EU reduced emissions of greenhouse gases

[jpak]

http://www.neurope.eu/view_news.php?id=74946

Greenhouse gas emissions by members of the European Union dropped by 8 per cent between 1990 and 2005, the Copenhagen-based European Environment Agency said June 14.

In the period 2004 to 2005, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands were among the EU members that succeeded in lowering their carbon dioxide emissions from power and heat production, the agency said. Germany had for instance switched from coal to gas when firing power plants and also reduced emissions from road transports.

Finland had cut the use of fossil fuels in the production of public electricity and heat, mainly due to electricity imports. Reductions were also achieved by Belgium, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Sweden and Britain, according to the agency that has tracked the bloc’s emissions of climate changing gases.

Spain bucked the trend in 2004-2005 by increasing its greenhouse gas emissions by 3.6 per cent due to an increase in electricity generation from fossil thermal power stations and a decrease in hydro power, the report said.

<more>

[NickB79]

1. Lowering CO2 emissions through importing electricity

Let's see, the largest exporter of electricity in the EU is France (68,000 kWh at last count) . France creates the vast majority of it's electricity from nuclear plants. Hmmm, interesting...

[jpak]

5. Ummmm...

from the report...

http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/eu-greenhouse-gas-emissions-decrease-in-2005

<snip>

In absolute terms, the main sectors contributing to emissions reductions between 2004 and 2005 in the EU-15 were public electricity and heat production, households and services, and road transport.

CO2 emissions from public electricity and heat production decreased by 0.9% (-9.6 million tonnes) mainly due to a reduction in the reliance on coal.

CO2 emissions from households and services decreased by 1.7 % (7.0 million tonnes). Important decreases in emissions from household and services were reported by Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. One general reason for the decrease is the warmer weather conditions (milder winter) compared to the previous year.

CO2 emissions from road transport decreased by 0.8% (6 million tonnes). This is mainly attributed to Germany, and is due to increased amounts of diesel oil driven cars, the effects of the eco-tax and fuel buying from outside Germany (fuel tourism).

<more>

also...

<snip>

.......................................Base year.......................2005

1. Energy...............................3262.878......................3357.392
2. Industrial Processes.................394.482........................331.868
3. Solvent and Other Product Use........10.212...........................8.019
4. Agriculture..........................434.450........................385.618
5. Land-Use...........................................................-315.182
6. Waste................................175.161........................109.104
IB.International Bunkers................166.412........................276.544

<end>

Electricity exports from France had little impact on reductions. Furthermore, Finland does not import electricity from France (not grid connection).

[NickB79]

6. You're right, Finland doesn't import electricity from France

According to the EIA:

"Finland’s electric transmission company, Fingrid, is integrated with the Nordic electricity spot market Nordpool, allowing for significant electricity imports, mainly from Sweden. In addition, Finland imports a small amount of electricity from Norway and exports small amounts of electricity to both of those countries. Finland also has an interconnection capacity with Russia, and is expected to import 10 Bkwh in 2003, up from 7.8 Bkwh in 2002. Overall, total Finnish electricity consumption was about 76.2 Bkwh in 2001, of which about 15% was imported. In December 2002, Russian utility Kolenergo reportedly signed a deal to export 650 megawatthours of power to Finland and Norway. Overall, Finland would like to diversify its power sources and reduce its reliance on any one supplier, like Russia."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/finland.html

This is interesting because Sweden has 10 operational nuclear reactors with an average rating of over 1000 MW per reactor, and Russia has 8 nuclear reactors along the Finnish border. So it does appear that a significant portion of Finland's imported electricity is indeed from nuclear reactors.

BTW, why is Germany replacing their coal plants with natural gas plants? I thought the brazillion solar panels they were installing would have made that unnecessary?

[jpak]

7. "brazillion solar panels" - your info comes from an unreliable source...

Those brazillion (sic) solar panels and other renewables supply 10% of Germany's electricity...and that's growing by 1(+)% per year...

Feed Law Powers Germany to New Renewable Energy Record

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=47322

German farmers, homeowners and industrialists set a world record for the development of renewable energy in 2006. Using the country's pioneering electricity feed law, Germans invested more than U.S.$10 billion in new sources of renewable energy last year, including wind turbines, solar panels and biogas power plants.

Germany installed an astounding 100,000 solar systems in 2006, representing 750 MW of solar-electric generation. This follows on the back-to-back record-setting years of 2005 (750 MW), and 2004 (600 MW).

Germany's feed law permits homeowners and farmers to connect their solar power systems to the grid and pays them a fair price for their electricity. This simple system has led Germany to world leadership in wind, solar and biogas electricity generation. Germany operates more wind generation, more solar systems and more biogas plants than any other country on earth.

Renewable sources of energy installed through Germany's feed law produce about 50 terawatt-hours (TWh or billion kilowatt-hours) of electricity per year, or nearly 10% of German electricity consumption.).

<more>

[NNadir]

12. Why then is Germany building 26 vast new coal plants.?

You never seem to read this article, so I'll post it again:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,472786,00.html

There is no evidence that you will ever learn the difference between peak power and energy.

There is little evidence either that you will start understanding the distinction between "percent" and absolute numbers.

I note that if Germany produced 20% of its energy from renewable sources - not that anyone thinks that is going to happen seriously - that would leave the other 80% unaccounted for. In the meantime the dunderhead nuclear phase out engineered by Gas executives in Germany (and undoubtedly coal companies working with them) is attempting to eliminate 30% of Germany's greenhouse free energy.

Now, since you are engaged in a misrepresentation (as usual) let's do the absolute numbers for Europe:

In 1990 Europe was producing 0.74 exajoules less nuclear electricity than it is producing now.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table16.xls

In thermal terms this is the equivalent of almost 2.2 exajoules, since nukes run at about 33% thermal efficiency.

In the meantime, Europe's total production (not the increase but the total - all they've managed to produce) is about 0.49 exajoules. The increase in renewable energy since 1990 in Europe is 0.42 exajoules, or 1.5 exajoules if expressed at a thermal efficiency of 33%.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls

Thus the increase in nuclear energy production (accomplished while everybody in Europe was indulging in anti-nuclear stupidity) was greater than the total production of renewable energy while everybody was cheering for renewable energy.

If you don't know what you're talking about, make stuff up.

When Germany experiences the nuclear phase out engineered by the Gazprom executive who engineered the nuclear phase out - Gerhard Schroeder - those 26 coal plants are going to blow German carbon dioxide through the roof.

Everybody knows it, everybody that is, who can compare two real numbers.

[jpak]

14. Germany utilities *want* to *plan* to build 26 new coal plants

If the German government *wants* to reduce carbon emissions by 40%, however, they *won't* build them.

Simple as that.

Furthermore, 8 reactors - 2236 Mega"watts" total capacity - were permanently shut down in the EU last year

http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/

Just how do you change a negative number into a positive value???

I know - you just "make it up".

[Dead_Parrot]

18. That's the difference between power and energy

Which, despite your claims to the contrary, you still have no grasp of whatsoever.

Incidentally, the German utilities have planned the plants, and they have the http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=%22German+Chancellor+Angela+Merkel+supports+constructing+26+coal-fired+power+plants%22&btnG=Search&meta=">support of Angela Merkel. What the German government wants seems pretty clear.

[rubus]

2. No measurable decrease in average global temperature

Despite the fact that the EU cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 8%, there is no data showing any corresponding reduction in the average global atmospheric temperature. There should be a small temperature reduction, possibly only a fraction of a degree centigrade. Instead, the warming trend has continued despite these emission cuts by the EU.

There must be a system to measure and document global atmospheric temperature reduction, otherwise we have no way of knowing whether carbon dioxide emission controls are cost effective.

It is entirely possible that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will have no effect on the average global atmosheric temperature and the warming trend will continue despite such efforts.

[kestrel91316]

3. Any cuts by the EU were more than compensated for by increases

in emissions of CO2 by the rest of the world - particularly the US, China, and India. EU isn't on some little planet of their own.

Don't they teach this sort of concept in home school??

[NickB79]

4. The EU isn't the only area of the world that emits CO2

Despite EU cuts, the booming economies and drastically rising emissions of CO2 from India and China more than offset the 8% decline seen in Europe over the same time period. We have documented CO2 levels in the atmosphere increasing from 350 ppm in 1990 to ~390 ppm today. The 8% decrease from the EU doesn't even make a blip on the CO2 graphs because it is such a small amount of global levels of release.

