China orders added 300 million tons of coal
This will more than cancel out all the green energy efforts of the US and Europe.
But, but, if we set a good example….
Told you so, again
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum
A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Human beings have responsibilities. Because your neighbor does not meet his responsibilities, it does release you from your responsibilities.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Those responsibilities exist in the real world.
Pointless virtue signaling has real costs.
How many tons of coal did China burn to make those solar cells and windmills China just made pointless?
Had we instead gone to dual cycle natural gas as a bridge fuel to nuclear power, we would have reduced emissions just as much as wind and solar(remember that China burned a lot of coal to make them) and we would be paying less for energy for our industry.
Raising the cost of electricity with solar and wind drives industry to China, meaning that China will build things using dirty coal that we could have made here using much cleaner natural gas.
So, yes, we have responsibilities, but those include being aware of the unintended consequences of what we do,
Our insistence on wind and solar, bought from China, has resulted in more, not less, CO2, and much more plastic and chemical pollution in the oceans than we would allow here.
LikeLike
Maybe if Republicans take over again, we can beat that. If we are going to make the earth less hospitable to our lives, lets go big. Nobody beat Americans at anything.😇
LikeLiked by 2 people
PS: Pay walled. I check Apple News and see if I can read the article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder how I got in?
The important thing is that China is INCREASING coal consumption by 300 million tons a year, more than enough to offset everything we and Europe have done with wind and solar.
And, China is grabbing even more of the world’s industrial production by using the cheapest energy meaning less done here under far stricter pollution controls.
So, by letting China dupe us, the world will be dirtier and Americans poorer for no good.
LikeLike
“The important thing is that China is INCREASING coal consumption by 300 million tons a year”
You just made that up. What China is actually doing is seeking to become less dependent on foreign sources of coal. The 300 million tons is about 7% of what it needs. Currently about 10% of what it needs is imported and – thanks to Putin – is viewed as unreliable.
Its actual consumption and how it sources what it uses are two different subjects. Meanwhile, the per capital carbon footprint in China is roughly half of that in the United States.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Per capita? China has 5 times our population.
Most of the world’s plastic and chemical pollution of the oceans comes from China as well. Displacing manufacture from Europe and the US to China with artificially high energy costs means more CO2 and much more of other pollution.
Pointless virtue signaling has consequences beyond a lower standard of living for the US
LikeLike
“Per capita? China has 5 times our population.”
So, the average human being living in China does not have your God-given right to an air-conditioned compound, three boats and a monster truck or two? You want THEM to reduce their already low carbon footprint while we do NOTHING?
This whole thread is based on something that is not true – that China will be increasing its coal consumption by 300 million tons per year. No. They are changing their sourcing of coal for reasons of energy security and to create work for their own people.
You are so eager to say “I told you so” you do not bother to check into the claims you are pushing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
China is also increasing coal imports, particularly from Australia.
LikeLike
“…particularly from Australia.”
Maybe temporarily; however, China’s increased domestic production is seen as bad news by coal exporting countries…
For Australia…
https://tinyurl.com/ya8fj6pb
and other countries…
https://tinyurl.com/3dvryea5
So again, the premise you started with is at best only partially true. Increasing domestic production is not the same as increasing total consumption. China continues to be far more vigorous than we are with respect to renewable energy and energy efficiency.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really??
LikeLike
“Really?”
Yes, really. You should try to keep up.
https://www.csis.org/east-green-chinas-global-leadership-renewable-energy
LikeLiked by 1 person
China’s “renewables” are almost entirely hydroelectric power, mostly from the Three Gorges Dam, and environmental catastrophe in its own right.
LikeLike
Things that you think SHOULD be true, seldom are.
China has a lot more going on than investments in hydropower. If you had bothered to read the article you would know that. But I get it. Evidence is disturbing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Planned is not installed.
Are you saying the Wiki graph is inaccurate?
LikeLike
Our problem is that the same people pushing wind and solar are vehemently opposed to nuclear.
The energy policy that makes sense is dual cycle natural gas as a bridge to nuclear. Wind and solar can have value in a very few ideal locations, but only as a supplement to the base load. Not as a key part.
There is a way to tell which wind and solar makes sense, and that is if they can compete without mandate or subsidy.
LikeLike
I have always advocated for nuclear as solar and wind will never handle demand especially if we are expected to transition to electric cars and trucks. An all electric infrastructure won’t work without nuclear being the primary source of our electric needs.
LikeLike
Hell must have frozen over! I agree with you. We need nuclear power as an essential part of the future energy mix.
Here is one possible development…
https://www.science.org/content/article/smaller-safer-cheaper-one-company-aims-reinvent-nuclear-reactor-and-save-warming-planet
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely. An all-of-the-above approach to phase out dirtier fuels and transition to cleaner energy sources that are sustainable.
However, there is one aspect of nuclear power that we tend to overlook when discussing it. The NIMBY folks who have issue with disposal of spent fuel rods. That has to be part of the discussion to use nuclear energy. (Personally, I get it. Nobody wants a waste dump of ANY kind in their neighborhood. But I don’t agree that waste cannot be handled and stored safely.)
LikeLike
Jerry Pournelle offered a solution.
Cast in 50 ton blocks of glass and stack them in the dessert with a fence around the stack about 50 miles back. Place a sign every 10 feet saying “If you cross this fence you will die”
LikeLike
Seeing as salt water is used to keep them cool while in use (at least in Navy reactors), why not take the concrete idea (vice glass) and drop them in the deepest parts of the world’s ocean. By the time the concrete breaks down, the rods will be harmless.
LikeLike
I like the built in literacy test in Pournelle’s idea.
LikeLike
I actually prefer the concept of not having waste stored where a sign like that is necessary.
But I get you point. LOL!
LikeLike