US Beats Europe In Reducing Carbon Dioxide

[dharma]

For all its solar/wind/waves foolishness, Europe has seen its greenhouse gas emissions stay basically flat. Meanwhile, America's are dropping—so precipitously that it may actually meet its pledge to reduce emissions 17% by 2020.

What strange miracle has allowed this to happen?

Fracking.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...bon-frack-now/

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/21/news....htm?iid=HP_LN

God, the irony is wonderful.

[dharma]

China switches from solar and wind to nukes, hydro, and . . . fracking.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/14/ch...#ixzz1ydERS6sy

[Ross]

It would be good to see some estimates of how much contribution low
energy costs may make to US GDP over the coming years.

You seem to have a relatively free market , cheap energy , high tech skills ,
ample labor , property rights , rule of law , large markets , access to capital
and corrupt idiots at the helm . Is it just me or is one of those expendable .


.

[Samen]

Actually i recon more solar and wind are used in the US than Europe, hence the decline in US.

[dharma]

You might try doing just a bit of research before you make statements about what you "reckon".

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.T-itjI4qVsQ

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...obby-says.html

[Samen]

meh i don't have to do research on what i reckon, i reckon what i reckon.

Learnt how to spell a word today yippee, il have to ad that in to the browser dictionary.

[Samen]

Originally Posted by dharma

You might try doing just a bit of research before you make statements about what you "reckon".

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.T-itjI4qVsQ

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...obby-says.html

On the above links, the numbers seem to be way off from the actual.


1st link states About 2.7% of U.S. electricity came from wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable sources last year

Wikipedia states wind alone is more than that.
U.S. wind power installed capacity now exceeds 43,460 MW and supplies 3% of the nation's electricity

Since the article mentions "wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable sources" it is fair to quote Wikipedia some more here.

Renewable energy in the United States accounted for 14.3 percent of the domestically produced electricity in the first six months of 2011.[1] Hydroelectricity is the largest producer of renewable power in the United States. In 2009, the U.S. was the world's largest producer of electricity from geothermal, solar and wind power and it trailed only China in the total production of renewable energy.

So dismissing the first article without a second though as propaganda is the only way to go.

2nd link plays with percentages and tho "Solar power became the most-installed energy source in Europe last year" it has no correlation to what is installed and in use in the US.

"Installations of photovoltaic panels in the region surged 63 percent to 21.9 gigawatts, surpassing all new wind and gas- fired power capacity combined"
"Solar panels installed in Europe last year generated almost 30 percent of the electricity produced by all new power plants in the region, the report shows."

So il just go with my "recon" as it is based on a bit more knowledge than some biased articles you need to use as "research".

[dharma]

Originally Posted by Samen

So dismissing the first article without a second though as propaganda is the only way to go.

Not without stripping out hydroelectric power, the vast majority of usable renewable energy in the US.

Read your Wiki article carefully (you can do it if you try!), and you note that wind capacity is 3%. As we have demonstrated ad nauseum on this forum, wind capacity and actual wind power utilization are very, very different things. Actual wind power generated/used may be as little as 10% of capacity. The article you dismiss uses real numbers, not wind advocate fudging. Same for solar power. Wind power capacity doesn't help you when the wind isn't blowing, solar power capacity doesn't hep you when the sun isn't shining. Pity.

Originally Posted by Samen

"In 2009, the U.S. was the world's largest producer of electricity from geothermal, solar and wind power and it trailed only China in the total production of renewable energy."

But "The United States has tripled its production of clean energy in the past decade, but it still lags far behind Europe and Indonesia and is only slightly ahead of Mexico and India in the share of electricity it gets from renewable sources", as my article notes. We may be the largest producer, but we are by far the largest user; as a percentage, which is what we are talking about here, we lag well behind (which is excellent!). You do understand the distinction, I hope?

Originally Posted by Samen

So I'll just go with my "recon" as it is based on a bit more knowledge than some biased articles you need to use as "research".

Demonstrate that "knowledge" by producing some actual facts, and you might be believable.

[Samen]

You have an interesting way of jumping over facts and twisting them to your needs.

Its not my wiki article, I posted it for you so you could get your facts strait without me having to to quote and type from SUN & WIND ENERGY magazine i have been revising from issue one, and no that is not my only source of information i base my knowledge on.

Originally Posted by dharma

Read your Wiki article carefully (you can do it if you try!), and you note that wind capacity is 3%. As we have demonstrated ad nauseum on this forum, wind capacity and actual wind power utilization are very, very different things. Actual wind power generated/used may be as little as 10% of capacity. The article you dismiss uses real numbers, not wind advocate fudging.

Here is the first intentional mistake you make from the wiki link i posted to help you get some numbers straight.
The actual wind produced electricity in 2011 was 3% of all electric power, now in 2012 with some great new wind farms coming online it should amount to way over 3% but not yet 4% but those are estimates so lets stay with the fact that 3% of the electricity produced in the US is from wind and this is not capacity but actual production.

I assume you don't have any reading comprehension problems so it is clear you are trying to twist the numbers in a manner fool someone just quickly reading through this thread.

Originally Posted by Samen
"In 2009, the U.S. was the world's largest producer of electricity from geothermal, solar and wind power and it trailed only China in the total production of renewable energy."

Originally Posted by dharma

But "The United States has tripled its production of clean energy in the past decade, but it still lags far behind Europe and Indonesia and is only slightly ahead of Mexico and India in the share of electricity it gets from renewable sources", as my article notes. We may be the largest producer, but we are by far the largest user; as a percentage, which is what we are talking about here, we lag well behind (which is excellent!). You do understand the distinction, I hope?

LOL i did not say that it was a direct quote from the wiki article i posted for your benefit as the articles you are relying on mix the oranges and apples and try to fool the reader with percentages from the smoothie.

Originally Posted by dharma

Demonstrate that "knowledge" by producing some actual facts, and you might be believable.

Well i did that already, just didn't think i needed to spell them out cinder garden style for you.



From the wiki just for you once again.

Produced electricity:
U.S. wind power installed capacity now exceeds 43,460 MW and supplies 3% of the nation's electricity.
In 2011 the electricity produced from wind power in the US amounted to 120 terawatt-hours (TW·h) or 2.9% of all electric power

Capacity:
Construction of new wind power generation capacity in the first quarter of 2012 totaled 1695 megawatts (MW) bringing the cumulative installed capacity to 48,611 MW.[1] This capacity is exceeded only by China.[2]

Way to go USA

The only problem with wind turbines is they may slow down the rotation of the moon, TBM thread, ponder that with the notion that the moon is responsible for some of the wind we experience.

[dharma]

Originally Posted by Samen

The actual wind produced electricity in 2011 was 3% of all electric power

Even the BLM, hardly a neutral source, says it's 2.3%.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/ene...nd_energy.html

However, since you like conflating capacity with actual use, and you like Wikipedia articles, let's use their number for Europe: 6.3%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_po...European_Union

The EU has 93,957 MW of installed wind capacity. The US has 46,919 MW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Install...power_capacity

Originally Posted by Samen

it is clear you are trying to twist the numbers

It's clear that there's some twisting going on, for sure. Don't hurt yourself.

Originally Posted by Samen

bringing the cumulative installed capacity to 48,611 MW.[1] This capacity is exceeded only by China.

Only if you measure by individual country. Not the same when you compare the US and Europe, which—you may have missed it—this thread is doing. (Hint: read the title).

Originally Posted by Samen

The only problem with wind turbines is they may slow down the rotation of the moon

Riiiiiight. Your argument is loony, I'll give you that.

---------- Post added at 06:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Ross

You seem to have a relatively free market, cheap energy, high tech skills, ample labor, property rights, rule of law, large markets, access to capital, and corrupt idiots at the helm. Is it just me, or is one of those expendable?

Careful, Ross. You don't want to be arrested in your home country by American agents, or targeted by a Predator drone, do you? Corrupt idiots have poor senses of humor.

[Samen]

Originally Posted by dharma

Even the BLM, hardly a neutral source, says it's 2.3%.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/ene...nd_energy.html

Excellent Excellent, you are finally learning the truth about wind power and the difference about capacity and production in the US, it seems you have now understood production is 3% not 0.3% you first thought it was, wont take long before you turn in to a proper wind power advocate / spokes person.

I reckon the governmental agency BLM (as usual) is a little bit behind its figures 2.3% in the provided link and only counting utility scale turbines in its report (but you up 2% from your initial belief of 0.3% and that's what counts most here).

Originally Posted by dharma

However, since you like conflating capacity with actual use, and you like Wikipedia articles, let's use their number for Europe: 6.3%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_po...European_Union

Its you who is mixing capacity and production, i have only stated actual production (other than trying to teach you the the difference in the two) US 3% production.

Originally Posted by dharma

The EU has 93,957 MW of installed wind capacity. The US has 46,919 MW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Install...power_capacity

It's clear that there's some twisting going on, for sure. Don't hurt yourself.

Only if you measure by individual country. Not the same when you compare the US and Europe, which—you may have missed it—this thread is doing. (Hint: read the title).

First to my initial statement:
US wind production of 120 TWh
US solar production of 3,800 TWh.
US has more wind and solar power than EU, the new instalations are sky roceting both in US and EU but with 2011 around 4.000 TWh US is still way ahead of EU in combined solar wind and the new commissioned installations 2011 play a big part in cuting down emisions.

To thread title and initial post:

Originally Posted by dharma

For all its solar/wind/waves foolishness, Europe has seen its greenhouse gas emissions stay basically flat. Meanwhile, America's are dropping—so precipitously that it may actually meet its pledge to reduce emissions 17% by 2020.

What strange miracle has allowed this to happen?

Fracking.

The articles states that by burning more natural gas obtained by fracking helps lessen Co2 emissions, sure.
"The primary reason by far is low natural gas prices,"

It also states
"Some of the reductions can be attributed to executive decisions taken by the Obama administration to curb pollution from power plants and other sources.
Investments in energy efficiency have also helped, along with state rules requiring utilities to purchase power from renewable sources."

An pretty well summarises it up with:
"Europe's emissions dropped 9% from 2005 to 2010 while U.S. emissions fell by just 5%."

Anyways, solar and wind plus all renewable energy produced in the United States accounts for 14.3 percent and in European Union 7% i must conclude that EU has a long way to go to catch up with US and hope they both continue this amazing growth in renewable energy production.

Originally Posted by dharma

Riiiiiight. Your argument is loony, I'll give you that.[COLOR="Silver"]

yep its pretty loony and definitely arguable, i posted it as it is the only thing left for you to argue against the "solar/wind/waves foolishness" just use it with caution as running around saying the moon is falling might be a little

[dharma]

Originally Posted by Samen

you are finally learning the truth about wind power and the difference about capacity and production in the US, it seems you have now understood production is 3% not 0.3%

Ah, yes, truth. Slippery little devil, isn't it? Sometimes one must dig a bit to find it.

Looking at Wikipedia, we discover that, for energy use in the US,

in 2010, EIA data showed 25% of the nation's energy came from petroleum, 22% from coal, and 22% from natural gas. Nuclear power supplied 8.4% and renewable energy supplied 8%, which was mainly from hydroelectric dams although other renewables are included such as wind power, geothermal and solar energy.

Digging a bit further, we find that 67% of that renewable power is from hydroelectric sources. So, 33% of 8% is: 2.6%. Close enough for government work, which would figure.

But, if we keep reading, we discover this:

The total energy consumption reported above from the Annual Energy Review has been adjusted by a fossil-fuel equivalency factor in order to estimate how much oil would be required to supply all of the energy used. While there is 3,412 Btu per kWh, a factor of 10,460 Btu/kWh was used for nuclear and 9,760 Btu/kWh for renewable energy, for 2010, to reflect how much oil would be required. This inflates the reported total energy consumption, and roughly triples the apparent share from non-fossil fuel sources.

Oh, my. We've been lied to! By our government! How shocking! So, that 2.6% for wind and solar and moonbeams is in fact about 0.8%! Making the contribution from wind power not 0.3%, but even less!

Facts. Aren't they a bitch?

[Samen]

Originally Posted by dharma

But, if we keep reading, we discover this:

Oh, my. We've been lied to! By our government! How shocking! So, that 2.6% for wind and solar and moonbeams is in fact about 0.8%! Making the contribution from wind power not 0.3%, but even less!

Facts. Aren't they a bitch?

Facts? You seem to be reading the above statement and doing a interpretation of it with no knowledge what it refers to, like the devil reading the bible, anything to spew out something to further your agenda, il call it the FDO6Dh method.

Anyways with the above statement you are pointing to the
Appendix F in the AER 2010
Alternatives for Estimating Energy Consumption

Where (EIA) has examined different ways to represent energy consumption.
You should read the whole appendix your self, but to put it short, they are experimenting on putting Btu/kWh on all energy consumed to produce electricity. They also state that this experiment is not very sound at the moment and will have to be lifted anyways once renewable energy % increases.

So much for that.

Is it U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) you now trust then? Lets say you do as you blindly quoted something from them without understanding anything of it, i call that trust.

Anyways in 2009 they said 2% of US electricity was produced by wind power, if you need a graph on how much wind power installations have increased from 2009 to 2011 its in the same site or look it up in Wikipedia its the same graph. So we are at 3% electricity produced in 2011 by wind power, even according to (EIA) if we leave your interpretations out.

Then we add the solar power atop of that (note not talking PW alone here but all forms of solar collectors) and where were we at 10% now?

[dharma]

I did read that appendix, thank you very much; read most of the document, in fact. Not only is it noteworthy that the US government appears to have been purposely exaggerating wind and solar energy numbers, but it appears as well that much (most?) of Europe does not. It has always seemed odd to me that Germany, et al, have made such a huge societal push into alternative energy compared to ours and yet seemed to have numbers for generation that were not that much larger.

Well, part of the reason for that is that we have huge, sunny, southwestern deserts, but the larger part appears to be that our numbers are skewed by these "adjustments". You can continue to spiel on this indefinitely, but that fact appears incontrovertible. Your numbers are propaganda, and they're crap.

Carry on.

[dharma]

Europe Burns Coal Fastest Since 2006

Demand for coal, the dirtiest fuel for making electricity, grew 3.3 percent last year in Europe while sales of less- polluting natural gas fell 2.1 percent, the steepest drop since 2009, according to a BP Plc report. Germany’s EON and RWE AG (RWE), the biggest utilities in Europe’s largest power market, are considering shutting unprofitable gas-fired plants even as Chancellor Angela Merkel promotes gas to replace nuclear energy.

Banning fracking. Great idea! For American coal companies, anyway.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...-s-energy.html

[dharma]

American carbon dioxide emissions now at lowest level in 20 years.

"There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate expert at the University of Colorado.

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-co2-...--finance.html