Category: Uncategorized

Making COP26 a success

COP26 can be a success if it changes the rules so that they drive the actions that need to be taken. A couple of the current rules are a hindrance to achieving the outcome that is required.

The real aim of this conference is to set in place a situation where global average temperatures since industrialisation are held to +1.5C. Yet there is a danger that this aim will be lost by mantra of reducing CO2e emissions to net zero by 2050. This mantra cannot be achieved except by burying vast amounts of CO2 underground. This will be a very expensive operation, being one that also adds an additional level of risk for future generations. It is also a diversion from the real action, which should be capping or reducing the atmospheric level of greenhouse gases.

The net zero objective is not built around the “real aim” of the conference, but seems to be designed to encourage nations to take actions that it is hoped will achieve that “real aim”. Yet there are other direct actions that will really work to achieve that aim. Why are these not being taken instead of the risky “bury CO2” strategy that is being proposed by the UK? Perhaps nations are being held back by two rules that hide the real impact of their actions and encourage them to take the wrong actions.

The consumption of coal for all purposes has been relatively stable, so why is it still being demonised, whereas nothing is said about the growing use of natural gas. For coal use analysis, check out this page! We will look at natural gas in the next section.

New Methane rule at COP26

The biggest hindrance to achieving a cap of +1.5C is the continuing growth in the atmospheric level of methane. This is almost entirely due to the continuing increasing growth of the consumption of natural gas, as can be seen here.

Part of the reason for this growth has been the demonising of coal, as well as an IPCC rule that serves to mask the immediate impact of the increasing use of this gas on global average temperature.

Natural gas has been cited as a “transition fuel”. This has been a false promise since the main outcome has been to delay the move to a new fuel economy for electricity generation. Worst still, for the first five years, even with old style coal-fired generation, it could have increased the global average temperature (with the normal amount of fugitive emissions associated with natural gas). It is even worse if coal-fired generators with the new HELE technology were used instead of natural gas.

The immediate problem with the IPCC rule for methane is that it estimates the lifetime impact of methane, but in doing so, it hides the immediate impact. This serves to make natural gas a better option than burning coal and hides the fact that it is significantly worse in early years.

The longer term problem with the IPCC rule for calculating CO2e emissions is that it fails to take into account the benefit from cutting methane emissions. The bizarre result is that methane emissions can never reach zero, even if the atmospheric level of methane is rapidly falling. This is nuts. It means that the current method of calculating CO2e for methane can and must be changed.

A more realistic approach would be to measure the immediate impact of methane emissions, taking into account the actual emissions in the current year to which can be added the climate impact of all previous emissions. This can easily be handled by adding up the emissions that have not yet decayed to the present emissions. This is not a hard task.

For each year the balance not yet decayed can be calculated by multiplying the estimated emissions for that year by a transition factor of 0.925 raised to the power of the sum of years before the current year + 0.5. Add these up for all years starting from 1990, when numbers were first established, until the present. Finally, deduct the total calculated so far with the total calculated for the previous year using the same methodology. The result can be positive or negative. Convert this value, as a value for methane, to CO2e, using the relative forcing for each gas and the relative percentage of each gas finding its way into the atmosphere, as determined by the IPCC. It is simple! It just needs a new rule.

Burning trees to make electricity

At present, under IPCC rules, it is allowed to burn trees to make electricity but to exclude the CO2 produced by this process on the assumption that these trees will be eventually replaced some decades later.

It is like “legal tax avoidance”. Burning trees does have an impact on the CO2 emissions in that year and thus it should not be excluded. If required, the regrowth can be deducted when it happens to the degree that it has happened. This can be allowed to the country that does the regrowing.

This is a rule that is crying out to be changed in the way described.

Setting targets at COP26 is not enough

Our long-term ambition should be that electricity generation in the future will consist of intermittent plus storage plus a backup generating source when these two cannot deliver.

We know that intermittent supply of electricity, via renewables, is better for the environment than using fossil fuels, but they endanger security of supply. Therefore, it should be an agenda item to discuss how 100% renewables can be used with confidence in regard to the security of supply. Yes we know that storage can manage normal fluctuations in supply, but we have no path forward for security of supply when wind and sun do not deliver as expected.

