Here’s an interesting followup to last week’s post about about the uncertain links between recession and long-term climate change: Shakeb Afsah at Climate Data Due Diligence wrote to tell us that even though total carbon emissions from power plants fell in 2008, the carbon intensity of the power sector—that is, the amount of CO2 released per megawatt-hour of power produced—increased last year.
In the chart to the right, the yellow line at the top shows the tons of CO2 released per megawatt-hour of electricity produced by the nation’s power plants. And just as the recession kicked in in 2008, the CO2 intensity of the U.S. power system—which had been steadily improving for the previous four years—went in the wrong direction.
Ultimately, of course, it’s the total CO2 emissions that matter, not the emissions intensity. But it’s still somewhat disheartening to see the carbon-intensity trend move in the wrong direction, since it doesn’t bode well for the performance of the power sector once the economy recovers. After all, the climate crisis is a very long term problem; we need to make real, tangible progress in our emissions performance no matter what the economy does in the short term. And that puts an even bigger premium on making sure that we’re making the right kinds of stimulus investments while the economy is down: we want to be sure we emerge from the recession in a better position than we were when we went into it. That makes the carbon intensity figure one that’s worth watching.
This post originally appeared at Sightline’s Daily Score blog.
Ask Umbra on bike helmets
Ask Umbra on buying carbon offsets
Comments
View as Flat
hapa Posted 8:08 pm
13 Apr 2009
And just as the recession kicked in in 2008, the CO2 intensity of the U.S. power system—which had been steadily improving for the previous four years—went in the wrong direction.
"and, like, wow, i know, like, the wealth from the middle of the decade was, like, fake, but that totally fake but totally sweet carbon intensity improvement really looked good on my powerpoint charts, so, now i'm totally bummed."
it doesn’t bode well for the performance of the power sector once the economy recovers.
"because, like, before, when there was a lot of money, nobody was building coal-fired power plants, but now, because there isn't money and people still want electricity, that means investors are going to start building dirty power plants when there's more money and credit, because, like, the investors are all like punch drunk and PTSD-flashbacking to the 1970s, right? so now they think it's 1979 and they're all like, got to build coal."
That makes the carbon intensity figure one that’s worth watching.
for instance, one can ignore straight-faced citations of carbon intensity.
i can't even believe i just read this article.
Permalink
garyshu Posted 3:39 am
14 Apr 2009
Permalink
hapa Posted 7:17 am
14 Apr 2009
i'm having a really bad reading experience with the new site. to those who haven't "ignored" me for that misfire, i don't want to look like i'm blaming change for my own humiliating ungenerous idiocy, but if i make a mistake like this, the "reading environment" is not smooth.
Permalink
jestbill Posted 11:50 am
14 Apr 2009
Permalink
hapa Posted 6:45 pm
26 Apr 2009
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 2:56 pm
14 Apr 2009
Permalink