Poorer nations spend nearly as much--and in some cases more--than more developed countries on developing alternative energy.
Image: Popolon/Wikimedia Commons
Poor countries have spent just as much as rich ones -- and in the case of China, more -- to develop low-carbon energy, according to a study coming out this week. Its conclusions could turn the conventional wisdom about the differences among nations over mitigation efforts on its head.
The report by former World Bank economist David Wheeler, who now leads the climate change division at the think tank Center for Global Development, finds that China spent 94 cents of every $10,000 of average income on clean energy between 1990 and 2008. The United States, by contrast, spent 44 cents of every $10,000.
Meanwhile, all other industrialized countries combined spent only a penny more per year than their less developed counterparts.
"We all had this idea that [climate change] was a rich country problem and that poor countries shouldn't have to do anything until they get to a certain stage of development, and that rich countries need to make it worth their while. But what I had seen suggested [was] that poor countries were already doing a lot," Wheeler said.
The data bore that out. Wheeler examined International Energy Agency data for 174 countries on investments in six low-carbon power sources (hydro, geothermal, nuclear, biomass, wind and solar) to find the incremental costs of clean power compared to a cheaper, carbon-intensive option like a conventional coal-fired power plant. He then computed the average income share in countries to compare how much people in poor countries are paying for carbon mitigation compared to those in rich nations.
"Lo and behold, you get a world in which the shares that poor countries have been devoting to low-carbon technologies over the past 18 years is really comparable to the rich countries," Wheeler said.
The study comes as countries continue to debate whether to develop a new international climate change treaty. Developing countries, which currently are not obligated to curb emissions, have long argued that they should not be required to help solve a problem caused by industrialized nations.
Many maintain that they also have "atmospheric rights" -- that is, the right to pollute -- in order to develop. Wealthy countries, meanwhile, argue that fast-growing developing countries like China and India are not doing enough to mitigate emissions. U.S. lawmakers in particular have argued that cutting carbon would put America at a competitive disadvantage to China.
Developing nations attracted to hydropower
But the fact is, countries are working steadily to develop clean energy. And, Wheeler's study argues, they've been doing so for a long time.
Since 1990, developing countries have accounted for 55 percent of the global increase in low-carbon energy generation, he found. China accounted for 15 percent of it alone.
In fact, because of the growth of hydroelectric generation in particular, developing nations like the Kyrgyz Republic, Bhutan, Mozambique, Paraguay and Zimbabwe crowd out the few top-spending developed countries like Iceland, Germany and Finland.
Tajikistan actually tops the list, spending $12.27 for the incremental costs of clean energy for every $10,000. But Wheeler noted that might be an anomaly because the country underwent a civil war. A push in hydro development in 1992-1993 might have been a restart of war-idled energy capacity rather than new development, he noted.
Iceland is the only high-income country in the top 10 list. With a gross domestic product per capita of $29,752, the country spends $11.56 per person annually -- mostly on geothermal power. But the Kyrgyz Republic, with a per capita GDP of just $1,634, has spent only slightly less -- $11.22 per person.
Wheeler said he purposely included the controversial energy sources hydro and nuclear. While environmental groups fighting for action on climate change don't like to include those options, Wheeler said he felt it was important to look simply at what sources produce low or zero emissions. At the same time, he argued, despite the safety risks and environmental hazards posed by nuclear and large hydro, respectively, the climate would be in far worse condition had countries not developed those sources.
See what we're tweeting about
48 Comments
Add CommentIf it were my choice we would spend zero dollars on 'clean energy' and convert over to CNG which is clean and abundant in the US. People don't need to be forced to pay more for energy just because some liberal in an ivory tower says so. Cheap, clean and practical is more important than low or no carbon energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I have a choice between feeding my family and some lofty green idea I choose my family every time. As a wise man once said, principles only matter when one is well fed.
Mass produced clean and green nuclear energy has a 40% rate of return on investment when used to eliminate ultra expensive fossil fuels. According to environmental expect James Hansen there is no other alternative if we hope to avert a global warming disaster in time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile we wait for greenies to get their heads on straight and Big Oil exec's and their wholly owned politicians to get jailed two other easy options are available.
Very little consideration or government support has been given to 3 day work weeks and telecommuting. These plans need to be made mandatory starting with the government forcing management to ensure any employee who can work a three day work week or telecommute does so. Potentially these could eliminate all oil imports just on their own.
Already prominent in third world countries, CNG is an option where ripoff priced natural gas to my home costing about 30 cents a liter equiv could be used for transpo fuel. The gas stations in town sell it for 75 cents - the difference a huge profit to T Boone Pickens and his giant US corporation made possible with large campaign donations to the right politicians.
Utah does it right selling CNG at local gas stations for 30 cents a liter same as at home.
To fill up at home cheap we need a home pump, really no more than a scuba tank compressor, which could be mass produced for a few hundred bucks.
The cost to produce a flex fuel CNG vehicle or convert an existing is a lot less than the cost of the battery for an electric vehicle. Even more so, if there was mass production of CNG vehicles, conversion kits and home compressors. Natural gas as methanol (40 cents a liter) would replace ethanol in current E85 flex fuel vehicles.
