Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
After my previous post on the subject of the fuel mix that powers the planet, I thought I’d take another look at energy use, this time by region and country. Let me start with the country that uses the most energy. No, it’s not the US … it’s China. Here is China’s energy use since 1965. All figures in all graphs are actual consumption of the fuel type, not nominal nameplate capacity.
Coal is the mainstay of China’s fuel mix. Despite all the hype about their push for renewables, they are only 3% of the total. They’ve increased nuclear, hydro, and gas.
Next in size is the US. Here’s our fuel mix, to the same scale. I’ve used that scale for all of the first group of graphs so we can compare the actual size of the energy usage.
US fuel use has been about level since around 2000. The decrease in coal has been matched by an increase in gas, aided by a rise in renewables.
We’ll get to the other countries in a moment, they use much less energy. In terms of size of energy usage, the next smaller unit is the region of Europe, again at the same scale:
Total European energy use is about the same size as that of the US. It uses less fossil fuels than the US, with the difference made up mostly by hydro and nuclear, along with a 9% contribution from renewables.
Next in size is the CIS, the old USSR which is now the Commonwealth of Independent States— Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
As you can see, the CIS countries run mostly on Russian natural gas … and as you can see, they are not that thrilled by renewables. None of the above. You can also see the economic effect of the fall of the Soviet Empire around 1990.
Next down in size is the Middle East. Care to guess what fuels the Middle East?
I knew you’d know … and I see that they are just as interested in renewables as is the CIS …
Next smaller is India. There has been a lot of talk lately about how India is investing in solar and solar is growing … here’s the reality.
Solar … six-tenths of one percent. India runs mostly on oil, coal, and gas, 92%.
Next in size is South and Central America.
In part because South America has no coal but is blessed with big rivers, hydro provides 22% of the energy. In addition, the sugar cane fields of Brazil provide biofuel, and they burn the bagasse (sugar cane with the sugar crushed out of it) to fuel the sugar mills. So fossil fuel usage is low, and renewables are 8%.
Next in size, we have Japan. At this point, we’re getting down the list to areas whose energy use is small enough that I’ll have to quintuple the scale on the graphs to show the details. So further graphs will be five times as large as if I used the same scale used in all the graphs above. Here is Japan on that expanded scale.
Japan is an interesting case, in that they basically shut down their nuclear power nationwide after the Fukushima tsunami disaster. They replaced the nuclear with fossil fuels. I understand that recently they are beginning to restart the nuclear program.
Next after Japan is … all of Africa! Yikes. An entire continent using less energy than one tiny island …
Africa has fossil fuels, hydro, and not much else … one percent renewables.
Next in line is Canada.
Canada has lots of hydro and some nuclear, so fossil fuels are only 65% of the mix. Renewables, 3%, Then we have Germany.
Germany is an interesting case, because it has been the poster child in the crazy war on fossil fuels. Note how they’ve been shuttering their nuclear plants. In doing so they’ve raised their renewable use to 14%. However, it’s gotten to the point where the German people are getting tired of the push for renewables, which has driven the energy prices through the roof. See e.g. Germany’s Green Transition Has Hit A Brick Wall. The pattern is clear—the more installed renewable energy capacity a country has, the higher the electricity price.
Germany has hit the saturation point and still only gets about one-seventh of its energy from renewables.
Now, before y’all Germans start saying that all of the personal, business, and economic costs of the transition towards renewables are worth it because of the big difference that your getting to 14% renewables has made to the planet, here’s the chart of German fuel use by type as above, but this time to the scale of the whole world’s fuel use:
See the colored lines down at the bottom? That’s the German portion of the world energy use, shown on the same scale as the world fuel mix in the background, and using the exact same data as in the detailed German chart above.
And when considering the world energy usage, you cannot even see the German renewable consumption …
Finally, returning to the detailed scale used above, here’s France, where people in yellow vests are in open revolt against carbon taxes.
