Norwegian electricity production is dominated by hydropower, & overall Norway is a net exporter of electricity (though, this varies throughout the year).
Hydropower production varies due to weather (green), but consumption is relatively constant (black line).
1/
Total energy consumption is dominated by hydropower (figure shows generation, not consumption).
Nearly all the oil is used in transport, and nearly all the gas is used in oil & gas extraction.
Norway is already quite electrified...
2/
The energy flow is dominated by electricity (hydropower, split between dispatchable & non-dispatchable).
As time passes, this figure will become even more dominated by electricity. Current policy is to electrify transport & oil & gas production...
There is a lot of confusion about net-zero GHG & CO₂ emissions, they are different.
The EU & US have a target of net-zero GHG emissions in 2050, which is ~20 years ahead of the global average (coincidentally, global net-zero CO₂ emissions is ~2050).
1/
For developing countries to have a later net-zero GHG year, say 2090 (~20 years after the global average), it requires that developed countries are net negative to compensate developing countries & maintain net-zero GHG globally. (a point often made by @Oliver_Geden).
2/
I think we all agree & accept developing countries will find their own path to net-zero, & one that is later than developed countries.
But, I also think many confuse the net-zero years for CO₂ & GHG emissions.
Many obsess on 2050, when there is actually a broad range!
A 🧵 on carbon budget uncertainties (for walkers)...
It is 2km to the lake, which means it could be 1.5km or 2.5km given rounding.
If I have walked 1km, then it is 0.5km to 1.5km to go. That is a huge uncertainty!
1/
Carbon budgets are often presented for 66% chance (of avoiding the target), which in this analogy, would say after 1km that if I walk 0.5km further there is a 66% chance I have not reached the lake.
Or after 1.5km, there is a 33% change I have still not reached the lake!
2/
There are a few issues here. There will be a non-zero probability I have reached the lake after only 1km, which means the measurements were wrong.
Carbon budget uncertainties for 1.5°C also include negative carbon budgets, meaning it may already be too late to avoid 1.5°C!
3/
Keeping below 1.5°C requires rapid emission reductions at the global level.
What do scenarios imply for key regions?
In this thread, I show the fossil CO₂ emissions in key regions. These scenarios do not include equity considerations, these are cost-efficient pathways.
1/
2. In the OECD, fossil CO₂ emissions are are already in a decline.
On average, from 2020, a 44% reduction by 2030 & 95% by 2050. This requires accelerating climate action beyond current levels.
3. Asia is a big challenge. Emissions are growing strongly now, but has to drop by 47% from 2020 to 2030 & by 88% to 2050.
This requires a dramatic reversal of current trends. In many respects, this makes the challenge harder in Asia (developing) compared to OECD (developed).
The energy sector is the largest in terms of GHG emissions.
The changes from 1990 to 2019 were:
* Energy industries: -41%
* Manufacturing: -41%
* Transport: +20%
* Other (buildings, etc): -27%
* Fugitive: solid -73%, oil/gas -46%
Transport is a problem...
2/
Considering only CO₂ emissions, emissions are nearly totally dominated by energy (see previous tweet for details), with some emissions from industrial processes (cement, etc) and LULUCF as a sink.
Mitigation will cause the ocean sink to have reduced efficiency because of:
* reductions in carbonate buffer capacity in scenarios with intermediate or no mitigation
* reduced transport of anthropogenic carbon from surface to depth in 1.5°C scenarios.
2. Atmospheric CO₂ has grown exponentially over the industrial era. Under an exponential forcing regime, ocean anthropogenic carbon uptake also grows exponentially.
3. Since these conditions have held over the historical era, the ocean sink has historically maintained a high efficiency.
In future scenarios, regardless of the degree to which emissions are mitigated by 2080, efficiency of ocean anthropogenic carbon uptake will decline.