Yes, do carry on stealing from my kids' kids.... and your own kids' kids for that matter. I'm sure they'll understand your disinclination to invest a few percent of your comfort dollars in their ability to have a civilized life too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about we balance the federal budget and pay off the debt. I know my kids would appreciate that a lot more than paying even more taxes and/or higher energy costs for bogus science that says we (mankind) have anything to do with rising global temperatures or that anything short of trillions upon trillions of dollars would do anything to affect it in the least.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe would be far better off spending dollars to adjust to changing temperatures (which we could actually do) than spending the money to stop something that we may or may not be able to affect.
Yes, lets balance the budget! We can start off by eliminating subsidies to the oil industry, which has seen $1 TRILLION in profit over the last 10 years and doesn't look like it needs ANY subsidies. Oh, wait, Big OIL bought off a few Democrats and nearly ALL the Republicans to block even this most egregious portion of the Corporate Welfare Budget.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's stop all the rest of the Corporate Welfare on the budget and let the Free Market have more of an effect on economic decisions and our Tax Policy have a little less. Let's allow Medicare to bargain with the pharmaceutical companies like the VA and other large insurers do. Let's get the eff out of Iraq and Afghanistan and let’s ALSO cut back on our overseas bases that were a good idea in the Cold War but are become less relevant in today's world. Let's go back to the tax rates we had in the late 90's! The economy was doing pretty darn well then, so what's the difference now that makes this little 3% increase on the rich a bad idea?
As far as climate change being "bogus science", what DON'T you understand, that CO2 traps heat, or that we're causing it to build up in the atmosphere? If you accept those 2 facts, then it's all just an argument over Climate Sensitivity. Look here to get up to speed on the issue:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
This article makes it clear that we are losing our leadership in clean energy and sustainable development. We can't sit idly by, spewing pollution into the atmosphere and whining that we can't stop until China does. They're ALREADY starting to clean up their act, although they have a LOOOOONG way to go. Whether you like it or not, sustainable development will probably be the ONLY growth industry through much of the 21st Century. Well, it'll either be sustainable development or fallout shelters and later, football pads, take your pick.
"Take the example of Germany where they plan to eliminate the zero carbon emitting nuclear plants to build new coal fired power plants."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, they realised that they didn't really want a Fukushima-style incident on their hands, Germany is much, much more densely populated than the US. And don't forget that it already produces a massive 19.1% of its electricity from renewables and aims to almost double that, to 35% by 2020.
Only in the US is there such a strong advocacy in favour of using more dirty energy sources.
What makes this discussion "doubtful" at best is a lack of agreement on the definition of "green". Is nuclear green? Is natural gas obtained through fracking more green than burning coal which is the likely alternative? For that matter is even hydroelectric power green? There are certainly those who claim to be greener than thou who will say no to all of the above. It makes it very difficult to have an intelligent discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI said not one single thing about global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise. Resources like tantalum, neodymium, europium can be recycled even re-mined if necessary but once you let the heat energy out of methane its gone. Solar energy in all its manifold forms PV, solar thermal, bio (all forms)even wind will be seriously compromised come a global, atmospheric catastrophe (as most of the biggies will be). A few hundred years supply of easily accessed methane would be just the ticket to keep civilisation ticking along if some lazy so and soes hadn't frittered it already.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBalancing the budget is always a good plan in addition...
It makes more sense to invest in the development of alternative energy sources (a quick search shows that there are a lot of promising avenues out there) now, while we still have something of a fall-back cushion, than waiting until we have no choices left.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCrude oil will go first and the cheap, easy crude is about gone already. Natural gas supplies will last longer, but the ancillary costs of production are growing rapidly. Coal will last virtually forever, but the the hidden costs of coal dependency are egregious.
Let's get to work on alternatives while we can still do so relatively painlessly. The alternative is nothing short of mayhem.
Maybe the poor nations have no carbon based energy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRenewables would then be your only option, not a choice, not a virtue, nothing noble. If you're burning manure, that tells you you don't have much else around.
I'm fairly sure that these third world nations would smoke 'em if they had them. They are not stupid.
You are the only one who actually have a good budget balancing act, but I'll add two more things to the balancing act: cut all funding for building those $50 billion nuclear power plants that could wipe out the nation when they melt down. If the power goes off at a nuclear power plant and they can't get it back on in time...we are screwed. All the incentives that big oil, coal, nuclear, and gas no longer need, let's give to the development and production of electric cars and their batteries, and the development and building of geothermal, solar, hydro, and wave power plants and power sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne geothermal power plant the same size of a nuclear power plant can produce five times the energy and it is 99% cleaner and safer and a never ending power source. Mass producing electric cars will eliminate the greatest majority of CO1 and CO2 out of the air. Converting coal, nuclear, oil, and natural gas burning power plants to geothermal, hydro and wave would eliminate the rest of the carbons 1 and 2 out of the environment, and, we will have a balanced budget.
It is funny to see how poorer developing countries, knowing they are poor and in the ways of development, set themselves limitations on their rate of development.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI always get a kick out of the Denier movement with the junk science bringing up problems with an old 1950's design Model T reactor that was damaged by corruption caused technical problems and hurt nobody. Crippled by the same corrupt practices, the event caused no damage to seventies designed reactors just down the beach.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe entire quake tsunami disaster would have been a non event to a modern nuke.
Germany gets less than 2 per cent of its ENERGY from not so "renewables", and almost all of that is hydro.
