Updated global emissions data: a closer look

Lots of buzz at the moment about data recently published by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at the US Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The website for the report may be found here. The scope of the study includes carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from: coal, liquid fuels, gas fuels, cement production and gas flaring. Data are provided for 67 individual countries. Others are considered in aggregate regional sums.

Most media reports focus in two points:

1. The data exceeds the worst case scenario of the IPCC 2007 report and
2. Emissions in China, the USA and India have increased the most.

But the data reveal much more than this. I confess that playing with MS Excel spreadsheets is a guilty pleasure. So when the authors made the data available, I could not resist adding a little more info and exploring a bit deeper.

First, total emissions by country (in million metric tones CO2 during 2010). The greatest emissions were produced by:

1. China (2,248)
2. USA (1,498)
3. India (564)
4. Russia (461)
5. Japan (310)
6. Germany (208)
7. Iran (157)
8. South Korea (154)
9. Canada (141)
10. Saudi Arabia (135)

17. Australia (100)

WORLD TOTAL: 9,139 million metric tones CO2

Next, a list of countries whose emissions increased the most in absolute terms from 2009 to 2010 (in million metric tones CO2).

1. China (212)
2. USA (60)
3. India (49)
4. Russia (25)
5. Japan (20)
6. South Korea (13)
7. Brazil (12)
8. Indonesia (9.5)
9. Saudi Arabia (9.1)
10. Germany (7.9)

WORLD TOTAL (2009-2010 increase): 512.4 million metric tones CO2

Conversely, those who reduced their emissions the most in absolute terms from 2009 to 2010 are (in million metric tones CO2):

1. Australia (-9.9)
2. Spain (-4.1)
3. Romania (-0.93)
4. Azerbaijan (-0.694)
5. Slovakia (-0.686)
6. Greece (-0.605)
7. Bulgaria (-0.586)
8. Switzerland (-0.434)
9. New Zealand (-0.418)
10. Hong Kong - China (-0.292)

Expressed in percentage terms, the list of worst performers are: (greatest percent increase in emissions)

1. Finland (13.5%)
2. Brazil (11.642%)
3. Peru (11.641%)
4. China (10.42%)
5. Turkmenistan (9.93%)
6. India (9.43%)
7. Kazakhstan (9.32%)
8. South Korea (9.19%)
9. Lithuania (8.15%)
10. Kuwait (7.86%)

WORLD TOTAL (2009-2010 increase): 5.94% of 2009 emissions

And the best, again in terms of percent decrease from 2009 to 2010, are:

1. Australia (-9.04%)
2. Slovakia (-7.38%)
3. Azerbaijan (-5.97%)
4. Spain (-5.17%)
5. New Zealand (-4.99%)
6. Bulgaria (-4.94%)
7. Romania (-4.16%)
8. Switzerland (-3.92%)
9. Hong Kong - China (-2.69%)
10. Greece (-2.38%)

Realizing that total, global, absolute emissions are all that really matter; when trying to identify the best opportunities to reduce emissions, it is not entirely fair to consider nations on equal terms. The consideration of per capita emission (or emissions per person) and emissions per unit GDP (a measure of a national economy's carbon efficiency) adds a degree of justice to a broader review. In this case, the lists of worst and best performers become:

Largest per-capita emissions in 2010 (in metric tones CO2 per person).

1. Qatar (12.03)
2. Trinidad and Tobago (10.32)
3. Kuwait (8.14)
4. UAE (5.32)
5. Saudi Arabia (4.96)
6. USA (4.79)
7. Australia (4.42)
8. Canada (4.10)
9. Kazakhstan (3.95)
10. Russia (3.22)

19. Germany (2.54)

22. Japan (2.43)

26. UK (2.16)

27. Denmark (2.14)

WORLD AVERAGE: 1.31 metric tones CO2 per person

As an exercise, if global emissions were reduced by 80% tomorrow, this value would become 0.26 metric tones CO2 per person on average. As you read the list below, note that only 3 countries of 67 listed currently meet that goal.