COP26 could call upon all nations to set out their plans for managing supply security when fossil fuels are removed from the equation. At present there are options available for providing some measure of security of supply using either coal or nuclear. We would all benefit from learning what other nations are planning to do.

Fully EVs are a leap too far for many nations

It will be possible to cut fossil fuel use for cars by as much as 60% by simply favouring the electric options: EV, PHEV and hybrid. Yet it would seem that battery costs are too high for everyone to have an EV, even in developed nations. Perhaps they will fall in price over time, but potential supply shortages of components for electric motors and batteries may bring that dream to an end.

Certainly, COP26 could suggest that nations take a more modest approach and include PHEVs and hybrids in their favoured options, rather than setting a too-high target and not finding the cuts in oil-based fuels that they desire due to a poor take-up of fully EVs.

HCFC-22

This gas is now a very serious greenhouse gas in its own right. If possible, it should be removed from all new refrigerators and industrial processes by 2023.

A report on the progress of the implementation of the Montreal Protocol for this gas can be expected at COP26, but one wonders whether significant progress has been made.

A successful outcome

If COP26 is nothing more than simply setting targets, as appears to be currently envisaged for COP26, we can expect that global average temperature will be +1.5C before 2030, with greater than +1.6C reached by 2040. The trend of data suggests that this is almost inevitable, given the past history of the linking of emissions and temperatures. Fluctuations due to ENSO and volcanos will see results around ± 0.1C, or more, occasionally appear,

However, if the extra actions proposed here are initiated at this conference, it should be possible to limit global average temperature growth to 1.5C out to 2050 (subject to the same yearly fluctuations of ± 0.1C ). After this date, temperatures will fall marginally.

A graph showing the historical, modelled, current COP26 trajectory and proposed COP26 trajectory if the extra actions suggested here are taken.
Suggested alternative outcomes

Time will tell whether these simple to implement rule changes and removing the impediments to more drastic action will bring about the improvements I am predicting, but who will be brave enough to urge the nations to continue on the higher trajectory?

Now is the time for the leaders of the governments of the world to step up to the plate and make the changes suggested here. They cannot hurt.

COP 26 and Climate Change Action

Will COP 26 be an echo chamber of plausible responses to the climate crisis or a forum that drives change? Will COP 26 be the moment that stops the increase in global temperature, or will it be drowned in politics?

Methane at COP 26

Since 1950 atmospheric methane (CH4) has grown from 1220 ppb to 1870 ppb. On its own, it has increased temperature during that period by 0.13C. Breaking up this increase by its components reveals the following:

  • 57% from fugitive emissions from natural gas.
  • 25% from ruminant animals (both farmed and wild).
  • 13% from waste.
  • 9% from fugitive emissions from coal.
  • 6% from rice cultivation.
  • 6% from biomass.

Most of attention in regard to methane emissions has been given to belching from ruminant animals. Yet cutting red meat (and rice) from our diet is not a matter for COP 26, IMO. Yet there are other matters to be considered at this conference. For example, what about fugitive emissions from natural gas?

Let us suppose that in the next 10 years we were able to cut methane emissions from everything except ruminant animals and rice cultivation by 50%. In this case the atmospheric methane would fall from 1870 ppb to 1730 ppb. This would be just the beginning, for it would continue to fall out to 2100. In other words, instead of contributing to the growth in global average temperature, it would mitigate the increases from other sources.

The move from coal to natural gas for electricity generation may have been a good idea at the time, but we should not now chose to use these gases for electricity production. If this is done and also we cut methane emissions from waste as well as changing from biomass to electrical cooking and heating, this would reduce atmospheric methane, without doing anything else. So a cut in methane emissions by 2030 should be on the COP 26 agenda.

Actual and projected increases in global average temperature since Industrialisation.
Effect of cutting methane emissions

F-Gases at COP 26

When the Montreal Protocol was established in 1990, it was realised that moving from ozone-depleting CHCs to other gases would increase atmospheric greenhouse gases. At the time it was agreed that certain gases mentioned in the Montreal Protocol gases would be fazed out from 2025. Yet there is no sense that this commitment is being taken seriously in the run-up to COP 26. It should be included in the final agreement.

