esavakkilainen
@esavakkilainen.bsky.social
Judoka, professor, interested on energy
There is about 50 countries that have reduced fossil emissions since 2005. There is also about 50 countries that have increased fossil emissions more than 3 % per year.
Actually without the top increasers (>100 MtCO2e, below) we would already be on our way down.
. /2
Actually without the top increasers (>100 MtCO2e, below) we would already be on our way down.
. /2
November 29, 2025 at 6:40 AM
There is about 50 countries that have reduced fossil emissions since 2005. There is also about 50 countries that have increased fossil emissions more than 3 % per year.
Actually without the top increasers (>100 MtCO2e, below) we would already be on our way down.
. /2
Actually without the top increasers (>100 MtCO2e, below) we would already be on our way down.
. /2
Actually Danmark has reduced emissions quite a lot.
EU Edgar tells that almost -3% per year.
EU27 is much less -1.9%/a.
As always there are doers and trailers. We are achieving slowdown of emissions increase because of doers. Because of trailers this is not enough. /1
EU Edgar tells that almost -3% per year.
EU27 is much less -1.9%/a.
As always there are doers and trailers. We are achieving slowdown of emissions increase because of doers. Because of trailers this is not enough. /1
November 29, 2025 at 6:34 AM
Actually Danmark has reduced emissions quite a lot.
EU Edgar tells that almost -3% per year.
EU27 is much less -1.9%/a.
As always there are doers and trailers. We are achieving slowdown of emissions increase because of doers. Because of trailers this is not enough. /1
EU Edgar tells that almost -3% per year.
EU27 is much less -1.9%/a.
As always there are doers and trailers. We are achieving slowdown of emissions increase because of doers. Because of trailers this is not enough. /1
It is fall, it is dark and the wind does not blow (Dunkelflaute)
Finland with its >9000 MW of wind, >1500 MW of solar, >4300 MW nuclear and >3000 MW hydro is struggling to meet ~12 G of demand as are many other EU MS.
Note fossils now gone. Because of long time can not be met with batteries.
Finland with its >9000 MW of wind, >1500 MW of solar, >4300 MW nuclear and >3000 MW hydro is struggling to meet ~12 G of demand as are many other EU MS.
Note fossils now gone. Because of long time can not be met with batteries.
November 19, 2025 at 7:28 AM
It is fall, it is dark and the wind does not blow (Dunkelflaute)
Finland with its >9000 MW of wind, >1500 MW of solar, >4300 MW nuclear and >3000 MW hydro is struggling to meet ~12 G of demand as are many other EU MS.
Note fossils now gone. Because of long time can not be met with batteries.
Finland with its >9000 MW of wind, >1500 MW of solar, >4300 MW nuclear and >3000 MW hydro is struggling to meet ~12 G of demand as are many other EU MS.
Note fossils now gone. Because of long time can not be met with batteries.
Below is the change from 2005 to 2022 based on EDGAR
In EU+ best have reduced Total GHG emissions (No LULUCF) by 2-3% per year. The average about 1.5 % reduction by year.
In EU+ best have reduced Total GHG emissions (No LULUCF) by 2-3% per year. The average about 1.5 % reduction by year.
November 15, 2025 at 10:15 AM
Below is the change from 2005 to 2022 based on EDGAR
In EU+ best have reduced Total GHG emissions (No LULUCF) by 2-3% per year. The average about 1.5 % reduction by year.
In EU+ best have reduced Total GHG emissions (No LULUCF) by 2-3% per year. The average about 1.5 % reduction by year.
But other oil producing countries deserve less.. or more... ??
And India as one of the biggest coal producing countries .. does it deserve flak? Even a little bit as it aims to produce much more?
And India as one of the biggest coal producing countries .. does it deserve flak? Even a little bit as it aims to produce much more?
November 3, 2025 at 5:07 PM
But other oil producing countries deserve less.. or more... ??
And India as one of the biggest coal producing countries .. does it deserve flak? Even a little bit as it aims to produce much more?
And India as one of the biggest coal producing countries .. does it deserve flak? Even a little bit as it aims to produce much more?