Lowest per-capita emitters include (in metric tones CO2)

1. Bangladesh (0.10)
2. Pakistan (0.26)
3. Philippines (0.26)
4. Peru (0.43)
5. Colombia (0.44)
6. India (0.47)
7. Vietnam (0.51)
8. Indonesia (0.55)
9. Ecuador (0.55)
10. Brazil (0.60)

22. Switzerland (1.35)

24. Sweden (1.38)

27. France (1.50)

33. China (1.68)

Considering GDP, or the carbon efficiency of a country's economy, the worst performers (in metric tones CO2 per million US $ of GDP)

1. Uzbekistan (828)
2. Turkmenistan (672)
3. Trinidad and Tobago (667)
4. Ukraine (553)
5. Kazakhstan (458)
6. Iran (439)
7. Vietnam (432)
8. China (382)
9. India (346)
10. South Africa (339)

11. Russia (311)

WORLD AVERAGE: 145 metric tones CO2 per million US $ of GDP

Similar to the above exercise, if global emissions were reduced by 80% tomorrow (and GDP maintained at its current level), this value would become 29 metric tones CO2 per million US $ of GDP on average. As you read the list below, note that only 2 countries of 67 listed currently meet that goal - and both currently satisfy a considerable share of their energy demand using a combination nuclear and renewable (mostly hydro) generation technologies. Both supplied 38% of their 2010 electricity demand by nuclear generation.

Best performers or lowest CO2 emission per unit GDP (in metric tones CO2 per million US $ GDP) are:

1. Switzerland (20)
2. Sweden (29)
3. Norway (33)
4. Denmark (38)
5. France (39)
6. Singapore (44)
7. Austria (46)
8. Hong Kong - China (47)
9. Spain (53)
10. Italy (54)

12. Brazil (55)

14. Japan (57)

16. UK (60)

17. Germany (63)

22. Australia (81)

29. USA (103)

So what's to be concluded? Can any clarity be derived from this toil?

First, if the data for Australia are correct, that effort should be commended and continued. Did industry begin to move based on a suspected carbon tax? Not too likely being 2010 data. Is this the result of initiatives of the former government? Maybe. In any case, I'll be watching this space.

Next, it's obvious to see why emission reduction negotiations can be so ineffective. Any country can point to one of the given lists to show why someone else should be working harder to reduce 'their' emissions. How can one navigate the rhetoric and achieve some type of consensus? For example, if you rank each country in the categories I've mentioned above [total emissions, 2009 to 2010 total increase, 2009 to 2010 percent increase, emissions per capita and emissions per unit GDP] and assign one point for the worst performer, two points for second worst etc. to 67 points for best performer in each of those categories, then the best opportunities for emission reductions would appear to be:

1. China (49)
2. Russia (49)
3. Saudi Arabia (49)
4. Kazakhstan (53)
5. South Korea (62)
6. USA (76)
7. India (83)
8. Iran (95)
9. Taiwan (97)
10. Japan (102)

16. Germany (116)

19. Canada (121)

22. Finland (128)

25. UK (135)

28. Brazil (138)

And the best performers as evaluated this way (maximum possible points = 335):

1. Switzerland (294)
2. Hong Kong - China (281)
3. New Zealand (276)
4. Slovakia (272)
5. Azerbaijan (257)

26. Australia (204)

But is it just to consider all criteria equally? For example, how will the list be impacted if greater weight, say twice as much, is placed on those countries with the most alarming trajectories. In this case, I'll double the points for total increase in emissions as well as greatest percentage increase. Now the list of opportunities becomes:

1. China
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Russia
4. Kazakhstan
5. South Korea
6. India
7. USA
8. Japan
9. Indonesia
10. Taiwan

13. Brazil

15. Finland

16. Germany

25. United Kingdom

26. Canada

The five best:

1. Switzerland
2. Slovakia
3. Hong Kong - China
4. New Zealand
5. Azerbaijan

14. Australia

Similarly, if we reset the equation, but double the weight of per-capita emissions (individual responsibility), the list shifts to:

