Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: 2019 CO2 emissions  (Read 2549 times)

Tom_Mazanec

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 840
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 28
2019 CO2 emissions
« on: April 11, 2019, 04:40:14 PM »
As long ago as early December, 2018 it was reported that 2018 had hit an all-time record for CO2 emissions.
Do we have some early indications five months later how 2019 is trending?
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Jim Hunt

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4076
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2019, 04:59:24 PM »
Perhaps look in "2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels"?
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

Tom_Mazanec

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 840
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #2 on: April 11, 2019, 05:12:17 PM »
I thought emissions is how much H. sapiens actually put into the atmosphere through burning gas, oil, coal, wood, etc. while the Mauna Loa levels reflect the exhalation of animals, fossil fuel burning, sequestering in plants, and other carbon cycles.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

rboyd

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 963
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2019, 06:05:14 PM »
Perhaps look in "2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels"?

Atmospheric levels represent the actions of all sources (natural and anthropogenic) and sinks, and there is a significant amount of natural variation (e.g. La Nina/El Nino). There is also the possibility of feedbacks increasing natural emissions and reducing sinks. So probably not a good link between the two, especially in the short-term.

Coal Usage
Maybe the best proxy is coal usage in China and India, as the increase in coal usage accounted for 70% of the rise in emissions in 2017 and 2018. Forecasts are for 4% growth in India coal usage ongoing and it looks like China is quietly building new coal-fired power stations, so they may not peak for quite a while. Coal consumption statistics are usually quite delayed in reporting though. I ignore any reduction due to increased natural gas usage, as the significantly underreported fugitive methane leaks make it as bad as coal (yes, that means that emissions grew by more than reported in 2018).

Wind and Solar Electricity Generation
Another could be the forecast for the increase in wind and solar electricity generation (not capacity addition which is very misleading due to differing capacity factors) versus the forecast increase in overall electricity generation (growing at about 2.5% per year). If the ratio is greater than 1 (currently less than 0.5) electricity generation is decarbonizing. I ignore hydroelectricity (growth limited and net up-front emissions due to construction and the flooding of vegetation) and the highly questionable bio-fuels (e.g. wood pellets may be just as bad as coal and therefore UK emissions probably did not fall by as much as claimed).

In 2017 humanity utilized approximately 22,000 Terawatt hours of electricity, wind provided 5% of that, and solar 2% of that. Their combined share grew by 1%, which was much less than the 2.6% growth in overall generation. The growth rate would need to treble to start decarbonizing. You can get the data for look-back IRENA (International Renewable Energy Association) and look-forward data from GWEC (Global Wind Energy Council) and Solar Power Europe. Their forecasts for 2019 (which are usually pretty good) point to slowing growth rates in wind and solar, so not decarbonization. Same to 2022.

Internal Combustion Engine Car Fleet
As long as this is growing (as it is rapidly in China and probably soon India, and slowly in the US and Europe) emissions will tend to increase, offset a little by more efficient engines (offset a lot by increases in the size of cars). In 2019 car sales may fall somewhat, but the overall ICE car fleet will continue to grow. Until EV's are a significant share of sales in the USA and Europe this increase will continue. Monthly sales numbers, and EV share, are published monthly. Still too low to reduce the ICE fleet in the USA and EU.

Sorry that its not that simple to do. I track these things in detail because it is necessary for my PhD, it can be quite a pain tracking down accurate (and not misrepresented) data. My take is that, short of a recession, emissions will increase between now and 2022.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/secret-coal-plants-reveal-chinas-strategy-of-the-green-mirage_2860707.html

https://yearbook.enerdata.net/electricity/electricity-domestic-consumption-data.html

https://yearbook.enerdata.net/renewables/wind-solar-share-electricity-production.html

https://www.irena.org/publications/2019/Mar/Capacity-Statistics-2019

https://gwec.net/global-wind-report-2018/

http://www.solarpowereurope.org/global-market-outlook-2018-2022/
« Last Edit: April 11, 2019, 06:13:40 PM by rboyd »

Stephan

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 604
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 88
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2019, 08:26:15 PM »
Thank you for sharing your information sources and their relative weight and importance.
Please keep us updated if newer and more precise information is available and finally good luck with your PhD thesis :-)

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #5 on: April 11, 2019, 08:39:20 PM »
I track these things in detail because it is necessary for my PhD,

Good luck with that! :)

If it helps you, there are very accurate emission stats for Germany from Frauenhofer.