There has been several recent updates on the soil. Each has changed the organic soils to be even worse.
2023 the organic soils in forestland including residue was ~+14 MtCO2e/a which was enough to change all forestland to source. /1
www.luke.fi/en/news/prel...
2023 the organic soils in forestland including residue was ~+14 MtCO2e/a which was enough to change all forestland to source. /1
www.luke.fi/en/news/prel...
October 29, 2025 at 8:55 AM
There has been several recent updates on the soil. Each has changed the organic soils to be even worse.
2023 the organic soils in forestland including residue was ~+14 MtCO2e/a which was enough to change all forestland to source. /1
www.luke.fi/en/news/prel...
2023 the organic soils in forestland including residue was ~+14 MtCO2e/a which was enough to change all forestland to source. /1
www.luke.fi/en/news/prel...
An visual representation of problem is the state of North Karelia. The graph estimates that to get maimum economic benefits one should do the final cut at about 60+ years.
But a large batch of forets is at 30-40 years. When that comes to age hat to do? Cut? Problem for LULUCF as excess cutting! /5
But a large batch of forets is at 30-40 years. When that comes to age hat to do? Cut? Problem for LULUCF as excess cutting! /5
October 29, 2025 at 8:28 AM
An visual representation of problem is the state of North Karelia. The graph estimates that to get maimum economic benefits one should do the final cut at about 60+ years.
But a large batch of forets is at 30-40 years. When that comes to age hat to do? Cut? Problem for LULUCF as excess cutting! /5
But a large batch of forets is at 30-40 years. When that comes to age hat to do? Cut? Problem for LULUCF as excess cutting! /5
Forest LULUCF problem is that
- the "wanted" level is historic net growth + extra to compensate for increased ground source i.e. 1990 LULUCF
- the ground source is now ~12 MtCO2e higher than in 1990
even if we cut only avout 70 % of the growth we can only come close to previous net growth
- the "wanted" level is historic net growth + extra to compensate for increased ground source i.e. 1990 LULUCF
- the ground source is now ~12 MtCO2e higher than in 1990
even if we cut only avout 70 % of the growth we can only come close to previous net growth
October 29, 2025 at 4:57 AM
Forest LULUCF problem is that
- the "wanted" level is historic net growth + extra to compensate for increased ground source i.e. 1990 LULUCF
- the ground source is now ~12 MtCO2e higher than in 1990
even if we cut only avout 70 % of the growth we can only come close to previous net growth
- the "wanted" level is historic net growth + extra to compensate for increased ground source i.e. 1990 LULUCF
- the ground source is now ~12 MtCO2e higher than in 1990
even if we cut only avout 70 % of the growth we can only come close to previous net growth
The effect of forest age to growth is well known.
Horizontal axes forest age, vertical growth.
Black line growth eaxh year
Orange line average growth up to the year
So if we clear cut at e.g. 67 years then we have utilized the maximum growth.
Also in EU more m3 but no more area = older forests. /4
Horizontal axes forest age, vertical growth.
Black line growth eaxh year
Orange line average growth up to the year
So if we clear cut at e.g. 67 years then we have utilized the maximum growth.
Also in EU more m3 but no more area = older forests. /4
October 28, 2025 at 5:50 PM
The effect of forest age to growth is well known.
Horizontal axes forest age, vertical growth.
Black line growth eaxh year
Orange line average growth up to the year
So if we clear cut at e.g. 67 years then we have utilized the maximum growth.
Also in EU more m3 but no more area = older forests. /4
Horizontal axes forest age, vertical growth.
Black line growth eaxh year
Orange line average growth up to the year
So if we clear cut at e.g. 67 years then we have utilized the maximum growth.
Also in EU more m3 but no more area = older forests. /4
The LUKE statistics of forest LULUCF show that we still increase the aboveground biomass, but belowground biomass is now a source (previously sink) /2
luonnonvaratieto.luke.fi/numerotieto/...
luonnonvaratieto.luke.fi/numerotieto/...
October 28, 2025 at 5:26 PM
The LUKE statistics of forest LULUCF show that we still increase the aboveground biomass, but belowground biomass is now a source (previously sink) /2
luonnonvaratieto.luke.fi/numerotieto/...
luonnonvaratieto.luke.fi/numerotieto/...