1. Saudi Arabia
2. Russia
3. Kazakhstan
4. South Korea
5. USA
6. China
7. Kuwait
8. Taiwan
9. UAE
10. Iran

12. Japan

15. Canada

16. Germany

17. Finland

20. India

23. United Kingdom

29. Brazil

The best here:

1. Switzerland
2. Hong Kong - China
3. Bangladesh
4. Slovakia
5. New Zealand

33. Australia

Finally, if we reset the formula once more and double the weight of emissions per unit GDP (or economic carbon efficiency), that list is:

1. China
2. Russia
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Kazakhstan
5. South Korea
6. India
7. Iran
8. Turkmenistan
9. USA
10. Taiwan

22. Japan

23. Canada

24. Germany

27. Finland

30. United Kingdom

34. Brazil

and the five best performers:

1. Switzerland
2. Hong Kong - China
3. New Zealand
4. Slovakia
5. Spain

24. Australia

These quick and dirty sensitivity analyses show certain countries appearing on each worst ten list - even when the weight of specific criteria are doubled. These include China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, South Korea, the USA and Taiwan. India and Iran appear on all but one and Japan comes up on two of the four.

Switzerland is rock solid atop the best performers. Already at its carbon efficiency target, it need only work to reduce its per capita emissions by about 80% before declaring absolute victory. Hong Kong, New Zealand and 52% nuclear reliant Slovakia also appear on all top five performers list. Yet none have achieved the necessary per capita or per unit GDP goals.

There's only one clear conclusion, everyone's got some amount of work to complete. And lest we forget, increasing global population will only further challenge our collective responsibility.

Dangerous trends with hard evidence and supporting analysis

After one whole week on Twitter, a review of the information I chose to share may make for a blog post of potential interest. So here goes...

There's a concerning, hopefully short-term, trend back to fossil fuel use. Many surmise this is a reaction to events in Japan - and I see no reason to disagree. Specifically:

Japan buys Australian Coal Mine

A partially constructed nuclear energy station will likely be converted to a coal station in the Philippines.

If we won't sell them our uranium, then India will be very happy to buy Australian Coal

LNG prices in Japan - world's highest as to compensate for shutdown nuclear reactors

Prospects brighten for Australian coal due to increasing demand from Japan

Based on the evidence above, I am confident that any significant move away from nuclear will result in an emissions increase. So if you agree with the vast majority of respected scientists and their peer-reviewed work; you should also agree that these are steps in a catastrophically wrong direction.

Rolling Stone published an article describing the perverse cosmic-justice faced by Australia. We will suffer greatly - as some say we should, due to our heavy reliance on coal leading to the highest per-person emissions in the developed world and being the world's top coal exporter.

A series of Washington Posts cartoons caught my eye.

Tom Toles - Washington Post

Analysis continues to conclude that nuclear is likely to play a key and competitive role on any realistic effort to reduce emissions. And there is plenty of evidence to support the IAEA's recent projection for continued nuclear expansion despite this year's tragedy in Japan. Specifically, nuclear expansion programmes moveed forward in Argentina, Finland, South Africa and Vietnam.

Nuclear essential to cut emissions - UK chief scientific adviser

Power Engineering - Nuclear back in from the cold

Japan consortium to construct a nuclear energy station in Vietnam

Argentina achieves significant milestone at Atucha II plant

These trends are consistent with the findings of a recently published OECD report - Carbon Pricing, Power Markets and the Competitiveness of Nuclear Power (purchase required). A few quotes from the conclusions:

[all emphasis is mine]

"...economic competition in electricity markets is today being played out between nuclear energy and gas-fired power generation, with coal-fired power generation not being competitive as soon as even modest carbon pricing is introduced."

"The profit analysis showed that during the past five years, nuclear energy has made very substantive profits due to carbon pricing. These profits are far higher than those of coal and gas, even though the latter did not have to pay for their carbon emission permits during the past five years. This will change with the introduction of full auctioning of permits in 2013 in the EU ETS, which will further increase the relative short-term advantage of nuclear power plants. Operating an existing nuclear power plant in Europe today is very profitable."

