlying the diminishing role of coal, and the increasing percent share of use of natural gas, is the growing availability of gas in the U. S. due to the increased use of hydraulic fracturing to produce it.  This has resulted in higher gas production and a lowering of its cost.  The increased availability of natural gas began during the administration of President George W. Bush. 
 
In spite of the increasing layoffs among Appalachian coal miners, the Congressional delegations from these areas appear not have their interests high on their agendas.  Only Rep. David McKinley, Republican of West Virginia, teaming with Rep. Peter Welch, Democrat of Vermont (not a coal mining state), offered a bill for assistance to miners, in Sept. 2014.  Additional searching does not show that this initiative progressed further in Congress.  President Obama’s administration, however, granted $7.5 million in June 2014 to Eastern Kentucky Concentrated Employment Program Inc. to help retrain out-of-work Kentucky miners.   This action is not consistent with a supposed Administration “War on Coal”.

Clearly market forces expected in a capitalist economy are responsible for the declining share in the use of coal.  The CPP does not institutionalize a “War on Coal”, but in view of the profoundly higher rate of emission of CO2 resulting from its use (see above), the Plan is likely to lead to further reductions in coal use.
 
The CPP will produce only an insignificant decrease in global emissions.  This writer heard this argument expressed on the National Public Radio program “Here & Now” on August 4, 2015.  Such statements are not supported by the facts.  The U. S. is a major global emitter of greenhouse gases, and the CPP alone has the potential of reducing U. S. emissions by almost 10%.  In addition, representatives from all United Nations members are convening in December 2015 to finalize a global agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions from all members.  A rigorous stand by the U. S. at the domestic level will enhance its ability to obtain meaningful reductions from other nations.  This is a very important factor going forward.

Conclusions
 
Coal is a major fossil fuel used in electric power generation, but results in twice the greenhouse gas emissions per amount of heat generated than the other major fossil fuel, natural gas.  The Obama administration has issued its CPP which would reduce emissions by 32% below 2005 levels by 2030.  This is a significant emission reduction program.  Coupled with the Administration’s regulation to increase transportation fuel efficiency by almost a factor of two by 2025 it will have a major effect on the energy economy of the U. S.

© 2015 Henry Auer

Thursday, September 11, 2014

China Plans a Nationwide Carbon Market

China recently confirmed its plan to place the entire nation under a carbon market (cap-and-trade regime) to lower its annual rate of emitting carbon dioxide (CO2), the important greenhouse gas, beginning in 2016.
 
  • China intends to continue lowering its carbon intensity, i.e., the amount of CO2 emitted for each US$ of gross domestic product (GDP) that the economy produces.
 
  • The goal is to reduce the carbon intensity by 40-45% below the 2005 value by 2020.  Averaged over this 15-year period, this corresponds to a reduction of 2.7-3% per year.  This can arise from increased efficiencies in energy production and use from fossil fuels, and by increased production of energy from renewable sources.
 
  • While this accomplishment would be highly significant, the objective does not directly address China’s total CO2 emission rate.
 
  • China’s net annual rate of emitting CO2 is projected to grow between 2014 and 2040, with much of the increase occurring in the period up to 2020 (see the graphic below).
 
Global projected energy-related carbon dioxide emission rates per year to 2040.  RED, China.  OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, representing already industrialized countries of the world; “rest of OECD” excludes the U. S.  Non-OECD represents developing countries of the world; “rest of non-OECD” excludes China and India.
 
 
  • The average growth rate for China’s energy-related CO2 emissions from 2010 to 2020 is about 5.3% per year, comparable to the growth in overall energy consumption, about 5.5% per year.  Note that these objective data already reflect any improvements in carbon intensity.
 
  • The national carbon market envisioned for China would be far larger than any other carbon market operating in the world today.
 
Significance
 
Cap-and-trade systems are one of two principal strategies for limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (especially CO2); the other is a direct tax on carbon-containing fuels.  Cap-and-trade regimes limit emissions by capping each year’s allowed amount of GHG emissions, and lowering the cap each year.  Low-efficiency facilities can acquire more allowances from more efficient ones by trading on an open market or exchange, thus establishing a price for emissions. 
 
