From: Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Sat Nov 23 2002 - 05:24:51 EST
Preston wrote:
>There was an interesting article in Science Nov.1 on the energy aspects of
global warming. First sentence of abstract:
>
>Stabilizing the carbon dioxide-induced component of climate change is an
energy
>problem.
I haven't read the article, but I do agree with that isolated statement in
part. The key to stabilizing the anthropogenic component of climate change
is an energy problem. There are basically 3 major forms of primary energy on
the planet: coal, oil and natural gas. The BP World Energy Review cites the
following energy use by fuel for 2001 (units million tonnes oil equivalent)
2001 energy use in million tonnes oil equivalent equivalent
oil 3510
natural gas 2164
coal 2255
nuclear 601
Hydro 594
total 9124
These stats show that 86% of the world's energy is from fossil fuel. These
values need to be adjusted for other energy sources such as solar, wind,
wave, biomass energy. Using the figures cited recently:
ìAt the moment 14 per cent of the worldís energy comes from renewable
sources-2 per cent from ëcleaní wind, solar and wave and a further 12 per
cent from dirtier biomass burning.î Rob Edwards, ìGreen Energy Targets Blown
Away,î New Scientist, Sept 7, 2002, p. 9
We find that the total energy use would be 10609 million tonnes oil
equivalent. This then turns the BP table above into:
2001 energy use in million tonnes oil equivalent equivalent
oil 3510
natural gas 2164
coal 2255
nuclear 601
Hydro 594
solar,wind etc 212
biomass 1273
total 10609
Separating these into CO2 emitters and non-C02 emitters we find:
CO2 emitter 9202 million tonnes oil equivalent
Non CO2 emitters 1407 million tonnes oil equivalent
87% of our energy comes from CO2 emitting energy sources. I see nothing on
the horizon to change this in the near future. The Greens can scream all
they want, but the fact will remain, the world runs on energy sources which
emit CO2. Does anyone seriously think many of us would survive the removal
of 86% of our energy supply? Does anyone have a better idea for a REALISTIC
(sorry Iain, I couldn't help those caps) primary energy source?
On final comment. Sometimes by focussing on one metric (CO2 emissions) we
lose sight of the real goal--keeping the climate from warming. Consider
this:
ìPetrol engines may not be as harmful to the planet as their more
efficient diesel counterparts. A comprehensive climate model shows that the
soot produced by diesel engines will warm the climate more over the next
century than the extra carbon dioxide emitted by petrol-powered vehicles.
ìThat will come as a shock to those who believe that a diesel
engineís better mileage and lower CO2 emissions make it easier on the
climate. ëTax laws in all of Europe except the UK favour dieselóand that
inadvertently promotes global warming,í says the models creator Mark
Jacobson, an environmental engineer at Stanford University in California.î
Nicola Jones, ìDieselís Dirty Green Surprise,î New Scientist, Nov 2, 2002,
P. 9
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 13:42:11 EST