Part of Energy & Sustainability Network »

The Energy Collective Group

This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Post

Where The Carbon Emissions Are

Robert Rapier's picture
Robert Rapier 30,025
, Proteum Energy

Robert Rapier is a chemical engineer who works in the energy industry. Robert has over 20 years of international engineering experience in the chemicals, oil and gas, and renewable energy...

  • Member since 2018
  • 745 items added with 221,198 views
  • Dec 7, 2015
  • 1267 views

Introduction

With world leaders meeting in Paris this week and next to formulate plans for tackling carbon emissions, I believe it’s critical to understand the source of those emissions. After all, if you are going to solve a problem, you better make sure you have a good understanding of the problem. Otherwise, as the great philosopher Yogi Berra might say, your solution to the problem won’t necessarily solve the problem.

In today’s column, I want to cover three items. First is the present and past geographical breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions. Second is the breakdown by type of fossil fuel. Third is the breakdown of potential future emissions given the world’s current oil, gas, and coal resources.

The Current Geographical Emissions Profile

In my previous article, I showed that the world’s carbon dioxide emissions had historically come from the world’s developed countries (as defined by membership in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), but since 2005 emissions in developing countries have outstripped those in developed countries. Of the 35.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted in 2014, developing countries were responsible for 21.7 billion tons — 61% of the total:

Global CO2 OECD

Developing countries have seen their carbon dioxide emissions rise by 92% since 2000, and they now emit 58% more carbon dioxide than developed countries. In fact, the discrepancy is probably even greater, as China recently admitted that they have been underestimating the amount of coal they consume.

China was the world’s leading emitter in 2014 with 27.5% of the world’s total carbon dioxide emissions. The U.S. was second with 16.9% of the world’s total, and India was a distant third with 5.9% of the world’s total. However, India’s emissions have grown at a faster rate over the past 5 years than the U.S. and China’s combined.

Legacy Emissions

Of course most of the carbon dioxide that has been dumped into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution belongs to the developed countries. The BP Statistical Review of World Energy tabulates carbon dioxide emissions data back to 1965. Between 1965 and 2000, developed countries emitted 433 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, which at that time was 60% of the total since 1965. But developing countries have been catching up. As of 2014 the total for developed countries had risen to 619 billion metric tons, but that had fallen to 54% of the total since 1965 because of the rapid emission growth in the developing world.

Emissions And Potential Emissions By Fossil Fuel Source

Here is the breakdown of emissions by fossil fuel source, which I calculated from consumption numbers in the 2015 BP Statistical Review. Of the carbon dioxide emissions in 2014, 20.3% were from natural gas, 36.4% were from oil, and 43.3% from coal.

At the end of 2014, the world’s proved fossil fuel reserves consisted of 1.7 trillion barrels of oil, 6.6 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 891 billion metric tons of coal. Should we burn through those reserves, I calculate that it would produce an additional 2.8 trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide. To put that into perspective, the total amount of fossil fuel-derived carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere since 1965 is estimated to be 1.1 trillion metric tons. So the current proved reserves have the potential to emit nearly 3 times the amount of carbon dioxide as was emitted in the past 50 years. The breakdown of those potential emissions is 14% from natural gas, 25% from oil, and 61% from coal.

If we want to consider the entire fossil fuel resource (remember, proved reserves are a function of price and available technology and vastly understate the amount of fossil fuel in place), a 2012 paper by Neil C. Swart and Andrew J. Weaver from the University of Victoria is instructive. That paper shows the relative potential warming contributions of various fossil fuel resources.

warming_global_resources

The warming potential estimates are based on modeling, so these are projections of what could happen. But it illustrates that the potential carbon dioxide contribution from coal dwarfs that of every other resource.

Conclusions

As we seek to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it seems to me that curtailing coal production in developing countries should be the highest priority. That doesn’t mean it’s the only thing we should work on, but we should recognize that this is the single biggest current and projected future contributor to carbon dioxide emissions. In order to address the developing world’s coal consumption, it seems that the biggest priority should be in developing affordable, convenient alternatives with a low carbon footprint. Per capita demand in these countries is already very low, and is projected to grow as these countries continue to develop. So it seems to me that the supply side needs the greatest focus.