"It is entirely possible that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will have no effect on the average global atmospheric temperature and the warming trend will continue despite such efforts."

That could be quite likely if we've passed the tipping point into a positive-feedback loop (which seems more evident every day). Once you pass the tipping point, the warming process becomes self-sustaining as areas of the tundra melt and release CO2 and methane and once ice-covered (sun-reflecting) areas become dark, open ocean (sun-absorbing). Kind of like push-starting a car; once you get over that initial hump the vehicle runs on it's own.

[rubus]

8. Tipping point

We may be past the tipping point, or other factors may be driving our present warming trend. Global climate change is irreversable and unlikely to respond to any amount of human effort. While humans may effect climate trends, there is no evidence that humans can control, reverse, or mitigate global climate change.

Humans can adapt to global warming and ultimately this is the only effective strategy. Attempts to control global carbon dioxide emissions are futile and politically counter-productive.

Global warming is minor when compared to other global environmental problems such as unsafe drinking water, contaminated food, and sanitary living conditions. These are problems that have a far greater impact on human health and safety, and these problems can be remedied with cost-effective, proven technologies.

There is no technology, or other approaches such as carbon trading and carbon taxes, that can guarantee any reduction in average global atmospheric temperatures, and such efforts will eventually be discontinued.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

10. Steady....steady....

:evilgrin:

[rubus]

11. I am not a troll

Dear Nick,

I was merely expressing an opinion on the complex issue of climate change and meant no offence to anyone.

I am a Chemical Engineer who has worked in the field of environmental permitting, regulatory analysis, air pollution control technology, waste water treatment, and energy conservation, for over 20 years. I am interested in control technologies for carbon dioxide and enjoy discussing technical subjects.

I understand the sensitivity and strong emotions attached to climate change and I do not wish to disparage anyone. I am new to this forum and my previous comments may not be appropriate
for the context of this discussion.

Rubus

[razzleberry]

13. the article does NOT represent the EU-15 as a whole

to get the truth, go here, straigth from the UNFCCC

http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/items/3800.php

look at the two charts at the bottom-right, of the page.

the EU-15, not down 8 percent.

the article discusses, a few of the EU countries,
those that have reduced, not the totality of the EU

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. It's actually the 'totality of the EU' that has decreased by 8%, not the EU-15

ie all 27 EU member countries (because that includes ex-Soviet bloc countries which lost a lot of dirty industry). At no point did the linked article claim it was talking about teh EU-15, of course.

Figures:

* EU-15: Emissions of GHGs decreased by 0.8% (35.2 million tonnes CO2 equivalents) between 2004 and 2005 - mainly due to decreasing CO2 emissions of 0.7 % (26 million tonnes).
* EU-15: Emissions of GHGs decreased by 2.0% in 2005 compared to the base year<1> under the Kyoto Protocol.
* EU-15: Emissions of GHGs decreased by 1.5% between 1990 and 2005
* EU-27: Emissions of GHGs decreased by 0.7% (37.9 million tonnes CO2 equivalents) between 2004 and 2005
* EU-27: Emissions of GHGs decreased by 7.9% compared to 1990 levels

http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/eu-greenhouse-gas-emissions-decrease-in-2005

[razzleberry]

16. the EU has done nothing

business as usual.


the EU-15, the group in the Kyoto Treaty,
has done nothing, and only appears to
have reduced, because now, it is grouped
with others.

nice gig, if you can get it.

[Nihil]

17. Having difficulty reading again?

Maybe get someone friendly to explain things to you in words of one syllable?

The post you replied to explained how your first statement was wrong
and what do you do? Post the same incorrect bullshit again.

Do you ever READ the notes you respond to?

:shrug:

[razzleberry]

19. the article is misleading

paraprhasing,

the article states that the EU-27
has reduced by 8 percent.

that just happens to be equal to the reduction
that the EU-15 signed up for at Kyoto.
(possibly, giving the impression that
some reductions have occured)

of course, former Eastern block countries,
where the reductions have happened (by doing nothing),
are not mentioned

the mostly-Western do-nothing countries
mentioned in the article inlude:

Finland
Germany
Neth.
Belgium
Denmark
France
Lux.
Sweden
UK