Gender and energy use

ResearchBlogging.org

Räty & Carlsson-Kanyama show that energy consumption differ according to gender. Not surprisingly, men eat more meat, drink more alcohol and buy and drive more expensive and fuel-intensive cars, and women use more energy on hygiene and clothes. This might not be news, but it’s still nice to have some number on it. Even if those numbers are only (very reasonable!) guesstimations based on a small subset of the population (singles) and inferring energy use from expenditure numbers…

The most interesting finding might actually be that the gender differences in Sweden and Greece are much larger than in Norway and Denmark. I am not surprised that Greece has different consumption patterns from the Scandinavian countries, but why is Sweden so different from its neighbors? It would interesting to see more on this in the future.

Räty, R., & Carlsson-Kanyama, A. (2009). Energy consumption by gender in some European countries Energy Policy DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.010

It’s nice not to be alone.

Apparently, I’m not the only one currently wrestling Bruno Latour’s Reassembling the Social. I’m not sure I agree with Scatterplot in their assessment of the French thinker, but it is safe to say that I have some reservations with this work. However, I’m not halfway through yet, so that will have to wait.

Who pays for greenhouse gas emissions?

A story in Scientific American discusses the difficulty of assessing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The oil industry in the United States are as of next year required to report GHG emissions from all their activity, some 13,000 sites. Not surprisingly, the industry organization API (American Petroleum Institute) protests, wanting more lenient regulation:

“We feel that to make this successful, there needs to be some acceptable lead time for facilities, and that should include allowing for best available data … until normal scheduled and planned shutdowns or services at our facilities to install the new monitoring devices,” said API’s Khary Cauthen, who attended the meeting.

Actually, this question is not as simple as it might seem, with the government wanting something and the industry protesting out of old habit. The exact measuring of GHG emissions is a complicated thing, and there might be something in the industry’s claim that “There is not that standard methodology yet”. However, when they want to use “best available data”, isn’t this an exact description of what will be the case under either regime? It would seem to me that normal regulation would require the industry to keep up on the prevailing best way of determining GHG emissions, but allow for some period of adjustment for each new measuring technology. As it is for most of the refinery sites, they have biannual downtime for refitting and upgrades, so the time period wouldn’t be too long.

Furthermore, there is the question of how to define GHG emissions. To quote the article,

The group also argues that the draft rule imposes requirements for reporting on petroleum-products supplies that will result in “significant overstatement” of emissions for some facilities, according to comments that API sent in June to EPA.

This is because some products, such as asphalt and lubricants, are not ultimately burned the group wrote. Also, some products, such as naphtha, require further processing or blending.

“The refinery that processes the feedstock and produces the extra volume of product should be the one that reports,” API wrote. “If a facility has the ability to determine that the stream will not be combusted they should be able to exclude it from their GHG emissions calculations.”

So who should shoulder the burden here? Ideally, some sort of life-cycle analysis of petroleum products should be agreed on, where a form of GHG accounting is set up deciding who takes which expense in a transaction. Example: a refinery receives some crude oil, accounts for their part of the processing of some finished (gasoline) and some half-finished products (naphtha for further refining) and, idunno, half the transporting emission of both kinds to end users (e.g. gas stations) or other refineries. This will be costly and bureaucratic, but that’s the only way to set this up in a just way. Because the API does have some good points. This does not give them carte blanche to dictate terms in all such issues. They can afford this, and they would earn a lot by showing some interest in working with governments in such regulation.

The larger point here is of course the very real problem of having accurate knowledge about human activity. The statistics we have about a large portion of what it is we actually do and buy is simply aggregations and sometimes even just educated guesses. We don’t really know how much traffic there is, we don’t how much is bought and sold of any products (except maybe online goods, but there we have the reporting problems of pirated goods), we don’t know how much money there is in the world, we don’t know how much oil there is and so on and so on. Of course, some of this has to do with surveillance issues, but it also hampers our ability to make efficient policy. A real dilemma, there.

Chinese coal demand will kill us all, maybe

ResearchBlogging.org

Interesting stuff on China’s coal demand and GDP growth in this article in Energy Policy. Especially interesting are the implications regarding the trustworthiness of the reports and predictions of the large energy institutions of the world. But first, to quote from the abstract:

[T]his paper demonstrates that even with conservative assumptions about Chinese GDP growth and income elasticity of electric demand to 2025, the country will likely experience much higher coal demand and emit much greater volumes of carbon dioxide than forecast by various international energy agencies.

It has a nice slapdown of the International Energy Agency, proving with a few charts that they consistently under-report energy demand for developing countries and are constantly adjusting their forecasts upwards because they refuse to take new numbers into account.

