Climate Change Mitigation Metrics

In 2012 human emissions of CO2 were 32,310 million metric tons.

In the same year we consumed 540 quadrillion BTUs (quads) of energy. However, about 61 quads of this was generated by renewable resources or nuclear power, so let’s say that burning 479 quads of energy created those 32,310 mmts of CO2.

At current levels of efficiency, that works out to about 73.8 million metric tons of CO2 for each quad.

Let’s imagine that we wanted to reduce emissions by 25% below our 1990 emissions, in line with the Kyoto Protocol. The world’s 1990 emissions were 22,261 mmts, less 25% gets us 16,700. Roughly 50% of what we emitted in 2012. How would we go about this?

hard choices

Let’s see what we have to work with. According to the DOE EIA, this is the fuel portfolio the world used in 2012:

Liquids: 179.9 quads
Coal: 154 quads
Natural gas: 120.4 quads
Nuclear: 25.5 quads
Other: 60.6 quads

The ‘other’ category includes renewables–but also firewood and dung.

If we look at our goal using the portfolio approach we would say let’s convert coal to natural gas and nuclear. In addition, we would say let’s use clean energy to power trains and push to get everybody out of cars and planes and into trains (and metros).

If we were wildly successful–let’s say cutting liquids from 179.9 quads down to 90 and eliminating coal altogether (with half being replaced by natural gas and half by nuclear), we would save 14,000 mmts of CO2 from being emitted (the energy switch from coal to natural gas still produces emissions). And we would be almost there.

The sobering news is that to get an additional 75 quads from nuclear power we would have to construct about 600 new nuclear power plants… which we could do, of course.

But that immediately should start us thinking that a top down allocation of fuel portfolio choices may not be the best approach.

So we’ll look at alternatives in an upcoming post.

7 responses to “Climate Change Mitigation Metrics

  1. Tom:

    Editorial note:

    540 – 61 is not 438. So I am not understanding your second paragraph.

  2. “600 new nuclear power plants”. Each one is equivalent to thousands of wind turbines or hundreds of thousands of solar roofs (Tesla power walls not included).

  3. The assumption that making such large changes in our energy portfolio is something important or even useful is not well established.
    And some them- the ones that involve “pushing people”- should be clarified a lot.
    As to nukes: I am all for nukes, properly built.
    We seem to have lost the knack for applying the rules of “Faster, Better, Cheaper”.
    It seems to be instead “Slower, Worse and Costly”, especially when our enviro/CO2 obsessed friends are heavily influencing the decisions.

  4. Pingback: More Mitigation Metrics For Climate Change | The Lukewarmer's Way

  5. Pingback: Meditation on Mitigation | The Lukewarmer's Way

  6. Pingback: Viscount Monckton Takes The RAMA Challenge | The Lukewarmer's Way

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