Interesting. 35% increase in emissions since 2000. (Cue the apocalyptic thrash-metal.)
Wonky question: Is the reduction in hydro and nuclear from 2000 to present, as a percentage of total power, the result of any hydro/nuclear plants scaling back in output, or just the new construction of fossil-fuel-based ones?
I'm guessing the latter--the increase in emissions over the same time period (about 35%) is roughly the same as the increase in power generated (about 33%). If hydro/nuke power had been taken offline and replaced by fossil fuel, you'd expect emissions to go up faster than increases in power output.
Another wonky question: Given that Massachusetts has about 6.4 million residents now, and had about 6.35 million in 2000--an increase of waaaaay less than 35%--what the hell are we using 33% more energy on?
Feel free to quibble with my envelope math; it's late.
Before you can generate a single kWh, you need to prepare the fuel.
To turn uranium into fuel rods, a great deal of mining, processing, and transport must take place. Mining trucks burn diesel fuel. Enrichment takes electricity, and that often comes from coal-fired power plants. Transport isn't simple, as uranium is one of the heaviest metals around and takes a lot of diesel fuel to move.
There is another trap: the amount of good quality pitchblende (uranium ore) is finite and nearing depletion. That means that if nuclear becomes fashionable again (like an Edsel with led headlights ...), the amount of energy needed to mine, clean, enrich, and fabricate a set of fuel rods will increase tremendously. Nearly all of that will be from fossil sources.
I'm always disappointed when these ridiculous claims about nuclear being emissions-free go uncorrected, so it's nice to see the facts brought into the discussion. Thank you SwirlyGrrl!
...just trying to interpret the data. There are plenty of good arguments against nuclear power that have nothing to do with carbon emissions. Though I did assume that nuclear had lower emissions than coal-fired plants.
But nothing's emission-free, not even wind power--you've got to build the things. To really measure one type of power against another, you've got to figure out emissions over the lifetime of a plant per unit of energy produced, taking into consideration non-obvious sources of emissions as well as the actual burning of fuel. It's not a trivial problem. Glad to see CARMA is taking it on in a systematic way.
But that brings up another question. Is the carbon footprint associated with plant construction/mining/etc accounted for in CARMA's figures? Their site is down right now, probably overwhelmed with traffic. But my guess is that they're just looking at emissions coming out of a smokestack--I think they're relying on figures reported to the EPA and other such government bodies.
The upshot: Over its entire lifecycle, nuclear power emits less CO2 than coal--less, even, than solar, and about as much as wind--but it gives you less bang for your buck than other carbon-reducing technologies. (Or so saith Amory Lovins, who is a good guy to go to for this stuff.)
Air conditioning. New houses being built in Mass., particularly vacation houses on the Cape and islands, are being constructed with air conditioning. This is why, for example, they just installed a new high voltage line out to Nantucket. It makes me sad. There's good reason why older houses in Mass. don't have air conditioning - you don't need it other than 5-6 days in a summer.
Most people don't need AC, but some people need it for medical reasons like asthma. I use window units for bad pollution nights in the summer, but I only run them at night.
Older people are more susceptible to heat-related and pollution-related health issues and the population of MA is very much shifting to the elderly. This also means more air conditioning use.
Fair point. It would be interesting to find out which areas are greying more and where peak energy use comes from. As an asside, my baby boomer neighbors installed centrall AC in their house and run it from June to September, sometimes with the windows open to get the nice fresh air. Arg.
Nantucket is a retirement area with a wicked serious Ozone problem. Oddly enough, the levels in summer are way higher than Boston. Emissions from the entire eastern seaboard tend to drift over Nantucket and Martha's Vinyard, mix, and react/convert to ozone with help from sunlight.
The health impacts of ozone are so strongly mitigated by air conditioning that air pollution studies must account for air conditioning use or prevalence of air conditioning in a study area. Most doctors are aware of this, so more elders + ozone = more AC use.
A/C's are beneficial in a heatwave, whether a person is healthy or not, and regardless of someone's age.
I know for a fact that, living on the fourth floor of a 5-story building, that, without an air-conditioner, my place would be like a furnace in the summertime, particularly a heatwave.
Also, I have a pet macaw who'd stand an excellent chance of overheating without the AC.
I agree with you that it makes life more comfortable, but we never had air conditioners when I was a kid - nor did anyone I knew, and we all got by just fine. Granted, there were some days in the summer where even with a fan and no sheets it was hard to sleep, but we got by. I'm not saying people who use air conditioners are ruining the earth or anything, I just think people should make due with less.
...and had to run the air conditioner for about half the year.
Since moving to Boston, we have steadfastly (so far) avoided air conditioning. Some hot summer days, however, we have been known to go to the movies just to get the benefit of temporary air conditioning.
Comments
hmmm.
Interesting. 35% increase in emissions since 2000. (Cue the apocalyptic thrash-metal.)
Wonky question: Is the reduction in hydro and nuclear from 2000 to present, as a percentage of total power, the result of any hydro/nuclear plants scaling back in output, or just the new construction of fossil-fuel-based ones?
