CLOCK
To evolve from apes 7 hrs
Homo Sapiens so far 10mins
Human history 30secs
1000 years 3secs
I year 3msec
PATH TO A SUSTAINABLE EARTH
EVEN IF THERE WAS NO CLIMATE CHANGE WE HAVE TO START NOW TO BECOME INDEPENDENT OF FOSSIL FUELS !
The total oil used since the beginning of time is 1.1 — 1.4 trillion barrels, roughly equal to known reserves today. We have used up half of known oil in 100 years.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/How-Much-Crude-Oil-Has-The-World-Really-Consumed.html
It is predicted that we will run out of fossil fuels in this century. Oil can last up to 50 years, natural gas up to 53 years, and coal up to 114 years.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/how-long-fossil-fuels-last-43432/
If we wait until oil runs out there will be catastrophic global warning and a collapse in food supply - nature will have imposed the change on us.
The alternative is to minimize global warming and solve the fuel crisis. The published breakdown in breakdowns for greenhouse gases are shown in the pie chart. This can be combined with data on the uses of electricity
-
residential 38.9% or 7% of carbon footprint = 6 MWh/y/p
-
commercial 34.9%
-
industrial 26.0%
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php
Combining these 2 with data for average personal transport gives:
Personal carbon footprint for an "average" american
Carbon footprint %
Personal Car travel 25 14,000 miles a year @ 24mpg
Agriculture 9
Residential Elec 3 Double in Texas
Residential fuel 3 Higher in the North Air travel 3 4,000 miles a year
Corporate Industrial fuel 21
Commercial elec 17
Commercial fuel 9
Industrial elec 8
Roughly half your footprint is under your personal purchase control, and half under corporate control. Electrical supplies 30% of the energy.
Obviously these vary with location, family size etc. so "your mileage may differ" applies to all these percentages. However they do provide a framework for thinking about what you can do.
Becoming sustainable
Whatever we choose to do, social pressure and financial incentives are much more effective than political mandates. Sustainability needs to be part of our obligation as trustees of the planet to future generations.
The strategy has 3 elements; use less, convert fossil fuel uses to electricity, and change to renewable electricity. Focus on highest leverage items.
The first step is solving a problem is to not make it worse. This means a fertility rate of no more than 2 children per couple, we must get to zero population growth. The good news is that in many developed countries we are already at zero growth, and all the trends show poorer countries are headed that way.
Renewable electric power generation 30% of footprint
Renewable electrical power generation will reduce your footprint by around 30% , and we are reliant on changing most of the national grid to renewables to reduce its carbon footprint. This is the item that requires national political commitment and resources to make happen. It require an "all of the above" approach to the different technologies. It will also mean that we will need some spare on demand capacity from fossil fuels or nuclear to manage variations in generation.
In 2021 about 15% of generation in the US came from renewables up from 5% 7 years ago, compound growth at this rate could get to 100% as soon as 20 years. If we just add constant capacity it would take 60 year, 40 years is probably more realistic.
Domestic cars 25% of footprint
Your average car is used to travel 14,000 miles a year at 24 mpg. A gallon of gasoline has an energy content of 34 KWh. Your car uses 20 MWh/person/year or 25% of your total energy use.
Air travel is a smaller contributer compared to cars. US uses jet fuel 1000 thousand barrels a day , and gasoline 8000 thousand barrels a day. Based on the amount of jet fuel we use, the average american consumes about 2 MWh a year travelling by air, about 3% of your carbon footprint . Planes are about as efficient as hybrids, so we travel 4000 miles in two 1000 mile round trips. Air travel is estimated as 2x more polluting per gallon from depositing additional greenhouse gases.
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/gasoline_consumption/
To reduce your carbon footprint, it is obvious that your car is the biggest line item, and is more than other countries because we drive a lot and our cars are larger and less efficient. Gas cars are 30% efficient at generating motion power, compared to 95% for electric motors.
Hybrid cars are roughly twice as efficient as conventional gasoline motors, so changing to a hybrid will halve your gas bill and reduce your carbon footprint by 13%.
