Appendix 9 Comparison of NAEICO 2 emissions for 2000, 2001 and 2002
Year | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 |
|---|
Sub-total | Total | Sub-total | Total | Sub-total | Total |
|---|
Energy industries | 23,772 | | 22,926 | | 22,198 | |
|---|
Manufacturing & construction | 6,843 | | 7,096 | | 5,631 | |
|---|
Transport | 10,274 | | 10,111 | | 10,292 | |
|---|
Other sectors | 9,919 | | 10,404 | | 9,492 | |
|---|
Energy CO 2 | | 50,808 | | 50,537 | | 47,613 |
|---|
Oil & gas processing | 798 | | 1,180 | | 1,061 | |
|---|
Fuel processing | | 798 | | 1180 | | 1,061 |
|---|
Mineral processing | 346 | | 446 | | 454 | |
|---|
Metals | 67 | | 62 | | 62 | |
|---|
Industry processes | | 413 | | 508 | | 516 |
|---|
Forest/grassland conversion | 50.2 | | 51.2 | | 40.4 | |
|---|
Soil disturbances | 5,009 | | 4,998 | | 4,977 | |
|---|
Others | 75 | | 73 | | 24 | |
|---|
Land use change (+ve) | | 5,134 | | 5,122 | | 5,041 |
|---|
Waste (incineration) | | 65 | | 60 | | 53 |
|---|
Total emissions | | 57,218 | | 57,407 | | 54,284 |
|---|
Changes in forest/wood stock | -9,610 | | -9,643 | | -9,758 | |
|---|
Other | -136 | | -136 | | -136 | |
|---|
LUCF (-ve) | | -9,746 | | -9,779 | | -9,894 |
|---|
Total including -ve LUCF | | 47,472 | | 47,628 | | 44,390 |
|---|
An attempt was made to account for the reason that the total was lower for 2002:
Overall the NAEI reports a fall in CO 2 of just over 3 MT from 200 to 2002, almost all of this is from changes in energy use:
- According to the NAEI report, overall emissions from electricity generators fell from 23.8 Mt CO 2 in 2000 to 22.2 Mt in 2002. This would account for 1.6 Mt of the emissions, which represents the majority of the difference.
Part of the difference is due to an increase in exports. In 2001, 8.7 TWh of electricity were exported whereas in 2002 only 8.0 TWh were exported 82. In addition, there were changes to the primary fuel mix 83. - There is not believed to have been any large 'swing' change to industry, services or other demand sectors. The last major change was in the early 1990s with the closure of Ravenscraig Steel. According to the NAEI figures 84, between 2000 and 2002, direct CO 2 emissions from industry fell from 6.8 to 5.6 Mt CO 2, i.e. a fall of 1.2 Mt.
This is a significant fall, in part due to the impact of higher fuel prices and in part due to the Negotiated CCA encouraging energy efficiency. Other influences are likely to include changes to the make-up of industrial sectors - away from energy-intensive operations - plus some change in fuel mix. - There are small fluctuations in transport-related energy- CO 2, from 10.27 Mt in 2000 to 10.11 in 2001 and then 10.29 Mt in 2002.
- Finally, the difference between LUCF emissions would account for an additional 0.1 MtCO 2.
Part of this recorded reduction in CO 2 emissions from NAEI will be real and part is likely to be due to the methodology used for reporting:
- Changes to the electricity generating fuel mix and overall efficiency brought about by increased use of renewable energy and CCGT plant at Peterhead are real reductions in CO 2 emissions.
- Any 'exaggerations' in the NAEI Report, due to changes in electricity exports to England (and NI), would not be real increases/decreases and should be discounted.
- The modest improvements to direct energy consumption by industry and services are real and can in part be explained by increased attention to energy efficiency in recent years.
- Finally, questions regarding LUCF data need addressing at a fundamental level:
(a) Should these (and other GHGs) be considered within the Scottish Energy Study?
(b) If so, the impact from forests acting as 'carbon sinks' needs to be considered as part of the overall life-cycle analysis ( LCA) rather than in isolation.