The 'settled science' actually isn't, dissent is being suppressed.

Earth.

 

The only policy that fits earth would be a policy of supplying all populations with complete evidence related to climate. Stop giving folks only curated information.

We shouldn’t attempt to stop warming of the entire planet. That kills folks that don’t need to die. If a population is having more negative effects from warming than positive effects then policy should be formulated to solve their problem. If the problem isn’t warming but something else (like anthropogenic deforestation and desertification) then policy should address those local problems. Global policy can’t solve those problems.

The idea there should be global policy to address AGW is fallacious as it is based on a false premise.

I live in Nebraska. AGW here is a blessing. It’s allowing greater production of food and consumer items for the entire planet. If granny Johnson in Ainsworth ends up in the hospital of heat stroke in August the correct policy to solve that problem isn’t harping on China to do something they are never going to do. The correct policy is to figure out how to get granny Johnson a bloody air conditioner.

I’ve been through policy with you before. Flooding in places like Bangladesh is blamed on AGW by media. But atmospheric CO2 isn’t the primary driver of flooding there. It’s deforestation, other land use changes, and poor water management. The correct policy for Bangladesh isn’t reducing fossil fuel use, there or in China or in the US. All three countries could be net zero tomorrow and NOTHING would improve in Bangladesh. But if we implement policy that stops deforestation and desertification and starts reforestation and afforestation and encourages responsible land use (something as simple as providing them better plant genetics, some fertilizer, and solar cooking devices, we could see almost immediate improvement in life their.

One world policy is not logical and not based on evidence. The only global policy should be advocation for local policy based on science.

 

More than a "theory".

 

IPCC recognizes that there isn't a global government and that countries have different issues in combatting climate change.

So, they call for individual countries to develop plans and put them in place.

In China, they are increasing their clean energy segment considerably as a percent of total energy production. Plus, they are leveling serious mileage requirements for ICE vehicles. That industry begged for mercy after having ignored these requirements for YEARS, and China relented until the end of this year. Also, registering an ICE now costs thousands.

The USA is working on this problem of being one of the worst emitters among first world nations on a per capita basis - while we reaped the profits of fossil fuel in manufacturing and transportation, helping us to the benefits that are now a problem for emerging nations.

Earth is bigger than Nebraska.

 

Yes earth is bigger than nebraska. That’s why I included Bangladesh, China, the rest of the US etc. in my post. Do you think Bangladesh is in Nebraska? As usual I’m uninterested in strawman arguments.

Yes, China is making grave mistakes with their forced move away from ICE engines. It’s already resulted in massive waste of resources and energy.

You are still hung up on AGW. AGW isn’t a global problem. In most parts of the planet it’s saving lives.

 

Perhaps PRC is gunning for energy independence - or at least, less reliance on foreign energy.

Overall, China’s reliance on oil importation continued climbing in 2018 and accounted for 69.8% of consumption according to a report released by CNPC. It is predicted that 80% of China’s crude oil supply will be imported by 2030

https://www.privacyshield.gov/ps/article?id=China-Oil-and-Gas

That's a centrally-planned economy for you. They overshoot, and then some. Not just cars.

It can work well, though...

 

China really just wants transportation caused air pollution out of cities. They are angling for coal powered vehicles essentially.

National security is their goal. I agree with you. Not climate change mitigation. Coal is the power source to accomplish their goals. They will take energy from any source, they are so short of energy. But coal is the base and will continue to be according to official government statements.

Yeh, the US sucks at high speed rail. Most of the country just wants the independence of driving. States like CA that could probably get ridership are too incompetent to build anything.

 

Not for long. China produces more solar power than the rest of the world combined. And the Chinese are investing three to four times more than thermal power (from what I've read). Certainly more than the US.

My understanding was renewables now provide just over 50% of Chinese power.

"Thanks to a growing buildout of renewable power, fossil fuels now account for less than half of China’s total installed power capacity, state media said Monday.

In 2021, China set a goal for renewable capacity — including wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear power — to exceed fossil fuel capacity by 2025, a target that it has hit two years ahead of schedule, Reuters reports. Renewable sources, as China defines them, now make up 50.9 percent of the country’s power capacity." https://e360.yale.edu/digest/china-zero-carbon-electricity#:~:text=In 2021, China set a,of the country's power capacity.

I have no idea what their motivations are. Probably money. Nationalistic pride? Suspect the Chinese want to corner the market, as well, since coal appears to be on the way out.

I'm actually catching a train to New York from Union station DC early next week. (Couldn't resist a direct flight $180 to Berlin) About 18 hours later I'll be catching and ICE train from Berlin, heading west....I'll let you know the comparison

 

But that is not slated for internal use but for sale to other countries.

And their goal of "renewable energy" being most of their power by 2025 is just a pipedream. Especially as much of that is planned through new hydroelectric dams, and they are already having issued with dams failing already. And in the last several years experts have been increasingly warning China that the Three Gorges Dam is in danger of collapse.

Very few nations are capable of producing most of their power from hydro and China is not one of them.

 

Link to bold?

Here's one for starters:

China's installed non-fossil fuel electricity capacity exceeds 50% of total

https://www.reuters.com/business/en...tricity-capacity-exceeds-50-total-2023-06-12/

 

Sorry, calling bullcrap on that. Did you even read your own reference?

Do you expect anybody to seriously believe that they doubled their output in a single year?

