Last week the International Energy Agency (IEA) released its much-anticipated World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2011. Most notably, it warned that our chances to keep the world to 2°C of warming are fast slipping away. Without further action, the IEA says, by 2017 all CO₂ emissions budgeted for in a 2°C scenario will be “locked-in” by existing power plants, factories and buildings.
The IEA is a consortium of mostly OECD countries, set up in the 1970s in response to the oil shocks as a way to help decrease exposure to Middle East oil supply. Membership of the IEA requires a 30-day reserve of oil to be kept for emergencies. This happened recently when the Libyan oil supply was disrupted.
The IEA has traditionally been very strong in collecting information from its members on oil, coal and gas reserves and projected use. It has expanded its attention to the role of renewable energy in recent years.
The Energy Technology Perspectives series published by the IEA has considered scenarios of up to 50% emission reductions on 2000 levels by 2050. It is typically bullish on technologies such as carbon capture and storage and nuclear, as well as wind, solar and hydro power.
This year’s typically conservative WEO discusses in detail a scenario that comes closest to avoid 2°C of warming (WEO calls it a “450ppm” case – where CO₂ makes up 450 parts per million in the atmosphere). One of the key results in the report is that we are perilously close to the point of making this goal much more costly to achieve than it needs to be.
The infrastructure we have already installed globally (including power plants and factories) will produce 90% of the emissions budgeted for to keep concentrations of carbon dioxide below 450ppm. On current trajectories, we reach 100% of the available carbon budget in 2017. At that point, no more new fossil fuel power capacity can be added without going over the limit.
The longer the delay before we get onto the path towards low carbon generation technology, the steeper the climb needs to be. We are rapidly heading towards the point where the path becomes impossibly steep. In that circumstance, the target cannot be met unless existing infrastructure is retired early, which is clearly very inefficient and costly. The report shows that each dollar of delayed investment today will cost four times as much in the period 2021-2035.
But the problem becomes significantly worse when we consider that China and India will have strong growth in their energy generation capacity, and that much of this will come from coal and gas fired plants.
Unless we can work out a way to argue that they have less right to emit carbon than developed countries, the developed world has already used up its quota of “locked in” plant: no new fossil fuel generation can be built from now on.
That includes natural gas. Unless much of the existing coal fired generation is retired now to allow the less carbon intensive gas fired generation to take its place, the so-called “golden age of gas” is too late.
The IEA has little optimism that the 2°C goal can be meet. There are two other scenarios in the WEO. The first is a business as usual case, which results in concentrations consistent with an unthinkable 6°C.
A “New Policy” scenario has steady advances in policies that promote renewable energy, resulting in a disastrous 3.5°C increase in global temperatures. In this scenario renewable generation sees the largest growth, but natural gas is a close second with significant increases in coal and oil, the latter to supply soaring vehicle ownership in China and India.
The IEA notes that in the decade 2000-2010 – even with the known problems of global warming – coal-fired generation was by far the largest contributor to increased generation capacity. During this period, government subsidies to the global fossil fuel industry leapt to $409 billion, while those for renewable energy trailed at $66 billion.
If subsidies for fossil fuel are still increasing, it seems clear that the world’s governments are yet to seriously accept the reality of the climate change situation.
Join the conversation
Comments (20)
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
Seems like a good, clear rule for Australia, the biggest per capita CO2 emitter: no new fossil fuel-based electricity generation capacity, because it locks in too much more CO2 emission. A worthy policy goal.
We're leading the world on tobacco policy. Why not strive for the same in climate policy?
Mike Hansen
Mr (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Before the usual suspects turn up to deny we have a problem, from a NOAA news release, 15th November 2011.
"The globe experienced its eighth warmest October since record keeping began in 1880. Arctic sea ice extent was the second smallest extent on record for October at 23.5 percent below average."
This while "Additionally, La Niña conditions strengthened during October 2011."
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
Considering the fact that the years from 1998 to 2011 have been, on average, the warmest 14 years since 1880, it would seem that being the eighth warmest October would be pretty close to "average" for that period. So why the surprise? This plot may help to demonstrate: http://climate-change-theory.com/latest.jpg
David Arthur
n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)
Thanks to thermal inertia due to the world's oceans and ice-caps, surface temperatures presently experienced would be 'representative' of some lesser greenhouse gas load than the atmosphere presently carries.
So long is this disequilibrium holds, the RATE at which the earth's climate system accumulates thermal energy will be positive.
Given that accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica is already being observed (Rignot et al, "Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and…
show full comment
Paul Richards
We also might reflect on how inappropriate nuclear power is as a solution to global warming and question if we need to contribute to this dangerous industry.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15691571
Ben Heard
Director, ThinkClimate Consulting (logged in via email @thinkclimateconsulting.com.au)
Contrary to Paul, I regard findings like this from bodies like IEA to make a compelling case that we have left ourselves little choice but to ditch fossil fuels in preference for nuclear power.
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
I'd first like to see some evidence that nuclear is actually cheaper than renewables.
Nuclear power plants are terribly expensive and getting more expensive over time (see cost blowouts everywhere in the world), take years to build and come in big units with no scalability and have output that is constant over the day where electricity use fluctuates pretty predictably.
Renewables are getting cheaper and are scalable and quicker to install. Solar produces most during the day, when use is highest.