"Nuclear energy is competitive with natural gas for baseload power generation, as soon as one of the three categories – investment costs, prices or CCS – acts in its favour. It will dominate the competition as soon as two out of three categories act in its favour."

But the report authors add some caveats to the 'rough and ready synthesis' above. Gas plants for example, may simply opt out of generation when electricity prices are low. Since gas-based generation profits are strongly linked to the cost of fuel as well as the price of electricity, low electricity prices tend to favour gas over nuclear.

But the report conclusions continue...

"The progressive exit from both fossil fuels and nuclear in Germany, Europe’s biggest market, will inevitably push prices higher, which in conjunction with carbon pricing opens opportunities for nuclear energy in other European countries."

However,

"It is thus not unthinkable that risk-averse private investors may opt for fossil-fuel-fired power generation instead of nuclear even in cases where nuclear energy would be the least-cost option over the lifetime of the plant."

So their final projection?

"Risk minimisation implies that utilities need to diversify their generation sources and need to adopt a portfolio approach. ... Such diversification would not only limit financial investor risk, but also a number of non-financial risks (climate change, security of supply, accidents)."

Nuclear has a future. Germany's decision to phase out nuclear there will, ironically, make the technology more appealing to others in Europe who will see increasing profits due to rising electricity prices and fixed generation costs.

Tumbling further down the rabbit hole...

Not that my abilities are all that great, but I'd like to think that one or two of my 333 posts have been fairly well crafted.

For what it's worth, I've gotten very busy over the past year. I no longer have time to research, digest, compile, compose, review and correct posts of any significant detail. But I will continue to do what I can.

I do, however, have access to some hefty research capabilities; an extensive library and an impressive media review and alert system. So I've created a Twitter account @NuclearAus. I will pass along information of interest as I come across it.

Redundant indication

Some key components of training in any nuclear energy facility I've ever been in (and principal lessons learned from the Three Mile Island accident) are the concepts of redundant indication, conservative decision making and maintaining a questioning attitude.

Nuclear Energy Station - Control Console and Panels

Redundant Indication

Nuclear Operators will seek multiple, independent sources of information before taking action. This is basic stuff, nuclear operations 101. One of the first simulator scenarios of any training program:

• Display a false indication on a big, bright meter directly in front of the operator's face and watch the control room team zoom in on this (fake) problem, while some other (real) problem develops in some less conspicuous area of the panel or console.

The objective? Develop operators who constantly verify the equipment status via multiple readings while maintaining the big picture of the integrated plant. Any current or ex-operator will be yawning if they haven't already moved on to another webpage.

So today, a big, red light went on before me... but this one's not the first. Compare my quote from James Hansen's book 'Storms of My Grandchildren' found in this post with the information found in this press release from the World Health Organization. Some quotes from the latter:

"WHO estimates more than 2 million people die every year from breathing in tiny particles present in indoor and outdoor air pollution."

"In both developed and developing countries, the largest contributors to urban outdoor air pollution include motor transport, small-scale manufacturers and other industries, burning of biomass and coal for cooking and heating, as well as coal-fired power plants. Residential wood and coal burning for space heating is an important contributor to air pollution, especially in rural areas during colder months."

2 million gone per year. Roughly the population of Australia, dead every decade. And this is independent from the treats stemming from Climate Change.

Just this year: tens of $billions lost as a result of the Queensland floods; a budget impasse in America threatens to shut their government down, in part due to repeated, weather related, disaster relief expenses; icons of environmental science continue their calls for the immediate and significant reduction of fossil fuel emissions... For naught but the price of 2 million+ per year.

Shameful

Australia-Japan: Energy Commerce

Australian Energy and Resources Minister Martin Ferguson and leading players from the LNG and coal industries have converged on Japan in recent weeks to promote Australia's wealth of resource projects as medium and long-term sources of extra energy.

