Climate and Weather

watfly said:
China is attacking its energy production from every angle, which is what we should do. At this point, renewables are good as backup energy, but poor as primary energy.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Desert Hound said:
“Renewables funds see record outflows as rising rates, costs hit shares” [Reuters – 10/10/2023]


No, the problem isn’t “soaring material costs.” The problem is that unreliable energy sources such as wind and solar are bad investments that require government subsidies to stay operational in the best of circumstances.


“Connecticut’s biggest offshore wind project nearly dead in the water” [CT Mirror – 10/03/2023]




Wind projects never were viable, because they never produced a single reliable kilowatt of electricity, much less at an affordable price.


“Offshore wind developers likely to cancel some contracts after New York decision” [Reuters – 10/20/2023]



“Orsted offshore wind farm hit with lawsuit by New Jersey county; Lawsuit seeks to invalidate federal approvals for the farm” [Reuters – 10/17/2023]


The public is starting to aggressively reject wind energy and much of the green agenda.
Click to expand...
Darn, did the science change again?
 
Desert Hound said:
Well here you go...and you wont like the answer....


Plant retirements slowed down further in 2022, with 4.1 GW of coal-fired capacity closed down in 2022, compared with 5.2 GW in 2021. Policies on closing down small and inefficient plants have been revised to keep these plants online instead as back-up or in normal operation after retrofits.Feb 27, 2023




They are not closing down a lot of GW of power produced by coal plants BUT are adding substantially MORE capacity vs what is being closed.

There is you answer.
Click to expand...
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.


1698442254872.png
 
Desert Hound said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!”
 
dad4 said:
It goes from around 85 down to about 55. Apparently it is possible to reduce coal dependence.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Desert Hound said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
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!”
Click to expand...
We are lead around by a bunch of fools.
 
Desert Hound said:
We are lead around by a bunch of fools.
Click to expand...
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.
 
dad4 said:
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
Click to expand...
Hardly worth effort or worth the cost? Or both..
 
Desert Hound said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
Go look at how much more coal they use/need now vs 20 yrs ago. Hugely expanded coal usage since 2000.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Desert Hound said:
Go look at how much more coal they use/need now vs 20 yrs ago. Hugely expanded coal usage since 2000.
Click to expand...
dad4 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
dad4 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 (1950-2025)

Total population is based on the de facto definition of population, which counts all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship. The values shown are midyear estimates.
www.macrotrends.net www.macrotrends.net
 
watfly said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
dad4 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Prime example of academic thinking. The concept is more relevant than reality.
 
watfly said:
Prime example of academic thinking. The concept is more relevant than reality.
Click to expand...
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".
 
dad4 said:
Yes, the growth in wind and solar is less than the growth in the Chinese economy as a whole. But they aren't "insignificant".
Click to expand...
The reason they are building vastly more coal plants vs renewables is because of reality. Renewables are unreliable and costly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top