Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. tips us to this interesting yet inconvenient graph.
The graph below shows data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014, which was released yesterday. It shows the proportion of global energy consumption that comes from carbon-free sources. Guess what? It isn’t growing.
Pielke writes:
The proportion of carbon-free energy consumption is a far more important metric of progress with respect to the challenge of stabilizing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere than looking at carbon dioxide emissions.
…
What you should take from this however is that there remains no evidence of an increase in the proportion of carbon-free energy consumption even remotely consistent with the challenge of atmospheric stabilization of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Those who claim that the world has turned a corner, soon will, or that they know what steps will get us around that corner are dreamers or fools. We don’t know. The sooner we accept that, the sooner we can design policies more compatible with policy learning and muddling through.
I’m a little confused. The graph speaks of ‘carbon free’ energy sources, yet the ‘Statistical Review’ does not provide a definition nor does it provide a list of ‘carbon free’ energy sources.
Without that we can’t have an intelligent discussion about what it means. Is geothermal included? It isn’t classed as a ‘renewable’.
Given that solar & wind generation must be backed up by a ‘standby’ generator running continuously, how can they be considered to be ‘carbon free’?
“Those who claim that the world has turned a corner, soon will, or that they know what steps will get us around that corner are dreamers or fools. … The sooner we accept that, the sooner we can design policies more compatible with policy learning and muddling through.”
Two words: “nuclear energy.”
How much of that is hydro?
“The sooner we accept that, the sooner we can design policies more compatible with policy learning and muddling through.”
“We can design policies” should scare everyone. Indeed, our energy troubles all come from the existing policies. The central planners are standing by to fix it all. Again.
Please excuse my temporary absence. Have to make a carbon based btu. Actually several btu’s. It is damned cold in NE Oregon! Predicting snow over the Tollgate pass tonight and into Wednesday. I live right at the bottom of those mountains after you drive up the slope to their base. BRRRRRR!!!!
ralphcramdo says:
June 17, 2014 at 4:07 am
There should be a chart of the number of permanent jobs carbon-free energy has created …”
If you find such a report, read the fine print. The concept of a “green-job” was politicized years ago. For example, say you take a city bus and convert it from diesel fuel to corn fuel or maybe electric. This, then, allows you to classify the bus driver as a newly created green job.
Pamela Gray says:
June 17, 2014 at 8:39 am
——————————————
I live in Trinity Co, California. I was up at 5:00 am and checked the outside temp. My ‘old’ thermometer read 30 F, and at 6:30 am read 34 F. I put the thermometer in the fridge to double check the read. My fridge was at 37F, so it was colder outside. It is now a pleasantly cool 54 F inside my unit.
Roger Sowell says:
June 17, 2014 at 6:05 am
With coal reserves limited and due for exhaustion within 50 to 60 years, the world had better start building the wind turbines.
===================
“At current consumption rates, the U.S. has more than 230 years of remaining coal reserves.”
http://www.nma.org/pdf/fact_sheets/cap.pdf
We are not running out of coal.
Wind turbines are not a practical energy source. Still, how would building a turbine today help in 50 years? What is the urgency?
If “we” were to be running out of coal in 50 years, the time for action is 40 years from now. We in quotes because I expect to be fully dead in 50 years. Fretting over the distant future is silly. Let the future deal with the future.
From the BP report – with a little calculation
Nuc – 4.4% total Hydro 6.7% total Other Renew – 2.2%
walker808 says: June 17, 2014 at 4:07 am
Fossil fuels are a finite resource, sooner or later all the oil, coal and gas will be used up, renewable energy is the only hope for our long term energy needs. This report is in no way “good news”.
DD says – Need some reading comprehension – this is carbon free not renewable. Nuclear was up from last year as China starts putting their new units on-line.
Nick Stokes says: June 17, 2014 at 4:39 am
“The rapid growth of renewable power generation continued in 2013. Global growth was 16.3%, slower than in 2012 but above the ten year trend rate of growth, and the tenth successive year of double-digit growth. Renewables contributed 34.6% of the growth in global power generation in 2013, representing 15.7% of world energy growth.”
DD says – So the growth of renewables is 15.7% of total growth => non-renewable growth is then 84.3%. So the bigger number is growing more.
Roger Sowell says: June 17, 2014 at 6:05 am
With coal reserves limited and due for exhaustion within 50 to 60 years, the world had better start building the wind turbines.
DD says – Best not highlight your numbers with this report since page 43 says world Fossil fuel reserves-to-production (R/P) ratios at end 2013 has coal at over 100 years.
Roger Sowell – “better start building the wind turbines”
Roger,
Start with your belief that coal will be a thing of the past in 50 years. Make a few additional assumptions about the realizable power from wind and the number of towers that can be placed on a plot of ground. Having done that, calculate how many towers need to be built each year and how much land that will require as wind replaces coal by 2064.
You need to do this yourself because you will not believe anyone else. So run those numbers and report back. Thanks.
It was 48 F at 8:00 this morning. Up on top of the mountain it is freezing. Winter wheat fields and alfalfa in Joseph, Oregon got several night time blasts of temps below 30. I note that North central California is under another freeze watch for tonight. South central Oregon has been taking frozen popsicles up the arse for several days now!
The camera and weather gauge appears to be broken (again) at Tollgate. One pass over (South of where I live) and 1000 ft lower it shows 39 F. So I am guessing Tollgate is getting snow right now. The forecast over the Blues, which include the hiker-popular Wallowa Mountains, is for heavy snow. Right now there are probably 100 people or more up on those trails. And likely not equipped for heavy wet snow and below freezing temps. With no cell service or Forest Rangers to go get them either.
Carbon-free = can’t get the job done.
