Renewable Energy Is The Future

[aerohead]

This was interesting:
Last night on the PBS NEWSHOUR, Nick Schifrin interviewed special envoy, John Kerry and executive V.P. of European Commission, Hans Timmermans on the climate situation.
They mentioned that presently, China leads the planet in renewable energy production, has banned any new coal-fired powerplant construction, worldwide, and is addressing its own air quality issues, etc., with respect to domestic coal-fired power production.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by aerohead

This was interesting:
Last night on the PBS NEWSHOUR, Nick Schifrin interviewed special envoy, John Kerry and executive V.P. of European Commission, Hans Timmermans on the climate situation.
They mentioned that presently, China leads the planet in renewable energy production, has banned any new coal-fired powerplant construction, worldwide, and is addressing its own air quality issues, etc., with respect to domestic coal-fired power production.

Yes, China is getting pretty aggressive with their renewable plan. The see it as the future and want to lock down the business while other parts of the world are delaying.

It is also interesting to read their coal power plant plan in which they are deducing coal emissions (both local and CO20 by building new coal power plants. It sounds counter intuitive but by replacing coal stoves in individual homes, small coal plants in individual factories, and older small coal power plants with fewer large modern plants they end up with lower emissions overall.

[redpoint5]

Just listened.

Good to hear some pushback against China's attempt to hold CO2 emissions as a political lever. We'll see how the follow through is on that.

China is targeting peak CO2 emissions in 2050.

It's no surprise that the country with nearly 20% of the world population has the most renewables. They also by far have the most coal power plants. I'm confused if we give them the green ribbon award first, or the black ribbon award.



The other random thought I was surprised to have while listening is that perhaps it's appropriate that our political elites are multi-millionaires. I wanted to die just listening to them recount meetings with other politicians, so there's no money in the world that could motivate me to do that as a job.

The other thought I had is that I will make an effort to read through the latest IPCC report rather than rely on the interpretations of chief priests and clergy. I thought I had downloaded it a couple months ago...

[aerohead]

I understand that the scientists provide a 'spectrum' of probabilities, with respect to model predictions, from dozens of models. Ranging from, 'hair's on fire' to, 'least drama,' and all points in between.
I'm uncertain as to what actually makes it into print.
Personally, I refuse to read the reports. I want to hear the 'science' from the 'scientists' and 'Wall Street.'
Investors are pouring $trillions into climate change-related industries. Re-insurance corporations have about had enough bailing out insurance companies. Insurance companies are raising premiums so high on 'natural disaster' coverage that no one will be able to afford it, however companies won't be paying out any claims.
Analysts are talking about a climate change arithmetic which involves $ 6-trillion in losses, for every $ trillion not spent on mitigation.
We're at a Abraham Lincoln / General Ulysses S. Grant moment. Will we ever find a 'general' that understands 'arithmetic.' Ounce of prevention, or pound of cure.

[redpoint5]

I do think insurance needs to reflect actual probabilities of risk and expose consumers to them. In other words, if a place is likely to flood, insurance shouldn't spread that risk onto those where it's less likely to flood, thereby creating the wrong incentives for deciding where to build.

If an area is prone to natural disaster, it should cost a lot to build and to live there.

Likewise, if Miami needs to fortify against the sea, it needs to bear that cost itself.

[JSH]

There is a difference between operational coal plants, ones that are actually operating, and ones that are operating near peak capacity. China is using less than 50% of their installed coal power plant capacity. China’s coal consumption peaked in 2014. They also have so much extra capacity that they put in fuel efficiency standards for coal plants and are mandating older inefficient plants shut down.

China went through a period of coal plant building frenzy in the 00’s were local governments were rewarded for building plants whether they were needed or not. So of course they did. These resulted in plenty of plants they aren’t running and the rest running at far less than nameplate capacity with multiple units shut down. This is no different than the ghost cities that were built and never populated or superhighways to nowhere.

Not the best source but a good summary and they show their work in the footnotes.

https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...l-china-wrong/
https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...ed-power-data/

[redpoint5]

Good call on considering utilization. It's still a distraction from the main subject.

China has more CO2 emissions than all of the developed world combined in 2019


China coal emissions
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-conte...rch-update.jpg

Their emissions are headed in the wrong direction


It's like giving a high-five to politicians for reducing the rate of deficit growth.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I do think insurance needs to reflect actual probabilities of risk and expose consumers to them. In other words, if a place is likely to flood, insurance shouldn't spread that risk onto those where it's less likely to flood, thereby creating the wrong incentives for deciding where to build.

If an area is prone to natural disaster, it should cost a lot to build and to live there.

Likewise, if Miami needs to fortify against the sea, it needs to bear that cost itself.

Bravo!

[aerohead]

Aside from carbon dioxide, I wonder what their overall per capita greenhouse gas emissions are compared to other nations.
They have 1.398-billion population, to the USA's 328.2-million.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Good call on considering utilization. It's still a distraction from the main subject.

China has more CO2 emissions than all of the developed world combined in 2019

China has double the population of the USA and EU combined. Of course their emissions are higher. Their emissions per capita are half that of the US and below the EU as well.

Emissions per capita:
16 - USA
7.3 - Europe
7.1 - China

http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions

With that in mind they very rightly point out that we have no reason to judge their emission levels especially when CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere is cumulative and the VAST majority of CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted over the last century came from the US and Europe.