Climate Change: Near Term Prospects

By its very nature this will be a long post, but I ask you to read it all the way to the end, because all of it is important, and as you read, be aware that I have not made up one single word of it. I promised you facts and these are the facts.

I’m not going to rehash all the posts I have posted on this subject over the previous 8 months. Some will be mentioned and I will refer back to them on occasions.

However, if you do have an interest then these posts are readily available. Down the right side of this page outside of the text areas are long lists or further links. Scroll all the way to the bottom and in the area marked ‘Tag Cloud’, you will see the large word ‘Kyoto.’ Click on that and and a series of posts will open. At the top, you will see the text ‘previous entries.’ Keep clicking on that as each page opens and it will take you right back to the first entry of a 58 part series, all concerning this debate, and a further 30 or so entries since that series was completed.

With further posts from today, I will be endeavouring to raise new information, and offering explanation of the direction we will now be taking.

For this post, I will be showing some of the implications of what was actually promised during the campaign. Again I stress that this is non political, and will be based upon pointing you to further explanation as to the implications. To achieve that, I will again have to provide some background.

This first link will be to an entry from Wikipedia. I rarely use that as a source, because it can so easily be corrupted. However, in this case it is information only, and it deals with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (UNFCCC) This is where the Kyoto Protocol originated. The intent of that Protocol was to address the Climate Change debate. There are 192 Countries signatory to the Protocol, and only the US holds out on ratifying the Protocol, having signed the original intent but not the ratification. That in itself you might think accusatory, but once you actually see (and understand) the intent you will see why.

The object of the Protocol is for every Country on Earth to reduce their emissions to a level 5% below their levels calculated in 1990, except for the US, and they are required to reduce their levels to 7% below the 1990 level. This is most definitely something that can not be laid at the feet of the outgoing Bush Administration, because the Clinton Administration before that also rejected the Protocol, even with Al Gore as the Vice President, so there is hypocrisy from that front as well.

The United States would be required to reduce its total emissions an average of 7% below 1990 levels, however neither the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration sent the protocol to Congress for ratification. The Bush administration explicitly rejected the protocol in 2001.

Of those 192 Countries subject to the Protocol, the UN split them into 3 different areas. The first lists Industrialised Countries, and there is only 40 of them.

The third lists those Countries categorised as ‘Developing Countries’, 152 in all.

Here is the excerpt listing those Countries in the second group, basically the same as for the first area minus some Countries exempted from the intent of the bracketed statement, and I want you to carefully read what is in the brackets after the heading.

Annex II countries (developed countries which pay for costs of developing countries)
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States of America.

That is the whole list. 23 out of 192 Countries. They are to pay the costs of not only their own Country, but of all the other Countries. Since that list was compiled, China had overtaken the US as the largest single emitter on the Planet, and they are classed as a developing economy. Those developing Countries are not subject to the Protocol other than to report their emissions. The intent is that those Industrialised Countries implement measures to reduce emissions and also to pay for the introduction of those same measures in those Developing Countries. That gives some indication as to why successive Administrations from opposite political sides rejected signing the Protocol as ratifying it. As you read this list, some further explanation is needed. The U.S. produces one fourth of the total power consumed on Earth. China and India together produce another fourth, so with them not included on that list that makes the U.S. as a one third (and probably closer to a half) as the major contributor to those costs of paying for the rest of the World, and that is in addition to fulfilling its own responsibilities with respect to the implications of the Protocol.

The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, not that that signals the end of it, but meaning it will be replaced by a new one. The UNFCCC meets every year in the runup to 2012. This years meeting will be held in Poznan Poland from 1 to 12 December, and we wait to see if the new Obama Administration will send a representative to that meeting, which is basically procedural to work out strategies for the main meeting in Copenhagen in 2009, which will be when that new Administration will make its intentions known.

This next link indicates just what there might be as the shape of the things to come.The article is from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and roughly estimates the costs of delivering those cuts in Carbon Dioxide (CO2) greenhouse gas emissions between now and 2050, and as you read this keep in mind the list of Countries to pay for the rest of the World.