Electricity Production: Low CO2

Presently, there are only two viable models for electricity production in a low CO2 environment: nuclear and intermittent sources. While nuclear is favoured in some places. It is not favoured in other places. In any event, it would appear that following this route is very expensive. On the other hand, intermittent sources, by their very nature, are unreliable.

It is true that cyclic fluctuations through the week can be managed through an appropriate level of storage, which could be via pumped-hydro, batteries and other more experimental means of storing electricity. Therefore, it is not cyclic and predictable fluctuation in demand that is preventing the take up of intermittent power supply. The problem is in the unpredictable nature of supply. The thing that is holding back more widespread use of intermittent supply of electricity is the lack of a plan to cover the shortfall in electricity supply when the wind or the sun fail to deliver the quantum of electricity that is required. This is the biggest problem in moving to a more complete dependence upon intermittent / renewable supply of electricity.

For nations that are already industrialised there is a simple solution at hand, even though it cuts across the ideological resistance to coal. Yes, the solution is to use coal-fired generators (and any existing redundant gas-fired generators) to provide back up generating capacity in the case of a failure in supply of electricity from renewable sources. In the short-term, the existing coal and gas-fired generators could be brought on line in the event of a failure of supply. Even with the current configuration, this should happen in less than 20% of the time once the intermittent supply system generally provides 100% of electricity power. This approach will ensure a 80% cut in the CO2 emissions from this source. On the other hand, it does mean that banning coal from the electricity-generation field will not be possible, or even practical (if one really wants to cut CO2 emissions).

In a system that does not use nuclear power, it would appear that a properly designed system will provide all power to consumers from renewables and from storage. Under this system, the storage would be replenished from time to time using coal-fired generators. This would only happen when the storage falls below a level in which the operators believe is too low for a measured guaranteed security of supply. Under this scenario, the coal-fired generators would run flat-out until the storage was replenished.

In a system that uses nuclear power, the power stations could run continuously, replenishing the storage in a balanced manner.

Oil-based fuel

We already know how to cut the usage of oil-based fuels for passenger vehicles and light trucks. The simple solution is for each country to mandate that new vehicles must be fully electric. However, this will bring many problems in its wake. These include a complete replacement of the refueling system and potential massive increases in the prices of raw materials. It would be more sensible to move more slowly.

The ideal solution, hopefully to be discussed at COP 26 is for each nation to move towards mandating hybrid, plug-in hybrids and fully electric vehicles for new vehicles well before 2030. The market can then manage the extra cost for each type of vehicle. Since a simple hybrid is not much more costly than a vehicle with a 100% internal combustion engine, this can be the starting default. Even this will cut the consumption of petrol by about 30-40%, which will lead to a significant reduction in CO2 emissions from this type of vehicle.

Solutions for heavier trucks and buses and ships can be considered at a later period. The end result should be that by 2030 we will have a solution prepared for all oil-based fuels.

Cement and Steel

Solutions are currently being considered for the CO2 generated in these two processes. Time is required to allow feasible and proven solutions to emerge.

Conclusion

Significantly cutting greenhouse gas emissions in this way by 2030, in the areas where we already know how to do it, will avert the climate change crisis, and put us on a path to prevent global warming since industrialisation of more than 1.5C. Early and radical action is required.

Such action should be legacy of COP 26. The question remains, will the representatives have the courage to take the actions that are required? Will the members present be willing to abandon those ambitions that will not lead to that outcome, but will hinder this desirable result.

Is electricity demand too high?

Electricity demand could be too high at present as China and India increase coal-fired generation and because of the push to cut CO2 emissions from passenger cars.

Expected Electricity demand in 2021 and 2022

The IEA expects that global electricity demand will grow faster than renewables can keep up in 2021. Even though generation from renewables like hydropower, wind and solar is due to grow 8% in 2021 and by more than 6% in 2022, it will only be able to meet about half the projected increase in global electricity demand. The rest will be met mostly by thermal plans that burn fossil fuels, especially coal.

Furthermore, IEA expects most of this extra demand will come from China and India.

