China

[brenthutch 383]

“China is the world’s biggest polluter, responsible for 27 per cent of global emissions of greenhouse gases – and that’s about to get worse. It is opening new coal-fired power stations and increasing emissions at an annual rate that is greater than the savings of the rest of the world put together. Last year, coal plants with a combined capacity of 37.75 gigawatts were retired globally, more than half in the United States and European Union, according to an analysis by Global Energy Monitor, which analysis fossil fuel trends. During that time, China opened 38.4 gigawatts of new plants – that’s three times more new coal fired capacity than the rest of the world combined.”

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/are-china-s-climate-promises-just-a-load-of-hot-air-

I must respect the mental gymnastics required to delude oneself into believing we can alter this reality with some EVs, windmills and solar panels.  The West is just exporting our CO2, our manufacturing, our jobs and our money to China.  In exchange we get skyrocketing energy costs and rolling blackouts (thanks California for the foreshadowing)
 

 

[wmw999 2,121]

We can’t change China. We can change ourselves. Convenience and money do not, in fact, trump everything else. 
Wendy P. 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

24 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

We can’t change China. We can change ourselves. Convenience and money do not, in fact, trump everything else. 
Wendy P. 

Sure, but at the risk of a dose of liberal wrath, his point is a good one. Here we are 20 years and a day after deciding to blow the national budget on doing the right thing and what did we end up with in our Christmas stockings? Worse than nothing, for sure. Maybe we should accept a warming world and while energy and money are cheap have some fun build a better, albeit warmer, world for the China's kids. After all, it'll all be theirs someday, right?

[Phil1111 910]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

“China ....

I must respect the mental gymnastics required to delude oneself into believing we can alter this reality with some EVs, windmills and solar panels.  The West is just exporting our CO2, our manufacturing, our jobs and our money to China.  In exchange we get skyrocketing energy costs and rolling blackouts (thanks California for the foreshadowing)

As usual you have chosen to distort facts and reality to keep your self serving beliefs intact.

The Climate Change Performance Index(CCPI) ranks countries on the actual rankings on how they are tackling national objectives and treaty obligations(Paris Accords) relating to climate change. China ranks 33rd and the US is 61st, dead last. None of this is news. These facts are easily accessible for anyone with internet access.

The US ranks dead last(last year 2020-21) because of trump and the failure to enact climate change goals. China ranks 33rd because they are changing policy to meet targets and enacting those changes.

"The United States’ performance on this year’s CCPI ranks very low, putting it in the lowest rank. This is driven by its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and lack of targets at the national level to either reduce national GHG emissions or increase renewable energy deployment."

President Biden rejoined the Paris Accords January 20th.

[olofscience 420]

40 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

while energy and money are cheap

So let's build the cheapest energy source then.

Oh wait, that's solar.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea

[olofscience 420]

And on the topic of "mental gymnastics" only Brent could post this link from the NOAA and say "global warming has paused!" https://www.noaa.gov/news/us-west-hit-with-extreme-heat-drought-and-unrelenting-wildfires-in-july

and it's cute he's using the "mental gymnastics" phrase now after I used it...but it doesn't seem like he's learning much else 

Here's the full quote:  

On 8/9/2021 at 7:50 PM, brenthutch said:

Now for July 2021

“The average temperature last month across the contiguous U.S. was 75.5 degrees F (1.9 degrees above average), placing July 2021 in the 13th-warmest spot in the 127-year record.”

How about that! This July was colder than last July.

https://www.noaa.gov/news/us-west-hit-with-extreme-heat-drought-and-unrelenting-wildfires-in-july

Just to be clear, this is not my opinion it is directly from the NOAA website 

Also from the NOAA website soon after:

https://www.noaa.gov/news/its-official-july-2021-was-earths-hottest-month-on-record

Earth's hottest month on record. And Brent? crickets...

Edited September 12, 2021 by olofscience

[billvon 2,396]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Sure, but at the risk of a dose of liberal wrath, his point is a good one. 

Naah.  China has spent the past 80 years copying everything we do.  They will copy us as well on renewable energy - as long as we don't blow it by listening to the anti-science luddites.

[olofscience 420]

3 minutes ago, billvon said:

They will copy us as well on renewable energy - as long as we don't blow it by listening to the anti-science luddites.

No, they just love choking on smog and pollution...yep, they feel no pressure at all to clean up their air. </s>

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/23/china/china-air-pollution-mic-intl-hnk/index.html

[Phil1111 910]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

So let's build the cheapest energy source then.

Oh wait, that's solar.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea

How China Beat the U.S. to Become World's Undisputed Solar Champion "Chinese firms now supply three quarters of the world’s solar panels....U.S. companies, which 20 years ago made 22% of them, now produce just 1%... Congress is still bickering over tax credits and whether to pay for charging stations. China, meanwhile, has installed some 800,000 public chargers -- about eight times the number in the U.S. -- and has parlayed a combination of tax incentives, land grants, low-interest loans and other subsidies into becoming the world’s biggest producers of the vehicles for six years running.

