Share this page!

Glen Peters Profile picture
Twitter logo
10 May, 4 tweets, 2 min read
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...

energifaktanorge.no/en/energy-fact…

3/
For completeness, here is the net electricity consumption, including losses & statistical differences. (Just because I made the figure).

Electricity data from SSB: ssb.no/en/energi-og-i…

4/4

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Glen Peters

Glen Peters Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Peters_Glen

Glen Peters Profile picture
10 May
What explains the generally poor performance of solar in energy-system models (versus reality)?

Primary:
* Type of organisation
* Type of model

Secondary
* Cost
* Technology & policy assumptions

rdcu.be/ckjbh

1/
"IPCC scenarios consistently project lower PV adoption pathways & higher capital costs than non-IPCC scenarios"

Academics & researchers are behind the curve... (or are they just exploring the uncertainties?)

2/
If you think the track record on PV costs are bad, then you have missed the elephant in the room

Model, model setup, model assumptions, etc, are more important. This is such a misunderstood issue.

3/
Read 8 tweets
Glen Peters Profile picture
7 May
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!

3/
Read 4 tweets
Glen Peters Profile picture
7 May
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/
Read 5 tweets
Glen Peters Profile picture
6 May
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/ Image
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. Image
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). Image
Read 9 tweets
Glen Peters Profile picture
5 May
EU27+UK GHG emissions (including LULUCF) have declined 30% from 1990 to 2019.

By changes by sector were:
* Energy: -28%
* Industry: -30%
* Agriculture: -20%
* Waste: -44%
* LULUCF: +37% (stronger sink)

1/
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.

3/
Read 9 tweets
Glen Peters Profile picture
4 May
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.

1/
 bg.copernicus.org/articles/18/27…
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.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @Peters_Glen has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @Peters_Glen!

Read all threads by @Peters_Glen

:(