As in many countries, even after pushing hard for renewables, in France the percentage is still small. Note the strong dependence on nuclear. Curiously, France is showing us the only practical way to replace fossil fuels … by splitting atoms. In 1975, almost all of France’s energy came from fossil fuels, and today it’s only 53% because of nuclear energy.
Here’s an oddity. France’s large amount of baseline nuclear energy is one reason that Germany is able to have high renewable usage. When the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing, Germany imports nuclear electricity from France. If it were not for that French nuclear power the Germans would be shivering in the dark …
And here is Spain, where the Government has decided to stop throwing good money after bad regarding renewables …
Once again, when the renewables were subsidized to the point of economic insanity, the people revolted and stopped the madness.
Well, that’s likely enough of a look at the energy usage of regions and countries. And what is my point in all of this?
My point is simple. We’re not going to be able to power the planet using any of our current mix of renewables. The claims by rabid green supporters that we can get to 100% renewables are just fever dreams. Current renewables are too expensive, too weak, and too intermittent to ever power the planet. And that is why the historical change in the total global consumption of renewable energy looks like this:
That graph shows the problem. After decades and decades of subsidies, grants, and government spending starting back during the time of Jimmy Carter, and after “cap and trade” systems, and renewables mandates, and carbon taxes, and public pressure, after “carbon-shaming” lectures by jet-setting Hollywood hypocrites, and fiery speeches by politicians promising Thermageddon if we don’t mend our evil ways, and endless IPCC reports, and indoctrination in the schools and universities … after all of that including billions and billions of dollars spent on propping up renewable energy, you can see that the consumption of renewables has barely made it up off of the floor …
So I’m here to spread the latest news about the loony “War On Carbon” that climate alarmists have been fighting for nearly half a century now …
…
Carbon won.
[UPDATE] In the comments, someone asked for the equivalent graphic for the UK. It’s below. There may be others, per request. Unless otherwise noted, I’ll put them at the same scale as Germany, France, and Spain above.
And here’s Norway. Because Norway is so small, I’ve put it at five times the scale of the UK graph above. Norway is the land of endless hydro.
Here’s Denmark, to the scale of Norway:
Curious … Denmark is using less fuel than it did in 1970.
And here is Australia, not to the scale of Denmark and Norway above, but to the scale of Germany, Spain, UK, and France:
Here’s Finland. It is very small, so I’ve used a larger scale than any of the graphs above.
Coal, oil, and gas use has declined, hydro is steady, nuclear and biomass (forest waste) are up
From the antipodes, here’s New Zealand …
Interesting. Big growth in hydro and gas. No nukes.
Here’s Netherlands, for Marcel.
Mostly gas and oil, a bit of coal …
A sunny day to everyone,
w.
It Bears Repeating: To avoid misunderstandings, when you comment please quote the exact words that you are discussing.
Willis,
The rate of growth year on year in some countries also deserves a mention.
Some countries like mine (Australia) say that it is not feasible to commence certain policies like approval of nuclear because it would not be possible to make significant progress because it takes too long.
Just look at China’s rate of growth of nuclear to dispel that argument! Ditto for Chinese hydro.
Geoff
Yes Australia is in a mess with electricity. All of the major political parties want more renewable energy and bugger the extra costs imposed on business and folks on lower incomes…
And partly this is a consequence that the discussion debate has been dominated by Greenist activists..
There is a real need for ordinary folks to be part of the debate, pointing out strongly that elected Pollies buggerising around with power will get a big kick in the bum..That is what happened in SA last March at the state elections. It will be a key issue in May in the national elections if the public is awakened to what has happened here in the name of ‘saving’ the planet.
Come on Bill, we all know that “renewables put downward pressure on prices” Our politicians tell us so, it must be true
Willis,
I write letters to the editor for the local newspaper and draw extensively on your articles.
This particular article is loaded with facts which is of great help.
Thanks and Merry Christmas,
Philip
Willis,
I write letters to the editor for local papers.
Your articles are of great help. This one in particular is loaded with facts.
Thanks and Merry Christmas,
Philip
I am doing same here in Finland. This article saves so much my time.
Easy to understand why MSM is hiding that kind of graphs.
