Skip to content

A Surge In Renewable Energy?

March 20, 2016
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood 

 

image

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/16/surge-in-renewable-energy-stalls-world-greenhouse-gas-emissions

 

A rather breathless headline from the failing Guardian, but the truth is rather more mundane, as the IEA explain:

 

 

Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) – the largest source of man-made greenhouse gas emissions – stayed flat for the second year in a row, according to analysis of preliminary data for 2015 released today by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

“The new figures confirm last year’s surprising but welcome news: we now have seen two straight years of greenhouse gas emissions decoupling from economic growth,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. “Coming just a few months after the landmark COP21 agreement in Paris, this is yet another boost to the global fight against climate change.”

 

160316_CO2_gr

 

Global emissions of carbon dioxide stood at 32.1 billion tonnes in 2015, having remained essentially flat since 2013. The IEA preliminary data suggest that electricity generated by renewables played a critical role, having accounted for around 90% of new electricity generation in 2015; wind alone produced more than half of new electricity generation. In parallel, the global economy continued to grow by more than 3%, offering further evidence that the link between economic growth and emissions growth is weakening.

In the more than 40 years in which the IEA has been providing information on CO2emissions, there have been only four periods in which emissions stood still or fell compared to the previous year. Three of those – the early 1980s, 1992 and 2009 – were associated with global economic weakness. But the recent stall in emissions comes amid economic expansion: according to the International Monetary Fund, global GDP grew by 3.4% in 2014 and 3.1% in 2015.

The two largest emitters, China and the United States, both registered a decline in energy-related CO2 in 2015. In China, emissions declined by 1.5%, as coal use dropped for the second year in a row. The economic restructuring towards less energy-intensive industries and the government’s efforts to decarbonise electricity generation pushed coal use down. In 2015, coal generated less than 70% of Chinese electricity, ten percentage points less than four years ago (in 2011). Over the same period low-carbon sources jumped from 19% to 28%, with hydro and wind accounting for most of the increase. In the United States, emissions declined by 2%, as a large switch from coal to natural gas use in electricity generation took place.

The decline observed in the two major emitters was offset by increasing emissions in most other Asian developing economies and the Middle East, and also a moderate increase in Europe.

More details on the data and analysis will be included in a World Energy Outlook special report on energy and air quality that will be released at the end of June. The report will go beyond CO2 emissions and will provide a first in-depth analysis of the role the energy sector plays in air pollution, a crucial policy issue that today results in 7 million premature deaths a year. The report will provide the outlook for emissions and their impact on health, and provide policy makers with strategies to mitigate energy-related air pollution in the short and long term.

http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2016/march/decoupling-of-global-emissions-and-economic-growth-confirmed.html

 

It really is much too early to come to any conclusions – these are provisional figures, and no detailed data on energy, renewables or anything else has been provided by the IEA, other than the CO2 figures.

But the first thing that has to be said is that the global growth figure quoted of 3.1% is in fact low by recent standards. It is therefore misleading to suggest that growth and emissions have become decoupled.

Since the turn of the century, global growth rates of 5% were common until the recession hit. Since the economic recovery in 2010 however, the norm seems to have subsided to more like 3%. My view is that the days of 5% growth are long gone.

 

 

As I say, it is too early to look at detail, but talk of a surge in renewables is wide of the mark. We had a similar situation a year ago, and the BP Energy Review stats for 2014 put matters into proper perspective.

As the IEA point out, global emissions of CO2 barely increased in 2014 either, rising by just 0.5%. As the graph below shows, there was certainly no surge in renewables. Primary energy consumption rose by 0.9%.

Renewables, including hydro, accounted for less than half of this rise. It is arguable that without these CO2 emissions would have risen by 0.9%, rather than 0.5%. The difference is hardly earth shattering.

It is unlikely that situation in 2015 will be much different.

 

image

image

http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

 

 

There should be little surprise about these numbers.With a slowing global economy, gradual shift away from coal to gas and the maturing of the Chinese economy to a less energy intensive one, the slow down in CO2 was inevitable.

The real issue is that current emissions are still way above 1990 levels, which we were told at the time were already far too high. Just look again at the IEA graph:

 

160316_CO2_gr

 

Since 1990, emissions of CO2 have risen from 20.62 to 32.14 Gt. A few windmills won’t make much of a dent in that.

15 Comments leave one →
  1. March 20, 2016 12:34 pm

    Even with good measures of fuels consumption, estimating CO2 emissions is fraught with uncertainty. The base is +/- 5%, and goes much higher with less than excellent process controls.