The article also has an interesting discussion of whether or not China misreport their statistics. One is left to wonder where else this could be going on. Oh, Saudi Arabia has been lying about their oil reserves since the 70s (they haven’t changed their projections by a single barrel since 1982, yet have pumped up some 115.000 million barrels of oil since then[1]), we know that, but how much can we trust the US Department of Energy numbers? Or the Norwegian numbers? Of course, they often include the various caveats in their reports, but they are happy to let the projections be reported in the media as absolute truths.

Also, there is a good discussion of the factors that might possibly slow the increase in demand which reminds us of the very physical conditions underlying the somewhat intangible product that is electricity. For example, while use of coal for electricity production has increased from 25% of production to 50%, despite the construction of the Three Gorges dam, this increase might be hampered by the increasing troubles of the Chinese railway system:

China’s railroad cars and tracks are already over-burdened, and a competition for limited rail car capacity has developed among coal, iron ore, steel, grains, and many other commodities, including oil products. The increase in coal transport by rail is outpacing rail track expansion in China, displacing other freight,
and accelerating a shift to less efficient transport by road

But the main point of the article is that the increase in coal use will cause a large increase in carbon emissions. China passed the US in absolute carbon emissions in 2006, but it might increase to double that of the US by 2025 if the increased demand is met. One of the problems, apart from the fact that we will all drown or starve to death when the Climapocolypse comes, is that the leading agencies for energy and climate data keep misreporting or simply omitting these considerations.

PS: In other news, quantum leaps (in the scientific meaning of that expression) are made within quantum computing. Soon, we will be able to shake our heads in wonder at the fantastically weak computers we now use. Soon…

[1] Calculated sloppily from Wikipedia information.

Shealy, M., & Dorian, J. (2009). Growing Chinese coal use: Dramatic resource and environmental implications Energy Policy DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.051

Norway uses too much electricity? Great!

Over at his blog, my colleague Tomas points out that Norway uses disproportionately large amounts of electricity compared to neighboring countries, for the most part due to lock-in effects in the choice of domestic heating systems a long time ago. This presents a problem for adopting other technologies, e.g. biomass based heating.

However, according to this Energy Policy[1] article, there is a strong correlation between electricity consumption and economic development: increased electricity consumption is a sign of a growing economy[2]. This is maybe nothing new, but it’s good to be reminded. Keep those heaters burning!

[1] I apologize for linking to so many papers from that particular journal, them being published by the fraudulent Elsevier publisher, but the fact remains that the journal is big in my field, publish prolifically, and (most importantly?) publish mostly easy-to-digest, short articles. This one’s four pages, perfect for blogging purposes.

[2] Of course, this has a limit, but the paper puts it at an average per capita income of more than 60.000$, higher than anywhere in the world (this is measured in 2000 international dollars, which puts per capita income in Norway at around 45.000$).

Oil!

So there went the summer… I went to Cuba, which was great. They have some first-hand experience with this energy crisis thing. Maybe the kind of forced energy conservation they’re living through is the future for us all?

I’ll just jump right back into this with some stuff about oil. I have some exhibits for you.

Exhibit A: Summer is great for catching up on reading, and this July I read this book: Oil 101, which is simply a more or less complete walkthrough of every single aspect of oil, from its chemical composition to its many uses to the incredible amount of factors that influence the price of oil. Check out this glowing review for the low-down. Recommended.

Exhibit B: Even the International Energy Agency (IEA) are now saying that oil production is now falling at an alarming pace. In fact,

The IEA estimates that the decline in oil production in existing fields is now running at 6.7 per cent a year compared to the 3.7 per cent decline it had estimated in 2007, which it now acknowledges to be wrong.

That’s quite an adjustment to make in just two years. The rate of decline is almost double what they thought!

Exhibit C: Of course, it doesn’t help that they seem intent on spilling all the oil after they’ve gone through such trouble to haul it out of the ground. Incidentally, I’m going to that area this weekend for a last few days of summer vacation. Nice.

Exhibit D: Drilling technology is advancing.

Exhibit E: This one is either scary or good news, depending on what mood I’m in. According to a paper from Energy Policy, the coming energy crisis will be so severe that the world economy will need to be completely reworked just to avoid collapse. The authors base it on a pretty optimistic reading of future energy estimates (which turn out to be too optimistic, see Exhibit B) crossed with estimates of future demand. The good news? Economic collapse allows us to just barely reach our goal of limiting global warming to 2 C…

PS: The title of this post is from the 1927 novel Oil! that inspired the very cool movie There Will Be Blood.