Electric cars (Nissan Leaf) have a range of 200 miles on a charge of 62 KWh, or 4.3 MWh/person/year. Electric motors are much more energy efficient than gasoline engines, and the cars are smaller and lighter. Roof top solar in Texas can generate enough for a 2 car family, so changing to an electric car will eliminate gas use, reduce maintenance costs by roughly 50%, and adding roof top solar can reduce your carbon footprint by 35%.
The average life of a car in the US is 11 years, so in 20 years the change to electric cars could have a major impact on fossil fuel use. The good news is that car companies are used to a annual design changes. Battery infrastructure may be the limiting factor.
Plug-in vehicles are predicted to make up 23% of new passenger vehicle sales globally in 2025, up from just under 10% in 2021. A this rate, 50% of all sales by 2035 seems likely.
Industrial fossil fuel use 21 %
As we learn how to build much larger systems, general industrial uses will convert to electricity, with carbon capture as an option for large facilities. A carbon tax that should be used to add financial pressure on commercial and industrial facilities. Building codes are a well established process for ensuring new and upgrade construction meet societies needs, it should be used to enforce footprint requirements.
Many industrial processes emit CO2 through fossil fuel consumption. Several processes also produce CO2 emissions through chemical reactions that do not involve combustion, and examples include the production of mineral products such as cement, the production of metals such as iron and steel, and the production of chemicals. The fossil fuel combustion component of various industrial processes accounted for about 16% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 13% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2020.
The cement industry accounts for around 5 percent of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. While some estimate that energy efficiency improvements could achieve emission reductions of up to 40 percent, some industry analyses suggest that producers may have already exhausted this potential. Reducing emissions from the calcination process means looking to a material other than limestone. Blended cement could reduce CO2 emissions by as much as 20 percent, but its widespread use is limited by other environmental regulations (these substitutes can contain toxic heavy metals); the limited availability of substitute material; and some building code restrictions (blended cement can take longer to set).
Finally, CO2 emissions can be captured after they are produced through carbon capture and storage (CCS). CO2 penetrates concrete and reacts with calcium hydroxide in the presence of water to form calcium carbonate; the result is stable, long-term CO2 storage. As a mitigation technology, accelerated carbonation can be achieved by exposing freshly mixed concrete to flue gases with high CO2 concentrations.
Household and commercial fossil fuel use 12% of footprint
The next items under personal purchasing control are residential and commercial fossil fuel use. There is EIA data on over 70 households in the southwest US, which shows energy use of 13 MWh/y + 4 KWh/squft/y for new single family residences with 3.5 occupants. The average single family home from 2000-4000 squft has an average total energy consumption from 15-20 MWh/y +-30% or +- 1% of your footprint, giving an idea of the energy saving opportunity.
The use breakdown for a typical residence.
Energy use is 6% of energy footprint for US average resident.
Cool 17% - 1% of energy footprint
Heat 29% - 2% of energy footprint
Water 14% - 1% of energy footprint
Appliances 13% - 1% of energy footprint
Most water and space heat combined use fossil fuel @ 3% of your footprint.
In Texas, a 3000 squft single family house with 2 people uses 7 MWh/y/p electricity and 6 MWh/y/p natural gas. Slightly above average for a single family house, over 2x US average per person.
Assuming that electricity is converted to renewable, the additional potential savings are from conversion from fossil fuel to renewable electricity, which produces a 3% decrease in carbon footprint. Energy savings alone can produce a 1% reduction.
Commercial facilities have similar heating, cooling and lighting issues to houses, the immediate strategy is improving insulation and moving to electric as much as possible. Large area solar should be a requirement. The trend to working from home should reduce the need for commercial space, with savings all round.
Agriculture 9% of footprint
One of the current hot issues is "they are coming for our beef". Beef is uses much more fossil fuel than other protein sources, so moving to a veggies oriented diet is probably better for you and will reduce footprint.
At least as important is the impact of agriculture on land use in the planet from the demand for food and palm oil in particular. Palm oils are easier to stabilize and maintain quality of flavor and consistency in processed foods, so are frequently favored by food manufacturers.[3] Demand has also increased for other uses, such as cosmetics and biofuels, encouraging the growth of palm oil plantations in tropical countries. Growing bio-fuels is a uniquely poor use of agriculture.