Flaga, I’ve put Finland up in the head post for you.
w.
Thank You very much!
Willis, another excellent post. Any chance that you could do Australia. We are, yet again, debating carbon pricing/enhanced renewable subsidies, although a recent blackout in South Australia (late 2016) has the politicians tip-toeing around the issue.
Already done …
w.
An entire post dedicated to inconvenient truths and inconvenient reality.
Hi Willis,
Excellent synopsis.
Taking into account the low percent of unconventionals that exist today and the pie-in-the-sky renewable electricity numbers that are being bandied around to save the world in the not to distant future, I had some observations about the efficiencies and metrics of how renewable and conventional power generation systems are compared.
Something that I have not seen addressed anywhere in any detail, is the issue of how much installed capacity of Solar and wind is required to meet base load and peak load demand for solar and wind generated renewable power. If this percentage is used in your above graphs, the renewable numbers would be even smaller!
I assume that the figures you show above represent installed capacity.
Given the irregularity of solar and wind generation, the question I have is, how much additional installed capacity of solar and wind is required to meet baseload demand and then how much to meet peakload demand? This number has a huge bearing on the CAPEX and OPEX for the renewable world.
Therefore, If baseload demand is 500 MW and peakload is 750 MW how much extra capacity has to be installed to meet both of these load requirements?
I understand that efficiencies for wind is around 20-40% therefore in a case where you wanted to meet baseload/peakload demand for wind baseload you would have to install between 1250 to 2500 MW and to meet your peakload and you would need 1875-3000 MW. In addition, your capacity would be affected by availability of sun and wind, therefore it wouldn’t matter how much installed capacity you had available, when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining, you would not be able to meet electricity demand and you would have a blackout, remember New York?
I live in Texas, and I remember the bumper sticker which stated “Let the bastards freeze in the dark”during the oil crisis of 1979 when people in the NE were pissing and moaning about the cost of fuel,.
I have read numerous reports comparing wind and solar to the various conventional power generating systems, and in every case the conclusion is that solar and wind are closing the cost gap ($/MW) with gas, coal and oil plants. But solar and wind are subject to large inefficiencies, it doesn’t matter how much capacity is installed in the case of no wind or sun…..no electricity.
Therefore, you can’t compare renewable wind and solar to conventional gas and coal, MW to MW installed capacity, due the great difference in efficiencies of the electric generating capacity.
The existing metrics are not entirely honest in this sense, when comparing wind and solar that operate at 20-40% efficiency, to Conventional systems which operate at ~80% efficiency and can be turned up or down given the demand.
I understand that many countries, Germany especially, have installed coal generating plants as backup to meet the above shortfalls and inefficiencies of renewables. Therefore, the metrics for these renewable systems should reflect not only the additional capital and operating costs of wind and solar inefficiency where 60-80% additional capacity needs be installed to meet baseload and peak demand, but they should also reflect the additional cost of emergency installed backup capacity in a no to low wind/sunshine scenarios.
I have no idea how a modern society would be able to function (with current non-storable technology) with >80% unconventional capacity which is being toughted by beaurocrats. The expectation I would envision is for regular massive blackouts and brownouts.
I am also perplexed at how renewable and conventional systems are currently compared to one another, MW to MW installed capacity, given the gross difference in installed generating efficiencies.
Gracias… Ya que me desahaogue, me siento mejor,
Regards,
John Reistroffer
John Reistroffer December 21, 2018 at 8:24 pm
No, all figures are actual consumption, not nameplate installed capacity.
w.
Willis, John R above makes a point similar to one that bothered me reading the (excellent) posting.
You have not taken faceplate, but actual power generated, in the case of the renewables. But this is also probably an overstatement of renewable contribution, because of two cases. Much of it will have been generated when it could not be used because it was during a period of low demand.
Much will also have been useless generation because although it occurred during the main usage period, strong winds for instance added more power than was needed to a grid that was already supplying demand.
