2 ms·

And? Re: China, there's clearly not an effort to move away from coal if they're constructing new plants. The percentages may be less, but if the overarching th

And? Re: China, there's clearly not an effort to move away from coal if they're constructing new plants. The percentages may be less, but if the overarching thesis is to limit things that produce CO2 altogether, this statistic is irrelevant when contrasted with their actions.

chiefalchemist 5y ago
The percentage might be lower but if the whole is expanding enough the lower percentage might be greater that the previous.
Retric 5y ago
> And Coal power plants age. As their power demand has skyrocketed there are currently few 40+ year old coal power stations to be decommissioned. Looking at say 2050 the existing stock will mostly be replaced by whatever ratio they built between 2010 and 2050. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country Solar in China went from 78 GW in 2016 to 254 GW 2020. The US had 40 GW of solar in 2016 and 75 GW in 2020.
- rglover 5y ago
  Replaced by other coal power stations, though, not alternative sources. So again, not an incorrect statistic, but irrelevant in the context of the goal of reducing emissions globally (and the associated moral arguments/intimidations). Or does China get a pass because they produce goods cheaply for Westerner's?
  - Retric 5y ago
    Your assuming they are suddenly going to massively ramp up construction of coal power plants in a few years based on what? Flip it around, does the US get a pass because they had a lot of really old coal power plants? In the last decade the US built a lot of Natural Gas power plants which sure isn’t as bad as coal, but they are hardly green. We’re falling behind on solar adoption, and wind is only slightly ahead of the global average. Massive infrastructure changes take decades and we have arguably stagnated.
    - rglover 5y ago
      Suddenly, no. But they're not signaling intent to stop building them, either. If they're actively building now and saying they're going to build more, the logical conclusion is that they're going to build more over time. And you're misdirecting. The U.S. doesn't get a pass. We're arguably one of the biggest targets that everyone points their fingers at (and domestically, shames its own population for relying on those energy sources). My entire point is that the very things being obsessed over (solar and wind) are simply not feasible at the scale and capacities required to sustain our current civilization. The alternative is either nuclear, or significant population reduction (read: death, or, the logical conclusion of large swaths of humans either being denied access to energy or being priced out). Like I've said elsewhere in this thread, the problem is less of a moral one and more of a mathematical one. E.g., the best solar panels only have a 20-23% effectiveness rate (https://archive.ph/wip/Vh1Qj https://archive.ph/wip/Vh1Qj). That means they cannot pull in ~80% of the solar power available. Batteries to supplement this mean more not less fossil fuels for production and mining of rare earth metals (and let's not even get into the human rights issues at those mines). Wind mills can't be built with windmill energy (and only work when the wind blows which is too varied to call reliable). Plain and simple: these alternative energy sources are not capable of replacing our existing energy needs wholesale without introducing significant chaos and likely, death.
      - Retric 5y ago
        The efficiency of solar panels is practically irrelevant. For scale for ~20,000$ of land in Arizona (60 acres) is getting ~240,000 kw of energy in full sun. At 2c/kWh and 10% efficiency you pay for that land in ~42 hours of full sun. Land costs are rarely more than 0.1% of total costs. Anyway, nobody is going to run a major grid on 100% solar power because hydro and wind are cheaper than batteries. But let’s think pessimistic worst case. You want 50% over supply of solar so you never have to worry about long term storage (as in 1/3 of all solar is wasted). That’s 3c/kWh. Batteries aren’t 100% efficient and degrade with use so let’s say 55% of power is provided directly via solar (much higher demand in day) and 45% of power is provided from solar fed batteries. If 1 kWh from a battery adds 10c the equation it’s roughly 3c + 10c * 45% = 7.5c/kWh. Which is very close to what base load coal costs except because we’re using batteries which also covers peaking power plants. Frankly coal is only surviving in China because of how long it’s talking to build cheaper alternatives.

chiefalchemist 5y ago

The percentage might be lower but if the whole is expanding enough the lower percentage might be greater that the previous.

Retric 5y ago

> And Coal power plants age. As their power demand has skyrocketed there are currently few 40+ year old coal power stations to be decommissioned. Looking at say 2050 the existing stock will mostly be replaced by whatever ratio they built between 2010 and 2050. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country Solar in China went from 78 GW in 2016 to 254 GW 2020. The US had 40 GW of solar in 2016 and 75 GW in 2020.

rglover 5y ago
Replaced by other coal power stations, though, not alternative sources. So again, not an incorrect statistic, but irrelevant in the context of the goal of reducing emissions globally (and the associated moral arguments/intimidations). Or does China get a pass because they produce goods cheaply for Westerner's?
- Retric 5y ago
  Your assuming they are suddenly going to massively ramp up construction of coal power plants in a few years based on what? Flip it around, does the US get a pass because they had a lot of really old coal power plants? In the last decade the US built a lot of Natural Gas power plants which sure isn’t as bad as coal, but they are hardly green. We’re falling behind on solar adoption, and wind is only slightly ahead of the global average. Massive infrastructure changes take decades and we have arguably stagnated.
  - rglover 5y ago
    Suddenly, no. But they're not signaling intent to stop building them, either. If they're actively building now and saying they're going to build more, the logical conclusion is that they're going to build more over time. And you're misdirecting. The U.S. doesn't get a pass. We're arguably one of the biggest targets that everyone points their fingers at (and domestically, shames its own population for relying on those energy sources). My entire point is that the very things being obsessed over (solar and wind) are simply not feasible at the scale and capacities required to sustain our current civilization. The alternative is either nuclear, or significant population reduction (read: death, or, the logical conclusion of large swaths of humans either being denied access to energy or being priced out). Like I've said elsewhere in this thread, the problem is less of a moral one and more of a mathematical one. E.g., the best solar panels only have a 20-23% effectiveness rate (https://archive.ph/wip/Vh1Qj https://archive.ph/wip/Vh1Qj). That means they cannot pull in ~80% of the solar power available. Batteries to supplement this mean more not less fossil fuels for production and mining of rare earth metals (and let's not even get into the human rights issues at those mines). Wind mills can't be built with windmill energy (and only work when the wind blows which is too varied to call reliable). Plain and simple: these alternative energy sources are not capable of replacing our existing energy needs wholesale without introducing significant chaos and likely, death.
    - Retric 5y ago
      The efficiency of solar panels is practically irrelevant. For scale for ~20,000$ of land in Arizona (60 acres) is getting ~240,000 kw of energy in full sun. At 2c/kWh and 10% efficiency you pay for that land in ~42 hours of full sun. Land costs are rarely more than 0.1% of total costs. Anyway, nobody is going to run a major grid on 100% solar power because hydro and wind are cheaper than batteries. But let’s think pessimistic worst case. You want 50% over supply of solar so you never have to worry about long term storage (as in 1/3 of all solar is wasted). That’s 3c/kWh. Batteries aren’t 100% efficient and degrade with use so let’s say 55% of power is provided directly via solar (much higher demand in day) and 45% of power is provided from solar fed batteries. If 1 kWh from a battery adds 10c the equation it’s roughly 3c + 10c * 45% = 7.5c/kWh. Which is very close to what base load coal costs except because we’re using batteries which also covers peaking power plants. Frankly coal is only surviving in China because of how long it’s talking to build cheaper alternatives.