3 ms·

Global greenhouse gas emissions by sector

12 points by EOO_OWID 6y ago

techbio 6y ago
The only surprise here is that there have been no significant changes to these proportions in decades. Correction: changes will come after sufficient people are surprised by the consequences.
- AtlasBarfed 6y ago
  These proportions should change a lot in the coming decades, between wind/solar/storage and EV revolutions addressing about 2/3 of the "energy generation" part, at least. As for food, the major potential revolutions are vertical farming and "lab meat", and those are very far from large scale implementation.
  - techbio 6y ago
    That may be. I have no idea how many solar panels it takes to power the manufacture of a solar panel.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      Solar EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) is very good. As the grid gets cleaner, solar manufacturing gets cleaner as well (solar, wind, hydro pushing out coal and natural gas) https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/03/solar-power-can-pay-easily/ https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/03/solar-power-can-pay-eas...
MichaelZuo 6y ago
Wonderful pie graph. It’s interesting to see that although roads & transport are the largest single emitter, iron and steel production is actually within the same ballpark. I wonder if the figures are correct because that is truly an enormous amount of emissions from just iron and steel processing from ore, equivalent to ~2/3 of all road transport!
- AtlasBarfed 6y ago
  Can those power requirements be done via electrical power/green energy? As a LFTR fan I look for some role for nuclear in the mix of power generation, which just doesn't compete with the plummeting costs for solar/wind. I thought aluminum smelting was even worse than steel.
  - MichaelZuo 6y ago
    The actual electrical consumption component is probably small relative to the emissions from the actual processing, if the numbers are at all correct. Even aluminum smelters, which do use more electricity, don’t use that much. LFTRs are interesting though the proliferation risk probably makes it more of a political problem.
    - AtlasBarfed 6y ago
      I thought LFTR breeding only produced isotopes that couldn't be used for weapons, (U-232 breeding I think), has that changed?

12 points by EOO_OWID 6y ago

The only surprise here is that there have been no significant changes to these proportions in decades. Correction: changes will come after sufficient people are surprised by the consequences.

AtlasBarfed 6y ago
These proportions should change a lot in the coming decades, between wind/solar/storage and EV revolutions addressing about 2/3 of the "energy generation" part, at least. As for food, the major potential revolutions are vertical farming and "lab meat", and those are very far from large scale implementation.
- techbio 6y ago
  That may be. I have no idea how many solar panels it takes to power the manufacture of a solar panel.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Solar EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) is very good. As the grid gets cleaner, solar manufacturing gets cleaner as well (solar, wind, hydro pushing out coal and natural gas) https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/03/solar-power-can-pay-easily/ https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/03/solar-power-can-pay-eas...

MichaelZuo 6y ago

Wonderful pie graph. It’s interesting to see that although roads & transport are the largest single emitter, iron and steel production is actually within the same ballpark. I wonder if the figures are correct because that is truly an enormous amount of emissions from just iron and steel processing from ore, equivalent to ~2/3 of all road transport!

AtlasBarfed 6y ago
Can those power requirements be done via electrical power/green energy? As a LFTR fan I look for some role for nuclear in the mix of power generation, which just doesn't compete with the plummeting costs for solar/wind. I thought aluminum smelting was even worse than steel.
- MichaelZuo 6y ago
  The actual electrical consumption component is probably small relative to the emissions from the actual processing, if the numbers are at all correct. Even aluminum smelters, which do use more electricity, don’t use that much. LFTRs are interesting though the proliferation risk probably makes it more of a political problem.
  - AtlasBarfed 6y ago
    I thought LFTR breeding only produced isotopes that couldn't be used for weapons, (U-232 breeding I think), has that changed?