What you read in the Guardian and similar sources is that in a given period, wind supplied X% of electricity use. But you have to decode that a bit. What happened is that the wind turbines generated that much. But this does not mean that when you take the total generation over a year, then express this as a percent of total electricity used, that in any useful sense wind generated that percentage of usage.
Don’t know if I am being clear. In a grid in which there is 100% backup and a lot of spinning reserve, and where priority is given in financial terms to wind and solar, its not clear how you get a figure for what percentage of use was generated by them. I recall in a previous life having to pay union members to watch while our own crews installed equipment. Isn’t it a bit like that? You could not say in that situation that union labor installed X percent of equipment of this sort in that city.
I haven’t a clue how you would get a proper estimate of this effect, but do you agree its a factor?
michel December 21, 2018 at 11:47 pm
Michel, what I have provided is called “power consumed”. It is the power that is actually used. Yes, for renewables it is sometimes replacing some kind of baseline electric generation. Other times, all sources are being utilized, perhaps along with some imported electricity.
If it is “generated when it could not be used” it must have been shipped across the border to somewhere that it could be used, because there is no slack and no storage in the grid. The amount generated must always equal the amount consumed. (Note that this is only true for electricity and not for fossil fuels used for other purposes).
So yes, that’s the actual amount of wind and solar and geothermal etc. that is actually consumed by the end users.
Regards,
w.
Thanks!
I guess, if it was a free market then the numbers would be a lot lower. Maybe zero. The supply companies wouldn’t pay the subsidized rates to wind generators for intermittent and unreliable supply, the wind companies would either go bust or not get started, and supply would fall. In fact, in a free market, the supply companies might well just refuse to buy intermittent and unreliable wind supply at any price.
But what your piece shows is that you don’t even need this argument to show the futility of the thing. It leaps out at you from the numbers how ineffectual its being in addressing what the activists claim are their concerns.
More important than the 20-40% efficiency of that wind is that for significant period it can be 0% , so no matter how much you add it can never be the answer (at least with the current state of widely deployable grid scale storage).
Are the figures for solar and wind nameplate?
No. See above.
w.
Willis: Maybe you should add a sentence to the head post stating that the figures are for power generated, not for nameplate capacity (since people will wonder, and won’t scroll down to here to learn).
Roger, it’s the fourth sentence in the first paragraph of the head post, added later in the day it was posted.
w.
Re. Bill in Oz regarding the South Australian election. We in SA have had a “Gerrymanda”favouring Labour for about 16 years. The makeup in this State is roughly 50 – 50% Labour to Liberal. ( Conserative)
All that happened in the last election was that the Electorial Commssion finally did the right thing and corrected the figure s.
The actual vote for the Liberals was almost identical to the previous election, it was the correction in the system which put the Liberals in.
Sadly I think we should have stayed with Labour, because at last they had realised what a mess Green renewables were, and proposed to build a State owned power station, against strong opposition from Federal Labour.
The now Liberal Government are to date not very good, talking about building a connector to NSW, which would take many years, and I don’t think that the NSW government who own their power stations, would want our variable Green energy. Federally in the dying days of the Liberal government they seem unable to “Bite the bullet and say that the whole Green thing is as ex PM Abbott said, Ä load of Crap”.. After all they might lose a vote or two.
MJE
An above post by Spalding noted that a a graph is “worth a thousand words”.
Which reminds of the measure for feminine beauty.
Helen of Troy was considered so beautiful, that her’s was the “Face that launched a thousand ships”.
From which we get the “millihelen”.
A face with beauty sufficient to launch only one ship.
🙂
Just a point on France both Macron and his predecessor Hollande wsnt to replace nuvlear with renewables. Part of the carbon tax was to fund invest in solar and wind. Europe is heading for trouble when the change happens
Would it be possible to do a graph of California alone and maybe Texas also? The world has only 12 years to correct its ways until the doom of carbon comes to pass or so I am warned by my woke friends. Maybe graphs such as these can show the turn of the tide or maybe not. One thing they do not represent is a steady state; that is for sure. Thanks for this post.
The economic-energy downturn at the 2007 sub-prime financial crash is profound and has not been reversed.
