The world can save 20% of total GHG emissions without waiting for new technology
If the whole world produced its electricity like France does, it would achieve a -20% in total GHG emissions. This shows that although carbon intensity of electricity production is only one part of the problem, the obstacle here is not the technology
The end of 2022 in France goes with numerous headlines about the energy crisis and the unwelcomed exceptionally high unavailability of French nuclear power plants. These alarming headlines, in addition to being quite anxiety-generating, tend to give the impression that the power sector in France is broken and that nuclear power is useless.
In reality, however, it is quite the opposite. France can actually be proud of its power sector which has one of the lowest carbon intensity (in gCO2eq per kWh of electricity) in Europe and in the world. If every country achieved what France achieves, we actually would have a much smaller problem to deal with.
But there’s a catch: decarbonising electricity is only one part of the solution to mitigate climate change. What part exactly? In this article, I will try to illustrate it with numbers and orders of magnitude. The approach may sound naive, but it has the benefit of giving a more than acceptable intuition on the situation.
Interpreting numbers correctly and knowing rough orders of magnitudes is key to understanding our world. This has never been so true in the context of climate change and energy transition.
Emissions from electricity generation would be reduced 7 times if everyone produced electricity like France
Greenhouse gas emissions in the world come primarily from energy consumption, be it for transportation, heating or the generation of electricity on the grid. The world’s total primary energy use is roughly 160’000 TWh per year. A huge number!
Electricity production accounts for about 17,5% of the total primary energy used, i.e. 28’000 TWh per year. The rest is used directly in transportation, industrial processes and heating.
Average carbon intensity of electricity generation in the world was around 425g of CO2 equivalent per kWh produced in 2021. That is 425 ktCO2eq/TWh. This sums up to about 12 Gt of CO2eq emitted just to produce electricity.
This is in fact 24% of all anthropic greenhouse gas emissions, which total to around 50 Gt per year. Hence, the carbon intensity of electric power, although a very important topic, is really only a part of the GHG problem. In other words, even with unlimited clean power, such as what is dreamt about with nuclear fusion, we would still have a big problem to deal with.
In contrast to the wapping 425g per kWh world average, the power sector in France emitted only 58 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour (gCO2eq/KWh) of electricity generated in 2021. This is due to its electricity mix made mostly of low-carbon sources (nuclear, hydro, solar and wind).
What would happen if the whole world produced its electricity with the same intensity as France does? At 60g/kWh multiplied by the 28’000 TWh of annual production, it would mean 1.7Gt of CO2eq per year instead of 12 Gt. Hence a 7x reduction, or about -10 Gt/year.
But as said above, electricity generation only accounts for about 24% of global GHG emissions. In 2019, humans produced roughly 50 Gt of CO2eq. The -10 Gt reduction obtained by reducing intensity to 60g/kWh would mean a saving of about -20% of total emissions.
Decarbonising electricity is expected to be the most important contribution to climate mitigation by 2030, but it is only a part of what is to be done by 2050
Decarbonising electricity is only one step towards a low-carbon energy system. But it is the most urgent one, and one of the most accessible contributions. In fact, the technology for low-carbon production of electricity already exists at an economically viable cost: renewables (10–30g of CO2eq per kWh) and nuclear power (5g of CO2eq per kWh) with both cheaper levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) than gas or coal (in europe at least; source).
The challenges we face have more to do with the installation rate of low-carbon power sources and adaptation of the grid to the new electric mix. World-wide, 36% of electricity is still produced with coal. That is about 1000 nuclear reactors.
Choosing not to install nuclear power becomes a risky challenge, not only because it means installing enormous amounts of solar panels, wind turbines and hydro-electric power plants — but also because renewables need big storage capacities (for which we don’t always have the technology or the ressources) and adaptation of the whole grid. Indeed, the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. Hence, gradually replacing coal power plants with nuclear to ensure base-load production looks like the obvious choice, although the idea is not unanimously supported.
Decarbonising electricity is one of the most important actions towards climate change mitigation in the short term. Current net-zero pathways (link) highlight that emissions from electricity generation need to reach a near zero contribution by around 2040. It is a particularly important milestone for two main reasons:
- Because electricity generation accounts for a quarter of global GHG emissions. Decarbonising it is a great contribution to climate change mitigation and does not require massive behavioural or systemic change
- Because electrifying most transportation (e.g. electric cars) and industrial processes is one of the next best tools for mitigation. But this can only be effective if the electricity used in place of fossil fuels is actually low-carbon. Using coal-made electricity in an electric car makes very little sense.
Electricity generation will need to reach net zero emissions globally in 2040 and be well on its way to supplying almost half of total energy consumption. International Energy Agency (IEA), Net Zero by 2050, may 2021
In contrast, for some sectors such as aviation or cement production, viable and mature technological solutions are not yet anywhere to be seen. In those sectors, both technological progress, modification of behaviours and important efficiency efforts will be needed. Sometimes at a hefty premium.
If France can make it, anyone can make it
Well it is a bit more complicated than that… But my point is to say that achieving 60g/kWh is not completely out of reach, since France achieved it without any black magic. It is less a technological challenge than a political choice.
In fact, many regions of the world already achieve low carbon intensity, sometimes even lower than France. Norway and Quebec for instance, which have good access to hydro-electric power, reach intensities lower than 30g/kWh.
Not every region has such easy access to hydro power, but France is a good example to show that carbon intensity of electricity is mostly a question of long-term political choices. The country doesn’t have the advantages of Norway or Quebec but manages to have a carbon intensity 6 times lower than EU average.
Germany’s energy policies, on the contrary, are a disaster. The early closing of their nuclear power plants due to populist politics means they are currently above 350g/kWh on average (6x more than France) and still rely on dirty coal power plants.
The challenge to achieve low-carbon electricity is less in the technological development than in the capability to install new capacity, adapt the power system and to balance the electric mix (i.e. have enough base load production compared to intermittent power sources such as wind and solar, as well as have enough storage capacity for grid management). It all comes down to policy-making.
Why order-of-magnitude-thinking matters amidst the anxiety-generating ecological crisis
The ecological crisis we are facing is just as well an “eco-logical” crisis. That is a crisis in the head of the public. Why? Because we are flooded with both alarmist and techno-optimist information that not only sometimes lacks accuracy, but in particular lacks context. And that is a serious issue because it hinders individual and political action.
Without a sense of the orders of magnitude, most individuals are just lost; thus, unable to take action. Are heavy emails worse than taking a plane to go on holiday? Should I buy a 2.5 ton electric SUV to save the planet? Are PV as bad as oil and gas, because they come from China?
We’re all subjected to hundreds of seemingly conflicting and anxiety-generating pieces of information. Without context and without a larger understanding of the problem, this information leads to following behaviours:
- Extreme pessimism (darkening the picture) leading to panic, anger, aggressivity and bad decision-making
- “We’re all doomed anyway”-reactions; leading to non-action and disengagement; or to a strong shift of focus from mitigation of to adaptation to climate change
- Denial, techno-optimism, etc. which are ways for the mind to relieve the anxiety; also leading to non-action and bad decision-making
Hence, knowing about the fundamental principles and orders of magnitude gives a much better sense of control, even if the system is complex. With a sense of control, cold-headed problem solving replaces blind beliefs, anxiety and aggressive arguing.
Because the topic of energy transition is mostly a matter of policy-making, it is key, in our democracies, that everyone understands correctly the challenges, implications and alternative pathways — rather than getting stuck with beliefs and ideologies.
