When will CO2 emissions peak?

[ArcticMelt2]

Many believe that space colonization will not be able to solve the problem of the coming climate catastrophe. Most hope that it will soon be possible to create carbon-free energy. But the facts say that carbon dioxide emissions are increasing every year (despite the Paris Agreement).

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-strong-growth-global-co2-emissions.html

https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2018/stronggrowth.jpg

Moreover, in the United States, Trump became the president, who believes that there is no global warming.

In this regard, I decided to create a poll on when carbon dioxide emissions will pass...

[b_lumenkraft]

I went with 2020-2024. More wishful thinking than realism i guess.

[ArcticMelt2]

I personally put on the 22nd century.

https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-coal-found

There are an estimated 1.1 trillion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide. This means that there is enough coal to last us around 150 years at current rates of production. In contrast, proven oil and gas reserves are equivalent to around 50 and 52 years at current production levels.

[Tor Bejnar]

AM2,
I need help with the question...  Are you asking when atmospheric CO2 concentrations peak? Or when the rate of increase will show deceleration?  Or something else:  industrial emissions ("coal"), direct human caused (industry, agriculture, forest clearing). Are you referring to a specific CO2 data set?

[b_lumenkraft]

Well, because it's there does not necessarily mean we will pull it all out.

Renewables are cheaper now. These coal plants will all be obsolete sometime soon.

[ArcticMelt2]

AM2,
I need help with the question...  Are you asking when atmospheric CO2 concentrations peak? Or when the rate of increase will show deceleration?  Or something else:  industrial emissions ("coal"), direct human caused (industry, agriculture, forest clearing). Are you referring to a specific CO2 data set?

Naturally, we are talking about the magnitude of annual emissions of CO2 by the civilization into the atmosphere.

https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/18/files/GCP_CarbonBudget_2018.pdf
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-emissions-reached-an-all-time-high-in-2018/

[Rich]

Depends on who wins the US election. If Trump wins, kuck the can down the road. If Sanders or Warren win, they'll announce a climate emergency straight away.
 
Biden's lead climate advisor is a fracker. He would probably dick around for a few years.

I think a potentially more interesting poll is when will we hit net zero. Lot's of interesting things have to happen to get there.

[b_lumenkraft]

Rich, China and India are the ones to focus on when it comes to CO2 emissions grow now. It doesn't matter in the great picture if the US will emit plus 5% or minus 5%, which might be the maximum influence the presidency has on CO2 emissions.

[Rich]

Rich, China and India are the ones to focus on when it comes to CO2 emissions grow now. It doesn't matter in the great picture if the US will emit plus 5% or minus 5%, which might be the maximum influence the presidency has on CO2 emissions.

I don't subscribe to the idea that the US has no influence on international affairs. If a US president ties trade, aid and military policy to emissions reductions, we can accomplish a lot.

Strong disagreement there.

[ArcticMelt2]

Renewables are cheaper now. These coal plants will all be obsolete sometime soon.

This is a big doubt. The wind and the sun are not a permanent source of energy. Therefore, they cannot physically replace fossil fuels.

The only permanent source of renewable energy is hydropower plants, biofuels and hydro-accumulating stations. But their available potential is extremely small compared to fossil fuel reserves.

In this regard, even in green Germany, more than half of the electricity is still generated by burning coal.

I fear that no working alternative to fossil fuels to provide energy to many billions of people is impossible to create. In this regard, people will increase the emissions of greenhouse gases for many decades.

In addition, most people do not see danger in warming. On the contrary, they consider it a blessing. Therefore, they will continue to burn coal further and further, until the planet overheats.

It reminds me of the events of 2010, when people were chasing profits, completely losing their fear. When methane emissions from melting permafrost and bottom gas hydrates begin, let alone degassing the mantle will be too late.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grkruRVjveA#t=38m19s

[oren]

I went for 2040-2049, with a combination of too late and too little emission curbing effort, plus a high probability of a collapse of human civilization mid-century.
This might be a bit harsh because emissions may peak a decade earlier, but still be substantial enough to increase GHG concentrations significantly. So maybe I should have voted 2030-2039.