In “The West” at least.
Political interference with energy supply has prevented recovery from 2007.
I like the film “The Big Short” showing how entrenched corruption can be in the global infrastructure.
Something similar may happen to the climate enterprise.
I would say that something similar should happen to climate enterprise.
I have a question. The graphs are presented as “fuel use”. I wonder if it should be fuel production. An example: Denmark is shown with 0% hydro power. But they are importing power from Norway. I don`t know how much.
Well, I see that this import is so small that it doesn`t count.
Not so little. 1345 MW(mostly from Germany = Coal) as I write this. You can follow it minute by minute here:
https://www.svk.se/drift-av-stamnatet/kontrollrummet/
They import a lot of hydro and nuclear from Sweden too. Hydro i sparticularly valuable for balancing unreliable wind. Once our politicians here in Sweden has closed down nuclear both we and the danes will be in big, big trouble.
Great article, lots of hard data with commentary. There should be more of these in WUWT.
This information is also publicly available from IEA Statistics and the BP source quoted here. But its nice to have the key bits pulled out. In the UK BP planning people present this to public meetings of professional institutions and elsewhere.
The rest of the world is not like California. The problem with hydro is when large flat arable land is flooded to create the massive lakes, especially in hot countries. Loss of productive land has a continuing cost and creates the emissions as it is inundated and as it rises and falls, which probably don’t have any measureable effect on the climate which has plenty of natural feedback to manage that. But its a rubbish use of land when you can build a nuclear power station for a lot less, with similarly low operating costs, and use the productive land for agriculture or habitation.
Obviously a granite glacier carved fiord in a bleak and agriculturally unproductive landscape is a great idea, as Norway has. Not many countries have plentiful Hydro. France gets 20% or so of it’s electricity this way. It has Alps with deep rocky valleys fed from inhospitable landscape which is unspoilt by its water collecting function.
PS Idea for Californians. Yosemite would make a great hydro resource to rival the Hoover Dam with renewable energy. Not sure about King’s Canyon topology. The Sierra Club should get behind such a fantastic renewable energy resource. Nobody lives there, it has impervious rock and looks like the lake could be 1,000 feet deep, only a few trees to drown, the bears and Coyotes would move, lots of places to move to. Tahoe would be good for pumped storage, just pump seawater up from SF Bay to refill it. Only rich elites benefit from these places. The mass of poor who need cheap energy can’t afford to go there. And the ice will refill it and remove the dam naturally in a few thousand years anyway, as it does every 100Ka.
China’s 2000s boom is stunning. They doubled their fuel (energy) use in about 5 years (from 1000 to 2000 Mtoe)!
Willis, it is interesting how the recession starting in 2008 is reflected in these graphs. There are probably several tentative conclusions to be drawn from that.
Hi Willis, thanks for this very nice article.
I wonder about one thing though. Your diagrams show France using about 250 Mtoe and United Kingdom about 200 Mtoe.
On the other hand, http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ usually shows the french demand to be about 1.5 to 2 times higher than the british demand.
Do you have an idea why?
Regards, L
ups, meant 1.5 to 2 times AS high
ups, meant 1.5 to 2 times as high…
Willis,
Fine graphs, thank you.
I found myself wishing to also see GDP and total carbon emissions, if you could figure out a graceful way to add them.
Japan is interesting. I wonder if their economy shrunk that much, or become more efficient. I seriously doubt it could have become that more efficient….
Finland:
“Coal, oil, and gas use has declined, hydro is steady, nuclear and geothermal are up”
No geothermal in Finland. Biofuel (forestry waste) is up.
Note that UK coal usage has plummeted. That’s because we are now chopping down every forest in America, to fuel Drax the Destroyer with wood-pellets. And diceing, drying, compressing, shipping and trucking all that wood across the pond, at vast energy expense.
(Drax is a 4 GW generating station, so it is very hungry…..)
R
‘That’s because we are now chopping down every forest in America, to fuel Drax the Destroyer with wood-pellets.”