From wikipedia
Germany is one of the largest consumers of energy in the world. In 2009, it consumed energy from the following sources:[16]
Oil 34.6%
Bituminous coal 11.1%
Lignite 11.4%
Natural gas 21.7%
Nuclear power 11.0%
Hydro- and wind power 1.5%
Others 9.0%
Because almost all our money is in the hands of the rich. They need to be forced to disgorge thereby balancing the budget.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever running a deficit is great if the money is spent on things that generate a payback like infrastructure. An investment of $2.5 trillion on nukes about 3 years of military budget would eliminate GHG production in the US, save 30K lives annually and do it at a national overall 40% Rate of return on investment.
Clean and Green nuclear is fraction of the cost of any alternative and has an unlimited fuel supply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsual horsepucky from Davis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSCANA in documents recently submitted to its regulator shows even the ultra expensive regulatory burdened US first of kind nuclear at $4B/Gw is less expensive than either gas or coal. Factory production of the SCANA reactors (AP-1000) now starting China is showing costs of new nuclear rapidly decreasing towards the 2 cent a kwh level currently experienced with old reactors in the US.
There are no current US nuclear subsidies.
There are no large scale geothermal development possible in the foreseeable future.
OMG you are SO DARN IGNORANT on energy issues! Please do some research instead of parroting the talking points supplied to you by the petroleum industry:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html
Or see here:
http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf
What did you think the recent fight to repeal some of the worst oil subsidies in the U.S. Congress was about, or did you not even pay attention?
Also from wikipedia:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to about 17 percent in 2010"
Or see here:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/03/new-record-for-german-renewable-energy-in-2010??cmpid=WNL-Wednesday-March30-2011
You have to be careful not to make the mistake of cherry-picking your data. The next paragraph after the one you cited said that Germany imports 2/3 of its energy, which was called into question by another wikipedia editor. Also, your numbers are quoting total energy, which includes oil for transportation use. Since that is over 1/3 of Germany's energy consumption, and considering that renewable energy CAN'T provide energy for transportation until electric cars become widespread, these suspect numbers are already skewed and are totally inadequate to draw conclusions about renewable energy production in Germany.
"...renewable energy CAN'T provide energy for transportation ...are already skewed..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong. When Renewable energy supplies all the Electric Power (which it won't), then it will HAVE to replace fuel for Heat (which it can) & also Transport. And most Greenies, including California legislature, DO NOT count Hydro as Renewable Energy. In any case Hydro is nearly maxed out. Most of Germany's so-called "Renewable Energy" is Hydro, Garbage Burning & Biomass - Raped from the Soil (where most carbon is stored). The new Renewables -- Solar, Wind & Geothermal -- only amount to a few percent of Germany's total Energy Output. Here is Germany's total Energy Production:
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DETPES.pdf
The thin little red line on top is their much-hyped Wind & Solar Energy. Any thickening of that red line is matched with a thickening of their NG line that is 5X larger. Notice how #1 anti-Nuclear country Germany, achieved a lot more and a lot quicker with their mundane Nuclear expansion than they have with their all-out, no-holds-barred, mega-subsidy Solar & Wind program. Their Renewable Energy program was "so successful" that they are planning on building 26 humungous lignite dirt-burners to supply the bulk of their new electricity requirements. The result - Germany produces 601 gm CO2 per kwh of electricity generated (one of the highest in Europe), while Nuclear France produces 83 gm CO2 per kwh.
Now lets see what France did in the same time with a mediocre effort on Nuclear, using an outdated US design, and archaic construction methods:
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/FRTPES.pdf
See the big fat yellow line - that's Nuclear. Notice how much Oil consumption it replaced. Notice how duplicate that modest effort one more time and France would be 100% Green Energy.
Yes poor countries lead in renewable energy. That may be a surprise to Americans and Germans. 85% of energy produced by Brazil is renewable, mostly hydro and biofuel. 35% of electric power of Philippines are from geothermal and hydro.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn absolute amounts, Brazil and Philippines are second largest in biofuel and geothermal respectively. US is the largest in both but as a percent of its total energy consumption, US is far behind Brazil and Philippines.
This is not because poor countries have no choice but to burn manure. Brazil has the Amazon river for hydro and the Amazon rainforest for biofuel. Philippines, like Japan, is in the Pacific "ring of fire." It has many active volcanoes for geothermal.
Nope, Brazil's total energy supply is about 50% combined "Renewables" plus waste plus Hydro.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of the non-Hydro Renewables are Sugar Cane Ethanol which is rapidly depleting the soil, releasing large amounts of carbon to the atmosphere - hardly renewable, and CERTAINLY not Sustainable - and requires large fossil fuel inputs.
Brazil Sugar Cane - not so green or renewable.
Philipines are about 45% combined renewable plus waste plus Hydro.
All of the above DO NOT take into consideration the huge EXERGY Debt & Fossil Fuel inputs required for Biomass production & Waste Burning. As well as huge GHG releases & destruction of natural CO2 sinks by Biomass production & harvesting. Geothermal is also notorious for releasing CO2 to the atmosphere.
Everybody will learn to live with less energy when it is not available.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming is proceeding faster than predicted.Sulphur dioxide is lowering heat input by reflecting heat back into the heliosphere, but it is not enough and does not last long, it always returns to the surface as acid rain.