Re renewables, it's certainly feasible with a combination of overbuilding, storage, demand management to fit variable supply, and natgas backup for rare days. I just don't see humanity enter a war economy with a WW2 style effort to revolutionize civilization and stop emissions. I hope I am wrong.

[ArcticMelt2]

plus a high probability of a collapse of human civilization mid-century.

I wonder what you associate a possible collapse of civilization?

[b_lumenkraft]

Strong disagreement there.

Ok, then let us look at the numbers.

A US citizen is emitting ~15 t per year per capita ^[1] times 325m equals ~4.875b t. Statistica has it over 5b ^[3].
A European one ~8.7 ^[2] times 740m = ~ 6.5b t.
A Chinese one ~6.5 t ^[1] times 1.5b = 9.75b t.
A Indian one ~1.7t ^[4] times 1.3b = 2.21b t.

So let's say, for the sake of the argument, Bernie somehow achieves to lower the US emissions to Euro levels.

8.7t times 325m = ~2.828 = the Earth saves 2b t.

How about China and India. They will grow, that's for sure. What if they achieve a European lifestyle?

8.7 times 1.5b = ~13.05bt = 3.3b t more. Minus the 2b t we saved from US reduction still leaves a net plus of 1,3b.
Adding India,
8.7 times 1.3b = ~11.31b t = 9,1 more. Together with China we now added over 10b t.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Länder_nach_CO2-Emission
[2] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=t2020_rd300&plugin=1
[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/
[4] https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=co2+emission+india&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[b_lumenkraft]

This is a big doubt. The wind and the sun are not a permanent source of energy. Therefore, they cannot physically replace fossil fuels.

That's just not the case. There are some countries/regions on earth that work on 100% renewables today.

All these paid for articles about how it can't work is part of a marketing campaign funded by the fossil fuel industry.

Links >>

(Sort by percentage renewable) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources

70%, 80%, 99.9%, 100% Renewables — Study Central

https://cleantechnica.com/70-80-99-9-100-renewables-study-central/

A Rapid Transition to 100% Renewable Energy Across Europe is Possible

https://www.eveline-lemke.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/EWG-LUT_Full-Study_Energy-Transition-Europe.pdf

New Study: Global Energy System based on 100% Renewable Energy

http://energywatchgroup.org/new-study-global-energy-system-based-100-renewable-energy

New Study: 100% Renewable Energy across Europe is More Cost Effective than the Current Energy System and Leads to Zero Emissions Before 2050

http://energywatchgroup.org/new-study-100-renewable-energy-across-europe

[gerontocrat]

CO2 emissions could peak this year, if the US China trade spat turns into a trade war and in turn provokes a financial and economic crisis (dodgy loans again). Some sort of economic downturn is overdue. 

But that could be a temporary peak, as to get world GDP back onto the infinite growth path quick and dirty economic stimuli are applied. I.e. rather than accelerating investing in emission reduction such as renewable energy production, EVs and energy efficiency, and CO2 sink enhancement measures such as forestation, the opposite will be done.

There will be CO2 emissions for many years yet. The effectiveness of the CO2 sinks will decline. I do not believe in the magic bullet of CO2 capture and sequestration. So atmospheric CO2 ppm will increase for many years yet, possibly at a reduced rate from its current rate of 2.5 to 3 ppm per annum.

What happens to the planet and the biosphere will depend on the final maximum value of CO2 ppm plus the other greenhouse gases, and I will be a long time dead and buried by then.

[b_lumenkraft]

In this regard, even in green Germany, more than half of the electricity is still generated by burning coal.

The German energy mix is:

30% coal
48% renewable
8% gas
13% nuclear

Link >> https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie_de.htm

[ArcticMelt2]

This is a big doubt. The wind and the sun are not a permanent source of energy. Therefore, they cannot physically replace fossil fuels.

That's just not the case. There are some countries/regions on earth that work on 100% renewables today.