The projected costs for the rest of the Planet amount to $45 Trillion, admitted that this will be spread out over the time between now and 2050, but look a little further into it. That figure is the most conservative and based solely on the introduction of an emissions trading scheme based at the lower level of $50 per ton of CO2 produced. That also is a best (cheapest) case scenario to bring CO2 levels down to those existing now. To bring levels back to lower than now, then the cost increases exponentially. This first excerpt from that article indicates the first option.

Bringing CO2 back to current levels
To bring CO2 emissions back to current levels in 2050, all options are needed at a cost of up to $50 per ton CO2, according to the report. No single form of energy or technology can provide the full solution. Improving energy efficiency is the first step and is very attractive as it results in immediate cost savings. Significantly reducing emissions from power generation is also a key component of emissions stabilisation. But even this is not enough.

This next excerpt indicates the costs involved in bring the levels even lower, and that percentage there indicates the equivalent of taking emissions back to that 7% lower than 1990 level. This now makes that original optimistic figure of $45 Trillion blow out to $450 Trillion, spread out over 40 years, and amounting to an implication of $11 Trillion per year, and this does not take into account the added extra of alleviating the problem within the US.

Reducing emissions 50% below current levels
Emissions halving implies that all options up to a cost of $200 per ton CO2 will be needed. This is based on a set of “optimistic assumptions for technology development.” Under less optimistic assumptions, options that would cost up to $500 per ton CO2.

This next excerpt needs to be taken in context with the rest of the Planet outline. Those coal fired plants are the large ones that produce the huge amounts of electricity, in the vicinity of 2000+MW nameplate maximum, while those gas fired plants, which emit less CO2 are in the small to medium bracket, as the nature of their design is such that they cannot be as large as those coal fired plants. With respect to the Nuclear Plants, that figure again is Worldwide, so you’re looking at one third of them alone being in the US, and that means bringing on line 11 plants per year, at an average initial cost at startup of around $8 Billion each. The mention here of CO2 capture and storage being implemented starting in 2010 is a pipe dream, because if the theory can be proven at all, it is still 20 to 25 years away at best, and here you are looking at close to 650 of them on Continental US, so there is a continuing impost there alone of a further $1 Trillion just in the area of coal fired plants alone area alone, and the same if not more would apply for the gas fired plants using natural gas to drive the turbines, these plants not emitting as much CO2 as the coal fired plants. Keep in mind also, that besides paying for the plants in the U.S., you will also need to front up the money for the rest of the Planet, so you can effectively treble any of those figures mentioned there. As to the wind turbines, those figures there are also conservative, and the figure is for each year remember. What that entails is building enough plants to actually construct those turbines. Currently existing factories can produce 5 turbines a week, so for the US impost of 6000 for each and every year, you will first need to construct nearly 30 factories, so there again is an addition to the overall cost right there. Then you need to find a good source of constant wind to site them at, and to build the infrastructure to bring that power to the people. Not one single item of any of the aforementioned is even in thought bubble process yet, let alone planning, so that startup date of 2010 is blown out of the water right there. Keep in mind with those wind plants for construction of the turbines themselves will now need to be multiplied by three when the rest of the Planet is taken into consideration.

Given the growing demand for electricity, this would mean that on average per year 35 coal and 20 gas-fired power plants would have to be fitted with CO2 capture and storage technology, between 2010 and 2050 at a cost of $1.5 billion each.

In addition, 32 new nuclear plants would need to be built each year and wind capacity would have to increase by approximately 17.500 turbines each year.

That now provides stark insight into what this debate is effectively looking at.

One thing I would ask you to take particular notice of however is the fact that this is the International body for Energy, and at nowhere have they mentioned the words ‘Solar Power’. They know that it cannot be used in any manner to replace the large power plants that supply huge amounts of power. It can be used as ’boutique’ plants in some areas, and those people connected to it will pay a considerable amount more than those connected to conventional sources. This can also be borne out when I refer you to these next two pages. These are from the U.S. Government’s own huge website, (the Electricity Data section of the) The Energy Information Administration, the EIA, not to be confused with the earlier mentioned World body with the same initials in different formation. These figures are from the latest quarterly report, dated October 2008.

This first page shows the total power used in the U.S. Scroll to the bottom right hand corner and see the total power consumed in thousand megawatthours. The number is 4,188,739.

