According to the EPA in 1983, New York now has a tropical climate and Florida is underwater. And Nunavut is the new Kansas – with massive fields of wheat.
19 Oct 1983, 2 – Messenger-Inquirer at Newspapers.com
01 May 1983, 1 – The Baltimore Sun at Newspapers.com
via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
March 27, 2019 at 08:07AM
By Paul Homewood
Energy demand worldwide grew by 2.3% last year, its fastest pace this decade, an exceptional performance driven by a robust global economy and stronger heating and cooling needs in some regions. Natural gas emerged as the fuel of choice, posting the biggest gains and accounting for 45% of the rise in energy consumption. Gas demand growth was especially strong in the United States and China.
Demand for all fuels increased, with fossil fuels meeting nearly 70% of the growth for the second year running. Solar and wind generation grew at double-digit pace, with solar alone increasing by 31%. Still, that was not fast enough to meet higher electricity demand around the world that also drove up coal use.
As a result, global energy-related CO2 emissions rose by 1.7% to 33 Gigatonnes (Gt) in 2018. Coal use in power generation alone surpassed 10 Gt, accounting for a third of the total increase. Most of that came from a young fleet of coal power plants in developing Asia. The majority of coal-fired generation capacity today is found in Asia, with 12-year-old plants on average, decades short of average lifetimes of around 50 years.
These findings are part of the International Energy Agency’s latest assessment of global energy consumption and energy-related CO2 emissions for 2018. The Global Energy & CO2 Status Report provides a high-level and up-to-date view of energy markets, including latest available data for oil, natural gas, coal, wind, solar, nuclear power, electricity, and energy efficiency.
Electricity continues to position itself as the “fuel” of the future, with global electricity demand growing by 4% in 2018 to more than 23 000 TWh. This rapid growth is pushing electricity towards a 20% share in total final consumption of energy. Increasing power generation was responsible for half of the growth in primary energy demand.
Renewables were a major contributor to this power generation expansion, accounting for nearly half of electricity demand growth. China remains the leader in renewables, both for wind and solar, followed by Europe and the United States.
Energy intensity improved by 1.3% last year, just half the rate of the period between 2014-2016. This third consecutive year of slowdown was the result of weaker energy efficiency policy implementation and strong demand growth in more energy intensive economies.
“We have seen an extraordinary increase in global energy demand in 2018, growing at its fastest pace this decade,” said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s Executive Director. “Last year can also be considered another golden year for gas, which accounted for almost half the growth in global energy demand. But despite major growth in renewables, global emissions are still rising, demonstrating once again that more urgent action is needed on all fronts — developing all clean energy solutions, curbing emissions, improving efficiency, and spurring investments and innovation, including in carbon capture, utilization and storage.”
Almost a fifth of the increase in global energy demand came from higher demand for heating and cooling as average winter and summer temperatures in some regions approached or exceeded historical records. Cold snaps drove demand for heating and, more significantly, hotter summer temperatures pushed up demand for cooling.
Together, China, the United States, and India accounted for nearly 70% of the rise in energy demand around the world. The United States saw the largest increase in oil and gas demand worldwide. Its gas consumption jumped 10% from the previous year, the fastest increase since the beginning of IEA records in 1971. The annual increase in US demand last year was equivalent to the United Kingdom’s current gas consumption.
Global gas demand expanded at its fastest rate since 2010, with year-on-year growth of 4.6%, the second consecutive year of strong growth, driven by higher demand and substitution from coal. Demand growth was led by the United States. Gas demand in China increased by almost 18%.
Oil demand grew 1.3% worldwide, with the United States again leading the global increase for the first time in 20 years thanks to a strong expansion in petrochemicals, rising industrial production and trucking services.
Global coal consumption rose 0.7%, with increases seen only in Asia, particularly in China, India and a few countries in South and Southeast Asia.
Nuclear also grew by 3.3% in 2018, with global generation reaching pre-Fukushima levels, mainly as a result of new additions in China and the restart of four reactors in Japan. Worldwide, nuclear plants met 9% of the increase in electricity demand.
I can’t understand why anybody is in the slightest surprised about any of this. It was all written down in black and white on the Paris Agreement.
China, India and the rest of the developing world are only doing what their INDCs said they would.
Despite the usual claims about rapid growth in renewables, it is still fossil fuels which are supplying most of the increase in demand.
Renewables hardly feature at all, outside of the backwater called Europe:
Perhaps the most significant statement is this:
Coal use in power generation alone surpassed 10 Gt, accounting for a third of the total increase. Most of that came from a young fleet of coal power plants in developing Asia. The majority of coal-fired generation capacity today is found in Asia, with 12-year-old plants on average, decades short of average lifetimes of around 50 years.
As I have repeatedly commented, no developing country is going to prematurely shut down modern coal power plants on a whim. Countries like India, China and other Asian nations need every bit of power they can get their hands on.
And from a financial point of view, once the capital investment has been made, it is only operating costs that are relevant.
A new study claiming that solar and wind power are cheaper than coal power, unsurprisingly uncritically reported by the Guardian this week, misses this point entirely. Just as it also misses the point that you still need to pay the fixed costs for fossil fuel standby capacity.
According to the IEA, CO2 emissions rose by 560 Mt, to 33.1 GtCO2. There was a similar increase in 2017. At this rate, emissions will reach 40 GtCO2 by 2030, an increase of 25% since Paris in 2015.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
March 27, 2019 at 07:15AM
Guest opinion by David Archibald The global warming hysteria was reaching a crescendo in the lead up to the climate confab in Copenhagen in 2009 when a civic-minded person released the Climategate emails, deflating the whole thing. Those emails demonstrated that the science behind global warming was more like science fiction, concocted from the fevered…
via Watts Up With That?
March 27, 2019 at 07:10AM
Here’s the abstract of the March 2019 NBER paper “Inexpensive Heating Reduces Winter Mortality“:
This paper examines how the price of home heating affects mortality in the US. Exposure to cold is one reason that mortality peaks in winter, and a higher heating price increases exposure to cold by reducing heating use. It also raises energy bills, which could affect health by decreasing other health-promoting spending. Our empirical approach combines spatial variation in the energy source used for home heating and temporal variation in the national prices of natural gas versus electricity. We find that a lower heating price reduces winter mortality, driven mostly by cardiovascular and respiratory causes.
And here’s the conclusion (emphasis added):
This paper finds that winter mortality is lower when the price of heating is lower. To put the estimated elasticity of all-cause mortality with respect to the price of heating of 0.03 in context, the price of natural gas relative to electricity fell by 42% between 2005 to 2010. Our findings imply that this price decline caused a 1.6% decrease in the winter mortality rate for households using natural gas for heating. Given that 58% of American households use natural gas for heating, the drop in natural gas prices lowered the US winter mortality rate by 0.9%, or, equivalently, the annual mortality rate by 0.4%. This represents more than 11,000 deaths per year.
This effect size is large enough that it should not be ignored when assessing the net health effects of shale production of natural gas. The findings also highlight the health benefits of other policies to reduce home energy costs, particularly for low-income households.
Bottom Line: The American shale gas revolution illustrated above by the 57% increase in natural gas production in the US since 2006, which contributed to a 53% decrease in natural gas prices has helped to save tens of thousands of deaths every year. Likewise, any increase in average winter temperatures would similarly reduce winter mortality in the US and around the world. In contrast, how many lives would be lost if the Green New Deal was implemented and energy prices from inefficient windwills and solar panels dramatically increased?
The post New Study: US Shale Revolution Is Saving Tens Of Thousands Of Lives Every Year appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
March 27, 2019 at 06:54AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 