China(205 GW) has three times the installed solar capacity that the US(76 GW) has.

I don't understand why Brent hates America as much as he does. He keeps picking topics that makes America look bad. Makes China look good. He is a former military service member too

Edited September 12, 2021 by Phil1111

[gowlerk 1,911]

17 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

I don't understand why Brent hates America as much as he does. 

Who?

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

As usual you have chosen to distort facts and reality to keep your self serving beliefs intact.

The Climate Change Performance Index(CCPI) ranks countries on the actual rankings on how they are tackling national objectives and treaty obligations(Paris Accords) relating to climate change. China ranks 33rd and the US is 61st, dead last. None of this is news. These facts are easily accessible for anyone with internet access.

The US ranks dead last(last year 2020-21) because of trump and the failure to enact climate change goals. China ranks 33rd because they are changing policy to meet targets and enacting those changes.

"The United States’ performance on this year’s CCPI ranks very low, putting it in the lowest rank. This is driven by its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and lack of targets at the national level to either reduce national GHG emissions or increase renewable energy deployment."

President Biden rejoined the Paris Accords January 20th.

Hi Phil,

Re:  These facts are easily accessible for anyone with internet access. *

For most of us, this is true.  For some:  'There are facts & there are facts.'

This is their way of avoiding that which is true.

Jerry Baumchen

*  For some people, that is simply too much work.  And, of course, it usually refutes what they want to say.

 

 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

So let's build the cheapest energy source then.

Oh wait, that's solar.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea

O.K, then, most immediate source. I hope everyone knows by now I'm not a denier or that I don't recognize the negative impacts of global warming. I'm simply recognizing that there are serious headwinds, big players like China have a different agenda, and time keeps rolling on.

[olofscience 420]

7 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

O.K, then, most immediate source.

When you need to increase energy production capacity for wind or solar, you just add an extra solar panel or an extra wind turbine and hook it up. Repeat as many times as necessary.

If you want to increase energy production for a coal plant, you'll need to choose a site, get architects in and design and build an entire power plant facility. Gives you a big step increase in power capacity, but takes a lot longer. So which is easier to do?

Hint: it's the cheaper option.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 minute ago, olofscience said:

When you need to increase energy production capacity for wind or solar, you just add an extra solar panel or an extra wind turbine and hook it up. Repeat as many times as necessary.

If you want to increase energy production for a coal plant, you'll need to choose a site, get architects in and design and build an entire power plant facility. Gives you a big step increase in power capacity, but takes a lot longer. So which is easier to do?

Hint: it's the cheaper option.

Or just ask the Saudi's to reach over and open the valve a bit further. Or just be nice to Maduro. I'm not saying it doesn't suck. 

[olofscience 420]

2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Or just ask the Saudi's to reach over and open the valve a bit further. Or just be nice to Maduro. I'm not saying it doesn't suck. 

Then fracking in the US and the oil sands in Canada will take a beating like they did in early 2020 - they can't support low oil prices because their breakeven price is around $50. What problem are you trying to solve? Brent's "skyrocketing" energy costs?

[billvon 2,396]

48 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

I don't understand why Brent hates America as much as he does. 

Many older people today are lamenting the loss of the America that they knew.

They are not racist and will tell you that all day long.  But still, the days where black people knew their place, and didn't try to teach our kids or run the country, were better for them.  So they will tell you over and over how colorblind they are while they attack Obama, make fun of black culture and try to ban critical race theory in schools.

They have nothing against new technology and will tell you that all day long, too.  But they miss manual transmissions and the smell of gasoline and the loss of the corner gas station where they knew all the employees.  And EV's confound them.

They are totally for a cleaner environment and will go on and on about that.  But they think that there's just too much of that going on, that cleaning up Love Canal and putting precipitators on coal power plants was plenty, and only America-hating liberals want to do more.

It's worth mentioning that in 50 years we will have exactly the same sort of older people - they will just be incensed by the things that changed in 2050 and not things that are here today.  They will take EV's and renewable energy and the Internet-in-everything for granted, and indeed they will pine for the days where bad Internet interfaces crippled appliances. 

The Brent of 2070 will lament that "my generation could fix a simple IP address problem on a toaster, not like today's kids who have never even HEARD of an IP address!  And we could manage car system updates ourselves, without needing an AI update manager.  We didn't have none of those dangerous wireless EV chargers or fusion plants - we had simple and effective wired EV chargers and solar power systems!  We don't need any of this new stuff.  The world was just fine the way it was."

And so it goes.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 minute ago, olofscience said:

Then fracking in the US and the oil sands in Canada will take a beating like they did in early 2020 - they can't support low oil prices because their breakeven price is around $50. What problem are you trying to solve? Brent's "skyrocketing" energy costs?

Right now I'm focusing on extraction as in extract myself from your line of sight before I suffer a Brent grade beatdown.

[billvon 2,396]

30 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I'm simply recognizing that there are serious headwinds, big players like China have a different agenda, and time keeps rolling on.

Absolutely.