I'm guessing the latter--the increase in emissions over the same time period (about 35%) is roughly the same as the increase in power generated (about 33%). If hydro/nuke power had been taken offline and replaced by fossil fuel, you'd expect emissions to go up faster than increases in power output.
Another wonky question: Given that Massachusetts has about 6.4 million residents now, and had about 6.35 million in 2000--an increase of waaaaay less than 35%--what the hell are we using 33% more energy on?
Feel free to quibble with my envelope math; it's late.
Nuclear is not carbon neutral
Before you can generate a single kWh, you need to prepare the fuel.
To turn uranium into fuel rods, a great deal of mining, processing, and transport must take place. Mining trucks burn diesel fuel. Enrichment takes electricity, and that often comes from coal-fired power plants. Transport isn't simple, as uranium is one of the heaviest metals around and takes a lot of diesel fuel to move.
There is another trap: the amount of good quality pitchblende (uranium ore) is finite and nearing depletion. That means that if nuclear becomes fashionable again (like an Edsel with led headlights ...), the amount of energy needed to mine, clean, enrich, and fabricate a set of fuel rods will increase tremendously. Nearly all of that will be from fossil sources.
As for "why did the energy needs increase"? Well,vampires are partly to blame
right on
I'm always disappointed when these ridiculous claims about nuclear being emissions-free go uncorrected, so it's nice to see the facts brought into the discussion. Thank you SwirlyGrrl!
not arguing in favor of nuclear power...
...just trying to interpret the data. There are plenty of good arguments against nuclear power that have nothing to do with carbon emissions. Though I did assume that nuclear had lower emissions than coal-fired plants.
But nothing's emission-free, not even wind power--you've got to build the things. To really measure one type of power against another, you've got to figure out emissions over the lifetime of a plant per unit of energy produced, taking into consideration non-obvious sources of emissions as well as the actual burning of fuel. It's not a trivial problem. Glad to see CARMA is taking it on in a systematic way.
But that brings up another question. Is the carbon footprint associated with plant construction/mining/etc accounted for in CARMA's figures? Their site is down right now, probably overwhelmed with traffic. But my guess is that they're just looking at emissions coming out of a smokestack--I think they're relying on figures reported to the EPA and other such government bodies.
p.s.
Here's a recent CS Monitor story about the lifetime emissions of nuclear vs. fossil fuel plants:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0307/p01s04-sten.htm
The upshot: Over its entire lifecycle, nuclear power emits less CO2 than coal--less, even, than solar, and about as much as wind--but it gives you less bang for your buck than other carbon-reducing technologies. (Or so saith Amory Lovins, who is a good guy to go to for this stuff.)
What we're using more energy on
Air conditioning. New houses being built in Mass., particularly vacation houses on the Cape and islands, are being constructed with air conditioning. This is why, for example, they just installed a new high voltage line out to Nantucket. It makes me sad. There's good reason why older houses in Mass. don't have air conditioning - you don't need it other than 5-6 days in a summer.
Aging populations and AC
Most people don't need AC, but some people need it for medical reasons like asthma. I use window units for bad pollution nights in the summer, but I only run them at night.
Older people are more susceptible to heat-related and pollution-related health issues and the population of MA is very much shifting to the elderly. This also means more air conditioning use.
Interesting
Fair point. It would be interesting to find out which areas are greying more and where peak energy use comes from. As an asside, my baby boomer neighbors installed centrall AC in their house and run it from June to September, sometimes with the windows open to get the nice fresh air. Arg.
Nantucket's Pollution Problem
Nantucket is a retirement area with a wicked serious Ozone problem. Oddly enough, the levels in summer are way higher than Boston. Emissions from the entire eastern seaboard tend to drift over Nantucket and Martha's Vinyard, mix, and react/convert to ozone with help from sunlight.
The health impacts of ozone are so strongly mitigated by air conditioning that air pollution studies must account for air conditioning use or prevalence of air conditioning in a study area. Most doctors are aware of this, so more elders + ozone = more AC use.
Regardless of age, A/C's can and do save lives.
A/C's are beneficial in a heatwave, whether a person is healthy or not, and regardless of someone's age.
I know for a fact that, living on the fourth floor of a 5-story building, that, without an air-conditioner, my place would be like a furnace in the summertime, particularly a heatwave.
Also, I have a pet macaw who'd stand an excellent chance of overheating without the AC.
I disagree with you here.
Like the winters here in Massachusetts, the summers, too are known to be unpredictable. Airconditioners are important to have.
Maybe its the yankee in me
I agree with you that it makes life more comfortable, but we never had air conditioners when I was a kid - nor did anyone I knew, and we all got by just fine. Granted, there were some days in the summer where even with a fan and no sheets it was hard to sleep, but we got by. I'm not saying people who use air conditioners are ruining the earth or anything, I just think people should make due with less.
We lived in Georgia for 7.75 years...
...and had to run the air conditioner for about half the year.
Since moving to Boston, we have steadfastly (so far) avoided air conditioning. Some hot summer days, however, we have been known to go to the movies just to get the benefit of temporary air conditioning.