All coal plants >> https://www.energy-charts.de/emissions_de.htm?source=lignite&view=absolute&emission=co2&year=all

Percentage renewables >> https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share_de.htm

Solar and wind >> https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_de.htm?source=solar-wind&period=weekly&year=2019

Feel free to ask me for translation if necessary.

rboyd

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 963
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2019, 06:37:47 AM »
Thankyou, actually google translate tends to do a very good job.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2019, 07:26:47 AM »
Thankyou, actually google translate tends to do a very good job.

You are welcome R.

So cool Google translates even this site. Thumbs up!  :)

Tom_Mazanec

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 840
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2019, 09:22:14 PM »
Well, I don't know if Google Translate does a very good job...I usually get just pretty good (although I admit it is slowly improving).
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

rboyd

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 963
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2019, 11:31:12 PM »
Increase in lake emissions equivalent to 13% of fossil fuel related emissions due to "moderate levels of eutrophication" due to increased temperatures

We are rapidly getting to the point where cuts in anthropogenic emissions could be matched by increased sources and reduced sinks.The UNIPCC takes absolutely no account of this.

Quote
Our study shows that GHG emissions from lakes and impoundments are equivalent to ∼ 20% of global fossil fuel CO2 emission (9.3 Pg C‐CO2 yr−1; Le Quéré et al. 2016) and that emissions will rise even further with the continued eutrophication of Earth's lentic ecosystems.

[quote This analysis suggests that these moderate levels of enhanced eutrophication could increase the atmospheric effect of GHGs emitted from lakes and impoundments by 5%, 26%, or 42%, respectively (Supporting Information Table S7). This increased emission would be equivalent to around 1 Pg CO2eq yr−1 or about 13% of the effect of the current global emission of CO2 by the combustion of fossil fuels, and about equal to the excess CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from global land use change (Ciais et al. 2013).[/quote]

https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/lol2.10073

wdmn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #10 on: April 24, 2019, 01:14:28 AM »
Oilsands CO2 emissions may be far higher than companies report, scientists say
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/oilsands-carbon-emissions-study-1.5106809

A number of major oilsands operations in northern Alberta seem to be emitting significantly more carbon pollution than companies have been reporting, newly published research from federal scientists suggests, which could have profound consequences for government climate-change strategies.

The researchers, mainly from Environment Canada, calculated emissions rates for four major oilsands surface mining operations using air samples collected in 2013 on 17 airplane flights over the area.

In results published today in the journal Nature Communications, the scientists say the air samples from just those surface mining operations suggest their carbon dioxide emissions are 64 per cent higher, on average, than what the companies themselves report to the federal government using the standard United Nations reporting framework for greenhouse gases.

...

The lead author of the paper, John Liggio of Environment Canada, was quick to point out that the lower emissions rates reported by companies are in no way due to data-toggling or dishonesty on their part. Instead, the differences between his team's estimates and previously reported numbers are related to methodology.

"They're just doing exactly what they've been told to do. They're not doing anything on purpose," Liggio said in an interview Monday.

Juan C. García

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1341
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 332
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2019, 07:16:23 AM »
"NASA’s new carbon observatory is set for launch despite Trump’s efforts to ax it"
Quote
Trump slashed funding for the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3 and four other Earth science missions in his proposed spending plan for the 2018 fiscal year, citing “budget constraints” and “higher priorities within Science.” His budget for fiscal year 2019 tried to defund them again.
In both cases, Congress decided to keep the OCO-3 mission going anyway. Now it is set to launch as soon as Tuesday.

How is OCO-3 different than OCO-2?
The main purpose of OCO-3 is to make sure we have a continuous record of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, but we are adding some new capabilities. One of those is to take a snapshot of carbon levels over an area of 50 miles by 50 miles. This will feed a bunch of science investigations of emission hot spots, like cities or volcanoes.
We can also look at how plant activity changes over the course of a day, which is something OCO-2 could not do.
https://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-oco-3-orbiting-carbon-observatory-nasa-20190426-story.html#nws=true
Which is the best answer to Sep-2012 ASI lost (compared to 1979-2000)?
50% [NSIDC Extent] or
73% [PIOMAS Volume]

Volume is harder to measure than extent, but 3-dimensional space is real, 2D's hide ~50% thickness gone.
-> IPCC/NSIDC trends [based on extent] underestimate the real speed of ASI lost.