The key is recognizing when those headwinds are low enough that new upstarts can make a lot of progress with new business models.  Turbines were unheard of in skydiving aircraft 40 years ago - those things are EXPENSIVE and it will be too hard to maintain them for cheap-ass skydivers!  Solar was the same 30 years ago.  Now there are a lot of solar billionaires and solar generates 13% of California's electricity.  10 years ago 100 megawatt-hours of grid scale storage meant hundreds of millions of dollars of toxic lead-acid batteries.  Nowadays utilities are installing 400 megawatts / 1600 megawatt-hour systems for tens of millions.  

Personally I managed to invest in Enphase, a solar inverter company that is branching out into storage with some pretty disruptive technology.  I bought at $4; you can check to see what it's at now if you like.  This is going to happen more and more often, as new companies enter the fertile field of renewable generation and storage.  They have the huge advantage that other people (like a few people here) think the headwinds are insurmountable - and so will face little opposition.

[olofscience 420]

4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Right now I'm focusing on extraction as in extract myself from your line of sight before I suffer a Brent grade beatdown.

Sorry, not what I mean to do, just genuinely curious about the reasoning behind it.

China's building coal plants at a rapid pace because as a developing country, their energy needs are increasing quickly. But energy demand isn't increasing as quickly in the US and Europe - buildings, factories, etc that need energy already have it, mostly. Energy companies in the US are just trying to build as little capacity as they can to maximise their profits. Building too much capacity will crash prices and therefore their profits.

It's like looking at Michael Phelps' 10,000-calorie diet during the Olympics and thinking you should be eating the same amount. It doesn't make sense unless you're doing the same thing.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

6 hours ago, billvon said:

Absolutely.

The key is recognizing when those headwinds are low enough that new upstarts can make a lot of progress with new business models.  Turbines were unheard of in skydiving aircraft 40 years ago - those things are EXPENSIVE and it will be too hard to maintain them for cheap-ass skydivers!  Solar was the same 30 years ago.  Now there are a lot of solar billionaires and solar generates 13% of California's electricity.  10 years ago 100 megawatt-hours of grid scale storage meant hundreds of millions of dollars of toxic lead-acid batteries.  Nowadays utilities are installing 400 megawatts / 1600 megawatt-hour systems for tens of millions.  

Personally I managed to invest in Enphase, a solar inverter company that is branching out into storage with some pretty disruptive technology.  I bought at $4; you can check to see what it's at now if you like.  This is going to happen more and more often, as new companies enter the fertile field of renewable generation and storage.  They have the huge advantage that other people (like a few people here) think the headwinds are insurmountable - and so will face little opposition.

I doubt none of that and I'm willing to trade you some jumps for some of that Enphase. I simply can see why some think we'll either pass the tipping point, or in Brents case don't believe there is a tipping point, before sufficient alternative energy comes online worldwide to stop AGW. Surveying the geopolitical landscape I sometimes wonder if it really isn't a losing game.

Before I started burning hydrocarbons for a living I was a real true believer, one of the bird and bunny people, who spent years saving trees and rivers. I joke that I have enough carbon credits saved up to run a dozen Turbine DZ's and never break even, and no doubt that's true, but I'm still a bit of a hypocrite, right? Certainly, if we each here are what we claim there is much of that to go around. Multiply that by 7+ Billion and all predictions are off, seems to me.

[brenthutch 383]

18 hours ago, olofscience said:

When you need to increase energy production capacity for wind or solar, you just add an extra solar panel or an extra wind turbine and hook it up. Repeat as many times as necessary.

If you want to increase energy production for a coal plant, you'll need to choose a site, get architects in and design and build an entire power plant facility. Gives you a big step increase in power capacity, but takes a lot longer. So which is easier to do?

Hint: it's the cheaper option.

If solar were truly the more economical option, market forces would make it the dominant source of energy.  But it’s not, so……

[brenthutch 383]

18 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

"Chinese firms now supply three quarters of the world’s solar panels...China, meanwhile, has installed some 800,000 public chargers -- about eight times the number in the U.S. -- and has parlayed a combination of tax incentives, land grants, low-interest loans and other subsidies into becoming the world’s biggest producers of the vehicles for six years running.

China(205 GW) has three times the installed solar capacity that the US(76 GW) has.

China is powering its solar panel factories with coal.  
When one compares the percentage of energy China gets from wind and solar with that of fossil fuels, the phrase “horse and rabbit stew” comes to mind.

Edited September 13, 2021 by brenthutch

[olofscience 420]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

If solar were truly the more economical option, market forces would make it the dominant source of energy.  But it’s not, so……

Not yet.

Does it have to be dominant instantly?

[brenthutch 383]

23 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Not yet.

Does it have to be dominant instantly?

I guess if you live in the land of make-believe it can be dominant when ever you wish. However, given the fact that fossil fuels make up roughly the same percentage of global energy use as they did a century ago it won’t happen in the real world for a long long time (several decades).

[wmw999 2,121]

A century ago was a long time in technology. The percentage grew, and now it’s shrinking. 
Wendy P.