In an interview with The Australian in Tokyo, Ferguson describes the present conditions as a "once in a lifetime" opportunity for Australia's LNG, coal and coal-seam gas producers.

The International Energy Agency and Australia's peak commodities forecaster, the Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics, have spoken of a "golden age" or "revolution" for the LNG industry, predicting Australia will soon become the second largest supplier behind Qatar.

Source: The Australian

Where's the renewable technology [especially geothermal]?

Whether Japan does or does not fully phase out its nuclear programme is yet to be seen. But it should be clear that any move in that direction would mean a greater reliance on fossil fuels. And there we will be, smack in the middle of it.

Dangerous and just a bit embarrassing [for whatever that's worth]. Profit at any price with little - if any - regard for environmental stewardship. I know, I know, "Japan's energy sources are Japan's sovereign decisions to make. If Australia doesn't sell energy to Japan - be it uranium or fossil fuel based - someone else will." Right?

Not completely; at least not to me. Within Australia, some good arguments have been made for not selling uranium to countries that may pose nuclear security and/or proliferation risks, even though in some cases 'someone else does'. Australia's decision to take the moral high ground on uranium lies in stark contrast to our fossil-based lust for the Japanese energy market.

Tell me again... why is the carbon tax so vital?

One of the worst accidents ever in the country's energy sector

At least 61 people were killed earlier today - no, not as a result of the explosion at the French waste processing facility being splashed all over everywhere - but in Kenya, after a gasoline pipeline exploded.

My thoughts and sympathy go out - equally to both the Kenyans and the French - to the injured, their families, and of course to the friends and families of those who were killed.

Just thought you'd like to know.

A climate change skeptic for a Nuclear Australia

Terry Krieg, retired secondary school teacher of geography and geology from Port Lincoln, South Australia was recently interviewed for the ABC's Ockham's Razor. Terry describes himself as a climate skeptic but begrudgingly accepts the worldwide decisions and trends toward emissions reduction.

The teacher's done some homework and concluded the right path, the logical path, the only path, for Australia must include nuclear energy.

A few excerpts:

Currently around the world sun and wind contribute just .6% of world energy total. And that's expected to reach 2.8% by 2030. US energy experts wrote solar off in the 1980s suggesting it would never deliver more than a fraction of their energy needs. They've been proved right despite some continuing research. Germany today presents a very disturbing and confusing picture. Solar subsidies in 2007/8 totaled $4.3 billion US and for just .7% of its electricity.

...Now with wind power the Danish experience is instructive. They have the most expensive power in the EU, have stopped building wind farms, have been unable to reduce their emissions and have now closed five turbine manufacturing plants with a loss of 3000 jobs.

How can these technologies ever enable the necessary reduction in emissions from electricity production - in Australia or anywhere else for that matter? As I've said before, if anyone believes it can be done without nuclear, please point to an example - just one, anywhere on the planet. [Not fair to include large-scale hydro countries... not an option for Australia.]

For the rest of the report, follow this link.

A September 2010 article in The Adelaide Review may also be of interest.

What are we trying to achieve?

In this piece, the UK's George Monbiot, with input from Chris Goodall, continues a discussion with Jonathon Porritt. The article covers climate change, nuclear energy, renewables, Japan and Germany (as well as the UK of course).

Monbiot poses a key question, "...we should ask ourselves what our aim is. Is it to stop climate breakdown, or is it to engineer the maximum roll-out of renewable power?" The examples and references cited in the post kept me coming back to this question - what is the objective?

Monbiot has crafted a thought provoking and highty recommended read.

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/08/08/the-moral-case-for-nuclear-power/

Nuclear Information from Japan

Best to keep your expectations low for now.

Think about it. These guys have just been hit by a double-whammy. First an earthquake that has to be close to what the plant was designed to withstand, if not beyond. And then a tsunami that takes their station to blackout conditions. I'm confident they have emergency procedures to deal with this situation - not this specific chain of events, but their symptoms. Symptom based emergency procedures have been around for many years. The approach was developed by the industry as a lesson learned from the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.

