Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) - 2014 Update

I updated the list in a new post for the year of 2015. Please move to the post cited below.

Park, H. (2015). Cost of Energy Comparison, Including Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) - 2015 Update [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://j.mp/LCOE_2015

What If We Burn All the Fossil Fuel Reserves? Simple Arithmetic Using the IPCC AR5

What happens if we burn all the fossil fuel reserves that we have? Here I'm doing my own simple arithmetic.

Above all, the Working Group I's contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that there is a specific threshold (purple line in the figure below) of total carbon emissions to us, Homo sapiens. To check the global surface temperature rise within 2°C (degrees Celsius) from the pre-industrial level, we have to limit our cumulative carbon emissions since 1870 to no more than 790 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC) or 2900 gigatonnes of CO₂ (GtCO₂).

(Here, I want to leave five notes. First, the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the WGI's AR5, originally released on September 27 last year, was corrected for errors on November 11. Second, the emissions numbers are rounded to the nearest 5 GtC (or nearest 5 GtCO₂). Third, ideally, the pre-industrial level means the global surface temperature in 1750. In the case of the figure below as cited from the AR5, the pre-industrial temperature is set at the 1861-1880 average level. I think it is because the estimates for 1750-1860 period were too uncertain to be scientifically acceptable. Fourth, the famous 1000 GtC carbon budget is the sum of CO₂ (790 GtC) and non-CO₂ emissions (210 GtC). For the CO₂ only, the cumulative emissions limit is 790 GtC. Fifth, I didn't consider the possible emissions from future land use change in this post.)

The AR5 estimated that about 515 GtC (1890 GtCO₂) had been emitted from 1870 to 2011 (blue line in the figure). The number includes emissions from land use change in addition to the emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production. The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center estimated that the global cumulative anthropogenic carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production were about 370 GtC (1360 GtCO₂) between 1870 and 2011. The remaining 145 GtC (530 GtCO₂) seems to be emitted from land use change. Therefore, at the beginning of 2012, we had only 275 GtC (1010 GtCO₂) of carbon at our disposal.

Then, we can now go back to the question I asked in the first line of this post. "What happens if we fully exploit the fossil fuel reserves on earth?"

To answer the question, we have to know the amount of carbon sources. We have figures for the global fossil fuel reserves that are summarized in my previous post (http://j.mp/FF_RR). The post tallied that the total combined reserves of global oil, natural gas, and coal were about 995.7 billion toe as of the year end of 2011 (= oil 224.0 billion toe + natural gas 174.3 billion toe + coal 597.4 billion toe). (Here, let us forget about 14,435 billion toe of fossil fuel resources calculated in the post. The resources estimates are 14.5 times larger than the already enormous reserves.)

In 2011, the annual global carbon emissions were 9.46 GtC (34.7 GtCO₂). If we don't change our fossil fuel consumption habits, we will use up the remaining 275 GtC in only 29.1 years. If we consume the entire fossil fuel reserves, we will eventually emit approximately 930 GtC (3400 GtCO₂) of additional carbon in 81 years (= reserves-to-production (R/P) ratio of the global fossil fuels in 2011) or by 2092. We will pass the threshold and go further to emit 655 GtC (2390 GtCO₂) more.

This self-destructing anthropogenic emissions will follow a global emissions trajectory that is little short of the IPCC's second-fastest global warming scenario (RCP6.0; orange line in the figure). The RCP6.0's additional cumulative CO₂ emissions between 2012 to 2100 are estimated 1060 GtC (3885 GtCO₂), while the total additional CO₂ emissions by burning up the entire fossil fuel reserves between 2012 and 2092 are 930 GtC (3400 GtCO₂). It means our extravagance could result in 3°C global warming around the end of the 21st century (Rogelj et al., 2012).

So.... We really are in a grave danger. I want to find a solution for this situation, not from another arithmetic but from profound reasonings that can move selfish people's hearts. (When do I? Not sure....)