The main driver of warming is the global human population. Global warming through famine will control population, already if the UN does not intervene dozens of millions of our species will be humanely eliminated by famine. If you have observed people dying form starvation you will realise its not that awful.
For mammals the problem is the momentum driving warming will eliminate the ice buffer. This temperature moderating buffer will mean higher variation in temperatures, the highs will then be moderated by the water/water-vapour buffer. Mammals can not survive at these temperatures.Planet earth will then become more like her twin sister Venus, but not that hot as long as water exists.
I guess you ARE that blind! Do you automatically twist people's words in your mind to suit your own ends? I ever said oil subsidies drive the deficit. I said they were a part, just like unfair tax breaks for rich people that have pocketed over 90% of U.S. GDP gains over the last few decades or our bloated national security budget. $5B is a LITTLE more than non-existent, don't you think?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe oil companies take advantage of a law meant to keep manufacturers from moving their production overseas, and lobbied hard to get their operations included. Now, you can't pick up an oil field and move it to Mexico or China, can you? U.S. workers are going to work on that rig / well / whatever to extract domestic oil, so handing the oil companies money NOT to ship jobs overseas that they CAN'T possibly ship overseas is an abuse of the law. They are also the only industry that gets to count royalty payments to foreign countries as taxes, lowering their tax liability in the U.S. The accelerated depreciation is part of that $5B per year as well. The hypocrisy comes in when the Republicans say we can't afford tornado warning systems, improved air traffic control systems, renewable energy development, help for the poor, education, etc., but we can NEVER even TOUCH corporate welfare for their buddies in the oil industry!
When the oil majors made $1TRILLION in PROFIT last decade, you can't possibly defend one dollar in corporate handouts to these people with a straight face!
You got bad data there. The chart excluded electricity trade, is now over 4 years out-of-date, combines renewables and waste (waste heat recovery & hydro?) into the same catagory, and still includes the 1/3 of the energy from oil for transportation that dilutes clean energy's share of the pie. Everything I see says that renewables, including hydro, supply 17% of German electricity. They sell a lot of their renewable energy to their neighboors and make good money doing it too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe rest of your assertions aren't backed up by any data, so it looks like you should think again before calling somebody besides yourself wrong. The Socialist (Oh noes!) French government threw MASSIVE subsidies at their nuclear industry, so considering your slant, I don't think you want to use them as an example and stay consistent with your ideology.
"...You got bad data there..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a dumb statement. That's the IEA. And it is to the end of 2008, that's 2 years old, not 4 yrs. And graphs show trends clearly, I guess in your fantasy mind, that red line will suddenly EXPLODE from 2009 to 2011. And including Electricity Trade will make the tiny Wind & Solar line even thinner, since that highly fluctuating energy largely must be exported, when the Wind maxes (that's exactly what they do in Ontario & Denmark).
And the graph DOES NOT include Hydro with WASTE BURNING (NOT waste heat recovery). It shows Hydro seperate (thin, tiny blue line).
And if you knew anything about electricity trade you would know that Germany looses $billions exporting its Wind (Solar is much smaller) at a loss, as does Denmark & Ontario.
And France managed to generate half of their TOTAL ENERGY Supply with Nuclear in about 15 yrs. Germany isn't even close to this with Renewables and even its Electricity Supply. And France has much lower electricity prices than Germany and is expanding Nuclear, because it makes huge profits in exports to Germany & Denmark. France managed this feat in spite of being a middle wealth nation, with one of the best health care & social services in the World, one of the most expensive, World Class Militaries in the World, and during the period improved their Standard of Living & productivity much faster than Renewables Germany, and instituted a 4 day, max 35 hr work week with minimum 5 weeks paid vacation – most get 8 weeks. See:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/27/60II/main704571.shtml
I said energy produced in Brazil is 85% renewable. You are referring to energy supply, which include locally produced and imports.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSugar cane is not renewable? That means once you harvest it, it won't grow again. Biofuels will not add more atmospheric CO2 bec. in order to grow they take CO2 from the atmosphere. They are CO2 neutral. The energy input need not be from fossil fuels.
CO2 sinks get destroyed permanently if you don't replant. But where will you get biofuel if you don't replant? Geothermal releases steam H2O not CO2. The gases are reinjected into the wells.
"...I said energy produced in Brazil is 85% renewable. You are referring to energy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissupply..."
Nope, Brazil's Energy Produced is also 50% "Renewable". see:
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/BRPROD.pdf
Learn how Sugar Cane production for fuel is NOT RENEWABLE, NOT SUSTAINABLE and a Human Tragedy:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/16/419334/-Those-Happy-Sugarcane-Workers-In-Brazil:-The-Car-Culture-and-Urinary-Carcinogens
Show proof that Germany exports wind energy at a loss. Actually, I'll save you the trouble: that's IMPOSSIBLE because fuel cost for wind energy is ZERO to begin with. Oh, and you probably need to learn to count, bro. The way the graph is presented, it begins on 1 Jan 1972, so it's really 3 years, 7 months and 20 days out of date if you want to get serious. And yes, Germany has had record years of renewable energy instillation since. then.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...Biofuels will not add more atmospheric CO2 bec. in order to grow they take CO2 from the atmosphere. They are CO2 neutral..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLearn why Biomass is NOT CARBON NEUTRAL:
http://janderson99.hubpages.com/hub/Burning-Biomass-for-Energy-Carbon-Neutral-What-a-Stupid-Idea
Google for the lowdown on Biofuels: "Peak Soil: Why cellulosic ethanol, biofuels are unsustainable and a threat to America"
As for Geothermal CO2:
"...The suite of 20 geothermal sites from which Southern California Electric is obligated to buy electricity produces 730 tonnes of CO2 for every gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity produced.