How do people get away with saying such nonsense without a /sarc tag? I read BS statements like that and then I realize that many skeptics are totally brainwashed and out to lunch too. Why not say the wood pellets are made with Birds Eye Maple, Walnut and Oak furniture too? Just incredible the ignorance that is displayed here sometimes about wood pellets.
Earthling2 December 22, 2018 at 7:43 pm
Earthling, if you truly believe that he was NOT being sarcastic when he said “every forest in America”, then YOU are the one who is totally brainwashed. Because I can assure you, nobody here believes that EVERY US forest is being cut down for one power plant.
Having said that, the Drax plant burns pellets that are made from 13 million metric tonnes of wood per year.
So while Drax does not require “chopping down every forest in America”, it is burning more wood per year than the amount of wood produced annually in the UK, hardly a trivial amount … and obviously, there are serious environmental side-effects.
And of course, being another crappy renewable source, it is being subsidized by the UK electric ratepayers. How much? Oh, a mere US$ 685 million dollars per year, or just under two million US$ per day.
Gotta love renewables, they’re so economically competitive and good for the consumer …
w.
So I am brainwashed for not catching the sarcasm of “every forest in North America is being chopped down to feed Drax” except that the commenter went on to say “And diceing, drying, compressing, shipping and trucking all that wood across the pond, at vast energy expense.” Sure sounded to me like he was dead serious about meaning what he said. But yet you want to put words in his mouth, that obviously he didn’t really mean every forest in USA was being chopped down to feed Drax. Talk about selective hearing when it suits you, while you tell others at the end of your posts to quote the exact words. “It Bears Repeating: To avoid misunderstandings, when you comment please quote the exact words that you are discussing.” I do so, and you make something up and then ascribe it to the other guy who made the comment. I didn’t even address my comment to you Willis..you just decided to reply to my comment. Which is fair, but then you break your own advice about sticking to exact words. Geez…
“Drax remains the UK’s single largest emitter of CO2, and is now also the world’s largest biomass power station”.
First off, when did CO2 all of a sudden become a big deal around here? We all know here that the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is not what the alarmists think it is. This is the central Raison d’être for WUWT existence all these years, that CO2 is not the boogeymen in the closet that is going to destroy the good Earth with run away warming and dangerous climate change.
Second, any CO2 release from wood pellets is not fossil based. It was just pulled out of the atmosphere in that last crop rotation or in any of the wood waste that it was made out of. So it is not accumulative to any net CO2 in the open atmosphere.
Third. Why quote some alarmist advocacy group in your quoted paragraph to mislead readers how supposed pellet material are grown in lowlands? Are you going to start quoting GreenPeace, the Sierra Club, Earth Justice, etc? “According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), it is difficult to restore these forests after logging because they take a long time to mature and being logged once can alter flooding patterns, reducing the diversity of plant and tree species when the forest does eventually regenerate.” Really? Most of the pellet material is wood waste, bark, saw dust, thinning’s, branches and other wood fibre that doesn’t make it as pulp, OSB, boards or any other commercial product. Some of it is pine, grown as a quick cash crop, but so WHAT? We have a very diversified forest industry where every product is utilized for highest and best use. The subsidies are by the crazies in the UK who chose not to burn perfectly good coal below their own feet. Don’t blame the pellet industry for the ignorance of the Brits!
You of all people should know that the pellet industry on the West Coast, from Alaska to British Columbia, to Wa, Oregon and Northern Cal, is nearly 100% based on recovery of wood waste that has no further final best use than to be converted into a valuable wood pellet that burns very clean. Nobody, I repeat nobody, protests the lowly wood pellet on the left coast. Except some nut bars at WUWT. Which you appear to be trying to join in your haste.
I spent 25+ years lobbying govt’s and industry to give away the wood waste to the pellet guys instead of burning it wholesale in giant beehive burners. Make something useful out of it. Just think if WUWT would have successfully advocated globally that some aging coal fired plants be co-fired with 20%-25% wood pellets. Experience shows that coal power plants can co-fire up to 30% pellets without burner adjustments with reductions in GHG make it similar to emissions from similar NG fired facilities. And the older coal fired plant could have been operational to its natural life design expectancy, not having had to ever pre-maturely blow up any perfectly functioning coal fired assets. Talk about a win-win, compared to just shutting them down prematurely. Now that would have been a different world, and it didn’t really happen because two sides got entrenched in folly. Just like this simple comment above whose exact words wasn’t taken in full context.
