- JoNova - https://www.joannenova.com.au -

Who actually took notice of the Kyoto Protocol? Coal fired plants going up everywhere.

Guest post by Anton Lang (TonyfromOz)

(Thanks to ianl8888  for bringing this map from Tallbloke’s site to my attention)

This is a map of projected coal fired power plants that have been approved for construction. The map tells us a lot about the Kyoto Protocol, and more specifically, just how much clout does the UN really have.

Some parts of the world are increasing their coal fired electricity faster than others (Click to enlarge).

Source: Figures come from this World Resources Institute Report. (Nov 2012) Graphic? author unknown.

Kyoto was adopted in 1997, and so far, 195 Member Countries have signed up to it with that first signature. All but a couple of countries then added that all important second signature ratifying it, meaning that they were bound by what Kyoto asked for, a reduction of CO2 emissions to a level 5% lower than what they were in 1990. In 2007, Rudd added that second signature on behalf of Australia, leaving the U.S. as the only country not to ratify the Protocol. Some countries have said that they will not ratify any rehash of Kyoto, which expired at the end of last year. Only 24 countries are expected to ‘carry the weight’ and do a number of things in regard to the Protocol, and most importantly, their main task is to pay all the costs of those other 150+ Countries, considered by the UN to be still developing.

So then, now look at the map again. It shows 63 countries, all of them constructing NEW coal fired power plants, and every one of those countries signed up their original signature to Kyoto. So, they obviously took a lot of notice of what the intent of the Protocol was all about, lowering emissions.

Has the UN come down on them like a ton of bricks?

Is the UN enforcing sanctions on those Countries?

Have those Countries taken even the slightest notice at all of the UN’s call for the lowering of emissions?

Let’s now look at how much of an increase in CO2 emissions this map indicates.

77% of the total Nameplate Capacity of these new plants is just in China and India alone, and hey, I wonder how Rajendra Pachauri feels when he looks at this map.

See in the left bottom corner the total Nameplate Capacity comes in at 1,401,278MW.

This link shows the World’s current Nameplate Capacity total for traditional Thermal Power (scroll down and the number is at the bottom right, and this is for all coal fired power), and while this is for end of year 2010, you’ll notice it has been increasing by around 200,000MW a year, so a best guess total for now might be around 3,700,000MW, so the increase shown on this map comes in at an addition of almost 40% extra, on top of existing Capacity.

Note that some of these plants are only small(ish), so the calculation I have done here will be on the low side for emissions.

An average large scale new technology coal fired plant of around 2000MW will consume around 5 Million tons of coal each year, so for this total on the Map, that equates to 700 (equivalent) large scale plants. 700 plants consuming 5 million tons of coal gives us coal consumption of 3.5 Billion tons of coal. Using the average multiplier of 2.86 tons of CO2 for every ton of coal burned that gives us a tick over 10 Billion tons of CO2 Extra ….. EACH YEAR.

As I mentioned, this is on the low side, as smaller plants would burn more than larger ones with respect to MWH generated, and also keep in mind that not all plants will be those new generation coal fired plants.

It’s wonderful to see so many countries paying heed to the UN, and do I really need to say that this statement is sarcasm?

There is an obvious question some of you may ask, and that arises when you see that Map total for Australia. This includes the proposed upgrades for Mt. Piper and Bayswater, if they go ahead. Note I said Upgrades. In effect, upgrading these two large plants to new technology coal fired plants means that the existing plants will close. This effectively will actually lower CO2 emissions, and in the vicinity of 6 to 7 Million tons of CO2.

9.3 out of 10 based on 88 ratings