Volcanoes: Not entirely bad for CO2 emissions, then?

What will all those cancelled flights mean for CO2? JBC Energy has some thoughts. Firstly, on flights (our emphasis):

We estimate that at peak times, 1.3 million b/d of global jet fuel demand was lost in recent days (see chart). Most of the lost flights – 85% based on rough assessments – will not be delayed but simply cancelled. Assuming that the situation is now resolved quickly, some 18,000 b/d of annual demand growth would be permanently lost, bringing this year’s global growth figures from 1.5% to 1.2%. However, part of this demand would simply be shifted to other transportation modes, with many adventurous stories cruising around how Europeans managed to get home on the weekend in 24h+ odysseys, making use of ferries, trains, buses, rented cars and taxis.

But will this substitution wipe out any CO2 savings? Perhaps not:

However, as the first three listed modes are roughly 3 times less fuel-consuming than planes, and in most cases only the load factor has increased, the lost consumption will not be fully recovered. (So excluding  Eyjafjallajokull, there is a positive impact on the CO2 balance:-))

Whether that makes the volcano a net reducer of CO2 emissions is another question.

Related links:

Volcanic ash could create yet more refining gloom - FT Energy Source

Energy Source is no longer updated but it remains open as an archive.

Insight into the financial, economic and policy aspects of energy and the environment.

Read our farewell note

About the blog

Archive

« Mar May »April 2010
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930