ASILurker

  • Guest
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #12 on: April 29, 2019, 02:43:28 PM »
Co2 in 2050 mentioned previously. I found this via Mako Hansen who regularly update their data grpahs; eyeballing this graph looks like near 550 ppm CO2 about 2050 at RCP 8.5; and out to 2075 looks like ~700 ppm increasing at 6ppm/yr avg.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Long-Term Annual Means with IPCC Scenarios
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/GHGs/

Data: CO2 (Data through 2018, Last updated 2019/03/06)


Whereas an annual CO2 increase of 3 ppm/yr would bring CO2 to about 500 ppm by 2050;
an avg. 2.5 ppm /yr increase would make it ~487 ppm by 2050.
(the 2019 projected base at 410 ppm global mean)
« Last Edit: April 29, 2019, 02:53:49 PM by Lurk »

Tom_Mazanec

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 840
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 28
« Last Edit: June 05, 2019, 04:01:23 PM by Tom_Mazanec »
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

morganism

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2019, 09:50:16 PM »
Thermal Decomposition of CO2 with Nuclear Heat

http://toughsf.blogspot.com/2019/06/thermal-decomposition-of-co2-with.html

" We find that at 3000K, 40% of CO2 molecules break up into CO and O particles. The fraction becomes 50% at 3600K. Carbon monoxide has an even higher thermal decomposition temperature, beyond 3800K.

At 4000K, we can expect that from every 1 mole of CO2, we get 0.15 moles of carbon, 0.5 moles of oxygen and 0.2 moles of CO. Each mole of CO2 fully broken up requires to 530kJ. This corresponds to 12 MJ per kg of CO2 that is decomposed.

Thankfully, nuclear heat is in no short supply. Even small reactor cores can produce gigawatts of thermal energy… indeed, most of the cost of a nuclear reactor comes from the difficulty of containing the heat, not in producing it. "

The first step is therefore to filter out the dust, cool the air to condense out water vapor, and then liquefy CO2 by compressing it to over 25 bars at below room temperature. The liquid CO2 rains out of the compressed gas and can be drained away.

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4153
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 666
  • Likes Given: 1185
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #15 on: June 08, 2019, 11:57:30 PM »
All of this to reverse the emission of CO2 from the fossil fuel plant next door? Best not to emit the stuff in the first place.

interstitial

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #16 on: June 09, 2019, 04:48:36 AM »

Thermal Decomposition of CO2 with Nuclear Heat

So Nuke fossil fuel plants? :o :o ??? ??? :P :) :D ;D

Hmmmm........
That might work (Just kidding)

Tom_Mazanec

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 840
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 28
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 571
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #18 on: July 16, 2019, 08:02:05 PM »
US CO2 emissions projected to decrease in 2019.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=post;topic=2637.0;last_msg=205211

Quote
U.S. Sees Rare Fall In Energy-Related CO2 Emissions In 2019

By Julianne Geiger - Jul 15, 2019, 10:00 PM CDT

The decrease in coal-derived energy in favor of natural gas-derived energy has the Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasting that the CO2 emissions in the United States will fall in 2019, according to a new report by the agency on Monday.

In the year prior, energy-related CO2 emissions in the United States had increased by 2.7%.

Quote
The EIA is basing this optimism for lower CO2 emissions on the mild temperature forecasts for the remainder of the year, which it expects will keep energy demand below that of 2018.

“EIA forecasts that CO2 emissions from coal will decrease by 169 MMmt in 2019, the largest decrease in CO2 emissions from coal since 2015,” the EIA said.

Picking up some of that slack is an expected increase in natural gas C02 emissions of 53 MMmt as the mix of coal shrinks and natural gas grows in the overall energy mix. C02 emissions from petroleum is expected to be flat in 2019.

“Because the electric power sector consumes nearly 92% of the coal used in the United States, expectations for both overall lower electricity demand and a lower share of coal-fired electricity this summer lead EIA to forecast lower coal CO2 emissions.”

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1402
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 174
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2019, 10:10:06 PM »
Thermal Decomposition of CO2 with Nuclear Heat

http://toughsf.blogspot.com/2019/06/thermal-decomposition-of-co2-with.html

" We find that at 3000K, 40% of CO2 molecules break up into CO and O particles. The fraction becomes 50% at 3600K. Carbon monoxide has an even higher thermal decomposition temperature, beyond 3800K.

At 4000K, we can expect that from every 1 mole of CO2, we get 0.15 moles of carbon, 0.5 moles of oxygen and 0.2 moles of CO. Each mole of CO2 fully broken up requires to 530kJ. This corresponds to 12 MJ per kg of CO2 that is decomposed.