Yes, logging as m3 increased, but maybe somewhat agaist insight the average age of trees is growing.
Forest area constant & more m3 of growing roudwood every year -> older average tree. But growth is not more growing :(. /1
Forest area constant & more m3 of growing roudwood every year -> older average tree. But growth is not more growing :(. /1
October 28, 2025 at 5:19 PM
Yes, logging as m3 increased, but maybe somewhat agaist insight the average age of trees is growing.
Forest area constant & more m3 of growing roudwood every year -> older average tree. But growth is not more growing :(. /1
Forest area constant & more m3 of growing roudwood every year -> older average tree. But growth is not more growing :(. /1
You also support the abatement cost distribution that states
countries with high forest area need to do more than countries with low forest area (do not take population or GDP into consideration).
So If a country was stupid enough to not cut all forests by 2000 then it must pay though the nose?
countries with high forest area need to do more than countries with low forest area (do not take population or GDP into consideration).
So If a country was stupid enough to not cut all forests by 2000 then it must pay though the nose?
October 19, 2025 at 6:16 PM
You also support the abatement cost distribution that states
countries with high forest area need to do more than countries with low forest area (do not take population or GDP into consideration).
So If a country was stupid enough to not cut all forests by 2000 then it must pay though the nose?
countries with high forest area need to do more than countries with low forest area (do not take population or GDP into consideration).
So If a country was stupid enough to not cut all forests by 2000 then it must pay though the nose?
Land use is land use. One can not state that agriculture can be a carbon source but other land uses must be carbon sinks?
Or you can, but what could be the rational base of such argument?
There is a big sector that is currently responsible of about
-250 MtCO2e sink. Guess which (Hint it is green)
Or you can, but what could be the rational base of such argument?
There is a big sector that is currently responsible of about
-250 MtCO2e sink. Guess which (Hint it is green)
October 19, 2025 at 6:01 PM
Land use is land use. One can not state that agriculture can be a carbon source but other land uses must be carbon sinks?
Or you can, but what could be the rational base of such argument?
There is a big sector that is currently responsible of about
-250 MtCO2e sink. Guess which (Hint it is green)
Or you can, but what could be the rational base of such argument?
There is a big sector that is currently responsible of about
-250 MtCO2e sink. Guess which (Hint it is green)
First, there are very little old growth forests in the EU
see www.nature.com/articles/s41...
AFAIK cutting trees from old growth forests does not happen except rarely. (No data from Sweden!)
Very little plantation forsts exist in northern EU but a lot in e.g. Portugal.
see www.nature.com/articles/s41...
AFAIK cutting trees from old growth forests does not happen except rarely. (No data from Sweden!)
Very little plantation forsts exist in northern EU but a lot in e.g. Portugal.
October 19, 2025 at 5:51 PM
First, there are very little old growth forests in the EU
see www.nature.com/articles/s41...
AFAIK cutting trees from old growth forests does not happen except rarely. (No data from Sweden!)
Very little plantation forsts exist in northern EU but a lot in e.g. Portugal.
see www.nature.com/articles/s41...
AFAIK cutting trees from old growth forests does not happen except rarely. (No data from Sweden!)
Very little plantation forsts exist in northern EU but a lot in e.g. Portugal.
1. US has now an improved database to estimate forest removal. Yes many countries in EU have that.
2. US cuts forests, yes US uses cardboard boxes builds houses from timber etc. US also harvests corn, oranges etc. #difference?
3. US does not cut 100% of the growth but less, huge LULUCF sink
2. US cuts forests, yes US uses cardboard boxes builds houses from timber etc. US also harvests corn, oranges etc. #difference?
3. US does not cut 100% of the growth but less, huge LULUCF sink
October 19, 2025 at 7:13 AM
1. US has now an improved database to estimate forest removal. Yes many countries in EU have that.
2. US cuts forests, yes US uses cardboard boxes builds houses from timber etc. US also harvests corn, oranges etc. #difference?