All these paid for articles about how it can't work is part of a marketing campaign funded by the fossil fuel industry.

These regions are either small countries with large hydropower plants or very poor countries that get electricity by burning wood.

There is not a single large isolated country in the world with a leading role of wind power plants or solar power plants.

In addition, the success in reducing emissions in rich countries is largely due to the removal of dirty (energy-intensive) industries to poorer countries (for example, in China). In this regard, it is not clear whether it is possible in reality to reduce world emissions or not.

[b_lumenkraft]

There is not a single large isolated country in the world with a leading role of wind power plants or solar power plants.

Ok, i've given you a bunch of studies showing 100% renewables in the grid is possible. I can add many more, but would you read them?

You are still telling me it's not possible. Can you do something to underline your point? An argument perhaps, cite a study, something like that?

[ArcticMelt2]

There is another important point. The largest known reserves of oil and coal are in very cold regions.
Warming dramatically simplify the extraction and transportation of these resources in these regions. In addition, the coldest regions are the least studied, and there is great potential for discovery in the future.
In this regard, in the near future a new boom of cheap fossil fuel extraction is expected, similar to the one that is currently happening in the US (shale gas and oil).
In addition, robotization is another important factor. The widespread use of robots simplifies mining in sparsely populated regions.

So only 50 thousand people in Australia mined a billion tons of iron ore. A small port of Hubbert with a population of 20,000 occupies the 5th place in the world in terms of cargo turnover.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_ports_by_cargo_tonnage

Robots dramatically reduce the cost of extraction of fossil fuels in all climatic conditions.

In this regard, I think that humanity will not calm down until it burns the last drop of oil, the last ton of coal and the last gas cylinder.

As a result of this, scenario 8.5 will be most accurate - the most pessimistic (business as usual). It reminds me of the events on Saint Helena in 1980, when the most pessimistic forecast turned out to be the most correct.

[ArcticMelt2]

There is not a single large isolated country in the world with a leading role of wind power plants or solar power plants.

Ok, i've given you a bunch of studies showing 100% renewables in the grid is possible. I can add many more, but would you read them?

You are still telling me it's not possible. Can you do something to underline your point? An argument perhaps, cite a study, something like that?

The main difficulty in the need to build extremely expensive power lines of extra high voltage (it is extremely superconducting to minimize energy loss).

In addition to the high cost of construction and operation, this trend in Germany faced protests from the population. No one wants to live near a dangerous object (strong magnetic fields). In this regard, this trend is actually developing only in authoritarian countries, like China.

[oren]

The main difficulty in the need to build extremely expensive power lines of extra high voltage (it is extremely superconducting to minimize energy loss).

This may be true, but certainly possible and feasible. It's a problem of human decision, not of any technology or economic obstacle.
You asked if it was possible in reality to switch to renewable energy. This depends on the definition of "in reality". In theory human and human societies are rational and driven by science. In reality humans and human societies are greedy and short-sighted. So yes, it's certainly possible in reality, but in real reality I am afraid it will not happen. I doubt that your comments here are contributing to the chances of it happening though, as you seem to be repeating defamations of renewables, which I suspect are spread by deniers and corporate interests.

In addition to the high cost of construction and operation, this trend in Germany faced protests from the population. No one wants to live near a dangerous object (strong magnetic fields). In this regard, this trend is actually developing only in authoritarian countries, like China.

This is plain nonsense. I'd much rather live besides a solar or wind farm than besides a coal plant. Dangerous object, strong magnetic field? What? Why?

In this regard, I think that humanity will not calm down until it burns the last drop of oil, the last ton of coal and the last gas cylinder.

As a result of this, scenario 8.5 will be most accurate - the most pessimistic (business as usual). It reminds me of the events on Saint Helena in 1980, when the most pessimistic forecast turned out to be the most correct.

I tend to agree with the RCP 8.5 scenario until the planet's carrying capacity limits and resource constraints will pull civilization down, thus ending business as usual. This will happen long before the last oil coal and gas are burned.

[S.Pansa]

In this regard, even in green Germany, more than half of the electricity is still generated by burning coal.

