There’s plenty of coal in the world. This is where to find it by country. We are also using more and more of it. In fact, according to BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy just out coal was the big winner in as an energy source in 2007.
Across the world energy consumption rose by 2.4% with China accounting for a half of the increase in the year 2007 and India a third. The energy source with the biggest increase was coal at 4.5%, with China leading the way. China gets 70% of its primary energy from coal and increased its coal consumption by 8%. Coal showed the fastest growth amongst the fossil fuels for the fifth year in a row.
This is a worry.
Firstly, Ken Caldeira tells us that coal-fired power stations actually have a net cooling effect for the first 7 years. After that the long-lasting airborne fraction of the CO2 emissions overwhelms the cooling effect of the aerosols, which wash out of the atmosphere fairly rapidly.
Cannadell and Raupach (pdf) report that emissions this century were running ahead of the most pessimistic IPCC projections.
The increase from fossil fuels in 1990-1999 averaged 1.3% per year. In 2000-2006 the increase was 3.3%. It’s a fair bet that we are getting a net cooling effect from the burst new coal-fired power stations, with a delayed warming effect not far away.
Secondly, while the developing countries are still relatively low per capita emitters, the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC) tells us:
The International Energy Agency projects that global energy demand will increase by more than 50 per cent between now and 2030 – an average annual rate of increase of 1.8 per cent. More than 70 per cent of the increase in demand is forecast to come from developing countries, with China alone accounting for almost one-third of the increase.
This is how they see the various sources:
Given that BP reckon the production of oil decreased in 2007, the abundance of coal and various coal-to-liquid projects being developed, I suspect there will be less oil and more coal, unless we go big on shale oil.
Here’s an estimate of who is going to be doing the emitting through to 2100.
So how is Germany a winner? Well, as Der Spiegel tells us:
German companies and consumers slashed their use of so-called primary energy — defined as energy generated by oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydropower — by 18.5 million tons of oil equivalent in 2007, a 5.6-percent reduction. Only Denmark and Azerbaijan recorded larger percentage reductions last year.
While there is a difference between energy consumption and emissions, it does seem as though Europe has turned things around. Their primary energy consumption reduced by 2.2%.
For Germans the news came just as their Cabinet signed off on an ambitious plan to cut emissions by 40% by 2020. They are going to revamp the power grid to make it more friendly to renewables, implement improved energy saving standards for new and old dwellings. I understand they have a program of refurbishing 5% of older dwellings each year.
While they are going to charge older trucks higher tolls, they shelved a plan to connect car registration costs with the amount of CO2 vehicles emit. Also “intelligent” power meters were to be mandated, but are now optional.
About 18 months ago Chancellor Merkel said that Germany would show leadership in climate change to set an example, and to make money by leading the pack. Although Greenpeace reckon they’ll fall a bit short of stated aims, it looks as though they are giving it a shake.
The sooner other countries follow suit the sooner the developing countries might join the party. We desperately need them to do so.
High oil prices are given as the reason for the drop in energy consumption in Germany. Long-suffering citizens are now looking at a 40% increase in the price of gas.
Elsewhere G8 energy ministers were told that
the world would have to build 1,344 nuclear power plants to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide to half of its current level.
Nuclear generation decreased by 2% in 2007.
Germany was not keen, but others were. However, all were keen on burying CO2 as they
pledged to launch 20 demonstration projects by 2010 on so-called “carbon capture and storage,” which would let power plants run on cheap, abundant coal, then catch emissions store them under the ground.
Meanwhile Bush proposes to mine shale oil in Colorado where there is three times the oil in Saudi Arabia, also to build more oil refineries, to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and to drill the deeper waters and along America’s coastline.
McCain doesn’t seem a great advance on Bush but the the CEOs and the mayors with a little help from Barack and Bill are ready to rock and roll.
There are many interesting statistics in the BP report. I’ll leave you with this one that shows the energy composition for the major areas.
Green = oil, red = natural gas, orange = nuclear, blue = hydro, grey = coal.
BTW I make no comment on BP’s credentials in renewable energy. It seems they had ambitious plans back in 2005 but two year later were found to be investing in Canada’s tar sands.
It’s all a bit depressing really, don’t you think?
Great info here, thanks Brian. Good on the Germans. I gather Austria is doing well too.
Your pieice is salutary for those who might think rising oil prices will necessarily lead to positive alternative energy outcomes. If only we could make coal monstrously expensive somehow! Her’s hoping.
As I’ve pointed out in the past about Germany, they also plan to build a passel of conventional coal-fired plants. Believe it or not, they plan to build new brown coal plants.
Is that supposed to be a link, Robert? It has no href…
wiz: used my godlike powers to edit the comment and fix the link
Interesting link Robert. Shows just how cheap talk really is and just how hypocritical people can be. I would dispute one thing though, where it says “Germany, which, like Spain, Italy and others, is swearing off nuclear power…” I thought I read somewhere recently that nuclear in Italy is making a big comeback. Could be wrong though.
Germany is the largest emitter in the EU, so it is good to hear that it plans to reduce emissions by 40% by 2020. It may be easier for Australia to reduce its emissions by a similar amount by 2020 because Australia has huge opportunities to sequester CO2 through land use change. On the other hand Australia has not reduced its emissions since 1990 while Germany has significantly.
BP seems to have become much less progressive on climate change issues since former the chief executive Lord Browne was forced to resign.
Peter, I do think the Germans are serious about emissions reduction. Calling it cheap talk and hypocrisy is misplaced, I think.
Robert, I knew the Germans were building coal-fired power stations, but I either didn’t know or had forgotten that it was so many. 27 by 2020 is a lot.
I think it was this article I read last year. It’s worth a look because it gives some idea of the political/social issues.
I was under the impression, and it’s confirmed in the article, that by law Merkel can’t prevent the privatised electricity utilities from building coal-fired power stations. You might say, she can change the law. Strictly speaking that’s true, but her coalition partners, the Social Democrats, are unlikely to agree as it would mean reversing the policy of phasing out nuclear, which I think produces about 30% of Germany’s electricity.
Merkel may well reverse the no-nukes policy if she can shed the SPD and form government with the Free Democrats in 2009, although she does have a brown coal mining constituency in eastern Germany.
BTW while we are dissing Germany, it’s true that cuts of 40% from 1990 isn’t as big a stretch for them as it is for many other countries because the rust bucket industries of Eastern Germany were alive and polluting back then.
Finally, Germany’s electricity is currently sourced 20% from black coal. However, they are planning to phase out the black coal mines. I’m not sure whether the imported replacement coal will be black or brown.