But we have to keep in mind that these countries are only going to use alternatives if they have a compelling reason to do so. Many have already indicated that they won’t restrict their development in order to utilize alternatives. This is definitely a variation of a tragedy of the commons scenario, but we have to recognize that this is how countries will behave. In order to mitigate that, they have to view alternatives to coal as “better”, and by that I mean that it is something that consumers will opt for over coal. Otherwise, the world will do a lot of hand-wringing, but we will continue to burn up all of our fossil fuel reserves.

Link to Original Article: Where The Carbon Emissions Are

Discussions
Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Dec 8, 2015

Coal is the main problem?  Over a 500 year time frame, sure; but for the next century, I’m not convinced:

   

Source: This article on C2ES, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

 

While coal use in developing countries is skyrocketing, that could be just one aspect of an over-all trend in which their energy usage becomes more like ours (i.e. maybe they also want to live in 3 car households in the suburbs).  As shown in the graph above, while the sectors that use coal (electric power and industry) are big, they don’t dominate the way coal does in Robert’s graph (and coal is not the majority of either sector).

The other thing is, what energy users really want is the energy service, not the fuel itself.  Electricity made from a combination of nuclear and hydro provides exactly the same service as coal-derived electricity. Also, in Cities such as Bejing and Delhi, reducing local coal use provides the immediately perceptible benefit of lower air pollution, which everyone appreciates.  But using today’s infrastructure, gasoline, diesel, and methane can do things that sustainable energy sources cannot; thus when the cheap petroleum runs out, we’ll be tempted to turn to coal-to-liquids.  So in fact, coal-derived electricity may be the easiest sector to replace.

So while deploying coal-alternatives for electricity generation is a good first step, it is crucial that we start converting our infrastructure in other energy sectors to be more friendly toward non-fossil energy sources (most famously battery electric vehicles, but also cellulosic biofuels such as biomethanol, hot-water based district heat networks for domestic space and water heating, carbon-free synfuels like H2 and NH3, and even direct industrial use of nuclear heat).

Bruce McFarling's picture
Bruce McFarling on Dec 8, 2015

That is assuming unlimited supplies of all of those resources, when Robert’s analysis is with respect to known reserves, and so the extra GHG emissions of coal per kWh or equivalent is amplified by the larger coal reserves.

After all, we have passed peak conventional oil, and the nonconventional oil that we are tapping to keep production up is not going to be able to offset the accelerating declines in conventional oil production over the coming 100 years … while there is quite a lot more untapped coal reserves available to be burned if we elect to.

And there is no reason to expect that China’s and India’s transport sector will move to be as completely oil-dependent as the US’s transport sector is at present. China already has electrified over 2/5 of its rail corridors, and is on track to electrifying over 50%, even as the total track miles continue to expand, and electric vehicles of both the escooter type and the electric delivery tricycle type are ubiquitious. The greater the share of transport power comes from electricity, the more the electricity and transport slice overlap rather than lie side by side.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Dec 8, 2015

Robert, there’s more than a whiff of American exceptionalism and condescension in your assignment of priorities: 

As we seek to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it seems to me that curtailing coal production in developing countries should be the highest priority.

Given that China’s per capita carbon emissions are one-third of America’s, and India’s one-twelfth of ours; that OECD countries are still responsible for over half of global energy consumption, despite making up only 18% of population – it seems the first priority should be accepting responsibility for that slab of pre-2005, surplus OECD emissions which extends another century to the left of your chart. Lowering our own emissions by a factor of three or four, at whatever cost, before attempting to impose sacrifices on nameless hordes we never had to make. Given the exhorbitant lifestyle we lead (bought to a large extent by burning fossil fuel) we’re certainly in a better position to bear that weight.

Maybe that’s not how countries behave. But an environmental tragedy of the commons could be the only result of pulling up the ladder behind us.

Robert Rapier's picture
Robert Rapier on Dec 8, 2015

“Robert, there’s more than a whiff of American exceptionalism and condescension in your assignment of priorities:”

It’s actually your condescension detector that’s the problem. I have long recognized in your replies to me that you go out of your way to read intent that isn’t there. 