Across the spectrum of all natural-gas power plants in the US, the average CO2 production is 519 tonnes per GWh. That is, the geothermal power plants, which burn no fossil fuels whatsoever, produce 41% more CO2 than the run-of-the-mill natural gas power plant for the same amount of electrical energy produced..."
"...Show proof that Germany exports wind energy at a loss. Actually, I'll save you the trouble: that's IMPOSSIBLE because fuel cost for wind energy is ZERO to begin with..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess you've never heard of negative floor pricing. Ontario had to PAY Quebec and Ohio 14 cents per kwh to TAKE their Wind Energy which Maxed on New Years Day when nobody needed the energy. See:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/01/26/ont-power-giveaway.html
This study proves that fluctuating Wind results in a huge export of subsidies - in other words - Wind means BUY HIGH, SELL LOW!:
http://www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf
The graph includes oil for export. 85% is energy produced and used domestically.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article does not prove sugar cane is not renewable and sustainable. It only talks about poor working condition and destruction of wetland. It is a management problem. There are well managed sugar plantations.
The article does not prove biomass is not CO2 neutral. It only says it will take many years for replanted trees to grow and absorb the same amount of CO2. This is only true for cutting old trees and a replanting ratio of one is to one. Most biofuel plants grow in a year.
As for geothermal CO2, please explain where the CO2 is coming from. That's an unusual case. Are they burning fossil fuel to run their geothermal plant?
Here, I'll provide your source for the hit-job you posted on geothermal power's CO2 emissions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.energyadvocate.com/air_geo.htm
Not a very impressive web site, but good job using google to pounce on the first shady link that agreed with your pre-existing beliefs.
Here's a good passage from http://www.jardhitafelag.is/media/PDF/S12Paper103.pdf :
"The CO2 emitted from geothermal plants is already part of the CO2 cycle, no new CO2 is being produced as is the case in fossil fuel plants. Furthermore this CO2 is usually removed from the cycle where there is already vigorous degassing from geothermal and volcanic areas and it is possible that the addition to the atmosphere is negligible."
You're so wrong so often, maybe you should leave the energy discussion to the grown-ups.
Oh, and I keep seeing that hit-piece on the Danish Wind Industry pop up again and again as a "source" for how bad wind energy is. Well, the study was commissioned by the U.S.-based IER:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The IER has been described by conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh as "the energy equivalent of the Heritage Foundation".[5] When the Institute released studies claiming that automobile fuel-efficiency mandates raise the cost of automobiles, among other outcomes, the Los Angeles Times referred to it as "a Washington-based hotbed of global warming denial supported by oil and coal interests".[6]"
More disinformation for your balanced breakfast! Brought to you by ExxonMobil!
From you own source about Ontario:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In 2010 we exported $300 million worth of electricity [and] we had to give away $6 million [worth]," he said. "We're up $294 million, just so we put this in context and perspective."
"Just two days before New Year's Day, Ontario was paid to take excess electricity from other jurisdictions, said Energy Minister Brad Duguid.
"On Dec. 30 the same occurred but in reverse, and we were paid to take somebody else's energy," said Duguid.
"[It's] part of a reciprocal agreement that makes for a more effective system overall with neighbouring jurisdictions."
Nuclear power provides about half of the province's electricity, but it's too difficult and costly to turn off when power isn't needed."
Wow, you made it so easy to tear up your weak argument, I hardly had to go looking for sources at all!
So the CO2 is coming from the wells. Those plants are behind in geothermal technology because modern plants reinject the gases into wells so there is no CO2 emission. This has been done since the 1980s.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I start to have a say in how many children these folks have in backward countries, I will then listen to what they 'think'. In the meantime all is futile.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“…The graph includes oil for export. 85% is energy produced and used domestically…”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYep, and all goods imported into Brazil contain embodied foreign energy sources. I showed you the two standard and accepted graphs for Brazil, Energy Produced & Energy consumed – you want to invent your own personal version and pretend that you are talking about an accepted standard. You ain’t. About 50% of Brazil’s Energy Consumption is Renewable. Period.
"...The article does not prove sugar cane is not renewable and sustainable..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot good enough for you? Your contention that Sugar Cane ethanol is Carbon Neutral is absolute nonsence. You have never heard of Energy Inputs? EROEI? The CARB full lifecycle analysis for sugarcane ethanol calculates it emits 27.4 gms CO2 per MJ of produced Ethanol vs Gasoline @ 95.9. Much better, but certainly NOT ZERO! However, when you include Indirect Land Use effects the sugarcane ethanol number goes to 73.4, only 23% better than gasoline. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILUC
A more cautious analysis "The Dirty Truth about Biofuels": http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/pf_bio.htm
"...Adding together water remediation, diesel fuel to power plantation equipment, transportation fuel, fertilizer costs, the embodied energy in plantation and refinery machinery, the energy required to hybridize seed, and the energy of herbicides and insecticides, at minimum the energy costs of ethanol production average 63.6 GJ/ha-yr. This does not include the energy of ethanol distillation, which is assumed to come entirely from the bagasse and plant "wastes". Thus, when burned in a 35% efficient Carnot engine, sugarcane ethanol has a negative net energy of -18 GJ/ha-yr..."