Ben Heard
Director, ThinkClimate Consulting (logged in via email @thinkclimateconsulting.com.au)
Well Lennert, there's a few things there. Unless the technologies you want to compare do the same thing, the cost comparison is moot. The only other power source that is zero carbon at reasonable size is hydro. We should not be pitching renewables and nuclear in competition with each other. They have vastly different advantages and disadvantages. We should be deploying them all to remove fossil where those various advantages dictate.
But on cost, all technology built for baseload purposes is expensive…
show full comment
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
I share your preference for nuclear over fossil fuel, but I'm a lot more reluctant about nuclear. For lots of reasons.
You write "Costs for nuclear construct in many parts of the world, most notably China, are excellent." That doesn't say all that much little about costs in Australia, which has no experience in building these things. I'd also like to see an independent assessment of the accuracy of those figures and whether the safety standards are the same as we'd want here, and whether this includes…
show full comment
Ben Heard
Director, ThinkClimate Consulting (logged in via email @thinkclimateconsulting.com.au)
Yes I do have some thoughts on that BZE work Lennert.
- Good as a visioning exercise
- Certainly not a serious or credible energy plan
- Cost assumptions for the solar thermal technology are optimistic beyond belief
- Assumed future energy is miles off reality
- The exclusion of nuclear in the first place, when the stated aim is zero carbon, not 100% renewable, is arbitrary and reeks of ideology rather than sincerity.
To learn more, there are very good clear critiques of this at Brave New Climate…
show full comment
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
Dear Ben,
You refer twice to 'Brave New Climate'. It takes less than 5 minutes (2 minutes and 35 seconds if you watch the introductory video) to see that blog was set up to promote nuclear. I could not find out who funds the site, but I would not be surprised if there's some party with financial interest in nuclear behind it.
You are one of the main persons behind that blog, and your opinion here is entirely consistent.
The Nicholson et al study was set up to favour nuclear. It looks only at baseload…
show full comment
Ben Heard
Director, ThinkClimate Consulting (logged in via email @thinkclimateconsulting.com.au)
Could I have a little more from you on that please Paul? It's a big call considering that, along with hydro, it is the only energy technology that has ever seriously made a contribution to mitigating the problem. Both hydro and nuclear deliver about 15% of global electricity each. about 67% is fossil fuels. That leaves 3% for everything else. Is climate change an emergency or isn't it?
Paul Richards
“Could I have a little more from you on that please Paul?” - Ben Heard
Sure, but it all comes down to ‘faith’.
Faith is trust, hope, and belief in the goodness, trustworthiness or reliability of a person, concept, or entity. It can also refer to beliefs that are not based on proof.
Given that we all have evidence of the failure of nuclear industry to behave cleanly, safely and in a trustworthy way, this is considered evidence or proof.
Those pushing any future nuclear agenda have ‘faith’ that it will be done cleanly, safely and in a trustworthy way.
Based just on this one point of fact, it’s not worth using nuclear energy. Radioactive byproduct or as it’s put in the spin - waste - implying disposal. Radioactive byproduct is still a massive problem, with no solution and literally no way of disposal.
Just ask the Japanese Government who want’s their now massive stockpiles of highly radioactive sewerage ash.
Ben Heard
Director, ThinkClimate Consulting (logged in via email @thinkclimateconsulting.com.au)
No Paul, it is not faith. That is your assumption. Not my position.
Respectfully, think harder please. I would have thought a warning like this from IEA demands it.
John C
(logged in via email @gmail.com)
Thank you Roger.
Ive found another summary of the IEA report, complete with some of its graphics, at:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/WEO2011.html
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
Early next year what I consider to be the first all-electric car suitable for five adults, the Nissan LEAF will be released in Australia. It can do up to 160 Km on a home charge (costing about $6) and can be re-charged at some locations in less than half an hour. It should also have lower engine maintenance costs and, of course, zero emissions. http://www.nissan.com.au/webpages/about/Electric_vehicles.html
But, unlike other governments, the Australian Government does not see fit to subsidise…
show full comment
Jane Rawson
(Editor, The Conversation)
If you're in Victoria and want to drive an electric vehicle around for three months and report on your experience, you could sign up for the Victorian Government EV Trial http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/projects/sustainable/ev-trial
Ben Heard
Director, ThinkClimate Consulting (logged in via email @thinkclimateconsulting.com.au)
Holy... I think I am agreeing with Doug!!!
It is a beautiful technology. I would actually probably prefer, say, only 100km electric only in exchange for a fuel tank too for longer trips, to keep the family single car. Difference in trip numbers between 100 and 160km would be almost zero for me.
Interestingly, the OS experience suggests that public charge points are really not the limiting factor they are commonly believed to be; virtually all required charging gets done at home at the end of the day. But they would help.
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
Strictly speaking that 160Km is without the air conditioner. It's more like 120Km with it on. Also, after 10 years the batteries only last about 70% the distance. So you need that margin for a return trip to the other side of Sydney or Melbourne, allowing for contingencies.
A hybrid does not appear to have anywhere near the much lower cost per Km of the all electric. Don't imagine you can just run it on electricity only as the petrol motor comes in automatically to help keep it close to full charge I suspect. I think the weaker batteries need petrol assistance on hills for example and I understand its running cost is not much better than a diesel motor.
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
The hybrids use a petrol motor as a generator and lower grade batteries. That's why there aren't many country charge points yet.
No doubt Nissan will set some up and these would be necessary if it is ever to be a family's only car for use on holidays as well. Motels would do well to instal 15 amp power points for slow overnight charges as well.
But my main point is that these will really need government subsidy - no doubt from the carbon tax. If the Government wants to show they are genuine, then this seems an obvious application of such funds.