Earthling2 December 23, 2018 at 9:20 am
I can’t help how things sound to you.
w.
Earthling2 December 23, 2018 at 9:20 am
Sorry for the lack of clarity. My point was that they are doing this change from coal to stop CO2 emissions, but it hasn’t done much in that regard.
True … but then fossil CO2 is the same except on a geological time scale. But as you say, CO2 is not the issue.
Unfortunately, in this case most of the pellet material is NOT wood waste. They are clearcutting large swaths of forest and converting it all to wood pellets for Drax. That’s the point.
Jeez, chill out. Yes, here on the West Coast that is true. But it is NOT true about the pellets shipped to Drax. And let me suggest that you dial back on the insults, they make you look like a jerkwagon, not me.
I think that’s great. It is what we should do with wood WASTE rather than just burn it in the beehives. However, it is NOT what we should clearcut forest to do.
Regards,
w.
“They are clearcutting large swaths of forest and converting it all to wood pellets for Drax. That’s the point.”
Willis, I apologize if I come across as a jerkey on this issue. But I really think the wood pellet industry is being hung out to dry regarding Drax. It is a commercialized plantation that is being clear cut, not even a second growth forest, although undoubtably the vast majority of raw product is wood waste that is a result of the second growth industry. Why penalize the pellet guys for a subsidy in the UK? The wood pellet industry in the USA/Canada doesn’t receive any direct subsidy like the corn/ethanol industry. It makes me mad because I think it is a gross misreprensation of the facts meant to fill a narrative that all biomass is bad.
I would try and write up a comprehensive article about said subject (and take the heat for crossing WUWT editorial policy on said subject) but I doubt Anthony would publish it. I think I could make a strong defensive case for the pellet industry (Drax notwithstanding) and that we need to separate the fiction of all biomass is bad by pointing to Drax as the problem. Since you are a genuine citizen scientist with only arriving at honest truth derived hypothesis, I would urge you to at least consider writing an article for WUWT on the wider pellet industry at large, and even perhaps present a balanced side to both arguments. This would perhaps settle some of the issues with a good debate that would be very educational for everyone. The pellet industry deserves a good trial before a hangin’.
In any event Happy New Year from the balmy tropics, and all the best to you and yours!
It is obvious that renewables will take an extremely long time to have any affect on CO2 emissions. If anyone wants to make a bug impact on CO2 emissions it is not by switching from coal to natural gas. It is by removing all of the vapor emissions from coal fired power plants using the ZECCOM™¹ (Zero Emissions Coal Combustion) Process, and all of the vapor emissions from natural gas fired power plants using the ZENGCOM™¹ (Zero Emissions Natural Gas Combustion) Process. If even more CO2 emissions are required, all of the refineries in the world could process Deasphalted Alberta Bitumen from the ZEST™¹ (Zero Emissions SAGD Technology) Process because that would reduce most of the oil emissions by 40-45%. For the petroleum fired power plants the ZEPCOM™¹ Process would remove all of the rest of the petroleum emissions. Richard L. Hood RHood@BESTCArbonCapture.ca
Willis,
Your scatterplot indicates the trend is “0.02 cents per additional kW.” That’s two hundredths of a cent. But the slope and the Y-axis scale suggests you meant to say the trend is two cents per additional kW. Clarify? Thanks.
No, the trend is two cents per 100 kw of installed capacity.
Regards,
w.
Hey Willis, you are a master of analysis and clear presentation. You’ve clearly shown renewables are inconsequential as a global power source. Another lesson from your data is that all increase CO2 emissions for the last 25 years (and all projected increases) are from non-OECD countries that account for 80/% of global population. Even zero US emissions would be offset in decades by non-OECD.