“Given that China’s per capita carbon emissions are one-third of America’s, and India’s one-twelfth of ours”

If your house is on fire, you don’t stand around and argue why it’s on fire. You fight that fire and you keep it from spreading. The fact is that there are an awful lot of people in these developing countries. They do have a low per capita level of consumption, and slight increases are making a big difference in the overall emissions to the atmosphere. They are on a trend that is pretty scary. And as far as atmospheric inventories go, a ton is a ton. It doesn’t matter if China has more than 4 times as many people each emitting a third as much as we do. What matters is the amount going into the atmosphere, and the trajectory of those emissions. Unless we have a way to go back and mine out of the atmosphere what we put in, it should be clear from the graphic that the greatest immediate threat is from the developing countries. (Here is where you get to misread intent as if I am saying we should therefore do nothing — even though I explicitly state otherwise in my article).

Note that I make it clear that we can’t tell them how to develop. I have made it clear many times that they have a valid point in arguing that they should be able to develop cheaply as we did. But the graphic shows we have to do everything we can to make sure that doesn’t happen with fossil fuels. How you read American exceptionalism into that is beyond me, but then as I said many of your responses leave me bewildered. 

“it seems the first priority should be accepting responsibility for that slab of pre-2005, surplus OECD emissions which extends another century to the left of your chart.”

This is where you teeter into the absurd. Everyone knows that the developed world is responsible for most of the carbon dioxide that has been emitted to date. I have shown those numbers many times, and once again explicitly state it in this article. So let’s call a press conference and issue a proclamation from the federal government lest there be any doubt. And then we can pat ourselves on the back that we figured out why our house caught on fire, and took responsibility for it. Of course that has zero impact on actually putting that fire out, and it’s stating something everyone already knows. 

“Lowering our own emissions by a factor of three or four, at whatever cost, before attempting to impose sacrifices on nameless hordes we never had to make.”

OK, so we lower our emissions by a factor of 4. It’s now the year 2050. Is it time to attempt to impose those sacrifices? I get that you are all into symbolism and stuff, but I am more interested in focusing our efforts where they will have the most impact. Note what I said: “it seems that the biggest priority should be in developing affordable, convenient alternatives with a low carbon footprint.” American exceptionalism indeed. Pfft. 

Robert Rapier's picture
Robert Rapier on Dec 8, 2015

“Coal is the main problem?  Over a 500 year time frame, sure; but for the next century, I’m not convinced:”

You are correct that in the U.S. and in most of the developed world that emissions from oil are greater than those from coal. And I agree with you that we need to work on decarbonizing our transportation options. The problem is that we don’t have cost effective solutions today for replacing oil. I don’t see anything that can replace anything other than a small fraction of our oil consumption. I think biofuels are only going to make a small contribution, although electric cars may make a much larger impact. But we do know how to replace coal. There are many different ways to do that. Scalable, economic ways. 

The bottom graphic is the one I find to be really scary. It shows that we really need to head off coal consumption. 

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Dec 8, 2015

Robert, doubling down on your exceptionalist viewpoint will not make it any more valid in the eyes of the world (except possibly as reassurance for other American exceptionalists that the strategy won’t cost them their BMWs).

After your hyperbolic admission that OECD emissions are primarily responsible for the problem, your answer continues to be to point fingers at everyone who isn’t responsible. If their trend is “pretty scary” to you, that’s your problem. To them, it’s pretty exciting that they might be able to enjoy some of the standard of living you take for granted, climate be damned. If you’re truly more interested in focusing our efforts where they will have the most impact, throw away the Trump-esque ethnophobia and lead by example.

I’m not into symbolism at all. I’m into results, and the impact thereon of blatant hypocrisy and failure to accept responsibilty. If you and others see that as symbolism, well, that’s all of our problem.

Robert Rapier's picture
Robert Rapier on Dec 8, 2015

“After your hyperbolic admission that OECD emissions are primarily responsible for the problem”

Which was only hyperbolic because it was there in the original article, yet you chose to pretend that it wasn’t. 

“your answer continues to be to point fingers at everyone who isn’t responsible.”

Can you read a chart? Look at the graphic again. Regardless of who started the fire, it’s clear what is fueling it now and will be for the foreseeable future. And it won’t be long on the current trajectory before the developing countries will have more than 50% of the atmospheric emissions. If you can’t see that this is where the risk lies going forward, then we obviously have a serious difference of opinion. Further, I am not going to waste time trying to argue with you about the obvious.

“throw away the Trump-esque ethnophobia and lead by example.”

Bob, do me a favor. Don’t ever comment on one of my articles again. I have grown extremely tired of these mischaracterizations and straw men from you, and I don’t like wasting my time. In all seriousness, I have wondered several times if you have a personality disorder as you are the only person who can’t seem to interact with me without coming up with unique and unflattering characterizations that apparently only you can see.

So in the future if you see one of my articles I would appreciate it if you ignore it. It quickly becomes a waste of both of our times, and I don’t know what your schedule looks like but mine is pretty full.

Clayton Handleman's picture
Clayton Handleman on Dec 9, 2015

Robert,

Those are great graphs.  Thanks for the info. 

I tend to favor the OECD countries continuing to lead the charge to develop great solutions which will readily be adopted by the developing countries.  We are seeing this with renewables as China is now installing renewables at a faster rate than any other country.  Now we are leading the charge in EVs and high efficiency PV.  And the US has been at the forefront of LED development.  If we accelerate the adoption of EVs and drive them down the experience curve the cost will rapidly become attractive to non-OECD countries.

If the US were to build out the Great Plains wind capacity along with substantial solar we could drive 2 additional cumulative doublings in both solar and wind, bringing down prices significantly. 

Bottom line, I agree it would be good to get the non-OECDs working cleaner but they appear to be trying.  I think a better approach is to continue to lead with progressive policies here and the other guys will follow. 

These four things would get us there rapidly:

1) Expedited permitting for interstate transmission lines

2) Federal minimum requirements for time of use metering and rate signaling – i.e. accelerate the adoption of TOU metering and create the ability for automating automated load shifting.

3) An escalating gasoline tax to be used on roads and strategically incentivising the buildout of charging infrastructure.  This would also serve to raise the baseline gasoline cost further improving the economics of EVs.

If these were done, no doubt the Energy Star program would add timers and automated demand response as technologies that would help get the rating. 

My somewhat rambling two cents worth.  Thanks again for the graphs.

Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on Dec 9, 2015

A very constructive, self-limited discussion. As Nathan’s chart and all comments express, this is a many dimensional challenge. Other contributing concerns are permafrost and other trapped methane, soot and various pollutants, land use conversion to agriculture and urban landscape, water, population and per capita consumption, and certainly many other contributions to future climate.

The worst thing we can do in Paris is allow a global failure fund. We need to succeed with innovation. There has been some peripheral agricultural discussion that plowing up everything is a big dead end.

On a simple, local level, steel is very low priced right now. Apparently, we have enough skyscrapers and bridges and sports stadiums. We don’t have enough biorefinery capacity, so people invariably burn improperly, contributing to more problems. Burning raw firewood is like eating raw meat, thus new global innovation opportunities if not global solutions.

donough shanahan's picture
donough shanahan on Dec 9, 2015

To continue your fire analogy

Bob is still trying to put out a fire in a petroleum storage depot by tackling the tank that is empty and ignoring the full one that is about to catch fire (or is already smouldering…)

 

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on Dec 11, 2015

“surplus OECD emissions which extends another century to the left of your chart.”

Bob – Today’s global emissions are some ten thousand times higher than 1850.  Adding up all global Co2 emissions from the beginning of the industrial age to ~1940 are equivalent to couple years of current emissions.  In another dozen years or two the first 1.5 centuries will be equivalent to one modern year of emissions.  

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/images/global_fossil_carbon_emissions_google_c...

The math of carbon forcing is straightforward, so many tons in so many years leads to so much forcing. The location of the emissions is not a variable in the equation.  Assessment of lifestyle, opinion on “responsibity”, these are also not part of the equation.  But if the temperature increase is to be restrained, action must be take where the majority of the tons are to be emitted, between, say, 1990 and 2050.  Anything else is a unrelated to the problem. 

 

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on Dec 11, 2015

“Everyone knows that the developed world is responsible for most of the carbon dioxide that has been emitted to date. I have shown those numbers many times, and once again explicitly state it in this article.”

Yes, you have, thanks.  Because of the sharply rising non-OECD trend, that statement (most of the CO2 emitted to date) will flip to the non-OECD in as early as 15 years.  

Relevant news: 

“The Philippines is set to open 23 coal-fired power plants over the next five years to meet rising electricity demand,…

Vietnam plans to double its coal plants to 40 by 2022…

China added an extraordinary 39 gigawatts in new coal-fired capacity last year, …“


Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Dec 11, 2015

Mark, it fascinates me when anyone thinks he can evade responsibility by simply declaring “responsibility isn’t part of the equation”. By proclaiming “location isn’t a variable in the equation”, then in the same breath assigning blame exclusively based on location. By shunning a democratic, per-capita-based assessment in favor of nationalist, ethnic, and classist one – principles more characteristic of the Middle Ages.

Most people in the developing world are technologically where we were at least 100 years ago. At least as needy as Americans were then, they probably create fewer emissions than we did then. At that stratum of society energy is not a game, it’s not an “assessment of lifestyle”, a decision whether blue or green goes best in the bathroom – it’s a fight for survival. Have you ever actually been to a developing country? I’ve seen some of the 1.5 million children in sub-Saharan Africa who die every year of starvation. Insufficient access to energy has a lot to do with that.

These countries are starting to figure out how to get what you and I have had for a long time. Do you know what’s not part of the equation for them, the last thing they’re worried about? Climate. That’s your first-world, spoiled-brat problem. So you can scold all you want, but you will find that opinions like yours and Robert’s carry no weight whatsoever among the people of the world who have the potential to make the most difference – if we take the lead.

India says rich world has responsibility to curb climate change

Stop blaming India and China for the West’s 300 years of destroying the environment

Among the top 10 nations for cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007, the US tops the list “by a wide margin”

 

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on Dec 11, 2015

“the most difference – “

Simply not true, that OECD countries can make the most difference in future carbon emissions.

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Dec 12, 2015

Better yet, we should all try to keep the discussions threads short and courteous.  An open and lightly moderated comment section is one of the features of The Energy Collective which I find most valuable, as it is a very effective way to get all sides of an issue on the table.  

But as this article demonstrates, long back-and-forth discussions often degenerate in courtesy as well as quality (w/ culpability on all sides).

Robert Rapier's picture
Robert Rapier on Dec 12, 2015

“ long back-and-forth discussions often degenerate in courtesy as well as quality (w/ culpability on all sides).”

Going to have to disagree with you there Nathan. When someone’s first response utilizes antagonizing and condescending language, they caused it to degenerate right from the start.

Cheers, RR

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Dec 13, 2015

Robert, who is fueling the fire right now, more than any other country on a per-capita basis (save a few island nations, Luxembourg, and several Mideast kingdoms), is the United States of America. I don’t know why you continue to dance around that fact, but a fact it is, and one that’s not lost on 4.5 billion residents of the developing world. Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh:

Just because we draw attention to the hypocrisy of the West does not mean that we are not conscious of our own responsibility…India has a right to be recognised as latecomers and stepchildren of the Industrial Revolution.

So I’m as bewildered as you claim to be by the purpose of your article. Contrast “I make it clear that we can’t tell them [China and India] how to develop” with “It’s now the year 2050. Is it time to attempt to impose those sacrifices?” How do you suggest we “attempt to impose those sacrifices” on China and India, Robert? As much as I would like to hear your ideas on the subject, I have a feeling I won’t be rewarded.

Now, about our discussion –

If you feel my characterization is unflattering I can’ t help that. What matters to me is whether it’s accurate or not, and I stand behind everything I’ve written. Some might be offended by your ad hominems – the implication I can’t “read a chart” or I have a “personality disorder”. I recognize ad hominems for what they are: the last refuge of a flatlining argument. There’s nothing to be offended at.

I am going to have to disappoint you on your request to refrain from commenting on your articles. This is a forum, not a propaganda machine, and I will continue to comment on articles whenever I feel it’s appropriate.

Robert Rapier's picture
Robert Rapier on Dec 13, 2015

“How do you suggest we “attempt to impose those sacrifices” on China and India, Robert?”

Bob, let me make it clear. Your repeated misrepresentations of my articles, along with your extremely annoying habit of then making antagonizing comments based on your own misunderstandings, means you are simply wasting my time. I won’t continue to do that. I made it crystal clear from my first post that I felt the development of low-carbon footprint energy options for those developing countries was the best path forward. Someone who possesses better reading comprension skills than yourself might surmise that I am suggesting a path forward that attempts not to impose sacrifices, but rather works hard on making sure the energy options of the future (for everyone) are low-carbon. But it’s clear you are incapable of coming to that conclusion yourself — so we are treated to the song and dance that follows from your misrepresentations. 

Do you see all those likes on my comment? It’s not because of anything profound that I said, it’s a reflection of how you interact with people. Learn from it. Maybe do a little self reflection.  

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Dec 13, 2015

The other angle to consider is the “path of least resistance” for fossil fuel replacement.  It is quite obvious that fossil fuel producing/exporting countries like the US, Australia, and Russia have a natural disincentive to agressively reduce CO2 emissions (since most permutations of that will reduce fossil fuel use).

So regardless of where the biggest CO2 emissions are being produced, it still makes sense that the wealthy fossil fuel importing countries should take the lead in deploying and cost-reducing technologies that the whole world can use to displace future fossil fue use.

If you look at which countries are exporting the most clean energy technology, annecdotally, Russia seems to lead on nuclear, and China on solar.  Wind turbines seem to have domstic suppliers in many major markets (US, Europe, China, India).

So by this metric, present-day Japan and France are the big slackers who are not doing their fair share to supply the world with clean energy technology (20 years ago, these same countries were clean energy leaders, today their strategy is deliberate failure).

The most duplicitous country of all is Germany, which is a prolific importer of oil and gas, but none-the-less blocks clean nuclear energy in order to protect its domestic coal industry (again using a strategy of deliberate failure).  

As discussed in other comments here, coal-fired electricity is the low-hanging fruit that must be addressed before alternate solutions can be implemented for oil and gas.  So Germany’s protection of its coal industry means that they can’t solve the oil and gas problem.  The US’s strategy using of fossil gas to replace coal also obvious won’t help with oil and gas.

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on Dec 13, 2015

Nathan – 

Path-of-least-resistance design is often elegantly successful, I find, so your analysis is attractive.  However, I’m not sure it follows end to end.  In particular, when you say

“So by this metric, present-day Japan and France are the big slackers who are not doing their fair share to supply the world with clean energy technology (20 years ago, these same countries were clean energy leaders, today their strategy is deliberate failure).”

How would one have France, fox example,  change up its game?  Areva has aggresively pursued international reactor projects, though with middling success as I observe.  For instance, Areva has only two EPRs in China out of the dozens of nuclear projects in progress there.   

Also with regard to exporting clean power, the example of Chinese solar exports is unhelpful. China could double its solar PV production (~6 GW avg/yr)  and not place a significant dent in the global CO2 emissions over the balance of this century, for reasons  clearly articulated in numerous comments and articles here.  

 

Clayton Handleman's picture
Clayton Handleman on Dec 13, 2015

From your comment:

“China could double its solar PV production (~6 GW avg/yr)  and not place a significant dent in the global CO2 emissions over the balance of this century, for reasons  clearly articulated in numerous comments and articles here.  “

EIA’s numbers on solar are usually pretty bad.  And no doubt they get off to a pretty bad start with the piece you are working off of.  Their headline says that PV manufacturing has slowed.  However that is not what their graph shows at all.  The graph shows that the RATE OF INCREASE  of manufacturing has slowed but continues to increase at a slower rate.  That is much different.  But if you are going to go by their report, according to their link, China will put in 100GW solar by 2020.  Unlike EIAs projections, China has been pretty impressive at meeting targets for renewable deployment so seems reasonable to go with that.

While internal growth does not guarantee an increase exports it would be rather remarkable to see growth of that magnitude internally with none in exports.  And to suggest that they would no more than double production by century’s end, given their clear commitment to the technology, and more than 10 fold increase in less than a decade is just a weird thing to put out there.  Kind of a Trumpesk statement.

This piece paints a considerably different picture than EIA.  It looks at ongoing growth and continued INCREASE in the contribution of solar.  This would seem a more likely scenario given continued cost reduction of solar and, with the climate agreement, likely ongoing pressure to reduce use of coal.

It is odd that some posters grasp at today’s production numbers and suggest that they likely represent a cap.  Everyone including EIA and Fraunhofer seem to agree that solar has gone from negligible, a few GW annually to close to 50 GW annually in less than a decade.  While I understand that there are some frequent commenters who passionately wish to see other approaches to clean power developed, the frequent fantastical thinking whereby current trends stop dead today with no explanation other than some wish it would happen, is strange indeed.   

 

Joe Deely's picture
Joe Deely on Dec 13, 2015

“Also with regard to exporting clean power, the example of Chinese solar exports is unhelpful. China could double its solar PV production (~6 GW avg/yr)  and not place a significant dent in the global CO2 emissions over the balance of this century, for reasons  clearly articulated in numerous comments and articles here.  “

Have no idea where you get the 6GW per year for Chinese production. Did you mean 26GW? Because that is what the article you quote actually says 

“Despite the consolidation of Chinese manufacturing companies, China continues to be the largest producer of PV modules, manufacturing 23 GW in 2012 and 26 GW in 2013″

If you look at the  2015 report from IEA you see that China had 30GW of production in 2014.

By the way here is another relevant comment from the 2015 report.

“the PV module spot price continued to drop and reached the 0,6 USD/W level at the end of 2014 from the range of 0,7 to 0,73 USD/W in 2013 “

Prices have continued to drop in 2015.

Over the next 25 years at least 2,000 GW of solar will be installed WW.  Will that create a significant dent?

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on Dec 13, 2015

Joe –

Average power is the figure of interest, not nameplate solar PV. Using the IEA Chinese manufacturing volume from 2015: 30 GW nameplate * 0.2 capacity factor = 6 GW average power.

“Over the next 25 years at least 2,000 GW of solar will be installed WW. Will that create a significant dent?”

Lets assume that is the case, 2 TW PV installed / 25 yrs, which entails a doubling of the current rate of global PV production from 40 GW to an average of 80 GW nameplate / yr over 25 yrs. As a fraction of global generation in 25 years w/ an global annual electric load of perhaps 30,000 TWh/yr, 2 TW nameplate solar installation provides an 11% share, at a cost of $3 trillion (assuming $1.5/Watt installed).

If the same same amount is instead spent on nuclear at China’s cost of $2.5/Watt, the share of a 30,000 TWh global load is 33%, with lifetime 60-80 years not 20 years as with PV.

Clayton Handleman's picture
Clayton Handleman on Dec 13, 2015

Mark,

Your 20 year figure for PV is a timeframe for guaranteed output.  Many mfgs have raised that to 25 years.  However the PV will continue to be very productive for many years after that.  A fair number for useful life is to double to 40 years.  Using your math that puts it at about 22% share.  Also, if you are going to use the reach number of 80 years for nuclear then a reasonable reach number for solar is 50 years.

There are many on this board who are happy to adopt China’s nuclear costs, I assume along with their safety standards and at their labor rates.  Then it would also be good to look at what cost they are installing PV for over there so we can have an apples to apples discussion.  Assuming lower labor rates in China and less onerous environmental standards for PV siting (which is a significant consideration for US utility scale PV) and we are looking at close to cost parity. 

No doubt, nuclear is not intermittent and that has some important advantages.  However there are some considerable downsides to nuclear that many (myself included) feel are not properly monetized.  So it becomes a much more complex and interesting discussion.

 

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on Dec 14, 2015

“However the PV will continue to be very productive for many years after that. “

It is possible to quantify how productive.  NREL reports PV power output declining at 0.5%/year, so that at 20 years power is down to 80% of nameplate, and so on, so that the 2 TW of solar installed over 25 years would have an actual output somewhat less that 2 TW in 2040.    

“Using your math that puts it at about 22% share.”

The 11% share from 2 TW nameplate solar PV in 2040 assumes full output over the entire period with no decline (0.4 TW average solar PV against an assumed 3.4 TW average load in 2040).  Reduction of solar output with age can only further reduce the PV share. 

Joe Deely's picture
Joe Deely on Dec 14, 2015

Mark – 

“Average power is the figure of interest, not nameplate solar PV. “

Gotcha – the link you provided for 6GW was talking abut nameplate – so naturally that is the direction I went.

As for your calculations. I find it really funny that when you pick the cost for tracking solar installation you chose the current price in the US (see below chart)  but when you do pricing for nuclear you choose  a price  from China.  If we can get that price for nuclear in US, UK and rest of developed world that would be great.

Also, $1.50 is the average cost for installing in the US(primarily expensive CA) in 2015. This is down 15-20% from previous year. No reason why this won’t continue to drop as module prives continue to decline and more learnings are gained in installation. Also, as I said these are basically prices in CA not in China, not in UAE , not in Morrocco , not in India etc… So, I think a more reasonable average price over the next 25 yr would be $0.75/Watt installed.

Also, I think you need to do some updating of your capacity factor for solar. Looking at EIA Monthly data – Table 6.7B  you can see that PV utility capacity factor in US will be closer to 28% in 2015. I think we should able to wring a few more % out of this over the next 25 years. So I would use a capaciity factor of 30%.

Finally,my assumption on solar production assumes only a 4% yearly average growth. Very conservative. With the prices we are now seeing and the continued drop in prices over the coming decade the market size could and probably will grow much faster than that.

 

 

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on Dec 14, 2015

See new top post

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on Dec 14, 2015

Joe – 

Currently Lazard gives US installation costs at $3.5/W rooftop and $1.75/W utility scale (page 6).   Module prices have indeed declined sharply, some 4X or 5X from 2007 to 2013, but the gap between module price and the total cost, i.e. the installation costs, has declined much more slowly over that same period, perhaps only 25%, indicating a looming floor for total installed cost of solar PV.  

Source: data 1998-2013 NREL, graphic sunmetrix.

Granted labor costs in the developing world are lower, though to take advantage of lower cost utility scale installation in the developing world will often mean the installation of dedicated transmission where none currently exists. 

Joe Deely's picture
Joe Deely on Dec 14, 2015

Mark,

Well if you want to use Lazard versus my quarterly data source we may as well use the most recent Lazard report (v9.0 vs your v8.0) which uses $1.35/W as cost for utility-scale.  Report comes out one year later and costs goes from $1.75W to $1.35W… not bad. Maybe my $0.75/W is too high.

Also, overall costs are going down much faster than module cost in the last couple of years. As you can see both from my chart and the Lazard data – the overall cost/W for utility scale went down $0.30 – $0.40 cents in the last year while the module cost went down only $0.10.  

As for labor costs…. in the long run utility-scale solar will mostly be installed by robots – at least in developed countries.

 

 

 

 

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on Dec 14, 2015

“…Kind of a Trumpesk statement….It is odd that some posters grasp at today’s production numbers and suggest that they likely represent a cap. …. While I understand that there are some frequent commenters who passionately wish to see other approaches to clean power developed, the frequent fantastical thinking whereby current trends stop dead today with no explanation other than some wish it would happen, is strange indeed.   “

The ad-hominem aside, when replying to one of my posts, do me the courtesy of not attributing to me a parade of  strawmen.  Or, demonstrate where anyone on TEC, much less me in the posts above, have said that this moment’s PV production numbers are a “cap”, or that “trends stop dead”.  

Clayton Handleman's picture
Clayton Handleman on Dec 14, 2015

 

China could double its solar PV production (~6 GW avg/yr)  and not place a significant dent in the global CO2 emissions over the balance of this century,

Perhaps it was not your intent but this really reads like a straw man.  It steers the conversation to a highly improbable scenario that China will only double exports by the end of the century.  That, after going from a bit player to the worlds largest producer in a decade and recently announcing their mandate to install an additional 100GW in 5 years.  After growth of that magnitude, doubling in a century is, relatively speaking, a cap.  You then followed up, in the same thread, by using out of date info from Lazards in an industry that is making significant strides on an annual basis as Joe pointed out. 

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Dec 15, 2015

I see decarbonization as a 3 step process:

1. decarbonize electricity
2. decarbonize residential, commercial, and industrial heat
3. decarbonize transportation.

Western “green” groups have helped persuade France that rather than moving on to investing effort on steps 2 and 3, they should instead abandon previously successful investments in step 1, and begin again (a plan that can only be considered sane when proposed by fossil fuel interests).

Regarding the pace of Chinese (and global) solar deployments: I would advocate deployment of nuclear and solar energy in a 10:1 ratio for annual energy (about 3:1 for nameplate capacity), with a higher solar contribution in warm climates, and zero solar in cold climates.  So right now, it’s nuclear that is growing far too slowly; solar is doing fine on average (and even growing too fast in some cold areas).

Robert Rapier's picture
Thank Robert for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network® is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »

Your access to Member Features is limited.

Apply for membership
Energy Central Jobs
Featured Jobs
More Jobs