Thankfully, nuclear heat is in no short supply. Even small reactor cores can produce gigawatts of thermal energy… indeed, most of the cost of a nuclear reactor comes from the difficulty of containing the heat, not in producing it. "

The first step is therefore to filter out the dust, cool the air to condense out water vapor, and then liquefy CO2 by compressing it to over 25 bars at below room temperature. The liquid CO2 rains out of the compressed gas and can be drained away.

Where the hell are you going to get 4000K in a Nuclear reactor? in the molten core of one??.... sometimes I wonder if we understand what we read and write....For comparison the surface of the sun is 5000K. Let's send all our CO2 to the sun....

Stephan

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 604
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 88
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #20 on: July 16, 2019, 10:28:16 PM »
Where the hell are you going to get 4000K in a Nuclear reactor? in the molten core of one??....
I am no expert in nuclear power plants. Maybe the Chernobyl' or the Fukushima plants saw temperatures like this while they collapsed??   ;)

rboyd

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 963
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #21 on: July 16, 2019, 10:41:12 PM »
US CO2 emissions projected to decrease in 2019.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=post;topic=2637.0;last_msg=205211

Quote
U.S. Sees Rare Fall In Energy-Related CO2 Emissions In 2019

By Julianne Geiger - Jul 15, 2019, 10:00 PM CDT

The decrease in coal-derived energy in favor of natural gas-derived energy has the Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasting that the CO2 emissions in the United States will fall in 2019, according to a new report by the agency on Monday.

In the year prior, energy-related CO2 emissions in the United States had increased by 2.7%.

Quote
The EIA is basing this optimism for lower CO2 emissions on the mild temperature forecasts for the remainder of the year, which it expects will keep energy demand below that of 2018.

“EIA forecasts that CO2 emissions from coal will decrease by 169 MMmt in 2019, the largest decrease in CO2 emissions from coal since 2015,” the EIA said.

Picking up some of that slack is an expected increase in natural gas C02 emissions of 53 MMmt as the mix of coal shrinks and natural gas grows in the overall energy mix. C02 emissions from petroleum is expected to be flat in 2019.

“Because the electric power sector consumes nearly 92% of the coal used in the United States, expectations for both overall lower electricity demand and a lower share of coal-fired electricity this summer lead EIA to forecast lower coal CO2 emissions.”

If we ignore/downplay the level of CH4 fugitive emissions, as the US EIA etc do, then everything is fine. Using a reality lens we can see the bullshit disinformation for what it is. The CO2e of the GHG emissions as a whole will go up, and thats all that counts. CH4 is actually worse than CO2 for short-term warming, and the possibility of triggering/exacerbating feedbacks.

Natural Gas = a bridge to disaster

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 571
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #22 on: July 17, 2019, 12:06:00 AM »
US CO2 emissions projected to decrease in 2019.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=post;topic=2637.0;last_msg=205211

Quote
U.S. Sees Rare Fall In Energy-Related CO2 Emissions In 2019

By Julianne Geiger - Jul 15, 2019, 10:00 PM CDT

The decrease in coal-derived energy in favor of natural gas-derived energy has the Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasting that the CO2 emissions in the United States will fall in 2019, according to a new report by the agency on Monday.

In the year prior, energy-related CO2 emissions in the United States had increased by 2.7%.

Quote
The EIA is basing this optimism for lower CO2 emissions on the mild temperature forecasts for the remainder of the year, which it expects will keep energy demand below that of 2018.

“EIA forecasts that CO2 emissions from coal will decrease by 169 MMmt in 2019, the largest decrease in CO2 emissions from coal since 2015,” the EIA said.

Picking up some of that slack is an expected increase in natural gas C02 emissions of 53 MMmt as the mix of coal shrinks and natural gas grows in the overall energy mix. C02 emissions from petroleum is expected to be flat in 2019.

“Because the electric power sector consumes nearly 92% of the coal used in the United States, expectations for both overall lower electricity demand and a lower share of coal-fired electricity this summer lead EIA to forecast lower coal CO2 emissions.”

If we ignore/downplay the level of CH4 fugitive emissions, as the US EIA etc do, then everything is fine. Using a reality lens we can see the bullshit disinformation for what it is. The CO2e of the GHG emissions as a whole will go up, and thats all that counts. CH4 is actually worse than CO2 for short-term warming, and the possibility of triggering/exacerbating feedbacks.

Natural Gas = a bridge to disaster

I agree with you on that.  The existing coal plants need to be shut down and replaced with renewables.  That's being planned right now, with the shutdowns due to occur in the early to mid-2020s.