The German energy mix is:

30% coal
48% renewable
8% gas
13% nuclear

Link >> https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie_de.htm

That's not the energy mix,  but the electricity generation mix. A slender but essential difference.

100% renewable electricity generation (globaly - at some places it is already reality) might be well achievable (some papers say yes, others are more sceptical; depends also on the demand-side: we wont green-grow our arse out of this mess, that's fore sure) - 100% renewable energy production is a totaly diffent ballgame tough.

World energy consumption ~170 TWh
World electricity consumpiton ~ 25 TWh

Or here in Germany: Primary Energy generation looks more like this (source, p. 15)

[b_lumenkraft]

The main difficulty in the need to build extremely expensive power lines of extra high voltage (it is extremely superconducting to minimize energy loss).

Erm, no. A grid with a lot of renewables is rather decentralized. You ideally produce and store energy locally (pumped (hydro) storages, batteries). This is a factor that reduces the need for extensive power grids.

Whole continents are one big grid today needing these high voltage cables with conventional power sources. These strong magnetic fields in high voltage cables exist since we do electricity. This is not at all caused by renewables. And if it's even a health risk is a whole other discussion (hint: not!).

[b_lumenkraft]

That's not the energy mix,  but the electricity generation mix. A slender but essential difference.

Of course, that's correct.

Excuse my sloppy language here.

[Rich]

Strong disagreement there.

Ok, then let us look at the numbers.

So let's say, for the sake of the argument, Bernie somehow achieves to lower the US emissions to Euro levels.

How about China and India. They will grow, that's for sure. What if they achieve a European lifestyle?

How about assuming we get the votes for something like a Green New Deal and we do what the scientific community recommends and work toward net zero emissions?

How about solar and wind becoming cheaper than gas?

It's all in the assumptions.

Your floor seems to be current EU emissions of 8+ tons per capital.

[ArcticMelt2]

This is plain nonsense. I'd much rather live besides a solar or wind farm than besides a coal plant. Dangerous object, strong magnetic field? What? Why?

It's all over the news. The biggest problem is overcoming the resistance of the population about the construction of new power lines. For example:

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/german-farmers-protest-against-green-energy-grid-expansion/

https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-energy-protests-idUSL6N0WH0WH20150603

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-failure-on-the-road-to-a-renewable-future-a-1266586.html

The expansion of Germany's electrical grid has suffered the most from this lack of political impetus. More than a decade ago, the German government passed a resolution to quickly build the necessary high-voltage transmission lines, with experts today saying there is a need for 7,700 kilometers (4,800 miles) of such lines. But only 950 have been built. And in 2017, only 30 kilometers of lines were built across the whole country.

In Berlin, one can hear the wry observation that 30 kilometers is roughly the distance that a snail can travel in a year.

The fact that power lines are dangerous there is little doubt:

[b_lumenkraft]

Well, my personal floor is actually a sealing and it's 3t per capita and way fewer people. And sooner or later we'll get there. But even sooner in this picture is a long term figure. For the short term, we'll see an increase of CO2 emissions which will mostly come from China and India. A shitton of coal plants is being built there as we speak.

What i wanted to point out with my calculation are the magnitudes we are dealing with (per capita wise).

[b_lumenkraft]

It's all over the news.

It's all over the esoteric-scene!

FIFY

[bluice]

Ok, i've given you a bunch of studies showing 100% renewables in the grid is possible. I can add many more, but would you read them?

You are still telling me it's not possible. Can you do something to underline your point? An argument perhaps, cite a study, something like that?

Maybe I can try also?

The way I see it is that they are just studies, the like we've all been reading since the nineties. These studies are often published by interest groups (although definitively not all), they have been challenged and there are other studies out there also. Because I don't have the knowledge and credentials to debunk or approve them, I can only look what's happening in the real world.

We hear a lot how 100% renewable economy is feasible and how renewables are nowadays the cheapest form of generation. We see two or three digit global growth figures for renewables. Yet emissions are growing every year. How can that be? Something ain't right here.