A small number of cap-and-trade regimes exists already.  They have varying degrees of effectiveness.  The European Union’s Emission Trading System was highly ineffective for several years because it distributed too large a number of allowances.  The U. S. has not enacted any federal law regulating GHG emissions.  Recently, however, President Obama’s administration has raised efficiency requirements for vehicles and has issued draft rules limiting emissions from electric power plants.  The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, in nine northeastern American states, operates an effective system, but one which is limited both in its goals and because it applies only to large electric power generators.  The state of California is implementing a significant cap-and-trade regime covering its entire energy economy. 
 
As noted above, China’s national cap-and-trade system will be the largest in the world by far.
 
China has been the world’s largest emitter of GHGs since 2009.   China is projected to dramatically increase its overall energy consumption over the period 2010-2040, continuing its rapid growth in use of energy in recent years (see the graphic below).  Most is supplied by fossil fuels.
 

Annual rates of energy usage for China, the U. S. and India.  Actual use up to 2010; projected usage thereafter.  1 quadrillion = 1 million billion.  Btu, British thermal unit.
Source: U. S. Energy Information Administration; http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_07252013.pdf (slide 5).
 
The drastic increase in China’s energy consumption in recent years has resulted in a corresponding growth in its annual rate of CO2 emissions.  Projecting forward over the period 2010-2040 the Energy Information Administration believes the emissions growth rate will average about 2.1% per year.
 
A major factor contributing to China’s high rates of CO2 emissions is its reliance on coal to provide almost 70% of its energy.  Of all the fossil fuels, burning coal emits 50% to 90% more CO2 than the others in order to obtain the same amount of heat energy.
 
China’s Five Year Plans (FYPs) have programmed in the changes detailed here. 
According to the report “Delivering Low Carbon Growth – A Guide to the 12th Five Year Plan, during the 12th FYP, covering 2011-2015, the carbon intensity was to improve by 17%, and the 13th FYP (2016-2020) already included the reduction of 40-45% with respect to the carbon intensity of 2005 mentioned at the outset.  The proportion of energy provided by non-fossil fuels is to be 11.4% in the 12th FYP and 15.0% in the 13th FYP.  The actual increase in primary energy consumption was 6.3% per year in the 11th FYP, and intended to be 3.75-5% in the 12th FYP.
 
Market-based incentives.  Already during the 12th FYP China set up 7 regional and provincial pilot cap-and-trade projects, placing limits on CO2 emissions.  The experience gained from these pilots is to provide useful background for setting up the nationwide system.
 
China and other developing countries, together with developed countries, have to agree to meaningful reductions in the world’s GHG emissions that are currently being negotiated under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.  China, for one, has emphasized its achievements in lowering its carbon intensity, even though its use of fossil fuels has been increasing resulting in increased annual rates of GHG emissions.   Agreement on a new emissions treaty is intended during 2015, and it is foreseen to enter into force by 2020.  All nations of the world should approach these negotiations in good faith, and strive to achieve agreement on meaningful reductions in GHG emissions.

© 2014 Henry Auer

Friday, September 6, 2013

China Considers Programs to Limit Greenhouse Gas Emissions


Summary.  The world’s use of energy is expanding.  Much of this demand is concentrated in developing countries of the world, especially China.  Their energy needs are furnished primarily by fossil fuels, leading to high annual rates of emission of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, increasing in China historically by 6.4% per year.  Coal is its principal fuel.

Jiang Kejun, a scientist at China’s Energy Research Institute, is urging its national energy policymakers to limit CO2 emissions more aggressively by emphasizing expanded renewable energy sources and energy efficiency.  Mr. Jiang notes that “time for effective action is very limited.”

The drastic, yet feasible, measures promoted by Mr. Jiang are resisted by energy and industrial interests in China, since they adversely affect China’s economic growth rate and threaten the viability of existing energy investments.  In the meantime, China is starting a handful of pilot projects using a cap-and-trade emissions market to limit emissions.  Additionally a carbon tax and direct limits on emissions are also under consideration.