This second page shows the total power produced from solar plants. Of the 5 renewable means of power production find Solar, third column from the right. That number is 748. This works out to be 0.017% of the total, an insignificantly small amount. Even Wind, at 41,345 amounts to only 0.98% and when added to Solar is still barely 1% of the total power. The reason they are so low is because the costs are too high for the limited power produced, and those costs have to passed on to consumers. who will quite obviously vote with their feet when their power bills are multiplied by a factor of seven to ten.

This last link is from the Obama camp itself and from yesterday.

The first thing that was released is this, putting off any action on Climate Change until the economy improves, but costing in this area as I have shown is between 10 and 15 times what is proposed in that economic sector.

President-elect Barack Obama may pursue legislation early next year to speed a transition to an economy fueled by renewable energy sources and delay a fight on climate change until the economy improves.

The article goes on to say,

Renewables, including hydropower, account for 8 percent of U.S. electricity. Obama has said he wants 10 percent of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025.

That figure of 10% can virtually only be realised from one area, that of wind. Hydro power has declined from 12% to 7% over the last 2 years, as some plants are closed down, and as the other sectors increase then hydro goes down gradually. The construction of new hydro electric power dams is something that just will not happen. Not one new dam has been constructed with large scale hydro power for decades, because the green lobby will not allow it no matter how much it is pushed in an effort to get up, and even if it could be forced through, it is still decades away, just for one. Solar power does not work on the scale needed, so that ramping up from 8% to 10% means one thing. A threefold increase in wind plants, and that is also a decades long construction process, so blithely saying for that nominally small 2% increase in that area is even unobtainable, let alone ramping it up to 25% by 2025. That is purely and simply just rhetorical hyperbole, and is something that cannot be achieved.

The next is this,

As proposed, Obama’s climate plan would cut emissions of so-called greenhouse gases linked to global warming by 80 percent by 2050. Emissions credits would be sold in an auction under a cap-and-trade program, not doled out to utilities and others for free. Companies that exceed caps must buy credits on top of those obtained at auction, in Obama’s cap-and-trade plan.

Barack Obama could well put off a costly and regressive surcharge until later in 2009 or 2010, leaving Congress to shoulder the burden. On the day that he is elected, cap and trade will fall to No. 10 on his list of top 10 priorities and won’t come back until the economy does.

Not even the World Authority shown above has even considered going to this extreme of an 80% cut. This is another thing that cannot be achieved. The cap and trade scheme will be used to raise revenue, and that will amount to close on $200 Billion per year just from the coal fired sector alone, not counting the gas fired sector and others also from the Electricity sector. This will be passed on to consumers. Pull out your last utilities bill for electricity. Whatever amount you see there, increase that by 50 to 75%, and I worked those figures out in detail in previous posts, based on the coast per ton of CO2 being at the low price of $45, so work it out for the larger amounts reckoned earlier in this post.

I woulod like to mention about the talk of clean coal, which is carbon capture and storage. It’s an easy thing to say, but in reality a myth, because the amount in question just from the coal fired power sector alon is the complete burial of 3.2 Billion tons of CO2 each and every year, and forever. It is a physical impossibility. Follow back to my earlier posts to see just why.

Two things in closing. The hardest thing I have to do is to actually convince you of the scale of what has basically become a seven second sound byte. I have tried to show you independent sources for all this so that you can be aware of what it is that is required. I don’t do this to impress any single person. You have to find out for yourself. Take all the links. Look at those monumentally huge numbers, and realise that the people you blindly believe know less than they think they do. They really think that this is something that can be done. It is virtually impossible for the U.S. to accomplish what is required just within the boundaries of the U.S. Realise then that what else is required is that you foot nearly the whole bill for the rest of Planet Earth. The scale is something that cannot be achieved in a century, let alone in the near term.

Last thing. For those of you who have got this far. This is not mindless carping, not divisiveness, not anti Obama, not anti Democrat, not pro Republican, not racist. These are just the facts, which is all I have ever put in any of my posts. Look for independent confirmation of these numbers, because then you may see that this is is no easy task, no matter what you are being told.

Tagged: Carbon Cap And Trade, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions, Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Gas, Coal Fired Power Generation, Energy Information Administration, International Enegy Agency, Kyoto, Solar Power, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (, Wind Power

Posted in: America (USA), Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama) Extreme Left, Climate Change, Environment, Infrastructure Problems, News and Views, U.N. - United Nations