We can choose to change the balance of our diets. The use of non-essential but useful oils will only be changed if the users pay the full cost of growing. This needs to include the loss of CO2 absorption, loss of bio-diverse habitat, CO2 creation from burning the native forest.
Air travel 3% impact
Air travel is a minor problem compared to your car when you fly 4000 miles a year. Add a few international flights and it becomes a significant contribution. The most likely long term solution is to use hydrogen as a fuel source.
In February 2022, Airbus announced a demonstration of a liquid hydrogen-fueled Turbofan, with a first flight expected within five years.
What do we care about ?
Deliver net zero CO2.
What has to happen ?
Either Convert to renewables
or Make much more efficient use of fossil fuels
or Trap CO2
IPCC 2022 summary
https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease/
"The next few years are critical. In the scenarios we assessed, limiting warming to around 1.5°C (2.7°F) requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest, and be reduced by 43% by 2030; at the same time, methane would also need to be reduced by about a third. Even if we do this, it is almost inevitable that we will temporarily exceed this temperature threshold but could return to below it by the end of the century.
“It’s now or never, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5°C (2.7°F),” said Skea. “Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible.”
The global temperature will stabilise when carbon dioxide emissions reach net zero. For 1.5°C (2.7°F), this means achieving net zero carbon dioxide emissions globally in the early 2050s; for 2°C (3.6°F), it is in the early 2070s.
This assessment shows that limiting warming to around 2°C (3.6°F) still requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest, and be reduced by a quarter by 2030."
My take - To get to 43% reduction by 2030, requires 43% of existing uses be replaced or converted, and any addition power generation or cars to have zero emissions. To meet these goals, new installations in 2030 must be almost exclusively carbon free.
What is RBC proposing ?
"The Metrics & Targets section provides an overview of our PCAF financed emissions for lending activities and other key performance metrics (see page 37)" (Table2). The proposed metrics are for new investments in 2030 to meet a roughly 45% improvement in CO2 per unit power measures grid efficiency and per km measures transport efficiency. CO2 per unit oil and gas volume measures carbon capture.
The enabling technology for power generation (renewables), and transport (electric) are clear. I am not aware of any industrial scale carbon capture to reduce emission 30% for oil and gas users.
My take - new installations in 2030 that are 43% better than today, guarantees that reductions in total emissions will be less than 43%.
Based on Fig 15, in 2022, total funding of power generation is $10B. Fossil fuel generation at $4.3B is 2x renewables for capacity that will still be in use in 2030. Funding to nuclear is the same as renewables. It is important to note that nuclear may be net zero CO2, but still has a serious waste problem.
My take -. RBC proposal will fail to meet IPCC 1.5C rise goal, might meet 2C rise objective. At a minimum there should be 1:1 fossil to renewable. For example, if you want to build a fossil plant you must build an equal capacity renewable facility. There is no excuse to fund coal.
RBC funding commitment
"Provided $84.8 billion in sustainable finance as part of our commitment to provide $500 billion in sustainable finance by 2025 to support clients’ ESG objectives 2."
An inconsistent comparison. The supporting Fig 3 shows cumulative spending from $282B to $500B over 3 years, or $73B a year, LESS than in $84B in 2022. Ref 2 does not detail what the ESG objectives are, there is a implication that fossil fuel is included.
My take - the use of a cume graph gives the misleading impression of a growing commitment. RBC is committed to flat funding to sustainability over the next 3 years - Yipee!
Banking on banking chaos
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/royal-bank-oil-and-gas-1.6809011
"A report from a coalition of environmental groups shows that Royal Bank of Canada was the biggest fossil fuel financier in the world last year after providing over $42 billion US in funding. The annual Banking on Climate Chaos report shows the bank's funding between 2016 and 2021 put it as the fifth-largest fossil fuel funder, but 2022 was the first year it provided the most money."
The ranking is based on published funding to oil and gas companies, not how these companies use the money. All the oil and gas companies have a "net zero plan" so they qualify for RBC funding.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/07/energy/big-oil-green-claims-report-climate-intl/index.html
To be fair, the oil and gas companies have a less than stellar record with regard to climate change.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3483045-AQ-9-Task-Force-Meeting-1980.html
My take - I do not trust the oil companies to protect the planet.
.png)
.png)
.png)