There's a lot of natural gas infrastructure out there already though, and if it replaces coal, the immediate impacts are big reductions in CO2 which stays in the atmosphere for centuries.  The methane gets scrubbed out of the atmosphere within 10 to 20 years.  So if we replace the existing natural gas infrastructure when it reaches the end of it's useful life, we're better off than having continued to burn coal.

Better yet would be to have a Federal Government run by someone serious about climate change.  They could put strict restrictions on natural gas leakage and ensure that we get the full benefit of the switch from coal to natural gas as my next post will explain.

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 571
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #23 on: July 17, 2019, 12:11:33 AM »
There's no disputing that natural gas is a lot less carbon intense than coal, so burning it instead of coal emits less CO2.  The problem is that natural gas is mostly methane and that being careless about leaks in the system can result in higher CO2 emissions.  If the amount of methane that leaks during drilling, distribution and burning the natural gas is more than 3%, the benefit of switching from coal is lost.  If the leakage is more than 4%, than the higher heat warming potential of methane means that in the short term, the climate impacts are worse than burning coal.  The following article explains it.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/08/is-natural-gas-a-bridge-fuel/

Quote
Overall, carbon dioxide emissions from new gas power plants are as much as 66 percent lower than those of existing coal power plants. About half of this reduction is due to differing carbon intensities of the fuels (natural gas emits 40 percent less carbon than coal per unit of heat). The other half is due to the higher generation efficiency of natural gas (new natural gas plants convert heat to power at upwards of 50 percent efficiency, while typical coal plants only operate at about 33 percent efficiency).

Quote
But not all natural gas produced is burned. Some of it is leaked at gas wells, in compressor stations, from pipelines, or in storage. Methane is a powerful but short-lived greenhouse gas. While it is in the atmosphere, it is around 120 times more powerful than carbon dioxide per ton, but it quickly decomposes through chemical reactions and only about 20 percent of the methane emitted today will remain after 20 years.

Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, has a much longer atmospheric lifetime. About half of the carbon dioxide emitted today will be around in 100 years (and virtually none of the methane will be), and about 15 percent of today’s carbon dioxide will still be in the atmosphere in 10,000 years.

This difference in longevity makes a comparison between the two tricky. Essentially, how much methane emissions today matter for the climate depends largely on the timeframe you are considering. If you care about avoiding warming later in the century (as the United Nations does with its 2°C warming by 2100 target), there is relatively little problem with short-term methane emissions, as long as they are phased out in the next few decades. If you care about short-term changes, however, methane is a much bigger deal.

Also, there is a lot methane trap in coal deposits and released during coal mining.  That isn't taken into account in the above discussion.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5790
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 952
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #24 on: July 17, 2019, 12:19:09 AM »

Also, there is a lot methane trap in coal deposits and released during coal mining.  That isn't taken into account in the above discussion.
There are installations in urban locations in the UK that are still collecting methane emitted from coalmines closed down 30 years ago. About the only places you can still see a sign"National Coal Board".

I guess in the USA and elsewhere the old coal mines just burp the stuff into the sky.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 571
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #25 on: July 17, 2019, 12:27:00 AM »
The following study contains a recent estimate of the amount of methane emitted from coal mines in China.

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/2054/htm

Quote
Sustainability 2019, 11(7), 2054; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072054

Exploring Gaps between Bottom-Up and Top-Down Emission Estimates Based on Uncertainties in Multiple Emission Inventories: A Case Study on CH4 Emissions in China

Penwadee Cheewaphongphan *, Satoru Chatani and Nobuko Saigusa

Received: 14 March 2019 / Accepted: 28 March 2019 / Published: 6 April 2019

Abstract: Bottom-up CH4 emission inventories, which have been developed from statistical analyses of activity data and country specific emission factors (EFs), have high uncertainty in terms of the estimations, according to results from top-down inverse model studies. This study aimed to determine the causes of overestimation in CH4 bottom-up emission inventories across China by applying parameter variability uncertainty analysis to three sets of CH4 emission inventories titled PENG, GAINS, and EDGAR. The top three major sources of CH4 emissions in China during the years 1990–2010, namely, coal mining, livestock, and rice cultivation, were selected for the investigation. The results of this study confirm the concerns raised by inverse modeling results in which we found significantly higher bottom-up emissions for the rice cultivation and coal mining sectors. The largest uncertainties were detected in the rice cultivation estimates and were caused by variations in the proportions of rice cultivation ecosystems and EFs; specifically, higher rates for both parameters were used in EDGAR. The coal mining sector was associated with the second highest level of uncertainty, and this was caused by variations in mining types and EFs, for which rather consistent parameters were used in EDGAR and GAINS, but values were slightly higher than those used in PENG. Insignificant differences were detected among the three sets of inventories for the livestock sector.