Since China is a major contributor to increased greenhouse gas emissions, it is important that it undertake all feasible policies to limit them.  Global warming from manmade greenhouse gases is indeed a worldwide problem, requiring a global approach to solve it.  The total accumulated level of atmospheric greenhouse gases must be stabilized by reducing annual emission rates toward zero.


Introduction.  The worldwide demand for energy has been increasing relentlessly throughout the period of industrialization.  Most of this energy is provided by burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) which results in corresponding increases in the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide (CO2), a significant and prominent greenhouse gas (GHG).  Combustion of fossil fuels is projected to continue increasing by several percent annually over the coming decades in the absence of meaningful worldwide efforts to minimize GHG emissions.

The annual emissions rate among industrialized countries of the world has been increasing very slowly in the last 10 years or so, because of both intrinsic economic factors and as a result of various reduction policies put in place.  Almost all the increase in the worldwide GHG emissions rate originates from developing countries, especially China, India, Brazil and Russia.  This results from the compounded effects of large populations and high rates of economic expansion as these countries strive to attain middle class living conditions.

This post focuses on actual and proposed policy changes in China that are intended to slow its rate of emitting GHGs.  China has the highest population of any country in the world, and its people are rapidly becoming more prosperous, placing great pressure on its economy to provide them a middle class life style.  These factors are shared across all the rapidly growing developing countries such as those listed above.

China’s economy has been expanding rapidly in recent years.  For the decade 1999-2009 the annualized growth rate of China’s economy (measured as real gross domestic product) was 10.3%.  This has slowed in the most recent years; China expects its growth rate to be 7.5% in 2013.  Such strong growth is necessarily fueled by corresponding growth rates in its use of energy, most of which comes from burning fossil fuels.  For example, the graphic below shows that most of China’s electricity has been generated from fossil fuels (turquoise shading).


Annual electrical energy generated for major input sources of energy.
Source: http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=CH

 
In 2011, according to the U. S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 65% of electric generation and 70% of its total energy use was powered by coal, the fossil fuel that produces about twice as much CO2 per unit of electric energy obtained as natural gas, which supplied 3% of its energy.  Among renewable sources, 22% of electric power was obtained from hydropower (brown shading), 6% from wind power and only 0.2% from solar.

China’s domestic production of coal increased 9% from 2010 to 2011, becoming the world’s largest producer; including imports China alone consumes half the world’s coal output.  According to the Huffington Post, China brings a new coal-fired power plant on line every 7-10 days.  In addition to electricity generation, coal powers much of China’s industrial production.

By 2020, China seeks to provide 15% of its energy from renewable sources.  Hydropower will supply most of this, with wind power being next. 

China is expected to dramatically increase its overall energy consumption over 2010-2040, continuing its rapid growth in use of energy in recent years (see the graphic below).
 
 

Annual rates of energy usage for China, the U. S. and India.  Actual use up to 2010; projected usage thereafter.  1 quadrillion = 1 million billion.
Source: http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_07252013.pdf (slide 5).

 
As China has drastically expanded its energy consumption in recent years, so too has its annual rate of CO2 emissions correspondingly.  In 2010 it emitted 7,885 million metric tons of CO2 (1 metric ton = ~1.1 U. S. (short) ton).  This represents the culmination of an average increase in annual emissions rate of 6.4%.  Projecting forward to the period 2010-2040 the EIA believes the emissions growth rate will fall to 2.1% per year.

It is clear from this background that any international effort to limit global warming by reducing GHG emissions must include China, as well as other developing countries whose emissions rates are increasing. 

Recent Efforts by China to Lower Its GHG Emissions Rate.  The rapid expansion of fossil fuel-driven electricity generation, automobile use and heavy industry in China has led in recent years to severe air pollution in Beijing and other large urban centers.  The New York Times reported on Aug. 31, 2013 that one environmental scientist, Jiang Kejun, working at the Energy Research Institute, is urging the national energy policymakers to limit CO2 emissions more aggressively than at present.  He is taking advantage of the growing tide of public concern over urban air pollution, which is causing China’s leaders to support “firmer, faster measures for cleaner air” that likely include reducing emissions.   With this change in public opinion behind him, Mr. Jiang and his colleagues advocate a program by which China’s annual emissions rate should reach a maximum by about 2025, and according to which that maximum would be lower than previously predicted.  It advocates more intensive emphasis on developing renewable energy sources, implementing energy efficiency technologies, optimizing China’s economic structure, technology innovation, low-carbon investments, and development and deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS, see an earlier post and the Note at the end of this post).