3. US does not cut 100% of the growth but less, huge LULUCF sink
2. US cuts forests, yes US uses cardboard boxes builds houses from timber etc. US also harvests corn, oranges etc. #difference?
3. US does not cut 100% of the growth but less, huge LULUCF sink
Unfortunately similar to Scandinavia Germany has experienced a dramatic ~80 MtCO2 decrease in LULUCF since 2010.
We do not know what changed in 2010?
In German LULUCF increased protection (if any), planting (if more) change in harvest have been accounted for.
Germany only evaluates every 5-7 yr.
We do not know what changed in 2010?
In German LULUCF increased protection (if any), planting (if more) change in harvest have been accounted for.
Germany only evaluates every 5-7 yr.
October 17, 2025 at 10:50 AM
Unfortunately similar to Scandinavia Germany has experienced a dramatic ~80 MtCO2 decrease in LULUCF since 2010.
We do not know what changed in 2010?
In German LULUCF increased protection (if any), planting (if more) change in harvest have been accounted for.
Germany only evaluates every 5-7 yr.
We do not know what changed in 2010?
In German LULUCF increased protection (if any), planting (if more) change in harvest have been accounted for.
Germany only evaluates every 5-7 yr.
First and foremost we do not plow the soil! That assumption is more than 20 years old. Mostly, we either accept the natural regeneration or plant saplings.
The carbon storage in a forest that is clear cut every 70-90 years works like in attached figure (source Finnish Climate Council)
The carbon storage in a forest that is clear cut every 70-90 years works like in attached figure (source Finnish Climate Council)
October 17, 2025 at 10:35 AM
First and foremost we do not plow the soil! That assumption is more than 20 years old. Mostly, we either accept the natural regeneration or plant saplings.
The carbon storage in a forest that is clear cut every 70-90 years works like in attached figure (source Finnish Climate Council)
The carbon storage in a forest that is clear cut every 70-90 years works like in attached figure (source Finnish Climate Council)
Esimerkiksi kuva 1
Esitetään (kuten EU) kua jossa Suomi on pahnan pohjimmainen.
Kuvassa on kaikki suojelualueet joita on määritelmällisesti erilaisia, esim. IUCN luokittain. Mutta onko kaikki luokat yhtä tärkeitä?
EU sanoo ja YM sivuilta löytyy että 10 % pitäisi olla tiukasti suojeltua. /2
Esitetään (kuten EU) kua jossa Suomi on pahnan pohjimmainen.
Kuvassa on kaikki suojelualueet joita on määritelmällisesti erilaisia, esim. IUCN luokittain. Mutta onko kaikki luokat yhtä tärkeitä?
EU sanoo ja YM sivuilta löytyy että 10 % pitäisi olla tiukasti suojeltua. /2
October 15, 2025 at 9:01 AM
Esimerkiksi kuva 1
Esitetään (kuten EU) kua jossa Suomi on pahnan pohjimmainen.
Kuvassa on kaikki suojelualueet joita on määritelmällisesti erilaisia, esim. IUCN luokittain. Mutta onko kaikki luokat yhtä tärkeitä?
EU sanoo ja YM sivuilta löytyy että 10 % pitäisi olla tiukasti suojeltua. /2
Esitetään (kuten EU) kua jossa Suomi on pahnan pohjimmainen.
Kuvassa on kaikki suojelualueet joita on määritelmällisesti erilaisia, esim. IUCN luokittain. Mutta onko kaikki luokat yhtä tärkeitä?
EU sanoo ja YM sivuilta löytyy että 10 % pitäisi olla tiukasti suojeltua. /2
A country's own assesment often stated its' obligation far below what other countries think. As a reference for 1.5 oC China should reduce -70 % of CO2 emissions by 2035 whereas the real target is ~10%?
What is fair and correct I do not know. /8
What is fair and correct I do not know. /8
October 14, 2025 at 5:33 AM
A country's own assesment often stated its' obligation far below what other countries think. As a reference for 1.5 oC China should reduce -70 % of CO2 emissions by 2035 whereas the real target is ~10%?
What is fair and correct I do not know. /8
What is fair and correct I do not know. /8
But we can show graphs like below of who has contributed to temperature increase.