"...Sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil is successful only due to large government subsidies. As these subsidies dry up, it is hard to see how the industry could continue. Studies suggesting positive energy returns for sugarcane ethanol are fundamentally incomplete and therefore wrong..."
"...Ethanol distilleries require large settling ponds that contaminate ground and surface water. This damage has gone largely untreated. And there is the problem of vinasse. This is a byproduct of sugarcane distillation that has a high BOD [33] and is very acidic. It is produced in quantities up to 15 times larger than the amount of ethanol. As of yet, there is no easy and economical means of disposing of vinasse..."
Don't sound to renewable or sustainable to me. So the cheapest & best of the Biofuels, Sugarcane Ethanol can produce at best net 63.6GJ/ha-yr. USA Transportation Energy Consumption is 30 billion GJ/yr. Total Arable Land in the entire USA is 1,650,062 sq.km. So that means even the best Biofuel on the best land in the World would require an area 2.8X the TOTAL ARABLE Land in the USA, just to supply the current USA transportation fuel. Ridiculous. This is not a serious Energy Solution.
"...The CO2 emitted from geothermal plants is already part of the CO2 cycle, no new CO2 is being produced as is the case in fossil fuel plants. Furthermore this CO2 is usually removed from the cycle where there is already vigorous degassing from geothermal and volcanic areas and [IT IS POSSIBLE?!?] that the addition to the atmosphere is negligible..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you claim the CO2 released is part of the CO2 cycle so it doesn't count. And Scientific Earthling claims they don't release any CO2, it is all returned into the ground. Hmmm, sounds like a bit of flim-flam to me. Yep, I imagine that some REALLY EXPENSIVE and showcase Geothermal Plants do return MOST of the CRAP that they bring up from deep in the Earth, back into the Earth. And I imagine that a good portion of the CO2 emitted by Geothermal plants does return to the atmosphere through Volcanic Processes, but NOT AT THE RATE that the Geothermal Plants are releasing them.
In any case, the major issue with Geothermal is that it is and always will be a bit player, and an expensive one at that. Total Solar Heat Flow is 4000X Total Geothermal Heat Flow and Solar remains, and likely always will be a Bit Player in the World Energy Supply.
Iceland is the geothermal power center of the World - with decades of experience. They just completed a large 690 MW Hydro project. So why didn't they go geothermal instead? They only get 11% of their electricity from geothermal power, the rest from Hydro.
Alaska sitting on top of Volcanoes, hot springs & active fault zones uses 9.4% Coal, 14.8% Oil, 56.7% NG, 18.9% Hydro and a WHOPPING 0.2% for ALL OF Geothermal, Wind, Solar, Biomass etc.
You would think Hawaii, sitting on top of active volcanoes, would be the Geothermal Power capital of the USA. Instead it relies on Coal for 13%, and expensive imported Oil for 68% of its electricity supply, with 1.8 % coming from Geothermal, 0.7% from Wind Energy and not surprisingly has the highest power rates in the USA of 21.3 cents per kwh. And Hawaii is run by super-Greenies who claim to LOVE Renewable Energy. I would say if Geothermal was so economical they would have figured it out in Hawaii decades ago.
Toxic metals, minerals, chemicals & gases leach out with the geothermal steam or hot water, as it is forced through rock fissures. Hydrogen Sulfide, Ammonia, Methane & CO2, Sulfur, Vanadium, Chlorides, Mercury, Nickel and Radon & other Radioactive isotopes are released. Not so clean & green.
"...seeing that hit-piece on the Danish Wind Industry pop up again and again as a "source" for how bad wind energy is. Well, the study was commissioned by the U.S.-based IER..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe CEPOS study is an excellent RATIONAL analysis of Danish Wind Energy. Sault COWARDLY avoids any consideration of the facts by just launching a "hit-piece" on the IER. Yep, Rush Limbaugh once gave the IER a positive review, he also gave Obama a positive review for his Bin Laden raid, so according to Sault's stated belief, everything Obama says should be immediately rejected as false and right wing propaganda. That's Sault's logic.
So Greenpeace tried hard to do a hatchet job on the IER (because they were incapable of countering the factual information in the CEPOS study) and all they could dig up is that the Koch brothers donated $235k over a period of 11 yrs to the IER. And Exxon donated $307k over the same period. WOW! Amounts that Greenpeace considers coffee money. Let's look at some of Greenpeace's donations:
$1.4M over 5 yrs from the Ted "the Natural Gas King" Turner Foundation. Ted Turner stated that the World Population needs to be "reduced" to 250-300 million people.
$1.2M over 8 yrs from the Rockefeller Mega-Oil Baron's Foundations. Nice tax dodge to.