Figure source: IPCC WGI (2013)

Emission factors (source: IPCC WGIII (2007)):

Coal:	3,851,856 gCO2/toe	(originally, 92.0 gCO2/MJ)
Gas:	2,193,883 gCO2/toe	(originally, 52.4 gCO2/MJ)
Oil:	3,194,528 gCO2/toe	(originally, 76.3 gCO2/MJ)

References:

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC). (2013). Fossil-Fuel CO₂ Emissions. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. [Data at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html]

Rogelj, J., Meinshausen, M., & Knutti, R. (2012). Global warming under old and new scenarios using IPCC climate sensitivity range estimates. Nature Climate Change, 2(4), 248-253. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1385]

Working Group I. (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Bern, Switzerland: IPCC Working Group I. [Full-text at http://j.mp/WG1AR5]

Working Group III. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [Full-text at http://j.mp/WG3_AR4]

CO2 Emissions in South Korea, 1945-2012

So the following table and figure are comparing different estimates of South Korea's CO₂ emissions from 1945-2012.
I want to know why BP's estimates for recent years are much larger than those of other institutions.

CO₂ emissions in South Korea, 1945-2012
Unit: million tonnes of CO₂

Year	GCP	IEA (sectoral approach)	IEA (reference approach)	BP	EDGAR	US EIA	Korean Government (total CO2 emissions)	Korean Government (CO2 emissions from fuel combustion)
2012	610.74			763.71	635.00
2011	604.28	587.73	608.69	753.78	629.00	610.95
2010	567.13	564.47	579.57	713.62	591.00	581.10	595.89	559.31
2009	508.99	515.62	518.15	661.78	548.00	524.44	541.74	506.45
2008	507.66	501.77	512.84	653.45	540.00	521.77	536.09	498.94
2007	495.46	490.43	498.86	639.92	519.00	503.10	522.11	485.73
2006	470.45	476.69	472.14	605.99	509.00	484.21	500.59	465.94
2005	462.56	469.12	464.63	602.16	504.00	493.80	493.37	459.04
2004	481.91	469.82	477.31	591.21	506.00	485.91	490.58	452.64
2003	465.86	448.91	461.56	580.03	490.00	477.85	484.21	445.10
2002	465.28	446.13	461.54	566.55	476.00	468.00	475.87	437.37
2001	449.85	452.07	447.55	542.68	462.00	450.45	457.34	418.92
2000	447.22	437.72	440.99	528.89	448.00	438.65	443.12	406.18
1999	399.54	385.35	392.30	496.03	424.00	423.58	412.29	378.20
1998	364.54	351.06	354.97	460.37	389.00	380.75	379.89	347.61
1997	429.68	407.91	413.61	510.67	451.00	426.26	446.50	407.37
1996	403.41	383.72	383.36	464.71	428.00	396.90	419.77	382.18
1995	374.48	358.65	355.28	421.92	399.00	381.43	387.53	350.73
1994	343.77	329.04	325.40	388.85	366.00	351.42	358.15	324.07
1993	321.70	304.20	304.84	358.00	334.00	330.64	336.03	304.53
1992	284.06	276.91	267.28	325.14	304.00	293.46	301.03	273.87
1991	261.28	254.27	249.50	288.38	280.00	269.67	277.74	253.41
1990	246.75	229.30	238.60	254.97	253.00	242.13	253.89	233.56
1989	235.67	200.45	207.07	228.27		219.51
1988	221.79	189.33	199.36	214.79		207.81
1987	192.51	165.95	174.55	189.43		185.69
1986	182.31	159.66	171.33	179.56		180.30
1985	178.20	153.25	157.67	167.26		172.32
1984	163.79	148.88	153.42	154.70		163.62
1983	150.79	136.97	140.09	141.15		148.49
1982	141.80	129.04	133.29	133.87		138.95
1981	139.63	129.41	125.37	133.64		137.90
1980	134.77	124.38	125.73	126.31		131.74
1979	133.11	120.04	121.62	121.69
1978	113.32	106.42	105.50	105.70
1977	105.63	97.68	99.48	96.99
1976	93.24	85.37	86.66	84.42
1975	81.77	76.76	77.91	75.38
1974	75.63	70.75	75.14	68.64
1973	73.04	67.27	69.26	66.52
1972	60.29	53.96	59.78	53.40
1971	58.57	52.07	54.84	51.57
1970	53.74			48.01
1969	42.49			41.48
1968	37.21			35.17
1967	35.12			31.44
1966	29.99			28.12
1965	24.99			23.56
1964	22.20
1963	21.09
1962	17.27
1961	14.45
1960	12.54
1959	11.22
1958	9.01
1957	8.22
1956	7.56
1955	6.45
1954	5.16
1953	4.69
1952	3.46
1951	2.92
1950	2.18
1949	2.18
1948	1.67
1947	0.90
1946	0.49
1945	0.00

Note: Original carbon contents of CO₂ emissions in the GCP estimates were multiplied by a conversion factor (= 44.0095/12.0107) to make CO₂-equivalent numbers.


References:

Global Carbon Project	Le Quéré, C., Peters, G. P., Andres, R. J., Andrew, R. M., Boden, T., Ciais, P., . . . Yue, C. (2013). Global Carbon Budget 2013. Earth System Science Data Discussions, 6(2), 689-760. [Full-text at http://j.mp/GCP2013; Data at http://j.mp/GCP2013Data]
International Energy Agency	IEA. (2013). CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2013: Highlights. Paris, France: IEA Publications. [Full-text at http://j.mp/IEA2013; Data at http://j.mp/IEA2013Data]
BP	BP. (2013). BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2013. London, UK: BP, plc. [Full-text at http://j.mp/BP2013Text; Data at http://j.mp/BP2013Data]
Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EC JRC & PBL)	Olivier, J. G. J., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Muntean, M., & Peters, J. A. H. W. (2013). Trends in Global CO2 Emissions: 2013 Report. The Hague, The Netherlands: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. [Full-text at http://j.mp/EDGAR2013; Data at http://j.mp/EDGAR2013Data]
U.S. Energy Information Administration	US EIA. (2013). Total Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption of Energy. In US EIA, International Energy Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Energy Information Administration. [Data at http://j.mp/EIA2013Data]
Korean Government	GIR. (2013). 2012 National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report of Korea. Seoul, Korea: Greenhouse Gas Inventory & Research Center of Korea (GIR). [Full-text at http://j.mp/NIR2012Text; Data at http://j.mp/NIR2012Data]

Comparison of Global CO2 Emissions Estimates by GCP, IEA, BP, EDGAR, and US EIA (1990-2012)

How do different institutions' estimates of global carbon dioxide emissions compare?

Table. Global CO₂ emissions (unit: million tonnes of CO₂)

	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001
GCP	22,450	22,780	22,586	22,579	22,960	23,443	23,971	24,371	24,341	24,220	24,788	25,382
IEA (sectoral approach)	20,989	21,143	21,074	21,170	21,301	21,851	22,423	22,666	22,778	22,928	23,759	23,980
IEA (reference approach)	21,546	21,488	21,363	21,526	21,624	22,112	22,637	22,837	22,857	23,297	23,982	24,192
BP	22,606	22,574	22,665	22,666	22,950	23,464	24,090	24,359	24,393	24,723	25,382	25,597
EDGAR (EC JRC & PBL)	22,667	22,690	22,584	22,796	22,950	23,619	24,219	24,390	24,589	24,797	25,361	25,449
US EIA	21,523	21,432	21,347	21,502	21,649	22,010	22,508	23,044	23,146	23,459	24,150	24,244
	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
GCP	25,635	27,174	28,606	29,654	30,669	31,387	32,183	32,025	33,590	34,663	35,420
IEA (sectoral approach)	24,359	25,439	26,628	27,501	28,332	29,268	29,478	28,966	30,509	31,342
IEA (reference approach)	24,681	25,764	27,188	27,965	28,848	29,591	29,951	29,729	31,545	32,332
BP	26,068	27,254	28,603	29,453	30,320	31,197	31,540	31,100	32,840	33,743	34,466
EDGAR (EC JRC & PBL)	26,066	27,187	28,552	29,346	30,345	31,410	31,962	31,574	32,992	33,986	34,453
US EIA	24,925	25,989	27,134	28,262	29,029	29,733	30,256	30,236	31,502	32,579

Note: Original carbon contents of CO₂ emissions in the GCP estimates were multiplied by a conversion factor (= 44.0095/12.0107) to make CO₂-equivalent numbers.

References:

Global Carbon Project	Le Quéré, C., Peters, G. P., Andres, R. J., Andrew, R. M., Boden, T., Ciais, P., . . . Yue, C. (2013). Global Carbon Budget 2013. Earth System Science Data Discussions, 6(2), 689-760. [Full-text at http://j.mp/GCP2013; Data at http://j.mp/GCP2013Data]
International Energy Agency	IEA. (2013). CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2013: Highlights. Paris, France: IEA Publications. [Full-text at http://j.mp/IEA2013; Data at http://j.mp/IEA2013Data]
BP	BP. (2013). BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2013. London, UK: BP, plc. [Full-text at http://j.mp/BP2013Text; Data at http://j.mp/BP2013Data]
Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EC JRC & PBL)	Olivier, J. G. J., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Muntean, M., & Peters, J. A. H. W. (2013). Trends in Global CO2 Emissions: 2013 Report. The Hague, The Netherlands: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. [Full-text at http://j.mp/EDGAR2013; Data at http://j.mp/EDGAR2013Data]
U.S. Energy Information Administration	US EIA. (2013). Total Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption of Energy. In US EIA, International Energy Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Energy Information Administration. [Data at http://j.mp/EIA2013Data]

On the 60% Larger Arctic Ice Cap Year-Over-Year and on the Recent Global Warming Hiatus

I am not an atmospheric scientist. But I thought I could introduce some explanations about the recent measurements that are seemingly contradictory to the IPCC reports (AR4 and upcoming AR5).

First, does this year's Arctic ice cap that is reportedly 60% larger than the last year's mean climate is cooling? Not so. It is just a symptom of the so-called 'regression toward the mean' bias.
Let's look at the measurement data. The 60% increase in 2013 is just due to the record-contraction of the Arctic ice cap in 2012 (Meier, 2012). The downward trend is still valid.

Source: National Snow & Ice Data Center.

Second, does the hiatus of global warming since 1998 mean that the IPCC's forecasts are outright wrong? Not so. Their models were found wrong in that they couldn't predict the anomaly (How much the models were wrong can be found at Fyfe et al., (2013)). However, the overall global warming is happening exactly as the IPCC has been telling the world.
A Nature paper published today (Kosaka & Xie, 2013) clarifies what is really happening on the Earth. If their analysis is correct (Their explanation corresponds to 97% of temperature changes during 1970-2012.), the former climate models underestimated the natural variation known as "La-Niña-like decadal cooling." Their conclusion is,
"Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase."
(The IPCC report use the term "very likely" when the probability of a predicted outcome is greater than 90%.)
I think this study is a good answer to the so-called confusion between the short-term noise and the long-term change.


References:

Fyfe, J. C., Gillett, N. P., & Zwiers, F. W. (2013). Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years. Nature Climate Change, 3(9), 767-769. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1972]

Kosaka, Y., & Xie, S.-P. (2013). Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling. Nature, 501, 403-407. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12534] (If you don't have a permission to read this article, just open the following link. http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Kosaka_Nature_2013.pdf)

Meier, W. (2012). Record Low Arctic Sea Ice Extent in 2012: An exclamation point on a long-term declining trend [PowerPoint slides]. Boulder, CO: National Snow & Ice Data Center. [Slides at http://j.mp/Meier_NOAA]

Temporal Changes in the Spatial Distribution of Global CO2 Emissions, 1970-2008

Please watch in HD 720p (and in full-screen mode) for a clearer video.

Source: Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR; http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/)

Three Recent Reports on Water-Energy Nexus in the United States

Almost three years ago, I wrote a post about 'water consumption in electricity generation using different technologies' (http://j.mp/Water_Power_Nexus). However, indeed, I didn't have to collect those data. Two very good papers on the topic had been published by researchers from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
(Paper 1: Macknick, J., Newmark, R., Heath, G., & Hallett, K. C. (2012). Operational water consumption and withdrawal factors for electricity generating technologies: a review of existing literature. Environmental Research Letters, 7(4), 045802. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045802]
Paper 2: Meldrum, J., Nettles-Anderson, S., Heath, G., & Macknick, J. (2013). Life cycle water use for electricity generation: a review and harmonization of literature estimates. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1), 015031. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015031])

Nowadays, the nexus between energy and water seems to have become an even more popular topic in the United States. Over the past two months, three notable U.S. institutions published lengthy reports on the issue. The reports are:

Rogers, J., Averyt, K., Clemmer, S., Davis, M., Flores-Lopez, F., Frumhoff, P., Kenney, D., Macknick, J., Madden, N., Meldrum, J., Overpeck, J., Sattler, S., Spanger-Siegfried, E., & Yates. D. (2013). Water-Smart Power: Strengthening the U.S. Electricity System in a Warming World. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Water-Energy-UCS]

Water in the West. (2013). Water and Energy Nexus: A Literature Review. Stanford, CA: Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and the Bill Lane Center for the American West. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Water-Energy-Stanford]

Whited, M., Ackerman, F., & Jackson, S. (2013). Water Constraints on Energy Production: Altering our Current Collision Course. Newton, MA: Civil Society Institute. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Water-Energy-CSI]