5 ms·

Meanwhile Pakistan will open five new coal plants next year [1] and more in the future as part of Chinese energy investments, in which coal is an central elemen

Meanwhile Pakistan will open five new coal plants next year [1] and more in the future as part of Chinese energy investments, in which coal is an central element. This is because the coal industry (and steel industry, which is dependent on coal) supplies roughly 12 million Chinese jobs [2]. So while green initiatives with foreign financing are endorsed and promoted by Cricket-star Imran Khan, it isn't Pakistan's nor China's official policy. [1]: https://qz.com/949465/in-china-and-pakistans-coal-romance-wheres-the-love-for-the-climate/ https://qz.com/949465/in-china-and-pakistans-coal-romance-wh... [2]: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2017-08-04/chinas-coal-problem https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2017-08-04/chi...

Dolores12 9y ago
Coal Power plants with trees are better than just coal power plants.
- wbl 9y ago
  Pakistan can build nuclear reactors instead. They have the technology.
  - libeclipse 9y ago
    Yeah, but they build nukes instead.
    - AckSyn 9y ago
      But not all uranium and plutonium can be manufactured to weapons grade.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    I suspect that will be a very unpopular opinion around here.
    - scarmig 9y ago
      HN loves nuclear power. Or is this a comment about subcontinental international politics?
    - atmosx 9y ago
      everyobe is very excited about nuclear energy as long as the plant is on the other side of the continent.
    - DennisP 9y ago
      I don't see why. Nuclear reactors are objectively far less damaging than coal plants, even if you ignore global warming, and include Chernobyl (no containment dome) and Fukushima (70's-era plant plus tsunami). As far as proliferation goes, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons.
      - sqeaky 9y ago
        Popularity is not about facts. When someone says "nuclear" many unthinking people with votes think "That's bad they could blow me up or polute all the things" and then shut off their brain to rational responses. Because they have votes the politicians "Here" take action. If "Here" is Pakistan that means fewer plants in this case. If "Here" is the USA it means strained relations with Pakistan and perhaps even some public condemnation and minor sanctions.
  - Dolores12 9y ago
    They are in process. According to Wikipedia[0] "Pakistan plans on constructing 32 nuclear power plants by 2050" [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Pakistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Pakistan
  - throwawayAsfw 9y ago
    Not really, not necessarily. Pakistan can build the bomb, and the reactors for high grade Pu. That doesn't mean they can make a thermal reactor which has many different and difficult challenges. The metallurgy to make a high pressure reactor vessel for 500 MW is quite different from making a quickly refueled open pool reactor. In fact, most western countries' reactor designs are derived from US licenses.
    - hjaved 9y ago
      They've had nuclear powered electricity since 1972 and have 1.3 GW plants operating commercially. Two additional plants at 1.1 GW each slated to add to the grid by 2021/2. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/pakistan.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pro...
  - igravious 9y ago
    Or they could have all three: coal-fired power plants, trees, and nuclear reactors. Granted, in the long run coal is neither a healthy, environmentally friendly or sustainable option but in the short term it may be one of the few viable options.
  - oAlbe 9y ago
    Even if they didn't have the technology, what stops them from hiring a company from another country that has such technology?
    - ElxOthman 9y ago
      Pakistan can't hire anyone to build reactors or buy most of parts needed because they are not willing to sign NPT, unless they become part of NSG. So, they are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. They know fresh water resources are not unlimited for sub-continent and coal is worst possible solution for electric short fall. So, they are also working on Solar [1] and wind [2], along with some development on nuclear which is indeed very slow. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaid-e-Azam_Solar_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaid-e-Azam_Solar_Park [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jhimpir_Wind_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jhimpir_Wind_Power_Plant Edit:correction.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
nullnilvoid 9y ago
Haters are going to hate. naysayers are gonna naysay. Such negative sentiment. How is planting one billion trees not a good thing? In terms of energy consumption per capita, China is less than one third of the US while Pakistan is less than one tenth of the US [1]. In terms of CO2 emission per capita, China is less than half of the US [2]. You would be happy if China and Pakistan all go dark. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_co... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- whipoodle 9y ago
  > How is planting one billion trees not a good thing? Yes, exactly.
  - melling 9y ago
    China is going to build 700 coal plants around the world: http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/chinese-firms-to-build-700-coal-plants http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/chinese-firms-to-... Sure, it’s great to celebrate our wins, like planting trees, but unless we examine the big problem those little wins really aren’t going to matter. I understand that per capita China and India emit less CO2, but China already has double the US output. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_... The world simply can’t handle burning all of that coal. Getting China and India to use nuclear or natural gas would help a lot.
    - nullnilvoid 9y ago
      Not only China and India emit much less CO2 per capita, the US has emitted far more CO2 than any other country accumulatively. The US has been industrialized for more than one hundred years and had been the No1 emitter of CO2 for more than a century until very recently. All these CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere has not been cleaned up yet. True we should all use cleaner energy sources. Planting one billion tree is a step towards a greener environment.