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
This is something the science can tell you.
What the sciene can not tell you is what is the fair share of action that a country should do. Based on population?, GDP? history? /7
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
This is something the science can tell you.
What the sciene can not tell you is what is the fair share of action that a country should do. Based on population?, GDP? history? /7
October 14, 2025 at 5:30 AM
But we can show graphs like below of who has contributed to temperature increase.
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
This is something the science can tell you.
What the sciene can not tell you is what is the fair share of action that a country should do. Based on population?, GDP? history? /7
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
This is something the science can tell you.
What the sciene can not tell you is what is the fair share of action that a country should do. Based on population?, GDP? history? /7
Lazard tells us that all forms of new electricity production in USA face higher LCOE (price as $/MWh) since 2021.
Especially high increase is seen in gasturbine plants for peaking service due to increased solar and wind capacity causing price swings. (Also battery capacity ramps up).
Especially high increase is seen in gasturbine plants for peaking service due to increased solar and wind capacity causing price swings. (Also battery capacity ramps up).
October 12, 2025 at 7:19 AM
Lazard tells us that all forms of new electricity production in USA face higher LCOE (price as $/MWh) since 2021.
Especially high increase is seen in gasturbine plants for peaking service due to increased solar and wind capacity causing price swings. (Also battery capacity ramps up).
Especially high increase is seen in gasturbine plants for peaking service due to increased solar and wind capacity causing price swings. (Also battery capacity ramps up).
Sorry for posting pictures in Finnish
Local @yle.naamio.social tells that wheel suspension especially in Tesla Model 3 is too weak. So about 16 % of electric cars fail to be deemed roadworthy after 4 years of use. For gasoline cars this is 5 %
Local @yle.naamio.social tells that wheel suspension especially in Tesla Model 3 is too weak. So about 16 % of electric cars fail to be deemed roadworthy after 4 years of use. For gasoline cars this is 5 %
October 4, 2025 at 7:22 AM
Sorry for posting pictures in Finnish
Local @yle.naamio.social tells that wheel suspension especially in Tesla Model 3 is too weak. So about 16 % of electric cars fail to be deemed roadworthy after 4 years of use. For gasoline cars this is 5 %
Local @yle.naamio.social tells that wheel suspension especially in Tesla Model 3 is too weak. So about 16 % of electric cars fail to be deemed roadworthy after 4 years of use. For gasoline cars this is 5 %
Politically the miracle recoveries of Italy and France are also underreported. Just in single year tens of millions of more LULUCF has been found in both countries. France and Italy both about -40 MtCO2e/a more. Monetary value of 4000 M/a for both?
September 22, 2025 at 12:21 PM
Politically the miracle recoveries of Italy and France are also underreported. Just in single year tens of millions of more LULUCF has been found in both countries. France and Italy both about -40 MtCO2e/a more. Monetary value of 4000 M/a for both?
I really liked the Nature Ecology and Evolution article where scientists actually calculated based on trade flows who is causing forest loss.
Carbonbrief did a piece
www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-c...
Carbonbrief did a piece
www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-c...
September 22, 2025 at 11:50 AM
I really liked the Nature Ecology and Evolution article where scientists actually calculated based on trade flows who is causing forest loss.
Carbonbrief did a piece
www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-c...
Carbonbrief did a piece
www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-c...
Politically the total collapse of German LULUCF has recieved little attention.
Magnitude is ~80 MtCO2. That is about a third of the total EU net LULUCF sink.
Uniquely the Germans do assesment only about every five years (which shows).
Magnitude is ~80 MtCO2. That is about a third of the total EU net LULUCF sink.
Uniquely the Germans do assesment only about every five years (which shows).
September 22, 2025 at 11:30 AM
Politically the total collapse of German LULUCF has recieved little attention.
Magnitude is ~80 MtCO2. That is about a third of the total EU net LULUCF sink.
Uniquely the Germans do assesment only about every five years (which shows).
Magnitude is ~80 MtCO2. That is about a third of the total EU net LULUCF sink.
Uniquely the Germans do assesment only about every five years (which shows).