40 % LESS than 30 Years Ago?

Question

The Koyoto and Bali conferences are advocating a reduction of CO2 emissions to a level 40 percent less than in 1990, by 2020.
So here's my question to all sides, GW fearers and GWdoubters.

Let's have some hard numbers as to what the above means.

Population in 1990
Population in 2020
World's energy use from oil and coal in 1990.
Assuming no quality of life change for 1st world, and a slight increase in QOL for 3rd world, projected energy use in 2020.

Where do you get that energy at 40 % less output than in 1990? Coal and Oil power plants that are an almost science fiction like order of magnitude cleaner? Or, decommission x number of coal plants, and build 2x number of nuclear plants to
take up the slack?
7,000 3 Mile Island sized plants in the next 30 years? 10,000 wind farms the size that people don't want off the Mass coast? Just what are the numbers?
Post in a separate question so we can all see these answers..
Inquiring Minds Want to Know!

Answer 1

Sure, it can be done. Practically and affordably. All your questions are answered in the second link below. It's a little long, because it looks at this from every angle.

Hundreds of scientists and economists have been working on a plan for this for years. Of course it includes large amounts of nuclear power, along with solar and wind.

First a news article:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html

And the plan itself.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg3.htm

On the other hand, if we do nothing and have to deal with moving people away from coasts, replacing things, lost to flooding, and fixing damage to agriculture; the costs would be enormous.

"if nothing is done, there is the danger of an economic crisis such as has not been seen since the 1930s"

Not to mention the wars between desperate poor countries, unable to afford to cope. The US military is very concerned:

Climate Change Poses Serious Threat to U.S. National Security

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-16-2007/0004565995&EDATE=

Answer 2

Short of deporting anyone who moved to the United States since 1990, the increase in population alone would force the U.S. to cut much more than that figure of 40%.

One major challenge with reducing historical CO2 output here is that much of the development in the U.S. has occurred since the 1950s with abundant cheap land and cheap gasoline. As we go about our daily lives we are literally "living in the past." The large CO2 impacts come from the houses we live in (which we typically own only 10-20% of and can't easily replace), the jobs we commute to (but we didn't individually choose the regional planning to place), the power plants that are in operation and can't easily or quickly be replaced, and a lot of other historical quirks that people going about their daily lives don't individually choose.

Short of tearing out suburbs and replacing them with European-style multi-unit dwellings built adjacent to mass transit linked to corporate campuses, we have quite a challenge ahead of us.

Nuclear power is one of the few retrofits that can replace one of the largest CO2 (and mercury, etc.) emitters with the result being lower impact at the same operational cost (ignoring the cost of building the nuclear plants themselves, and the potential costs of some incidence of Three Mile Island or Chernobyl-style events).

Centralized, industrial-scale solar power is not particularly affordable, but at least the actual users of power are charged for their consumption.

Supposedly home solar has become affordable with a 40 year payback on the investment (in sunny areas), but that's a tough sale while few people live in their homes long enough to recoup the investment.

I'll be curious to see some of the plans, including their implementation (building) and operational costs. Some of the cost tradeoffs may be easier to address as oil prices skyrocket.

Answer 3

definite i could say there is a brilliant number of certainty in that assertion. I do think of that we've misplaced lots of our id. it is fantastically much confusing to define what 'Britishness' is anymore. some thing is amiss. while i substitute right into a new child it substitute into so different - appreciate and manners have long gone down the pan. I do think of that Christianity has taken a bashing and that i think of this has have been given plenty to do with it. Britain is nearly a non secular melting pot. The middle of Christianity has been eroded as there's a procedures too plenty importance positioned on being 'politically ultimate' and not status up for what Britain is ' A Christian us of a' we gained't even fly the English Flag on St Georges day without somebody from yet another faith complaining that it offends them! carry decrease back good outdated British morals, values and get decrease back to fundamentals of Christianity. ultimate needs famous individual

Answer 4

Just a couple of figures.
The Energy Information Administration [Official Energy Statistics from the US government] reports that in 1990 the worldwide energy consumption was 347 quadrillion Btu. Their forecast for 2020 is 607 quadrillion Btu.

It is not clear what assumptions they are making about supply or prices. Their reference case, whatever that means, shows
a figure of 613 quadrillion Btu

By far the largest growth is forecast for non OECD countries
China goes from 27 to 121.7

Answer 5

You seem to confuse:

-WEALTH
-ENERGY USE
-GREENHOUSE GASES EMISSIONS

There was in the past in linear correlation between them but the fact is... We do not live in the past anymore!

Reducing by 40% GHG emissions can be the result of the 3 previously named measures and they multiply to each other.
In each, you only have to improve by 15% which is really easy and leaves the emission level at 85%.. so 0.85^3=0.6= (1-0.4) => 40% decrease in GHG emissions.

Just for your info, the US creates less than $2000 GDP per tonne of CO2 emitted while Sweden is able to generate over $6000 GDP per tonne of CO2 emitted.

Several European countries which have a wealth level similar to the US emitt around 6-10 tonne CO2 per capita compared to close to 20 in the US.

Cars in the US consume twice the gas per mileage cars in other countries consume on average. And reducing emissions does not mean there reducing the wealth. Which is better between a US made gas guzzler or a nice BMW which gets twice as much MPG?

BTW The US has the possibility to reduce emissions much more than other countries, especially regarding its natural resources (Sun, Wind, Biomass...). The US will anyway adjust to increased energy prices:
* increased price of coal by 100% since 2000
* increased price of coal power plants by 50% in 3 years

Answer 6

Russia discovered the only effective way to gut GHGs: shut down the economy. That is the only way to meet the targets.

Our society needs energy to grow and there are no alternatives to fossil fuels that can provide the amount of energy required with the reliability required.