China is pushing hard to increase electricity demand and supply

It is well known that China is increasing its coal-fired generation capacity. A generous explanation is that China could be using this as an opportunity to provide back-up generation power once its intermittent renewable capacity can provide most of its demand needs. Backup capacity is needed once any system goes to 100% renewables during ordinary operations. This is because all intermittent supplies can fail and these failures can spread over an extended period. Storage can meet many of these shortfalls in supply, but there is a point where storage will not be sufficient. It is at this point that it coal and gas-fired generation will be required. It is only prudent to provide for this capacity.

India is massively electricity poor.

No-one can seriously complain about India increasing its coal-fired generation. In 2016 it was running at about 2 tonnes per person CO2. China was running at about 7 tonnes per person and USA was running at 15.5 tonnes per person. However, once it has properly addressed this issue, it should eventually aim for 100% renewables during ordinary operations. Then it will need backup generation capacity which can be supplied by periodic running of its legacy installation of its fossil-fuel generators.

OECD nations need to cut fossil-fuel generated electricity

Without cutting greenhouse gas emissions the global average temperature will continue to increase. A cut in the level of emissions can be achieved, and this should result in global average temperature being held at 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. It will still bump above this, but will also fall below, as has happened in March 2021, which is 0.33C below March last year.

A path to a maximum 1.5C temperature increase.

It is a reasonable target for every nation that can do it (i.e. the OECD nations) to run electricity generation on 100% renewables during ordinary operations by 2030. It could keep its remaining coal and gas-fired generation to be only used to provide backup capacity. If this is done, it will assist in levelling this curve much earlier than 2030 and give the world more time to solve the intractable problems with steel, cement and building heating.

The way this could work is for coal and gas-fired generation to be removed from directly supplying the grid. This capacity then can be used to renew storage of electricity. It only needs to run when storage capacity is seriously depleted, but during that time it can be run at 100% of capacity 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This will minimise the CO2 emissions from this process and hold costs down as much as possible.

The push for fully electric vehicles could be counter-productive

It a nation does not have enough renewable electricity generation to fully supply the grid, it should consider very carefully whether fully-electric vehicles are as CO2 free as is often claimed. If additional fossil-fuel is used in generating electricity as a result of the widespread introduction of fully-electric vehicle, there may be no actual cut in the CO2 emissions for that country as a result of this policy.

It should be noted that non-plug in hybrids can cut fossil-fuel usage by almost 50%. Each country should to take this in account.

Eat less meat: UN climate change report

A 2019 IPCC report on land use recommended that people in developed nations should eat less meat. It calculated that the world’s meat intake contributes 8 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent, which represents 23% of total emissions. Most of these CO2 equivalent emissions are actually from the emission of methane by ruminant animals, like cattle, sheep and goats.

This recommendation is challenged here.

Lies about Methane emissions

The question to be asked, “Did the authors deliberately confuse the issue by using a formula to calculate CO2 equivalent emissions instead of discussing methane emissions, or was it an accident?”

Methane has an atmospheric half-life of around 9.5 years, which represents an average life of 13.5 years.

A rough guide in calculating the increase in the atmospheric level of methane is to compare the current estimated methane emissions with the estimated methane emissions 14 years ago.

An estimate of cattle/buffalo numbers in 2011 was 1,396 million, and the number in 2001 was 1,301 million. This is an increase of 95 million animals. For 2011, a detailed study indicated that methane emissions from ruminants was 107 millions tonnes.

Treating this as an appropriate guide to calculate the proportionate increase in the number of animals, this works out to be 7.3 million additional tonnes of methane, or 0.261 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent. This is only 3% of the 8 gigatonnes cited earlier.

There are three factors here. Firstly, the cited report failed to take into account the fact that the half-life of methane in the atmosphere means that it doesn’t last: it mostly replaces methane already there. Secondly, methane is lost to the atmosphere by being transformed into CO2, but the effect is truly tiny (about 5/1000ths). Thirdly, in calculating the 8 gigatonnes figure, other non-methane factors were taken into account that have nothing to do with methane. Despite this, the 8 gigatonnes is clearly overstated.

Meat is not the most important factor in atmospheric methane

A recent report by Saunis, et al., calculated that the most likely break up of methane emissions in 2011 was as follows:

  • 385 mt from natural sources.
  • 107 mt from ruminants (cattle, sheep, etc.).
  • 30 mt from rice cultivation.
  • 46 mt from fugitive emissions from coal.
  • 88 mt from fugitive emissions from natural gas.
  • 31 mt from biomass (burning dung, etc., for cooking).

