The Oil Drum

176 comments on DrumBeat: March 10, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

vtpeaknik on March 10, 2007 - 12:08pm

I wish I could share your optimism, marotti32, but I stand by my numbers from yesterday.

"The European Union leaders hope their commitment to tackling climate change will encourage other leading polluters, ... to agree on deep cuts in emissions ..."

- but what they proposed is not a cut at all! That is because of the unstated but implicit assumption of "economic growth".

"The leaders agreed that the EU will produce 20 percent of its power through renewable energy, an increase from the current figure of around 6 percent."

- that's nice, although they did not (in this article) define "renewable", and there is a mention of nuclear further down, so does that count?

"They also pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions at least 20 percent from 1990 levels"

- that is completely different from the other 20%, as I'll explain, again, below. Meanwhile, most of the countries that signed Kyoto are far from complying with its modest goals.

"The plan also called for one-tenth of all cars and trucks in the EU nations to run on biofuels made from plants."

- do the emissions from the production of the biofuels count? Even if they occur in other continents?

Now back to my numbers: suppose you start with 100 units of fossil fuel usage. After 13 years, with a growth rate of 2% per year (very low according to the growth proponents, not even keeping up with population growth in some countries), the energy use is up 29%: (numbers slightly rounded for clarity)

100 * 1.02 ^ 13 = 129

Now assume that they indeed get 20% of the total from renewables, that reduces the fossil fuel use, but the end number is still higher than what you started with:

129 * 0.8 = 103

If the total energy use growth rate is higher, the numbers get worse. E.g. with "only" 3%, the same calculation is:

100 --> 146 --> 117

And that is while the climate issue requires true "deep cuts" in the absolute number. Until "growth" is tackled explicitly, all is lost.

That said, I do note that some European countries have negative population growth, and some have had flat total energy usage in recent years. But many influential people in those countries see those achievments as a problem (to the "growth" paradigm), and seek to reverse them, via increased birth and immigration rates.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Marotti32 on March 10, 2007 - 12:49pm

vtpeaknik,

as there is a reduction aim of 20% till 2020 there could (actually) not be a growth of emissions by 29% within the next 13 years. Emissions should be 20% less than in 1990.

The decision to increase the use of renewable energy to a number of 20% is IMO something different. And this is the important message of this day.

Today, around 11% of domestic electricity production in Germany is performed by renewable energy. A few years ago it was around 4 or 5%. Now the expected capacity the offshore wind farms is more than 20.000 MW. Alone this will increase the amount of renewable energy tremendously. And there is still biogas, deep geothermal energy, PV. All this will contribute as well step by step more to the entire energy production.

Within a few years the PV industry emerged from almost nothing. Today there is already 1% of the electricity supply in Bavaria generated (if I can use this verb in this case) by PV. Alone in Bavaria are more solar panels than in Japan or in the entire USA.

All this development has happened quite swiftly. Wind energy is growing every year worldwide by 20%, PV even much more. Now, with support from this decision this industry will speed its development up.

In the year 2020 the calculation of times will not stop. A highly efficient technology will strong enough to increase its percentage on energy supply continuously in the following years. This is the special thing I expect.

I can only repeat. This decision will spur the development of new technology in an unprecedented way.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

wimbi on March 11, 2007 - 10:30am

Marotti32- I share your optimism. After all, I saw smoking vanish from airplanes, blacks get the vote in our USA south, and other impossible things happen in my lifetime.

Right now I am enthused by the prospect of solid biomass as the mandated heat source for buildings, combined with small stirling engines to generate most or all of the building's electricity. I know it is possible because I have done it for my own house. My steady state use is 350 watts electric, and about 10kW (shame on me!) heat rate in the winter. Wood does it just fine.

Better houses, as made in Germany, would meet their requirements at less cost.

I live in hilly country, and pumped hydro seems quite feasible as an energy storage method- and would offer opportunity for heat pump source/sink.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Marotti32 on March 11, 2007 - 11:13am

I saw smoking vanish from airplanes, blacks get the vote in our USA south, and other impossible things happen in my lifetime.

Wimbi, I just come from a Sunday afternoon walk, I don't know why but today I passed the "Berliner Mauer" memorial just a few hundred meters away from my flat. The last left-over pieces of this ugly building still look cold and inhuman, even on a sunny spring day. But it is already almost 18 years ago, when this wall became history

Change is almost a question of bold and determined decisions. On ever scale. My optimism about the EU decision is simply based on the experiences I could see going on here. There is change going on, still very small, but as many TODers know it is the exponential growth which is difficult to understand.

The exponential growth, the environmental pressure and the political support will result in more change than many people can anticipate know.