Check out one of Sault's Greenie buddies, Joe Romm's hatchet job on IER founder, Robert Bradley and the REAL Truth:
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/05/joe-romm-and-enron-setting-the-record-straight-2/
As for Sault's contention that Oil is opposing Wind Energy - just shows how little he knows about energy. Capacity Factor of Wind in Germany is 20%, so where does the other 80% of energy that MUST shadow the fluctuating Wind Energy come from? You guessed it - Natural Gas - Big Oil's subsidiary that it wants to take over most Electricity generation. So America can import expensive LNG from the Middle East along with Oil.
Once again we see Sault does not understand how the power grid operates. In Ontario during the night when demand is low, the baseload power plants, mostly Nuclear & Hydro supply all of Ontario's electrical demand. That is already Zero Carbon Energy. It would be stupid to cutback on Nuclear since that would save $0 & Zero Carbon. And Hydro must maintain water flow. So what happens when Wind maxes at night? Obviously, since they are not allowed to throw it away (by Duguid's edict) the Ontario consumer must buy the Wind at ~16 cents per kwh, and sell it to Quebec and Ohio at max 3 cents per kwh. Often PAYING as much as 14 cents a kwh for them to take the worthless Wind. According to Sault - that's a good deal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo Ontario citizens must pay 13.5 cents per kwh for onshore wind, 19.5 cents for offshore wind, plus 1 cent federal subsidy, plus the PERR subsidy, plus a major accelerated depreciation tax credit, plus additional subsidies like the Ontario Gov't was caught secretly transferring revenue from the Ontario Lottery Corp to Wind Farms - money that was supposed to go to things like treating sick children. Private Nuclear in Ontario is costing 5-6 cents per kwh, for reliable 24/7 baseload power.
And this fellow proves that expensive Wind IS NOT displacing Coal, contrary to what Duguid promised, but is actually being exported for < 3 cents per kwh. So Ontario citizens are subsidizing exported Wind Power at more than 11 cents per kwh. Sault thinks that makes good sense.
http://ontariowindperformance.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/chapter-4-11-2-wind-replacing-coal/
http://ontariowindperformance.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/chapter-4-11-4-then-where-is-wind-all-going-2/
http://ontariowindperformance.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-wind-means-more-risk-to-the-ontario-electricity-grid/
Where did you get 50% energy consumption? Your graph is energy production. I did not invent 85%. Check out wikipedia, it's there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour quotations don't say sugar cane are not renewable and not CO2 neutral. They just state the amount of CO2 released by ethanol combustion and the energy input of sugar cane ethanol. Of course ethanol combustion releases CO2. All hydrocarbons do. CO2 neutral does not mean no CO2 emission. It means no CO2 is added to the atmosphere because it also came from the atmosphere.
As for the energy input of sugar cane ethanol, all transportable fuels require energy input to produce. How much energy required to produce gasoline? You contruct an oil rig in middle of the sea. Drill 3 km to the bottom of the sea. Transport the oil halfway across the globe. Distill the crude oil in refineries. That's a lot of energy input.
You don't have to replace the whole transportation energy of US with biofuel. Is there a single fuel that can supply all transportations? Can you power jet aircrafts and large ships with electric battery? If biofuel and geothermal are not clean enough for you, what is your alternative? Solar powered airplane? Bicycle? Sail boat?
"...Where did you get 50% energy consumption? Your graph is energy production. I did not invent 85%..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNope, the first graph I linked for you is total primary energy supply - THAT IS energy consumption. Show me your link for 85%.
"...Your quotations don't say sugar cane are not renewable and not CO2 neutral ...Of course ethanol combustion releases CO2... CO2 neutral does not mean no CO2 emission. It means no CO2 is added to the atmosphere because it also came from the atmosphere..."
Nope. That's NOT what it says. Ethanol combustion releases 75.6 gms Carbon per kwh of energy vs gasoline combustion releases 72.0 gms per kwh. So by that standard Ethanol is worse than gasoline. The studies I quoted you were full lifecycle analysis of SUGARCANE ETHANOL planting & fertilizing, growing (absorbing atmospheric CO2), harvest, transportation, processing & distribution. They include the fact that the actual growing of the sugarcane & the burning of bagasse & plant wastes for processing are CO2 neutral. Fertilizer, Transportation fuel, water pumping & processing, electricity inputs & soil destruction / indirect landuse effects ARE NOT using CO2 from the atmosphere, but from Fossil Fuels or are releasing trapped CO2 in the Soil (where twice as much Carbon is stored as the atmosphere).
"...You don't have to replace the whole transportation energy of US with biofuel. Is there a single fuel that can supply all transportations? ... If biofuel and geothermal are not clean enough for you, what is your alternative?..."
Biofuel is a RIPOFF and is only viable due to HUGE SUBSIDIES and TOTAL NEGLECT of the Environmental & Social (i.e. starvation & high food prices) effects. It is trivially easy to supply the energy we need for transportation. The only issue is Big Oil ensures viable alternatives are not utilized. In China (not under Big Oil's thumb) they are using Methanol/DME from Coal & NG for fuel. The DOE built an IGCC Coal Power plant that co-produced Methanol for 13 cents per liter. Like buying gasoline for 26 cents per liter or 98 cents per gallon, except Methanol burns much cleaner than gasoline and at double the efficiency of gasoline in a converted (high compression) engine. So more like gasoline at 50 cents per gallon with virtually unlimited supply. It costs 3.2 cents per liter to convert NG into Methanol.