However, even this report does not explain all the historical fluctuations in the atmospheric levels of methane. Yet it is not hard to explain them: the most likely explanation is careless, but significant, additional losses of natural gas through gas leaks. The wild fluctuations in methane levels around 1990 had almost nothing to do with additional meat consumption; it was all about gas leaks. In 2011, gas leaks can be estimated to have contributed an additional 137 mt of methane in the atmosphere, with most of those emissions happening prior to 2004. Even now, I estimate that new additional emissions each year of 43 mt can be attributed to gas leaks beyond the numbers in the Saunis report.

Rather than fiddling with social engineering to cut meat consumption, cuts to methane emissions will naturally follow from the planned actions of cutting all coal mining and use, and cutting 90% of natural gas use. This will result in methane atmospheric levels reducing every year from the date that happens. A reducing level of methane in the atmosphere will happen even if red meat consumption increases in line with population.

It is not true that every pound of meat that is eaten results in a permanent increase in methane levels. It not even true that ruminants are adding to CO2 in the long-term, since the CO2 from methane actually comes from eating grass, not from underground. Today’s meat may result in higher methane levels in the atmosphere, but it is “here today” and gone in years to come. It is a part of the normal cycle.

Meat in the methane and CO2 cycles
Meat in the methane and CO2 cycle

The meat story as popularly considered and found in scholarly articles is not correct. The impact of meat on methane levels has been grossly exaggerated and the truth should begin to be told. The next UK Climate Change committee report should be revised.

Coronavirus: Macro Analysis

Coronavirus: Macro Analysis

We have enough data available on coronavirus to be able to do some macro analysis on its progress and to understand the protective measures that are needed to manage its impacts.

Fatalities

There are currently few reported fatalities for coronavirus for people below 50, although for those from 30 to 50, about 20% of identified cases have been hospitalised and about 1% have gone into intensive care (ICU).

For those between 50 and 70, there are varying numbers, but it would appear that about 1.5% of reported cases of coronavirus have died. About 20% of identified cases have been hospitalised and about 5% have gone into ICU.

For those over 70, according to the USA statistics about 10% of reported cases have died. About 30% of identified cases have been hospitalised and about 6% have gone into ICU.

The likely outcome will vary for each nation depending on the success in caring for sick patients and the age distribution of the population. However, for the purpose of this analysis, an average fatality rate for infected persons has been estimated to be 1%.

For more detail, go to https://www.vox.com/2020/3/23/21190033/coronavirus-covid-19-deaths-by-age, which presents an interesting analysis.

Reported Cases

In all the nations where fatalities from coronavirus are significantly more than 1% of reported cases we have good reason to believe that the reported cases are significantly understated.

This particularly applies to Italy and Spain. It is apparent in these nations that community transmission has meant that testing could not possibly keep up with the rate of infection, thus leaving vast numbers of people untested. Also, the kind of contact tracing that has been so effective in Singapore and elsewhere would now be relatively ineffective. Thus it is not appropriate to treat the Italian and Spanish coronavirus experience as a guide to the future trajectory of those nations still striving to make contact tracing work.

It is also the case that symptom-led counting of reported cases will significantly understate the numbers of people who have met (and defeated) the coronavirus. It will miss those who have no symptoms (those who are asymptomatic).

Here are the details of reported cases of coronavirus in those nations most hard hit by the virus, with a simple estimate of unreported cases:

  • China: reported 81,591 + 32,000 asymptomatic = 113,591.
  • Italy: reported 69,176 + estimated unreported = 682,000.
  • USA: reported 52,145 + estimated unreported = 68,500.
  • Spain: reported 39,676 + estimated unreported = 280,800.
  • Germany: reported 32,781 (deaths 157).
  • Iran: reported 24,811 + estimated unreported = 193,400.
  • France: reported 22,616 + estimated unreported = 110,000.
  • Switzerland: reported 9,877 + estimated unreported = 12,200.
  • South Korea: reported 9,037 + estimated unreported = 12,000.
  • United Kingdom: reported 8,164 + estimated unreported = 42,200.
  • Netherlands: reported 5,580 + estimated unreported = 27,600.
  • Belgium: reported 4,269 + estimated unreported = 12,200.
  • Australia: reported 2,144 (deaths 8).
  • Indonesia: reported 686 + estimated unreported = 5,500.