Quote
3.2. Assessment of CH4 Emissions from the Coal Mining Sector

China is one of the world’s major coal producers [32]. According to records of the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), about 12,000 coal mines are in operation in China (as of 2014), and these are mainly bituminous coal operations, with only some involving anthracite and lignite. These mines are located in 28 provinces, particularly in the North region, except for the anthracite mines, which are mostly found in the Central region [32]. About 17% of the mines belong to state-owned coal mine groups (which accounts for a total of 61% of coal production), and 83% of mines are owned by villages and towns (which account for about 39% of coal production) [33]. Most of the mines in China are underground mines, and there are only a few open pit mines [33]. Both types of active coal mines have emissions from four sources, including mining (ventilation and degasification), post mining (handling, transport, and storage), oxidation, and uncontrolled combustion (the fires that occur from the heat), which are significantly higher in underground mines [34]. Mining and post mining activities are the major sources of CH4 emissions, for which the quantity mainly depends on the ranking of coal and the mining depth [35,36]. The 2006 IPCC GLs [34] provide the principles for estimating fugitive emissions from coal mining for Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels, as presented in Equation (4), and these emissions are based on the amount of raw coal production by mine types, the EF for each process and each mine, and the CH4 recovery.

Quote
With the variation of all parameters, there is an uncertainty of emission estimations of about 10%–33%, which accounts for CH4 emissions in the range of 16.4–23.0 Tg.

For comparison, estimates of the amount of methane leaking from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, which have people stressed out in another thread, range from 2 to 17 Tg per year.

So eliminating coal mining would more than offset the methane emissions from the ESAS, and significantly reduce our CO2 emissions as well.

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 571
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #26 on: July 17, 2019, 12:34:55 AM »
This study published in Science in 2018 found that methane emissions from the US natural gas industry were about 13Tg per year.  That's lower than the annual emissions from China's coal mines.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6398/186

Quote
Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain

Ramón A. Alvarez, et. al

Science  13 Jul 2018

Abstract

Methane emissions from the U.S. oil and natural gas supply chain were estimated by using ground-based, facility-scale measurements and validated with aircraft observations in areas accounting for ~30% of U.S. gas production. When scaled up nationally, our facility-based estimate of 2015 supply chain emissions is 13 ± 2 teragrams per year, equivalent to 2.3% of gross U.S. gas production. This value is ~60% higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency inventory estimate, likely because existing inventory methods miss emissions released during abnormal operating conditions. Methane emissions of this magnitude, per unit of natural gas consumed, produce radiative forcing over a 20-year time horizon comparable to the CO2 from natural gas combustion. Substantial emission reductions are feasible through rapid detection of the root causes of high emissions and deployment of less failure-prone systems.

wili

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2497
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 250
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #27 on: July 17, 2019, 01:05:32 AM »
"That's lower than the annual emissions from China's coal mines."

Wow, how low exactly do we want to set that bar! ?
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

RoxTheGeologist

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #28 on: July 17, 2019, 06:23:46 PM »

Also, there is a lot methane trap in coal deposits and released during coal mining.  That isn't taken into account in the above discussion.
There are installations in urban locations in the UK that are still collecting methane emitted from coalmines closed down 30 years ago. About the only places you can still see a sign"National Coal Board".

I guess in the USA and elsewhere the old coal mines just burp the stuff into the sky.

or they burn....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 571
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« Reply #29 on: July 17, 2019, 06:29:44 PM »
The US EPA has good information about methane emissions from coal mines at their website.

https://www.epa.gov/cmop/frequent-questions#q2

Quote
6. How much methane is emitted from coal mines?

U.S. coal mines emitted nearly four billion cubic meters or 61 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTC02E) in 2015. Between 1990 and 2015, U.S. emissions decreased by 40 percent, in large part due to the coal mining industry's increased recovery and utilization of drained gas and decrease in ventilation air methane emissions.

By 2020, global methane emissions from coal mines are estimated to reach nearly 800 MMTCO2E, accounting for 9 percent of total global methane emissions. China leads the world in estimated coal mine methane (CMM) emissions with more than 420 MMTCO2E in 2020 (more than 27 billion cubic meters annually). Other leading global emitters are the United States, Russia, Australia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and India.