Comments on: Americans Consumed Less Energy In 2012, And Pumped Out Less Carbon Dioxide To Do It

By: RobS

RobS — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 06:31:00 +0000

yes your proof came after both your initial comment without proof and your demand for someone to back up their claims, the fact that you have righted the hypocrisy is admirable but in no way changes my comment on it.

By: Steeple

Steeple — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 03:09:00 +0000

See my proof above. Did you read the comments?

By: Ivor O'Connor

Ivor O'Connor — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 02:58:00 +0000

lol, I always do that myself. Even in real life. But then I’m a lazy bastard given to hyperbole and hypocrisy.

By: Ivor O'Connor

Ivor O'Connor — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 02:57:00 +0000

yep.

By: RobS

RobS — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 02:40:00 +0000

Love how you make a proclamation of a major point with no proof then when someone challenges it you demand they provide the proof, blatant hypocrisy.

By: Steeple

Steeple — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 02:26:00 +0000

You’re probably right about the future. But I’d rather be warm, portable and stupid than the alternative in the present.

By: Ivor O'Connor

Ivor O'Connor — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 01:59:00 +0000

You were not clear on what you meant and when I read this a few hours ago I was going to ask for clarification. Now I think I have figured out what you mean. We have become a society that relies on China to produce most of our products and so they run the factories that emit toxins. I agree.

By: Ivor O'Connor

Ivor O'Connor — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 01:56:00 +0000

I think you are right Steeple. Methane is responsible for a large part of the CO2 reduction. However there are many explosions such as the one that killed five in West Virginia three months ago and many many more as seen here http://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/fracking-across-the-united-states

However if we talk GHG instead of CO2 methane is probably damaging our environment faster than coal was. The numbers are not in and probably won’t be in for another decade or three. By then it will be a moot item since renewable energy will have made fossil fuels a chapter in the history books taught to junior high kids about how stupid we were.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 01:27:00 +0000

Methane leaks occur mainly past the well. Our NG infrastructure leaks like crazy.

By: JamesWimberley

JamesWimberley — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:45:00 +0000

The one relevant number in your link was an estimate that US imports from China in 2008 included an imputed 400 mt of CO2. That’s about 7% of total US emissions that year. There is no estimate on the other side for US exports to China (about 1:4), which you have to do if you are working from consumption, not production. At a guess, that cuts the net Chinese share of US consumption emissions to about 5%. Chinese energy efficiency and value-added per kg has been going up, so it’s not likely this ratio has changed much over the period in spite of greater import volume – up 27% since 2008. (iPhone 5s are much more valuable than iPhone 3s, but use similar energy to make.) Total US emissions on a production basis have dropped 12.4% since 2008. It’s therefore impossible for growing Chinese imports to have represented more than a few % of this.

By: Steeple

Steeple — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 23:21:00 +0000

Well, let’s do the math Bob. Approx 10% of US power has switched from coal to nat gas. And since the nat gas plants replacing the coal plants are roughly 40% more efficient, that is about a 4% reduction in fuel used to generate electricity. And since electricity is approx 50% of our energy consumption, looks like about a 2% reduction in our overall energy usage. Seems like about half of the reduction.

Oh, if nat gas wells are leaking so much, there must be plenty of instances where these sites have exploded from the leaking natural gas. Oh wait…

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:55:00 +0000

Dots were already connected.

Natural gas has played a role in lowering CO2. However it has not been the “primary driver”.

Furthermore, what CO2 reduction that NG has provided has been largely offset by greater methane leakage into the atmosphere.

“While gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 2.8 percent in 2012, energy use per dollar of GDP fell by 5.1 percent. That change in energy intensity was a key driver, as the following chart indicates.”

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/How-Much-Is-Efficiency-Helping-America-Slash-its-Carbon-Emissions

By: mistywindow

mistywindow — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:39:00 +0000

It was a comment James, not a PhD dissertation. Nevertheless there’s a plethora of information out there. For instance:
http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/on-u-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-cognitive-dissonance/

All you have to do in any Western country is look at the labels on 90% of consumer goods.

The 1% of the 1% have destroyed the jobs of OECD workers and provide much of the coal to fuel the process.

It can’t go on forever. American businesses are destroying their own customers. Henry Ford understood why that wasn’t a good idea and started the 20th Century boom time which is now being destroyed.

By: JamesWimberley

JamesWimberley — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:23:00 +0000

Do you have some numbers for this? The US does not import steel, cement, machine tools, ships, cars, aircraft and the like from China. It imports textiles, electronics, housewares, etc, which are far less energy-intensive. However, the shipping itself uses a lot of oil. There has undoubtedly been some increase in exported carbon emissions with a widening trade gap. It’ s up to you to show that this compensates the reductions in US domestic emissions to a significant, and not just a talking-point, extent.

By: JamesWimberley

JamesWimberley — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:13:00 +0000

The first half of 2013 showed a reversal, with a year-on-year increase of 2.6%. (www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/22/u-s-carbon-emissions-hit-their-lowest-level-since-1994-that-wont-last/)

The ever-conservative EIA predicts that carbon emissions will rise steadily from now on. FWIW, I think they are too gloomy: their forecasts for solar installations are ridiculously low, and once businesses start taking energy-saving and climate change seriously, they will carry on doing so. But suppose you optimistically project a continuation of the downward trend from 2005 and dismiss the recent uptick as noise. The best the US can hope for is Obama’a softball target of a 17% reduction by 2020. This is still a long way from a reality-based energy transition. Even German targets are too low!

By: Steeple

Steeple — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 17:56:00 +0000

Ok, and Nat Gas 7000 HR turbines replacing 12,000 HR coal fired power means what?

The energy intensity trend has been down since the 1970s but Emissions have just started to fall.

Starting to connect the dots?

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 17:37:00 +0000

“The main reason for this is that American energy intensity dropped — energy use per dollar of GDP fell 6.5 percent. The economy was able to do more with less energy, which has been a long-term trend ever since an inefficient high in 1970.”

By: Steeple

Steeple — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 17:29:00 +0000

Well, make your case Bob

By: mistywindow

mistywindow — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 17:05:00 +0000

Sounds great, except that we’re not mentioning the fact that the emissions are being exported to China.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:54:00 +0000

All I hear is the sound of one hand clapping.

Shale gas was not the primary driver.