In most cases, the reported cases will reflect those who report themselves to be tested because they show symptoms of the disease. If we use the China data as a rough guide (in the absence of an actual study), we could say that about one third of all cases will be asymptomatic. Taking that into account, we could say that a real issue with undiagnosed cases of coronavirus currently applies in Italy, Spain, France, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Belgium, Iran and Indonesia. However, it is not necessary to resolve that issue: it is more important for all nations to address the fundamental problem. That is to stop the spread of the disease within their own borders.

Herd Immunity

From past pandemics, it has been estimated that 60% of a population has to be exposed to a virus before community immunity can be achieved.

None of the nations listed above have come even close to that number. The social consequences of allowing 60% of the population to be infected will be dire. It will be like a plague in the Middle Ages. It is unlikely that letting the disease run its course will be an acceptable approach to ending the coronavirus pandemic.

Social Isolation

Infection with coronavirus is passed from one person to another. A number of nations are attempting to enforce social isolation by introducing laws that make it more difficult for all people to mix with each other. These laws are now being introduced in the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, New Zealand, India and in many other places.

Such laws are probably necessary in order to create a new social environment in which those who are infected with the virus isolate themselves from others, with the intention of these laws being that infected persons cannot pass on the disease. Yet it is a first step, not a long term solution. This is because one can expect that the social consequences of this kind of widespread shutdown of normal societal relations and economic activity will be intolerable quite quickly, with the cure being considered to be worse that the disease.

Along with such (temporary) laws, Australian governments require everyone who has the disease to self-isolate (if not in hospital). This also applies to everyone who has had contact with that person (while infected). All such people are monitored by a health workers (over the phone – perhaps by skype) every day until the monitoring period ends. One assumes that other nations are taking similar steps.

Draconian policies like these are required in every nation that wishes to prevent the spread of this disease within their borders. People who come from nations that do not implement policies like these are likely to find it difficult to travel to countries that do implement such draconian policies.

Poverty in Africa can be Fixed

Poverty in Africa can only be fixed by African governments taking control of their own economies; welfare and aid will only ameliorate poverty: it will not fix it.

President Macron’s Prescription

As reported in The Times, President Macron said that Europe’s migrant crisis can only be solved in Africa, as he called on leaders from both Europe and Africa to find new ways to stop the flow of people to the Mediterranean.

“We need more Africans to succeed in Africa,” Mr Macron told a crowd in Lagos. Too many people were leaving peaceful countries such as Senegal, Ivory Coast and Nigeria because of “a lack of hope, a lack of opportunities”, he said. “These people, given the magnitude of this wave, cannot be accepted, at least, not all of them.”

Africa Needs More Than Just Talk

Of course only Africans can solve their own economic problems, but Macron’s devotion to Elite Capitalism will not help them.

We can use the world’s prosperity to lift nations out of poverty, via trade, but we have to do it differently. It is no good just using our prosperity to lift the incomes of the top 20% of the people of African nations, as has been happening for the last 30 years.

While increased trade has resulted in some improvement in living standards in some developing nations, in general the gap between the developing world and the rest has not narrowed very much, especially if you leave China, Taiwan and South Korea out of the picture. The difference in those places is that the leaders of these nations didn’t believe the more trade would be enough: they also decided to control the situation more tightly.

The government of each African nation has to realise that trade will not be sufficient to lift their people out of poverty. To lift a people out of poverty it is necessary to increase the income the people receive, either from their farms, or by making things for each other. Forget about a “leg-up” from global corporations; they must always first look after themselves.

An economy that does not make most of its own goods and supply its own services is in a very fragile situation. This is a change in thinking. It requires African nations to increase tariffs, with the explicit objective of increasing the incomes of businesses. Higher local prices will eventually mean higher wages. Less imports means more local work.

Increasing tariffs on luxury goods should keep more money at home, with those with money looking to invest locally as profitability of local businesses improve, rather than spending on expensive luxury cars and other obvious signs of wealth and individual prosperity.

Abundant jobs, not the lowest possible prices, are the key to economic prosperity for every nation.