In a symptom based approach, a limited number of key parameters are monitored and controlled, without the need to determine the exact details of the event. For example, reactor level and containment pressure are two key parameters. Falling reactor level could result in inadequate reactor fuel cooling, so a prioritized list of means to add cooling water to the reactor are developed and incorporated into emergency procedures. Typically, the last item on the list is to change the plant piping alignment such that the fire suppression system can be used (via connections outside the reactor) to pump 'raw' water (in this case sea water) directly into the reactor. Given the station blackout conditions, this action would be expected if cooling water inventory were required to maintain reactor water level.

Similarly, containment pressure can not be permitted to get too high. So periodic, planned and controlled pressure releases are implemented to manager that parameter. This could involve some radiation release, so part of the planning involves the precautionary evacuation of local residents.

But my main point is that the Emergency Response team is obviously VERY busy dealing with the immediate situation. And while the general public is desperate for information - which they rightly deserve. There are others who have a greater need for the information and communication channels to manage their responsibilities. These include the first-line decision makers at the reactor site, regulatory authorities, local and national emergency management agencies, local and national government agencies, the plant designer, and international support agencies. Information must be verified and any conflicts resolved quickly to permit decision makers to take timely action to protect the public to the best of their ability. These communicators are among the most busy people trying to manage the situation and the importance of them getting it right can not be overstated.

Those in the best position to communicate with the public (government offices for example) are also furthest from the detailed information flowing within the plant and have to manage many other, non-nuclear relief and recovery operations in the aftermath of the earthquake. Therefore, their statements tend to be quite brief, never speculative, and typically lack details of 'what happened'. The 'what happened' will be determined later - the plant operators are not concerned about determining this as a priority now. They are busy managing the symptoms and critical safety parameters, not being driven to describe events of the past.

Greenfield to head ANSTO board

Professor Paul Greenfield AO has been appointed to head the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) board. Announcing the appointment, Innovation Minister Senator Kim Carr said Greenfield's experience on the board since 2007 and his skills in science and senior management made him an outstanding candidate for the position.The ANSTO chair was vacated on December 31 when Dr Ziggy Switkowski's term finished. Switkowski elected not to seek a further term. Greenfield, is vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland and chairman of the Group of Eight.

Source: Campus Review

Biography

Professor Greenfield was appointed Vice-Chancellor from 1 January 2008 and was Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor from 2002 to 31 December 2007. Previously he was Deputy Vice-Chancellor (2001), Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) (1997-2000), Executive Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, Physical Sciences and Architecture and Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Physical Sciences and Engineering).

After graduating Bachelor of Engineering, first-class honours in chemical engineering, from the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Professor Greenfield worked in the private sector before completing a PhD at UNSW. He worked at CSIRO before winning a three-year fellowship to the U.S. In 1975, he joined UQ as a lecturer in chemical engineering and a decade later became Head of Department.

In January 2006 Professor Greenfield was made an Officer in the General Division of the Order of Australia for service to science and engineering, particularly through research in the areas of chemical engineering, biotechnology, wastewater and environmental management, and to the tertiary education sector.

Professor Greenfield has extensive experience as a Board Director and is currently a Director on a number of company boards. He has also consulted and worked widely with industry on a range of projects spanning biochemical engineering, wastewater treatment and waste and environmental management, as well as economic evaluation of projects (particularly in the biotechnology and environmental fields). His interests lie in biotechnology, environmental management and R & D management and commercialisation.

Professor Greenfield chairs the Group of Eight, a network of research-intensive Australian universities, and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation.

He is also Chair of the Scientific Advisory Group of the South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, which involves the Queensland Government, local councils, community groups, research institutions and industry.

As well, he serves as chair of the following groups: the Expert Panel on Purified Recycled Water, which independently advises the Queensland Government; the Riversymposium Strategic Planning Committee; the Thiess International Riverprize Committee; and the International Water Centre. He is a member of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation Advisory Board, representing the academic and research community.

Source: University of Queensland