Ahhhh! Nothing like some carbon units warming my chilled bones in mid-June on the edge of Oregon’s dry high-desert region. Just doing my part to bring a little CO2 catastrophic warmth to the area.
walker808 says: June 17, 2014 at 4:07 am
Fossil fuels are a finite resource, sooner or later all the oil, coal and gas will be used up, renewable energy is the only hope for our long term energy needs. This report is in no way “good news”.
In the 1960’s we were told that fossil fuels would be exhausted in 50-60 years and by 2000 we would have nuclear energy produced by fusion. Depending on which comment you want to believe we have 50-230 years of fossil fuels and unlimited nuclear produced by fission is available today. So much for “renewable energy is the only hope….” If this report is a crutch that helps green energy apostles become more reality based than it is indeed good news.
Roger Sowell says:
June 17, 2014 at 6:05 am
Meanwhile renewables are growing very quickly – but they started from an almost zero point. Their impact will be seen much more in the coming years.
With coal reserves limited and due for exhaustion within 50 to 60 years, the world had better start building the wind turbines.
We are going to need them.
——————————————————————————————————————
Government support remains the single most important factor behind the fast growth of wind generation. Future growth is also dependent on further technological advances in offshore wind. This segment of the wind market is led by the UK, where offshore wind capacity reached 3.7 GW by the end of 2013.
The growing share of wind power in the electricity mix also presents unique operational challenges to grid operators. Because of the unreliability of wind power (reflected in a low, ~25% utilisation factor), adding more wind generation capacity to the grid increases the need to boost the percentage of overall plant capacity set aside to provide ancillary services.
Carbon-free and carbon-based energy generation are growing together. Much of that carbon-free is nuclear, right? I downloaded the report, but have not made time to read it yet.
On a related note, the California Independent Systems Operator yesterday received more than 20% of its total supply of electricity from renewables: http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/DailyRenewablesWatch.pdf. Sometimes recently the renewables have contributed to meeting 25% of peak demand. It’s very expensive energy; I voted in the minority to repeal the law requiring that 33% of electricity be generated “renewably”, and I think it harms California’s businesses and “unrich”; but the “progress” to date has an interest of its own.
Thr step change at 2003 looks like an artifact of redefinition or correction.
Roger Sowell: Coal-based energy is increasing, nuclear-based energy stagnated after Three Mile Island meltdown – plants under construction were finished, but very few more were started.
Meanwhile renewables are growing very quickly – but they started from an almost zero point. Their impact will be seen much more in the coming years.
With coal reserves limited and due for exhaustion within 50 to 60 years, the world had better start building the wind turbines.
Aside from TMI, do you have a case against nuclear power? Japan has restarted its nuclear power plants; Germany is inadvertently showing how important theirs are; China and India are building new ones, as are other countries. Despite TMI, the US gets substantial power from nuclear.
Ironically, the San Onofre nuclear power stations N. of San Diego are shut down due to manufacturing defects in replacement pipes.
I just calculated that it would take 160,000 1.5 MW wind turbines to supply Ontario, Canada’s electric needs at peak demand using 12.5 % of name plate output. To have that many turbines there would be one turbine every 2.2 square miles in a province that is three times the size of Texas with a total population of only 12.8 million.
Nick Stokes says:
June 17, 2014 at 4:39 am
“It shows the proportion of global energy consumption that comes from carbon-free sources. Guess what? It isn’t growing.”
This doesn’t seem consistent with what the report actually says under “Renewable Power” (electricity):
“The share of renewable power in global power generation reached 5.3% in 2013, almost doubling in five years from 2.7% in 2008. Renewables accounted for 8% of OECD power generation in 2013, compared to 3% in the non-OECD. While the aggregate shares remain low, for some individual countries renewables now contribute a significant share of power. Eighteen countries now have a renewables share of more than 10%, up from just eight countries in 2010.”
and
“The rapid growth of renewable power generation continued in 2013. Global growth was 16.3%, slower than in 2012 but above the ten year trend rate of growth, and the tenth successive year of double-digit growth. Renewables contributed 34.6% of the growth in global power generation in 2013, representing 15.7% of world energy growth.”
======================
It seems like you might be comparing apples to oranges with this. The initial statement is referring to power consumed while the following paragraphs were referring to power generated. While I understand most power generated will be consumed, not all of it will, and I imagine that becomes more of an issue (power generated vs percent of that consumed) with solar and wind while we still lack the ability to reliably store it in appreciable quantities.
It’s also worth pointing out that it’s possible to have an increase in the rate of growth without having an appreciable increase in total consumption if the other sources have continued to increase their rate of growth at a higher rate.
I could be misunderstanding you or overlooking something but just a couple things to consider.
In my new blog there is different graphs from same data. Still fossils rule.
Torture the data more vigorously and adjust the past, you will then see a significant increase in green energy world wide.
p.s. just publish the graph keep the data secret
Nigel Harris: The two changes (nuclear down, renewables up) almost exactly balance each other out.
Thank you for several good comments.
California is similar to that,without the “exactly” balance: renewables up, nuclear down, gas-powered electricity generation also up.
Matthew R Marler says:
June 17, 2014 at 11:41 am
California is similar to that,without the “exactly” balance: renewables up, nuclear down, gas-powered electricity generation also up.
==========
I thought California was going with the “let power generation happen in other states; we’ll buy from them” plan. That should help them reach their emissions goals.
Nick Stokes says (emphasis mine):
June 17, 2014 at 4:39 am
Nick, please tell me that this was a senior moment, and that in fact you actually do know that there is a difference between “global power generation”, which refers to electricity alone, and “global energy consumption” … because if you don’t know that, my friend, you are in deep waters with no life preserver.
w.