Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen — 28 November 2023
My piece a few days ago emphasized the fact that in the contest between renewables and fossil fuels used to make electricity around the world, and their emissions, there were only a three countries whose contribution really mattered: China, India, USA and maybe a few others to a lesser degree. All the other 185 or so nations make almost literally no difference regardless of what they do: go full renewable or go full fossil fuel.
The question was raised, from the charts provided by Ember (used in the NY Times) by a reader:
“China having a higher share of renewables each year, while also having a massive growth in overall electricity consumption. … What does this tell us about the type and amount of capacity they add each year?”
and some discussion followed as to whether China was increasing coal faster than renewables or vice-versa.
One reader offered this chart in evidence:
Of course, the chart is in percentages, and does show, on that basis, that the percentage of renewables has increase 10% while fossils fuels have dropped by 15%.
But, what about COAL? The “dirtiest” of all fossil fuels?
84% of the increase in coal consumption, worldwide, is the result of additional coal-fired power plants in China alone. The only other significant contributor is Spain. There are certainly a lot of very small contributors making up the remainder of the increase, which amounts to about 34 TWh in total.
Increased use of coal to make electricity is not a one-year thing. It means additional coal powered power plants being operated and they will continue to use that increased amount of coal into the future, unless the plants are converted to some other fuel such as natural gas, or shut down altogether, in the future.
Just to round out the set, another reader properly points outs that electrical generation is a small piece of the energy pie, and that Primary Energy is the much larger usage of fuels.
“One might also consider that electricity generation is only about a quarter to a third of global primary energy consumption.”
As for Primary Power consumption, China still leads the pack:
The above is an annual change graph. The world is using more and more electricity. And more and more primary power.
What is the source of that primary energy?:
What’s the problem? Oh, you can’t see the percentage that is renewable? The percentage that is nuclear? That’s the point!
If the IPCC world wishes to reduce fossil fuels use, it is the primary energy sector they must concentrate on.
And if that is the case, what is to replace all those fossil fuels in primary energy arena? I certainly don’t know. Any suggestions?
So, if the IPCC is to rein in fossil fuel consumption in just the electrical sector, China and India (and in the future, Africa as a whole) must agree to not only stop building more coal-fired plants, but must begin to close or re-power the existing coal-fired plants. If China does so, it will adversely affect the economy of Australia which supplies some of that coal.
But switching to electric cars, heat pumps, solar-panels-on-the rooftop/batteries-in-the-garage, induction stoves and all ONLY affects the electrical sector – it does not even touch upon the primary energy problem – the majority of energy use in the world today.
As always, don’t ask me, I don’t know. I do have opinions:
1. “All of the above” is the correct answer for energy sources for the electrical sector, and, yes, that means massively increasing nuclear everywhere. Solar and wind are great where they make sense geographically and economically and where they can be intelligently added to existing, improved and expanding electrical grids.
2. Serious research needs to be done to find what makes sense in the overall primary power sector. We need cement, we need steel, we need aluminum, we need plastics, we need micro-chips, we need petroleum distillates and by-products. The production of these essentials requires power and not everything can be done with electricity.
3. A note to all you really smart guys and gals out there:
This is your challenge. Even without the Climate Crazies’ viewpoint, fossil fuels are just too valuable (and limited in quantity) to simply burn for their energy content. We need new sources of power (nuclear and fusion might do, eventually) and more so do we need new technologies to make the things we need without wasting the fossil fuels available to us.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
Really, I have no idea what to do about primary energy and how to replace the fossil fuels that supply the vast majority of it.
The world is open to suggestions. Someone might listen to a good idea.
There are several good books on this topic — for the deep deep details, try Dr. Lars Schernikau and Prof. Willam Hayden Smith’s, “The Unpopular Truth about Electricity and the Future of Energy”.
I’d like to read a free-ranging discussion in the Comments.
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #