Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumThe World Electricity Supply - a decade of de-carbonization?
Last edited Fri Jun 19, 2015, 03:01 PM - Edit history (2)
Here is some more data mining from the new BP Statistical Review. It shows the changing mix of world electricity sources over the last 10 years. My big wish was to find that the share of fossil fuels has been shrinking as renewables ramp up. Alas, such is not the case.
While the contribution of wind, water and solar has been growing, their increase has just balanced out the decline in nuclear generation. The share of fossil fuels has been flat at 70% of the mix for the past decade.
As someone who sees climate change as the biggest existential threat that life on Earth is facing, I was hoping to see the promises of the energy warriors being realized by now.
It now seems obvious that we will not decarbonize human activity by energy substitution, at least not nearly fast enough to prevent massive disruptions due to climate over the coming decades. If we want to make headway against the ecological crisis, our only alternative seems to be to undertake a drastic program of consumption cuts, from the bottom to the top of all the world's societies. Fortunately we don't need to wait for government programs, subsidies or even any leadership at all. This is something that each of us can undertake on our own, without help or permission from anyone.
This appears to be the only realistic (?) option we have left: Do less with less.
Even that has more to do with moral satisfaction than any realistic chance at mitigation. But, moral satisfaction is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. And we have to do something!
Papa Frankie says we should always leave space for a miracle. He should know about miracles, right?
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)This can have major impact -- 'Use less to do the same amount.'
The Carbon War Room is focused on helping make millions of little changes that add up to significant impact, like having diesel rigs stop idling.
Another big opportunity for impact is focusing on the biggest sources of carbon release. I'm part of a push for a mass produced electric tractor since agriculture is a huge source of carbon release but could be net carbon sequestering. When I got into mid-scale organic farming I was surprised by how much diesel and plastic it involves -- it shouldn't. Tractors use the dirtiest form of diesel fuel, even dirtier and more poisonous than that used for highway transportation. Currently electric tractors are available custom order or as kits but when a major like Kubota, John Deere or Tesla offer one it will be the start of a sea change (literally).
This guy does retro-fits but a pure version would be better. Love the joystick control and, therefore, moveable seat:
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)In order to stay even, overall energy efficiency must improve as fast as system growth. We're certainly not doing that now, and the low-hanging efficiency fruit has already been picked.
The other problem is the question of "doing the same amount". That brings in the whole non-energy side of the equation - the biodiversity loss due to habitat destruction, the soil fertility and fresh water loss - not to mention the CO2 that's already wreaking havoc in the atmosphere.
In order to mitigate as much of the damage as we can in as short a time as possible, we cannot rely on efficiency. We have to reduce the overall level of human activity, aka consumption and population growth.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)We are far from having picked even 10% of the low hanging fruit. The car fad of the 2000s was the SUV -- bigger and heavier than the cars they replaced. That's going backwards and just one example of unpicked fruit.
IMHO it will take a transition to non-carbon energy plus more efficiency and less waste to get carbon under control. Longer term we will have to sequester carbon to get it out of the atmosphere.
Not sure that I understand your point on "non-energy." "biodiversity loss due to habitat destruction, the soil fertility and fresh water loss" are all major problems to be dealt with and they have overlap with climate change but reversing any or all of those would not impact the increases in global warming (?)
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)But unless we can reduce the human impact on every aspect of the biosphere by 75% (to give it a rough order of magnitude) within the next 25 years, we're done. A few more windmills and electric cars aren't going to cut it in that time frame.
UK Government-backed scientific model flags risk of civilisations collapse by 2040