Non-hydro renewables are intermittent. To cover the downtime we need overcapacity, extensive power grids, grid-scale storage, fossil fuel back up power and/or flexible demand. These all add costs. Using FF backup is no longer carbon free. Storage + adjusting demand aren't available in commercial grid-scale solutions, no matter what the studies say.

My claim is that when taking all the additional costs into account renewables are no longer cheap but extremely expensive. German energiewende is a case in point. With a cost so prohibitive that only a handful of countries in the world would be able to afford it, Germany has been able to generate less than 50% of it electricity (not primary energy) with non-hydro renewables. As a consequence Germany is failing its emissiong goals.

Historically emissions have been falling by post-oil crisis nuclear construction for example in France and Sweden, economic collapse/recession for example former Soviet Union and the financial crisis, switching coal to gas with several examples around the world.

I'd like to believe it is also possible to reduce emissions by pricing carbon politically/fiscally, unfortunately the trumps and bolsonaros don't give me much hope we will be able to try this option anytime soon. I voted 2040-49 because I think by then the inevitable climate related economic stress will lead to emission peak and subsequent reduction. I'd be very happy to be proven wrong.

[gerontocrat]

Downside of electromagnetism from High-Tension electricity transmission lines?

This is plain nonsense. I'd much rather live besides a solar or wind farm than besides a coal plant. Dangerous object, strong magnetic field? What? Why?

I used to think it was all nonsense until...

I went for a walk through some cherry orchards with an old fella at the end of the Bosnian war. He showed me how the cherry trees underneath the 132k? 400k power lines were in really poor condition - stunted, little fruit. Was it the lines? They were working (to my surprise) and I could certainly hear the buzz from them and feel some electrostatic effects (hair on the arms standing up). But maybe it was that the soil was messed up during construction (it was a line built not that many years before the war started) and so affected growth of the cherry trees .

After all, our bodies depend on internal electrical flows to function - exposure to additional electrical forces could mess up our internal systems.

So I am putting that one in a don't know category. And I  would still  much rather live besides a solar or wind farm than besides a coal plant.

[ArcticMelt2]

Downside of electromagnetism from High-Tension electricity transmission lines?

There should be no contradictions here. Iron is one of the main elements in the blood (hemoglobin).

[be cause]

In answer to the original question .. about 5 years after a BOE .. so the sooner we have one the better for most of humanity .. b.c.

[Tom_Mazanec]

I voted for early 20s because I still think we will run out of economically accessible fossil fuels in this century, so Peak Carbon will occur soon.
I hope.

[b_lumenkraft]

These studies are often published by interest groups

Ok, here is a one from a publicly funded German science centre Frauenhofer, you can't get any more substantial and neutral:

Die Bereitstellung von 100 % erneuerbaren Energien im Strom- und Wärmesektor Deutschlands ist technisch möglich und nach erfolgter Umstellung des Energiesystems sind die jährlichen Gesamtkosten nicht höher als die Kosten unserer heutigen Energieversorgung.

https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/studie-100-erneuerbare-energien-fuer-strom-und-waerme-in-deutschland.pdf

Translates to 'Yeah, possible! For both sectors, and it's not even more expensive'.

Yet emissions are growing every year. How can that be?

Talked about China and India there, you might wanna read up on that.

Non-hydro renewables are intermittent. To cover the downtime we need overcapacity, extensive power grids, grid-scale storage, fossil fuel back up power and/or flexible demand. These all add costs. Using FF backup is no longer carbon free. Storage + adjusting demand aren't available in commercial grid-scale solutions, no matter what the studies say.

Really, you should at least read one of the many links i shared by now. All your questions will be answered then.

German energiewende is a case in point

You are comparing apples with oranges. Renewables are subsidised with an extra tax on the energy price the households pay. Nuclear, oil, coal and gas are subsidised by the governmental from federal budget. German customer see what the extra cost for renewables are. But when they pay income tax, they don't see that this money is also paying for energy.

nuclear construction for example in France

Nuclear is extremely unpopular in Germany. You can't build those anymore. The ones working today all have an expiring date.