Dolores12 9y ago

Coal Power plants with trees are better than just coal power plants.

wbl 9y ago
Pakistan can build nuclear reactors instead. They have the technology.
- libeclipse 9y ago
  Yeah, but they build nukes instead.
  - AckSyn 9y ago
    But not all uranium and plutonium can be manufactured to weapons grade.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  I suspect that will be a very unpopular opinion around here.
  - scarmig 9y ago
    HN loves nuclear power. Or is this a comment about subcontinental international politics?
  - atmosx 9y ago
    everyobe is very excited about nuclear energy as long as the plant is on the other side of the continent.
  - DennisP 9y ago
    I don't see why. Nuclear reactors are objectively far less damaging than coal plants, even if you ignore global warming, and include Chernobyl (no containment dome) and Fukushima (70's-era plant plus tsunami). As far as proliferation goes, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons.
    - sqeaky 9y ago
      Popularity is not about facts. When someone says "nuclear" many unthinking people with votes think "That's bad they could blow me up or polute all the things" and then shut off their brain to rational responses. Because they have votes the politicians "Here" take action. If "Here" is Pakistan that means fewer plants in this case. If "Here" is the USA it means strained relations with Pakistan and perhaps even some public condemnation and minor sanctions.
- Dolores12 9y ago
  They are in process. According to Wikipedia[0] "Pakistan plans on constructing 32 nuclear power plants by 2050" [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Pakistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Pakistan
- throwawayAsfw 9y ago
  Not really, not necessarily. Pakistan can build the bomb, and the reactors for high grade Pu. That doesn't mean they can make a thermal reactor which has many different and difficult challenges. The metallurgy to make a high pressure reactor vessel for 500 MW is quite different from making a quickly refueled open pool reactor. In fact, most western countries' reactor designs are derived from US licenses.
  - hjaved 9y ago
    They've had nuclear powered electricity since 1972 and have 1.3 GW plants operating commercially. Two additional plants at 1.1 GW each slated to add to the grid by 2021/2. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/pakistan.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pro...
- igravious 9y ago
  Or they could have all three: coal-fired power plants, trees, and nuclear reactors. Granted, in the long run coal is neither a healthy, environmentally friendly or sustainable option but in the short term it may be one of the few viable options.
- oAlbe 9y ago
  Even if they didn't have the technology, what stops them from hiring a company from another country that has such technology?
  - ElxOthman 9y ago
    Pakistan can't hire anyone to build reactors or buy most of parts needed because they are not willing to sign NPT, unless they become part of NSG. So, they are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. They know fresh water resources are not unlimited for sub-continent and coal is worst possible solution for electric short fall. So, they are also working on Solar [1] and wind [2], along with some development on nuclear which is indeed very slow. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaid-e-Azam_Solar_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaid-e-Azam_Solar_Park [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jhimpir_Wind_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jhimpir_Wind_Power_Plant Edit:correction.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

nullnilvoid 9y ago

Haters are going to hate. naysayers are gonna naysay. Such negative sentiment. How is planting one billion trees not a good thing? In terms of energy consumption per capita, China is less than one third of the US while Pakistan is less than one tenth of the US [1]. In terms of CO2 emission per capita, China is less than half of the US [2]. You would be happy if China and Pakistan all go dark. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_co... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

whipoodle 9y ago
> How is planting one billion trees not a good thing? Yes, exactly.
- melling 9y ago
  China is going to build 700 coal plants around the world: http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/chinese-firms-to-build-700-coal-plants http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/chinese-firms-to-... Sure, it’s great to celebrate our wins, like planting trees, but unless we examine the big problem those little wins really aren’t going to matter. I understand that per capita China and India emit less CO2, but China already has double the US output. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_... The world simply can’t handle burning all of that coal. Getting China and India to use nuclear or natural gas would help a lot.
  - nullnilvoid 9y ago
    Not only China and India emit much less CO2 per capita, the US has emitted far more CO2 than any other country accumulatively. The US has been industrialized for more than one hundred years and had been the No1 emitter of CO2 for more than a century until very recently. All these CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere has not been cleaned up yet. True we should all use cleaner energy sources. Planting one billion tree is a step towards a greener environment.