Mr. Jiang, like most climate scientists, recognizes that “time for effective action is very limited.”  It still remains for Chinese policymakers to adopt such aggressive measures.  The Times report notes instead that other, less drastic, policies are being implemented or contemplated.  A pilot project is setting up a cap-and-trade emissions market in Shenzhen.  Six more pilots are planned to start by 2015.  The affected emissions are only a miniscule portion of China’s total amount.  Other proposals, not yet implemented, include a tax on carbon dioxide emissions and guiding limits on emission rates.

Growth vs. Emissions Limits.  China’s government has to balance its decades-old imperative of rapidly expanding its economy with the newer considerations of constraining emissions from fossil fuels.  Expansion has relied on conventional technologies that are fossil fuel-intensive; such facilities have useful service lifetimes of several decades and continue to emit GHGs throughout this period.  Policies constraining GHG emissions threaten the investments made in these facilities, since they may have to be extensively retrofitted or removed from service to accommodate emissions limitations.  Even so, over the past decade or so the government has successfully adopted a policy of increasing China’s economic emissions efficiency, the weight of CO2 released in producing a unit national gross domestic product.  This measure has been reduced significantly over this period, by 2-4% per year.  Nevertheless, since fossil fuel energy demand grows annually by an even larger percentage (see above), China’s net CO2 emissions continue to increase in spite of gains in efficiency.

Analysis

Global warming refers to the increase in the long-term (annual to decadic) worldwide average temperature above the temperature before the industrial revolution.  It is directly related to total accumulated level of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere, not to the annual rate of worldwide GHG emissions.  CO2 in particular, once emitted, persists in the atmosphere for a century or even longer.  There is no natural mechanism that depletes atmospheric CO2 in this short a time frame.  Therefore even if the countries of the world agree to lower emission rates, GHGs continue to accumulate, until the effective rate approaches zero.  The long-term average worldwide temperature will continue increasing throughout this period, and will stabilize at a new, higher temperature when emissions rates fall toward zero.

Global warming is just that, a worldwide phenomenon that merits international attention.  Countries whose emission rates continue increasing (see the graphic above) are of special concern; this includes large sources in developing countries such as China and others.

The worsening crisis of urban air pollution in China’s major cities appears to be the trigger leading China’s leaders to contemplate putting emissions limits in place.  The corresponding crisis of global warming itself apparently has been insufficient so far to lead to a similar intensification of effort, in spite of harmful extreme weather events occurring in China and elsewhere in Asia.  Such events are at least made worse by, if not wholly due to, the adverse effects of global warming.  Mr. Jiang’s programs, if approved for action, should make a major contribution to reducing China’s GHG emission rate. 

As we grapple with the need to limit GHG emissions in order to stabilize global warming we should understand that abating emissions may be considered a zero-sum enterprise.  When contemplating investing in new energy facilities either we  can continue building conventional facilities (fossil fuel generating plants; fossil fuel-powered cars) with need to expand fuel pipelines and transporting fuels, or we can build renewable energy facilities coupled with new electric transmission lines (providing the energy for electric-powered modes of transportation).  Choosing renewable energy contributes to lowering emissions rates, preserves economic activity and maintains the demand for labor. 

It is strongly recommended to develop renewable energy whenever the choice confronts us.

Note

Carbon capture and storage is an experimental technology, currently operational yet open to improvement, that captures CO2 from fixed power facilities, compresses it and forces it into underground reservoirs intended to retain it for thousands of years.  As such it is particularly suited for deployment in China, since coal fuels so much of its electricity generation.  Unfortunately, currently there are only four pilot scale CCS projects in China, far fewer than elsewhere in the world.  Not all of them are directly related to capturing and storing CO2 emissions from power generation.  If CCS technology becomes operational, each power plant would incorporate it and deliver the resulting CO2 into stable geological storage sites.

© 2013 Henry Auer