Did you not notice that was a Government PR release? It should be taken with a grain of salt the size of Mt. Everest. Because it is still the largest user of coal in the world, and their consumption is growing every year with more coal plants coming online.

 

The thing is percentage of power from renewables doesn’t reduce emissions. Only reducing emissions reduces emissions. And fossil fuel use is increasing. Emissions are increasing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/20/...ina burns more coal every,it did in June 2022.

China will soon be unable to afford transmission lines needed to further increase renewables and nuclear. Nuclear must remain on coasts because interior areas don’t have reliable water supplies for cooling. Much wind and solar must be far from population centers. The economy is running on fumes. They have overbuilt housing and manufacturing space that sits empty. They are experiencing blackouts from energy shortages.

Coal is the only answer to those blackouts and energy security. China won’t be saving the planet by reducing CO2 emissions. They will make a buck here and there selling us “green” stuff like solar panels etc. but atmospheric CO2 is way down their list of priorities and concerns. They even say so themselves. Chinese national security and Chinese promises of reduced CO2 emissions are currently at odds and are mutually exclusive. I don’t see that changing any time soon. Especially as their economy implodes.

 

There aren't many nations that could suggest one source for their energy needs.

 

Do you think oil and gas based electricity doesn't need transmission lines?

The problem China has faced is that their consumption keeps increasing. So, even though coal growth is less than clean energy growth, it's hard to catch up.

Another source of CO2 in China is oil. Some charts of China's energy includes oil consumption (not used for electricity). China is clearly dedicated to seriously reduce CO2 from oil used in transportation.

We could do that, too. But, we don't.

 

I explained why renewables and nuclear require more transmission lines. Nuclear and renewable generation must be located far from populations they serve in many cases. With coal generation the coal mined or is is moved closer to population centers that ALREADY have transmission lines in place.

No, China only cares about air pollution (particulates) in cities. They don’t care even a little bit about atmospheric CO2. That’s why they are moving towards coal powered automobiles.

Coal produces more CO2 per unit of energy than oil and natural gas. That’s how the US has cut CO2 emissions drastically. By phasing out coal and using more natural gas.

China has oodles of coal and is used to using it. They aren’t going to stop or slow usage of coal. Their survival depends on using more coal, not less.

China is not decreasing CO2 produced through transportation. They are increasing CO2 emissions for transportation by moving to coal powered transportation.

 

Installed capacity and actual generation are two different things. From January to May in China coal accounted for 70% of actual generation.

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202306/1293197.shtml

Talking about renewables and running numbers on installed capacity doesn’t accomplish much when actual generation is still mostly coal and new coal plants are being built in record time.

 

So, your argument is that we differed by 70% compared to 70.7%?

 

The fact that clean energy is the fastest growing energy segment in China demonstrates the direction they are taking.

 

No, we're not going to increase coal. That is directly opposed to your recognition of AGW.

All new generation of electricity of any scale will require grid improvements including for capacity. One of our serious constraints is the cost of moving electricity to locations where it is needed. Plus, our grid is vulnerable to natural phenomena and to attack by humans.

China is definitely concerned about ICE exhaust. But, their direction is demonstrated by the fact that clean energy sources are the fastest growing segments.

Also, what China does isn't an answer to the question.

>>I asked what OUR policy should be, in light of AGW.

 

No. I just left off the 0.7 as a rounding. My statement of fact is that even though ya’ll are excited about over 50% of generation capacity is green, 70% of actual electrical generation is from coal.

See the problem with basing things on capacity instead of reality on the ground?

 

But what it lacks in Hydro it is planning to make up for in Geothermal
https://www.reuters.com/business/en...gy-development-clean-heating-push-2023-09-15/

America should be looking to that resource

 

The direction is increased use of coal and increased emissions. Their government says coal will remain the foundation of their energy supply.

 

Nobody said WE are going to increase coal use. Who said we are going to use more coal? Please READMORE. But China is using more coal every year and will continue to do so. It’s their energy policy.

No kidding. But we aren’t discussing the US in this post. It’s about CHINA increasing coal usage.

China is not concerned about CO2 emissions. As I said, they only want fossil fuel combustion out of cities. That’s why they are using coal powered cars instead of oil powered cars.

Yes, in another exchange you asked about policy. I answered clearly. Here it is again.

My post on CHINESE coal usage and transmission of electricity is in reply to this question from you.

“Do you think oil and gas based electricity doesn't need transmission lines?”

Sober up before replying.

 

Which at the current time is barely 0.6% of their power production. That is such a low amount it is barely even worth mentioning. No way in hell are they ever increasing that to be anywhere even close to a real measurable amount.

And like most of the world, America can't exploit that as outside of a few areas there is just not enough geothermal that can realistically be exploited.

And it is not even anything "new". Boise has been using geothermal for the heating of some areas of town and government buildings for over 130 years now. But the temperature of their hot spring is not high enough to transition it to electric production, and does not provide enough water to heat more than a rather small area along the appropriately named "Warm Springs Avenue", and the Capitol Building along with a few other government buildings.

In reality, there are damned few places in the US or globally that have reliable and large enough geothermal resources that can really be exploited for power production. Plus it is damned expensive for the wattage produced. averaging two to three times the cost of even solar because the water used is high in minerals and often corrosive. The only time it is really efficient is when it is not used for producing electricity, but in running through radiators for use as heating. In that way it helps reduce the requirement for electricity, as the water does not have to be as hot, and it is less expensive to maintain the equipment.

 

Are there any pirates on this ship?
And if they sober up
They'll have us home by morning