There are large reserves of NG that are too remote to transport by pipeline (like Canadian Arctic). And Methanol is an easy fuel to transport. Spills are environmentally benign. And Methanol can also be converted cheaply into synthetic diesel, although for most applications DME (two joined Methanol molecules) is the best substitute for diesel. It burns much cleaner than diesel in a diesel engine and more efficiently with the highest Cetane Number of any fuel. Big Oil considers Methanol its #2 enemy, its #1 enemy is of course Nuclear Power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most efficient use of WASTE Biomass is to convert it to Methanol/DME/synthetic Diesel by Fischer–Tropsh, using Nuclear Hydrogen & Nuclear Electricity. This results in true ZERO CARBON liquid fuels, that are MUCH cheaper than Biofuels, in MUCH higher volumes because it results in the 100% transfer of Biomass Carbon to Liquid Fuel Carbon (not 20% as in Sugarcane Ethanol). The value of Biomass is in its ability to trap atmospheric carbon. You want ALL of that valuable Carbon transferred to your liquid fuels. Biomass is a PATHETIC source of Energy, typically it traps 0.1 to 0.5% of Solar Input Energy, compared with a Solar Panel which traps 10-20%, and only has to be installed once – no planting, no harvesting, no processing. It is STUPID & RIDICULOUS & downright CRIMINAL to use Biomass for Energy other than as a supply of liquid fuel carbon.
And of course, ideally we would use Nuclear Electricity to supply our Transportation energy with batteries and Electrificied Rail & Quick Charging for long distance transport – and Nuclear Powered Shipping. Aircraft probably would need Nuclear Synthetic Fuels, although some Battery Electric is doable. Note the cheapest Large Format, Long Life Batteries are NiMH ($225 per kwh), which Chevron stole the patent for and refuses to release for transportation & storage applications.
On the point about clean, zero CO2 energy for Shipping, check out this video on one of the ten Russian Nuclear Power Icebreakers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://tinyurl.com/2doo92y
Crashing through Ice at speed requires a huge amount of energy, Canada & the USA's diesel powered icebreakers are a PATHETIC JOKE compared to this Russian Nuclear Powered Icebreaker. It travels at 15 knots for one day through 6 ft of ice on ONE POUND of Uranium. Canada & the USA's diesel powered Icebreakers (they got stuck trying to reach the North pole) cannot do a fraction of that consuming 100 tons of smoke belching fuel every day. They need a bloody Oil Tanker to keep them running.
From the Video:
"...crashing through ice 10 ft thick, and to see her 25,000 tons roaring along @ 20 knots, it is hard not to be staggered by the Nuclear Fires in this Ship's belly..."
Here's your link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Brazil
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's good you clarified that biofuel is CO2 neutral but fossil fuel is not. That's right. Once you burn liquid carbon, CO2 is released. Same as biomass and biofuel.
You think nuclear waste is cleaner than biofuel and geothermal? I rest my case.
Follow your link to its source:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe quoted source for the Wikipedia statement ACTUALLY states: "...Brazil's success in generating electric energy from renewable sources, which currently represent 85.4% of the country's electricity supply..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNOT total primary Energy Supply. 80% of their Electricity comes from traditional Hydro, most of the rest from Oil, NG & Coal. Only 4.4% from Biomass/Wind/Solar/Geothermal.
"...You think nuclear waste is cleaner than biofuel and geothermal..."
Damn right. Nuclear Waste is 99.99% safely contained while Biofuel gets to spew its waste into the atmosphere, lakes, rivers & oceans. Note Biofuel combustion is very high in particulates - carcinogens.
"...Nuclear power produces about 1 ounce of nuclear waste per person per year with no fuel reprocessing. The bottom line here is that for each pound of nuclear waste we produce, we could be preventing the release of 322,000 pounds of carbon dioxide! The United States doesn't do any recycling of spent nuclear fuel. 95% of the spent fuel is Uranium or Plutonium that can be recycled and used for more fuel. France uses partial fuel reprocessing and only produces about 3/10ths of an ounce of waste per person. Better methods exist for reprocessing fuel, which should allow us improve the ratio of carbon dioxide to nuclear waste to 1,000,000 to one! What do you think is the real waste disposal problem: 1 oz of nuclear waste or 11 tons of carbon dioxide?..."
TOTAL LIFETIME ENERGY consumption per capita, in the USA would be met with 0.26 kg of natural uranium or thorium with 260 gms or < one cubic inch of waste products, if burned in a high burn Reactor. Current one-pass LWR's in the USA produce 30 cubic inches of lifetime waste per person or 12 cubic inches of lifetime electricity per capita share. You would need 1180 tons of Coal or 2770 Barrels of Oil to supply the lifetime per capita Energy Consumption of USA. And Coal solid waste would be 260 tons. And 2540 tons of CO2 or 1.1 million cubic meters.
Regarding your Renewable Energy in Brazil. It's largest source is the Itaipu Dam. To make that source they had to flood - as in PERMANENTLY destroy - an area larger than the Fukushima evacuation zone. They also had to PERMANENTLY EXPELL as much people as the TEMPORARY & mostly unnecessary evacuation around Fukushima. The Hydro also uses 10X the water of Nuclear due to evaporation from the reservoir and releases large quantities of GHG emissions from rotting vegetation. Funny the Media & Greenpeace has no problem with that.