    The CO2 emissions estimating protocol is here:
    http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/tools/Quantitative%20Uncertainty%20Guidance.pdf

    This gem is buried in the notes of the above document:
    Note that the uncertainty of the global warming potential (GWP) for the six GHG Protocol gasses is assumed to be ± 35% for the 90% confidence interval (see Section 7.2).

    As I have said before, the best test is to compare fuel consumption itself with temperature changes:

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/claim-fossil-fuels-cause-global-warming/

  2. March 20, 2016 12:46 pm

    We can see where this is headed. When the reality of the temperature pause is admitted by activists, it will take the form of crediting renewables for stopping global warming.

    • March 20, 2016 1:34 pm

      Easily refuted by showing the linearly rising Mauno Loa atmospheric CO2 data, maybe one reason why such data does not feature heavily on renewables propaganda sites.

      • March 20, 2016 1:38 pm

        That is why I want to keep the focus on use of fossil fuels, without the complications of estimating CO2 emissions, and attributing causes of rising atmospheric CO2.

    • March 20, 2016 4:54 pm

      Beat me to it!

  3. Ex-expat Colin permalink
    March 20, 2016 1:30 pm

    Last Night BBC 4…Follow the Money (two episodes)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b072hbbl/follow-the-money-episode-1

    Danish drama series set in the world of economic crime in the banks, on the stock exchanges, and in the boardrooms. It is the story of speculators, swindlers, corporate moguls and the crimes they commit in their hunt for wealth.

    The crime type? Wind farm building and related energy trading (fiddling) in Denmark.

    Odd that the BBC buys into this and about the very stuff they…ummm…commend?

  4. March 20, 2016 2:40 pm

    I’ve got to know two people over the past two years working at the highest level to “save” the world economy from collapsing. From their accounts it won’t take much to knock everything over. I wonder should this happen whether the green brigade will dare claim victory over CO2 emissions when so many will be out of a job

  5. March 20, 2016 3:03 pm

    This aggressive lying deployed by the Guardian and their chums isn’t going to go away anytime soon – the deep pockets of the Scott Trust sees to that.

    Oh and it’s another morsel of agitprop squeezed out by John Vidal who’s vying to be the top dog scaremongering scumbucket in a crowded race at GMG.

  6. March 20, 2016 3:12 pm

    For global warming activists, the last 18 years of slow to no temperature rise is not significant but the last month is. For CO2 use, the first 24 years of growth is not significant but the last 2 of slow or no growth is.

    Confirmation bias, anyone?

    • David Richardson permalink
      March 20, 2016 5:00 pm

      Thank you Douglas – I was just about to use the CB phrase myself. Yes confirmation bias is rife and some of it is just intentional blindness, some of it is straw-grasping, and some of it is just pure propaganda in the ongoing war.

      The main thing is for those of us of a realist nature with a sceptical view to ensure that we do not ourselves fall victim to seeing confirmation where none exists.

      I think the main criteria is whether you are happy to think model data trumps (sorry) real world data, and whether you are happy to alter real world data to more closely fit your model.

  7. March 20, 2016 3:32 pm

    The IPCC and many scientists are blaming CO2 as responsible for global warming. On the other hand, other scientists, including those who have signed the „Oregon Petition”, claim that: „there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate”. This is the moment when I wonder where’s the truth, since those ideas are not satisfactory enough for me….

    • Tom O permalink
      March 21, 2016 8:34 pm

      “Which” ideas are not satisfactory enough? Blatantly saying carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming, or saying there is no convincing evidence that isn’t the case? Exactly what do you want? A psychic to sit down before their crystal ball and to “proclaim” there is no such thing as AGW? Would you accept Jesus Christ walking up to you and saying “there is no AGW?” It sounds to me like no matter what, you will accept nothing, evidence or experiment, that doesn’t say “there is no AGW,” but you will accept unsupported proclamations that there is.

      • March 23, 2016 1:26 pm

        I don’t agree agressivity (neither verbal), so I won’t start arguing…

  8. Richard111 permalink
    March 20, 2016 4:29 pm

    “Since 1990, emissions of CO2 have risen from 20.62 to 32.14 Gt.”

    I always understood emissions to refer to electromagnetic radiation rather than mass.
    Anyway, an increase in CO2 ‘mass’ means the atmosphere can cool more efficiently.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: