Tim Worstall

Cutting CO2 Emissions

A couple of suggestions from Al- Graun:

Introducing energy-saving light bulbs, which use 80% less
electricity on average, reducing energy consumption and therefore the
amount of pollution by power stations. Inefficient coal power stations
in Kazakhstan create three times as much CO2 when producing electricity
as UK counterparts. Because electricity is so cheap, many schools and
homes use cheaper, but inefficient, traditional bulbs instead.

Well, yes, energy should of course be rationally priced, which in much of the CIS it isn’t. But then the same is true in the UK. If we are to adopt the definition recently given to us by John B, that a lower tax rate is in fact a subsidy, then we should acknowledge that  domestic heating and electricity, by enjoying a lower VAT rate, is also subsidized. Unless we remove that subsidy then of course we are not being serious about climate change: remember, it is the most pressing problem we face, far more so than terrorism.

Replacing CO2-producing energy with human energy technologies … a
project in India has replaced diesel pumps with people-operated pumps
for irrigation.

That’s simply insane. We use vastly more calories to grow food to provide human energy (humans are not really very efficient machines) than are contained in the diesel being "saved".

In fact, there’s about 30K calories in a gallon of diesel. 30,000 "food calories". Or a decent diet for 10 people for a day. Replacing one gallon of derv with 10 people working for a full day (ignoring relative efficiencies which would, I’m sure, favour the derv not the people) is silly enough, but doing it to save CO2 emissions when the emissions from growing the food for 10 people for a day is vastly higher than the derv produces is simply insane.

(No doubt if I’ve done my usual trick of mixing orders of magnitude, kilocalories and calories, someone will tell me.)

In

11 responses

  1. Kay Tie Avatar
    Kay Tie

    “We use vastly more calories to grow food to provide human energy (humans are not really very efficient machines) than are contained in the diesel being “saved”.
    Hence the counter-productive (for CO2) effects of cycling. OK, most of us have some spare reserves that could be run down with beneficial effects, and in some cases cycling is more efficient in CO2 terms than driving a single-occupant car, but cycling is not the answer to reducing transport-related CO2 emissions.

    Reply
  2. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    I’d be interested in those figures. If there are 30,000 calories in a gallon of diesel, then a European car in city driving uses about 1000 calories a mile. A human burns up about 30 calories.
    I can imagine that food distribution is less efficient in CO2 terms than oil production, but 33 times? A bicycle is a machine, after all.

    Reply
  3. Kay Tie Avatar
    Kay Tie

    Cycling is about 100mpg in CO2-equivalent emissions. Which is comparable with a scooter or a car with 2 or 3 occupants.
    It’s not even close to taking a diesel train.
    http://williamhammon.blogspot.com/2007/01/so-cycling-is-eco-friendly-not-as-much.html
    Oh, and that assumes the cyclist is a vegetarian. If they subsist on a diet of burgers then it’s much worse (although you could power a diesel engine from the waste fat from frying the burgers..).
    Of course, these comparisons are complex. Too complex for a numpty like Broon to decide for us. Which is why the politicians should put a levy on CO2 then eff-off and leave us alone to get on with setting our personal priorities and making our own choices about what is and isn’t important to us.

    Reply
  4. Roger Thornhill Avatar
    Roger Thornhill

    We should look at the dust-to-dust issue with energy saving bulbs vs incandescent. Also, during winter all that “wasted” energy is not at all, as it just warms the room (as does the “wasted” standby energy).
    As for rail, part of the reason it is expensive is due to the vast army of bodies needed to man and maintain it. Those bodies are producing CO2 in their lives, their houses, cars etc. that could be directed elsewhere.
    Yes, it is VERY complex.
    The answer is VERY simple – the Government should pursue Fusion Power ASAP and no, not just via the multi-billion ITER project but the IEC version researched by Dr Robert Bussard (estimates in the £100m’s, not £10bln’s).

    Reply
  5. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Of course it’s not hard to make the bicycle look even better – cars can’t run on C02 free petrol, but I imagine you could pretty easily come up with some calories that didn’t require a 7:1 ratio of fossil fuel use.

    Reply
  6. Kay Tie Avatar
    Kay Tie

    “I imagine you could pretty easily come up with some calories that didn’t require a 7:1 ratio of fossil fuel use.”
    Feel free to subsist off a diet of apples grown in your garden supplemented by milk from a goat. Tim’s point stands: better to give up physical work and eating meat than to give up cars.
    “cars can’t run on C02 free petrol”
    No, but they can run on biodiesel, ethanol or electricity (which, if you are in France, can have very low CO2 emissions). Look at the well-to-wheels figures for Tesla Motors electric Elise-based sports car (http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/energy_efficiency.php).
    Anyway, the wider point behind Tim’s note was that it’s daft to make blanket assumptions about what does and does not result in more CO2 emissions. It won’t stop the Guardianistas writing nonsense, but they aren’t in this CO2 gig for the environment, are they?

    Reply
  7. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    The Carnot efficiency of a human is much lower than that of a diesel engine, the fuel being burnt at a much lower temperature and the waste heat being expelled to a sink at a not-much-lower temperature.

    Reply
  8. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    “Feel free to subsist off a diet of apples grown in your garden supplemented by milk from a goat. ”
    Not really, we’re talking about 100 calories here on something like 2,500.

    Reply
  9. JohnF Avatar
    JohnF

    The argument that using energy-efficient light bulbs will reduce pollution from power stations is fallacious, as shown by this excellent piece in the American Thinker:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/ban_the_bulb.html

    Reply
  10. The Remittance Man Avatar
    The Remittance Man

    ‘ang on a mo’, aren’t we getting a little sidetracked here? Has anyone stopped to consider the effect of this on the poor Indian peasants?
    Back in the bad old days, they toiled from dawn to dusk in back breaking labour virtually from the day they could walk to the day they dropped dead. They bound to the land and unable to raise themselves from their pitiable condition because the poor buggers didn’t have the time to go to school. Or the money.
    Then along came someone and gave them a simple diesel engine and trained somebody to operate it. Suddenly they had more time and more crops. They could actually do stuff, like learning to read, and buy stuff, like sewing machines and simple tools so they could become tradesmen and so on.
    And now some tit (probably from europe) wants to send them all back to the rice paddies? How very Pol Pot. Still the sight of all those “jolly peasants” will make Tarquin and Griselda’s eco-holiday snaps just sooooo much more authentic.
    Gods these people make me sick.

    Reply
  11. Tim Newman Avatar
    Tim Newman

    Well, yes, energy should of course be rationally priced, which in much of the CIS it isn’t.
    I’m all for rational pricing of electricity if I am provided with a consistent supply of the stuff. Until then, we’ll stick with being subsidised.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading