Climate and Weather

[kickingandscreaming]

And because they are bad options as primary energy China is building traditional power plants. They had a drought that affected their hydro power production and caused major disruptions. They realized that you cannot rely on renewable energy as a primary source and since then have really started ramping up traditional power plants.

At some point reality will set in ....and we too will realize we need to take advantage of ALL of our energy sources. Modern society requires reliable on demand power.

Remember the wind farm that may or may not be killing the whales? It appears to be endangered itself for the very reasons you identify. If only wanting something to be true were enough.

There is reason for hope. Ørsted, the wind energy giant building the projects, is demanding more in taxpayer money. “In order to make wildly fluctuating power, they'll need promises of $150-200 per MWh,” says energy analyst Mark Nelson. “Yet Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York just closed excellent nuclear plants making just as much energy but costing $35-55 per MWh!”

 

[Desert Hound]

It goes from around 85 down to about 55. Apparently it is possible to reduce coal dependence.

Reduce coal dependence?

They are vastly more reliant on coal now then they were before. Look at how much they need now vs before. Early on their consumption of coal was minimal. Today? They use massively more coal.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

Reduce coal dependence?

They are vastly more reliant on coal now then they were before. Look at how much they need now vs before. Early on their consumption of coal was minimal. Today? They use massively more coal.

In fairness to @dad4, he only uses the MSM for all his news and information. I'm sure he's seeing a lot of this data for the first time.

 

[Desert Hound]

Remember the wind farm that may or may not be killing the whales? It appears to be endangered itself for the very reasons you identify. If only wanting something to be true were enough.

There is reason for hope. Ørsted, the wind energy giant building the projects, is demanding more in taxpayer money. “In order to make wildly fluctuating power, they'll need promises of $150-200 per MWh,” says energy analyst Mark Nelson. “Yet Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York just closed excellent nuclear plants making just as much energy but costing $35-55 per MWh!”

We are lead around by a bunch of fools.

 

[crush]

We are lead around by a bunch of fools.

Fools that also cheat, lie, spy and steal and then start wars, all to remain in power. Climate & Weather is total smoke screen. There is cheating is coming to an end. Lying can only get you so far. These fools all did for money. Fool's Gold just for fools. Dumb play. I'm all about Liquid Gold Hound and freedom to choose. No more cheating from the fools.

 

[Multi Sport]

In that case, it looks like China was trying for a while, and then stopped bothering. I don't like the answer, but there it is.

Your chart still shows a significant drop in coal as a percent of total energy use. Look at the top line in the chart on the right. It goes from around 85 down to about 55. Apparently it is possible to reduce coal dependence. China just decided that it was no longer worth the effort.


View attachment 18644

Hardly worth effort or worth the cost? Or both..

 

[crush]

 

[dad4]

Reduce coal dependence?

They are vastly more reliant on coal now then they were before. Look at how much they need now vs before. Early on their consumption of coal was minimal. Today? They use massively more coal.

Clever use of "before".

You chose a chart that goes back almost to Mao's time. The Chinese economy was tiny by the time Mao got done with it.

Every single commodity use will go up over that time frame. Positive is bigger than zero.

Now look at the last 10 or 20 years, and stop trying to compare 2023 to the Cultural Revolution.

 

[Desert Hound]

Now look at the last 10 or 20 years, and stop trying to compare 2023 to the Cultural Revolution

Go look at how much more coal they use/need now vs 20 yrs ago. Hugely expanded coal usage since 2000.

 

[dad4]

Go look at how much more coal they use/need now vs 20 yrs ago. Hugely expanded coal usage since 2000.

88 exajoules in 2022. 81 in 2012. 34 in 2002.

There is a significant growth from 20 years ago to 10 years ago. The last ten years show minimal growth, even in absolute terms.

So, you're half right. A huge growth in coal use, almost all of which happened over a decade ago.

 

[watfly]

Go look at how much more coal they use/need now vs 20 yrs ago. Hugely expanded coal usage since 2000.

88 exajoules in 2022. 81 in 2012. 34 in 2002.

There is a significant growth from 20 years ago to 10 years ago. The last ten years show minimal growth, even in absolute terms.

So, you're half right. A huge growth in coal use, almost all of which happened over a decade ago.

Still growth though. What decade the most growth occurred in is irrelevant anyway, since they are now on a massive coal plant building spree, and continue to hit record highs in carbon emissions. I'd say that the only way someone would think that China is going to reduce carbon emissions is if they believe China propaganda, but China is not trying to hide the fact that they continue to increase their coal production. China is just trying to distract from its ever increasing emissions by also developing alternative energy (albeit at a lesser rate to coal). Dad4 has fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

 

[Multi Sport]

88 exajoules in 2022. 81 in 2012. 34 in 2002.

There is a significant growth from 20 years ago to 10 years ago. The last ten years show minimal growth, even in absolute terms.

So, you're half right. A huge growth in coal use, almost all of which happened over a decade ago.

I'm sure you'll be able to find some relevant information here. Even if you haven't figured out anything about a take permit.

China Population 1950-2024

Chart and table of China population from 1950 to 2024. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.

www.macrotrends.net

 

[Desert Hound]

WHO COULD HAVE SEEN THIS COMING? California Having the Darnedest Time With Electricity.

If Germany and California had gone nuclear instead of renewable, they’d now be 100% carbon free, and reliable.

 

[dad4]

Still growth though. What decade the most growth occurred in is irrelevant anyway, since they are now on a massive coal plant building spree, and continue to hit record highs in carbon emissions. I'd say that the only way someone would think that China is going to reduce carbon emissions is if they believe China propaganda, but China is not trying to hide the fact that they continue to increase their coal production. China is just trying to distract from its ever increasing emissions by also developing alternative energy (albeit at a lesser rate to coal). Dad4 has fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

Chinese solar generation: 418 TWh / year.
Chinese wind power: 655 TWh / year.

For scale, 1073 TWH is 3.8 exajoules. About 4.3 percent of total Chinese energy consumption is now wind and solar. Up from almost nothing ten years ago.

What do you need for proof of concept here? By next year, they will have shifted 5% of their entire economy onto renewables.

 

[watfly]

Chinese solar generation: 418 TWh / year.
Chinese wind power: 655 TWh / year.

For scale, 1073 TWH is 3.8 exajoules. About 4.3 percent of total Chinese energy consumption is now wind and solar. Up from almost nothing ten years ago.

What do you need for proof of concept here? By next year, they will have shifted 5% of their entire economy onto renewables.

Prime example of academic thinking. The concept is more relevant than reality.

 

[dad4]

Prime example of academic thinking. The concept is more relevant than reality.

The reality is that Chinese wind and solar installations generate 1/4 as much power as the entire US grid: 1073 TWH versus 4040 TWH.

Yes, the growth in wind and solar is less than the growth in the Chinese economy as a whole. But they aren't "insignificant".

 

[Desert Hound]

Yes, the growth in wind and solar is less than the growth in the Chinese economy as a whole. But they aren't "insignificant".

The reason they are building vastly more coal plants vs renewables is because of reality. Renewables are unreliable and costly.

 

[Desert Hound]

MAKING YOUR LIFE WORSE ISN’T A SIDE EFFECT, IT’S A GOAL: Congress Sheds Light on Proposed New Energy Rules That Could Leave Americans in the Dark. “In May, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced proposed rules to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new and existing power plants. Our modeling at American Experiment found these strict regulations would cause massive rolling blackouts in America’s heartland by forcing reliable, abundant forms of traditional U.S. energy — like coal and natural gas — out of use. On top of blackouts, these regulations will also result in higher power bills and greater dependence on hostile foreign energy sources.”

 

[dad4]

The reason they are building vastly more coal plants vs renewables is because of reality. Renewables are unreliable and costly.

Over the last decade, China added more renewables than coal. Since you don't like capacity numbers, we'll use TWH per year.

Coal went up 7 exajoules. At 33% efficiency (US average), that's about 650 TWH.

Renewables went up about 1000 TWH.

Your rhetoric doesn't match the last ten years of reality.

 

[Desert Hound]

Over the last decade, China added more renewables than coal. Since you don't like capacity numbers, we'll use TWH per year.

Coal went up 7 exajoules. At 33% efficiency (US average), that's about 650 TWH.

Renewables went up about 1000 TWH.

Your rhetoric doesn't match the last ten years of reality.

A quick look at this chart on the left will show you how wrong you are.