CO2 emission by countries

April 20th, 2009 | Posted in Energy Efficiency - news
Tags:

Did you know that the ”” per kWh of electricity produced varies greatly from one country to another?
CO2 emission

Here are some statistics (kg of CO2 per kWh) : …

Sweden                         0.08
France                          0.08
Austria                         0.20
Canada                          0.22
Finland                         0.24
Belgium                        0.29
Spain                             0.48
Japan                            0.48
Italy                               0.59
Germany                      0.60
USA                                0.61
Netherlands                0.64
Greece                           0.64
United Kingdom        0.64
Portugal                        0.64
Ireland                          0.70
Denmark                       0.84
Luxembourg               1.08
EU average:                 0.46
Source

Where the figure is low, electricity is mainly produced by hydro or nuclear power plants.
Countries with the highest figures rely mainly on coal.

Jacques Schonek

Related posts

Comment(s) to “CO2 emission by countries”

  1. Heinz R. says:

    How about the CO2 emmisions per KWh for China, India, Russia, Japan, and other Asian nations? How about Africa?
    Publishing these values only for western countries while ignoring the others is a transparent ploy to condemn some countries and to condone others. This type of political maneuvering has no place on a web site ostensibly dedicated to technical issues.

    • Jacques Schonek says:

      With these figures, there is no intention at all to condemn anybody. They were published because they were easily available, and figures for other countries were not available at the time of publishing.
      Could you help us to find figures for the countries you mentionned?

      By the way, other figures would be interesting, such as the CO2 emission per year and per capita, or the kWh consumed per year and per capita.

      Could be the subject of a future post on this blog…

  2. Heinz R. says:

    I apologize for my strong comments but it seems that every every turn somebody or other is using mined and/or downright fraudulent data carefully presented to try to place guilt for various things on Western countries in a blatant effort to effect an even greater transfer of wealth. And, frankly, I’ve had enough of it.
    I have no access to any of that data nor do I believe that those countries would be that open to making it oublic as long as they can point the finger at big bad America and put their hands in our pockets with our present government’s help.
    Sorry, but in the ultimate analysis ostensibly sincere science is perverted for personal financial gain at the expense of anyone willing to be a sucker and I am not going to support this thievery anymore. Mr. Obama has pledged $100 Million of our hard-earned money for a cause that not only has not been proven butalso has been shown to be populated by lying scientists out to make a name for themselves.
    And this is only the latest cause among many.
    I understand that this is not the proper place for such a rant/vent but it seemed to me that publishing the Co2 emission data in that fashion was just one more such political effort.

    • Tony says:

      Actually, I know Japan is low but I do not have the figures on hand.

      So, it is all a big, massive, worldwide conspiracy. The best minds in the world all got together and planned this out for some vague reasons but you do not have a spec of evidence to prove it!

      Anyway, please explain how certain gases no longer trap heat in the atmosphere when science has long proven that is what keeps are planet warm.

      Also, please explain how burning massive amounts of fossil fuels no longer releases gases into the atmosphere.

      Where is your evidence of this massive, worldwide conspiracy? If scientists want to make a name for themselves by creating it, why do not other want to make a name for themselves by exposing it?

      Even if you could prove some massive worldwide conspiracy and that CO2 etc. no longer trap heat in the atmosphere, wouldn’t it be logical to move away from fossil fuels regardless or do you enjoy enriching the Muslims and the likes of Chaves?

      Wouldn’t developing our own energy resources make a lot more sense than dropping trillions of dollars into a place like Iraq to remove some weak former ally?

  3. Heinz R. says:

    In none of my posts did I use the words “World-wide conspiracy,” and you choose to twist and misinterpret what I said.
    This discussion is over.

    • Tony says:

      The vast majority of the scientists support the view that human activity is changing the climate. So, it would have to be a worldwide conspiray if it is a conspiracy.

      When asked to backup your claims, you run off. So, my points stand:
      1. you are making claims of a worldwide conspiracy but have nothing to back it up
      2. we know certain gases trap heat in the atmosphere and that human activity is increasing those gases. Common sense tells us that should at least be cause for concern.
      3. there are very good economic and political reasons to move away from fossil fuels regardless
      4. Money spent on moving away from fossil fuels makes a trillion times more sense than dumping trillions of dollars into Iraq in a needless war of choice to take out a weak former ally.

  4. Ben Ching says:

    Please kindly let me realize CO2 emission per following counteries
    1) china
    2) India
    3) Russia
    4) Brazil

  5. Ian Dubin says:

    I have been looking at the emission intensity figures quoted above and cannot find where they are listed on the quoted source as per the link above.

    I tried to investigate the data on my own and wound up at the World Resources Institute Climate Analysis Indicator Tool at

    http://cait.wri.org/cait.php?page=intro

    This site lists emission figures for basically the entire planet.

    Figures I obtained there disagreed substantially in some cases from those quoted above. For example, WRI/CAIT lists Denmark at about 290 gm CO2 e/kwhr as opposed to the quoted 840 above.

    France comes in at about 80 on both scales.

    This is important in view of the quoted comparisons of carbon emission intensity for power production in wind dependent Denmark versus nuclear France.

    Look forward to clarification

  6. Danny says:

    I have read somewhere that the global emissions of CO2 had gone up by ninety nine percent. That’s like an average of two percent every year starting 1971. It is said that it will increase by an additional forty five percent by the time we reach 2030. That 1.6 percent every year…

  7. It’s an remarkable post designed for all the internet users; they will take advantage from it I am sure.

Leave a comment



Spam protection: Sum of 1 + 9 ?

Electrical engineering Community is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS) and license Creative Commons License