I'd like to believe it is also possible

Then why not stop believing the denier shit and read up on what i provided so far?

Also this one should clear things up >> http://omegataupodcast.net/299-gravity-storage/

[gerontocrat]

The way I see it is that they are just studies, the like we've all been reading since the nineties. These studies are often published by interest groups (although definitively not all), they have been challenged and there are other studies out there also. Because I don't have the knowledge and credentials to debunk or approve them, I can only look what's happening in the real world.

The way I see it is that they are just studies
The real world says the auction prices for solar and wind power are dropping like a stone. The only thing that stopped CO2 emissions from already being in significant decline is lobbying and dirty money from the fossil fuel industries, and inertia in the automotive giants.

https://www.solarpaces.org/morocco-breaks-new-record-with-800-mw-midelt-1-csp-pv-at-7-cents/
Morocco’s 800 MW CSP-PV Noor Midelt breaks last year’s auction price record of 7.3 cents set by DEWA in the UAE, with winning bid at USD 7 cents/kWh

The Moroccan Agency for Sustainable Energy (MASEN) has announced that the consortium of EDF Renewables, Masdar, and Green of Africa – a joint venture between three Moroccan groups; FinanceCom, Akwa Group and AMHAL – has been awarded the tender for the design, financing, construction, operation and maintenance of the Noor Midelt Phase 1 multi-technologies solar power plant.

The project, which will have a total installed capacity of 800 MW, is the world’s first advanced hybridisation of concentrated solar power (CSP) and photovoltaic (PV) technologies. On completion, it will provide dispatchable solar energy during the day and until five hours after sunset for a record-low tariff at peak hours of 0.68 Moroccan dirhams per kilowatt-hour.

A longer read here..
http://euanmearns.com/a-review-of-recent-solar-wind-auction-prices/

[Archimid]

Naturally, we are talking about the magnitude of annual emissions of CO2 by the civilization into the atmosphere.

To me this is not obvious at all. Emissions from permafrost, methane, forest fires and the ocean capacity to exchange CO2 all have a huge impact in the total number of CO2. My answer to the poll question before I read the thread was a century of more, because I was thinking of natural emissions.

However after seeing your clarification, which only includes human sources of CO2 my answer gets pulled to within the next two decades. 

The answer depends on two things. The renewables revolution and Arctic sea ice. They both determine when human CO2 emissions peak. Each one can stop the other from happening. The difference is that one ends humanity as we know it and the others ushers humanity into a new era of prosperity and balance with the environment.

Difficult indeed.

[b_lumenkraft]

Power generation by source in EU countries (2000–2018)

[bluice]

”Then why not stop believing the denier shit and read up on what i provided so far?”

I don’t believe any ”denier shit” but I don’t believe greenwashed crap either. I believe renewables reducing emissions when I see it happening. No studies, papers, plans but the actual emissions falling.

Why is Germany not meeting emission goals?

[b_lumenkraft]

Why is Germany not meeting emission goals?

Because Merkel cut down on subsidies (Einspeisevergütung).

[Tor Bejnar]

Naturally, we are talking about the magnitude of annual emissions of CO2 by the civilization into the atmosphere.

To me this is not obvious at all. Emissions from permafrost, methane, forest fires and the ocean capacity to exchange CO2 all have a huge impact in the total number of CO2. My answer to the poll question before I read the thread was a century of more, because I was thinking of natural emissions.
…

Thanks, Archimid!

AM2,
Both of the links mix "industrial output" with "global CO2 concentrations", e.g.,

The scientists project that fossil-fuel-related carbon dioxide emissions will hit a record high of 37.1 billion metric tons by the end of this year. And they estimate that total carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will also hit their highest level ever, at 407 parts per million—about 45 percent higher than their preindustrial levels.

Also, I didn't see a highlighted dataset identified in either article, so I'm still not sure of the yardstick being used to determine 'who guessed right'.  At least one article referenced non-fossil-fuel CO2 emissions (cement production), but (like the quote above) there is a focus on fossil-fuel-related emissions.  Obviously (at least to Archimid and me) global (or Mauna Loa) atmospheric concentrations incorporate all sources (and sinks).  So I'm left with my bottom line question intact: what dataset are you using?

[Sigmetnow]

UK Coal right now: None!

UK Coal (@UK_Coal)
5/28/19, 9:02 AM
GB National Grid: #Coal is currently generating 0.00GW (0.00%) out of a total of 35.76GW
Continuous hours without coal: 262 (10 Days 22 Hours)

https://twitter.com/uk_coal/status/1133357777571778560

The previous record was set only a few weeks ago:

UK Coal (@UK_Coal)
5/9/19, 9:58 AM
This #Coal free run ended at 8 Days 1 Hour 25 Minutes.
This is the longest run without coal for Great Britain since 1882.
Generation during this time was met by: Gas 45%, Nuclear 21%, Wind 12%, Imports 10%, Biomass 6%, Solar 5%, Large Hydro <1%, Storage <1%

https://twitter.com/uk_coal/status/1126486631383478272
Graph below; more at the link.

[b_lumenkraft]

It's all over the news. The biggest problem is overcoming the resistance of the population about the construction of new power lines.

The root cause of these protests is another.

You need to understand what these power lines are built for. They are built to connect the wind-rich north with the south where more energy is needed.

This is an extremely stupid approach. As i mentioned above, you better produce the power locally.

So why do the farmers protest really? They are the one group that profited most from the boom of decentralized renewables here? Those cables are good for renewables, right?

No! These cables are for the energy giants in Germany who would like to build huge offshore wind parks.

This is why there are protests. Not because people are against renewables. It's because they want to produce the power themselves, locally. As it is supposed to be.

[ArcticMelt2]

So I'm left with my bottom line question intact: what dataset are you using?

The greatest confidence is in the BP data. But in 2018 they will be only in the next month. Therefore, I limited myself to a preliminary assessment Global Carbon Budget.

Or do you think that in 2018 emissions have decreased?

This is very unlikely, since all the news speaks about the growth of world oil and gas production.

Moreover, stable growth is predicted for coal.

https://www.energylivenews.com/2019/03/06/global-coal-production-forecast-to-grow-to-2022/

Coal production is forecast to grow globally over the next three years despite major players scaling down their capacity.

That’s according to a new report, which predicts expansion of production capacity in India and Indonesia to boost output to 7.6 billion tonnes in 2022.

GlobalData suggests coal production in India, Indonesia and Australia is forecast to grow at compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) of 10.9%, 3.9% and 2.3% respectively between 2018 and 2022, with the high growth in India helping reducing the nation’s reliance on imports.

More than 300 coal projects are expected to start operations between 2019 and 2022, out of which 92 are currently under construction and the remainder under various stages of development.

A total of 57 are in Australia, 55 in India, 54 in China, 30 in South Africa, 18 each in Canada and Indonesia and 15 in the US.

Global production of coal increased by 2.8% in 2017 after falling consecutively for three years and rose again by 0.1% last year – driven by India, Indonesia and Russia.

Vinneth Bajaj, Senior Mining Analyst at GlobalData said: “Despite growth in 2017 and 2018, production has yet to reach historic levels as several mining companies have withdrawn, either partially or completely, from the coal business.

[ArcticMelt2]

This is why there are protests. Not because people are against renewables. It's because they want to produce the power themselves, locally. As it is supposed to be.

Are you sure this is possible? Sea windmills are characterized by the highest loading factor (up to 50%). In the south, very weak winds, and in the sun the loading factor does not exceed 20%.

Without cheap energy from the north, the inhabitants of southern Germany receive an even greater increase in electricity prices.

[b_lumenkraft]

In Germany, you can choose your power provider freely. There are no differences between north and south in the price. There is only a difference in price when it comes to power provider.

Onshore wind is cheaper than offshore, so yes, you can also deploy the wind turbines and solar cells in the south.

[crandles]

So I'm left with my bottom line question intact: what dataset are you using?

The greatest confidence is in the BP data. But in 2018 they will be only in the next month. Therefore, I limited myself to a preliminary assessment Global Carbon Budget.

BP do a statistical review of world energy and other such things.
This has a table with a note which says:

Notes: The carbon emissions above reflect only those through consumption of oil, gas and coal for combustion related activities, and are based on ‘Default CO2 Emissions Factors for
Combustion’ listed by the IPCC in its Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006). This does not allow for any carbon that is sequestered, for other sources of carbon emissions,
or for emissions of other greenhouse gases. Our data is therefore not comparable to official national emissions data.

So is the measure for this poll aimed at being anthropogenic CO2 emissions, excluding breathing but including CO2 which will come from methane leakage which breaks down to CO2 over time and also other anthropogenic emissions such as cement production, land use change like deforrestation etc?, or
 
anthropogenic ff related emissions (including leakages, flaring but not other emissions like cement land use change)?, or

anthropogenic ff consumption converted to CO2 (including or excluding CO2 from flaring, leakages etc)? or
...

Edit: BTW The total line for 2007 through 2017 says

Total World 30078.7 30381.8 29714.2 31074.2 31970.5 32317.8 32802.0 32886.8 32851.9 33017.6 33444.0
(Million tonnes of carbon dioxide)

[ArcticMelt2]

So is the measure for this poll aimed at being anthropogenic CO2 emissions, excluding breathing but including CO2 which will come from methane leakage which breaks down to CO2 over time and also other anthropogenic emissions such as cement production, land use change like deforrestation etc?, or
 
anthropogenic ff related emissions (including leakages, flaring but not other emissions like cement land use change)?, or

anthropogenic ff consumption converted to CO2 (including or excluding CO2 from flaring, leakages etc)? or
...

This difference is minimal.

https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions

Human Sources

Fossil fuel emissions (including cement production) accounted for about 91% of total CO2 emissions from human sources in 2014. This portion of emissions originates from coal (42%), oil (33%), gas (19%), cement (6%) and gas flaring (1%).

Changes in land use are responsible for about 9% of all global CO2 emissions.

In 2013, the largest national contributions to the net growth in total global emissions in 2013 were China (58% of the growth), USA (20% of the growth), India (17% of the growth), and EU28 (a decrease by 11% of the growth).

https://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/10/195/2018/essd-10-195-2018.pdf

Global CO2 emissions from cement production
We show that global process emissions in 2016 were 1.45 ± 0.20 GtCO2, equivalent to about 4 % of emissions from fossil fuels

[ArcticMelt2]

If someone believes that the anthropocentric global emission of carbon dioxide has decreased in recent years with a different method of counting, then please show this data.

[gerontocrat]

I did not think anyone believed CO2 emissions had peaked. Added to that is the decline in CO2 sequestration by the carbon sinks.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/05/brutal-news-global-carbon-emissions-jump-to-all-time-high-in-2018

The research by the Global Carbon Project was launched at the UN climate summit in Katowice, Poland, where almost 200 nations are working to turn the vision of tackling climate change agreed in Paris in 2015 into action. The report estimates CO2 emissions will rise by 2.7% in 2018, sharply up on the plateau from 2014-16 and 1.6% rise in 2017.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2019/2019-carbondioxide-forecast

During 2019 Met Office climate scientists expect to see one of the largest rises in atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration in 62 years of measurements.  The Met Office  CO₂ forecast is based on a combination of factors including rising anthropogenic emissions and a relative reduction in the uptake of carbon-dioxide by ecosystems due to tropical climate variability.

[gerontocrat]

Does "Damage to forests" count as (indirect) man-made CO2 emissions or as a reduction in carbon capture by CO2 sinks?

And Jos Barlow, of Lancaster University’s Environment Centre, warned that forest clearance in the tropics continued as a hazard.

“Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon increased to around 8,000 square kilometres in 2018, which is equivalent to losing a football pitch of forest every 80 seconds. This alone would result in CO2 emissions that exceed those of the UK over the same time period.”