Another fail for thje renewable Energy promoters

Solar might, but I wish they would stop putting up the ugly wind farms. I read someplace where it was claimed a 30% or 40% energy efficiency of converting sunlight to hydrogen fuel. Of course water is needed. This would be a very valuable project for home installation if the claim is true. Convert to hydrogen, store it, use a fuel cell for power on demand as needed. Even have a reserve for charging an electric car.

I hope this type of concept becomes a reality.

 

Hydrogen would indeed be the perfect magic battery. Solar generated as well as, wind, natural gas, and nuclear generated hydrogen would bring civilization to millions who do not have food and clean water. All we need is a cheap catalyst

 

And never will be if the conservative war-on-green-energy has its way.

 

You really have to work hard to be that ignorant. Try solar, wind, hydro, nuclear. Know any other country that is ramping up faster in those areas?

For some reason rightwing know nothings always say that. Acknowledging their God seems to embarrass them. Well it should, but his ideology over truth MO has got him the highest ratings on talk radio for 25 years. Secret pleasure or something?

 

There is no conservative war on green energy. It's, if anything, a war on costly stupid feel-good crap.

Trust me. Conservatives will embrace viable solutions.

- - - Updated - - -

Link please.

Every thing I have seen has China still building coal plants like crazy, without the use of high tech scrubbers like we use. Sure, they are doing solar and wind also, but not like they are coal.

As for hydro, try not to count that as we really cannot do much more hydro. They are 50 years behind us the and will run out of rivers to dam.

Nuclear... What ever... They will probaly put the waste in goods sent to us, like the plasterboard they put tainted coal waste into.

 

You mistake the conservative war on green energy to the conservative war on wasteful spending ray. The USA, Canada, Japan, Germany, and the UK all have their conservative nodes which. The national park service and the EPA were both products of a Republican presidency. I am about as big of a fiscal conservative and critic of the progressive movement as you could find and I have not one but 2 large recycle bins full to the brim awaiting pickup as I type this as well as a organic garden and compost pile.

What I do disagree with is the funneling of tax dollars into making politicians families and friends bank accounts.

 

One thing I've noticed about denialists is their extreme illogic. Being the worst coal polluter does not preclude leading the way in alternative energy. As for links, just go to google and put in CHINA + (Whatever alternative energy source you like). I'm not paid to do what your lazy behind doesn't want to take the trouble to do.

 

I am aware of their plans, but plan change. They also have so many pore people to bring into the 21st century that they have far more to do than our current infrastructure. Just because they are leading in all aspects of power generation doesn't mean they are leading the way in alternative, especially on a per-capita basis.

Have a pie chart by chance on the growing energy percentages by type?

I seriously doubt wind, solar, etc will be as high of a percentage as other nations.

I don't like to reference blogs, but I'm not going to spend too much time on China either:



The single largest increase in renewable for China is the man-made 9th wonder. The Three Gorges Dam, and that's a one time thing.

Consider how the per capita is compared to other nations:



- - - Updated - - -

You should can it with the logical fallacy attack. I am tired of such unethical tactics.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Stuff like this will get you banned on some forums.

 

No it's not a one time thing. They have a huge number of backup dams in the works.

 

How does their capacity compare to Three Gorges?

What about when they run out of places to put dams? In the US, we have for the most part. If you only compare new building of coal, solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, etc. How do they compare per capita on new projects?

Have you seen material like this:

http://www.epia.org/fileadmin/user_..._for_Photovoltaics_2014-2018_-_Medium_Res.pdf

It appears to me that new solar is expected to be about 2-1/2 times that of the USA. However, per capita, that is pretty small compared to the USA and other nations. China has between four to five time our population.

 

Cumulatively it will be much more.

In addition they have huge water diversion projects, much of it devoted to taking water from the water rich south and diverting it to the dryer north.

It might be more interesting to ask who is accelerating faster and in what direction?

And who is selling more pvs around the world?

 

China is investing in wind and solar because stupid Europeans have mandated that Europe use wind and solar. China is filling the demand created by stupid Europeans. They have no intent what so ever to make unreliable renewables the backbone of their power grids.

 

Yes, we get it some here are pawns of Big Oil and do not want to invest in the future of renewable energy, seems that the term Conservative has lost it's meaning with the current bunch of Dittoheads we have here claiming they are experts on energy production. FYI: if you want to poopoo an entire industry because a mistake here and there I would be careful, we all know well how mistakes by the Oil and Gas industry has done far more harm than either wind or solar energy, so watch those glass walls you have surrounding you.

 

Correct they are going to burn coal and other fossil fuels as fast as they can and we will be the ones that benefit from their clean and efficient energy use by all getting to wear masks to go outside and still breath. China using the same methods as the west used to become a super economic power is a receipt for disaster for the entire planet. Oh and let's not forget India which is also following the same blueprint. Yes, by all means stand up and defend something that goes against your own best interest.

 

If we're making comparisons on a per capita basis let's compare emissions too...

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*)!!!! Your graph is a lie of omission because it doesn't even list the highest per capita emitters like Qatar. The US and Australia aren't even top 10.

 

How is it a "lie of omission" when his only point was to show that China's per-capita output is a fraction of ours?

Never mind that the top countries on the list are all tiny, weird edge cases. Their overall CO2 output amounts to about 1.5% of the global total. They are not significant contributors to global warming. Should they be part of any attempt to address the problem? Of course. But the biggest bang for the buck comes from the biggest emitters -- the U.S. and China primarily, with Europe not far behind.

Heck, even Australia is a bit of an edge case, contributing just 1.11% of global emissions. Being a gigantic but sparsely populated country will do that -- giving you a very high per-capita rate, but a very low overall share.

The U.S. and China together account for about 40% of all global emissions. Which is why they need to be the leaders in efforts to rein in emissions.

 

So arw we going by a gross standard or a per capita standard? It seems yoi are just engaging in lies and propoganda.

 

I was just pointing out your weird cries of "lies" even though the crux of what he was saying was true.

The answer to your question, though, is that you have to take both into consideration. Focus on the countries with the sweet spot of relatively high per-capita output that make up a significant fraction of global emissions. Those are where your greatest gains will be made.

Although even that is a partial answer, because reducing emissions is something we can do everywhere. Every little bit helps.

And to be clear, I'm not saying only the U.S. and China need to reduce -- Trinidad and Tobago can cut emissions, too. But in the end, if the U.S. and China don't cut back, it won't matter what Trinidad does. And if Trinidad refuses to cut emissions, that's irrelevant as long as the U.S. and China do.

 

There is nothing wierd in calling a lie a lie. Its not done enough in today's society. The purpose of that graph was to make the reader think Australia and the US are number 1 and 2. That is a deliberate attempt to mislead by concealing information. That is lying by omission. I make it a point to call out leftist lies on this forum. The left needs to be reminded that some people still know that there are forms of lying beyond lies of comission.

 

Why should we "focus" on countries? Why does someone in Qatar gets to live high on the hog while I'm expected to do with less?

 

Please re-read my post and look at the part where I said "And to be clear, I'm not saying only the U.S. and China need to reduce -- Trinidad and Tobago can cut emissions, too."

But unless the U.S. and China get serious about reducing, it doesn't matter what Qatar does. So U.S./China/Europe need to lead the way.

 

What do you think that will look like when they have a similar percentage of their population with electricity and appliances?

 

China leads the world in renewable energy production, surpassing it's own fossil fuel and nuclear production....including china in emission reduction is just another denier ruse, an excuse for the US not to reduce emissions...

 

China's numbers are skewed by the three gorges dam

They are all hydro, not solar and wind