4 ms·

> Again only because the denominator changed > Meanwhile the solar you're touting for China is still at <5% and so is the nuclear, compared to 18% for the latt

> Again only because the denominator changed > Meanwhile the solar you're touting for China is still at <5% and so is the nuclear, compared to 18% for the latter in the US. I'm not sure if it is ignorance here, or deliberate straw-manning, but clearly you're comparing a developed nation with a developing nation with a massive population. To be fair, it's on it's last phase of catch up with developed nations, with some provinces 'medium' on the HDI vs some that are 'very high'[0], but in comparison the US[1] the HDI is uniformly 'very high'[1]. > Coal is a disaster and there is no excuse for building more of it rather than replacing what already exists. Given my assertion above, this translates into: 'China's people must have a lower quality of life (with the attendant health/educational outcomes etc.), until renewable energy catches up'. If the situation was reversed, how might you feel to be on the receiving end of that argument? Anyway, to counter China could do an Elon Musk and say they is doing more for the environment than any other country by manufacturing so much cheap solar panels (which go to sunny places like North Africa, Australia, US)[2], batteries, and EVs... in spite of burning hydrocarbons en-masse in other endeavors, e.g., "There's no excuse in starting a whole space industry that's increasing emissions via inarguably carbon-positive fuel in this warming climate, even though they kickstarted EV industry" vs "There's no excuse for China making coal fired plants, even though they supply solar panels that generate 100s of GWs (soon TWs) of power in other countries"). And maybe one day, Musk will use carbon capture to make his fuel carbon-neutral, and with China switching to renewables and nuclear at a rapid clip in spite of their large and developing population they will catch up too. Once again, I'm done here, feel free to have the last word. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_of_Greater_China_by_Human_Development_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisio... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_Human_Development_Index_score https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/44y90h/annual_sunshine_hours_map_of_the_world_2753_1400/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/44y90h/annual_suns...

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> you're comparing a developed nation with a developing nation with a massive population. This makes it easier for them, not harder. Renewable generation is more competitive against an unbuilt coal-fired power plant than an existing one that has already paid off its construction costs and only has to pay for operating expenses. > China's people must have a lower quality of life (with the attendant health/educational outcomes etc.), until renewable energy catches up You have two premises here which are both incorrect. The first is that renewable technology has to "catch up", but it's already cost-competitive with coal. The second is that renewable technology is the only alternative to coal, but nuclear is a mature technology when you need to supply base load. It's not like you have to wait for fusion, just don't use coal. > Anyway, to counter China could do an Elon Musk and say they is doing more for the environment than any other country by manufacturing so much cheap solar panels (which go to sunny places like North Africa, Australia, US) Which they're subsidizing to assist their domestic industry in controlling the market. Otherwise why are they exporting them rather than using them in place of coal, in a country closer to the equator than the continental US? > There's no excuse in starting a whole space industry that's increasing emissions via inarguably carbon-positive fuel in this warming climate The Falcon 9 produces 300 tons of CO2 per launch and there were 60 launches in 2022, totaling 18,000 tons. In the same year China emitted 11.4 billion metric tons of CO2. One of these doesn't even rise to the level of a rounding error, the other is a huge problem.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> you're comparing a developed nation with a developing nation with a massive population. This makes it easier for them, not harder. Renewable generation is more competitive against an unbuilt coal-fired power plant than an existing one that has already paid off its construction costs and only has to pay for operating expenses. > China's people must have a lower quality of life (with the attendant health/educational outcomes etc.), until renewable energy catches up You have two premises here which are both incorrect. The first is that renewable technology has to "catch up", but it's already cost-competitive with coal. The second is that renewable technology is the only alternative to coal, but nuclear is a mature technology when you need to supply base load. It's not like you have to wait for fusion, just don't use coal. > Anyway, to counter China could do an Elon Musk and say they is doing more for the environment than any other country by manufacturing so much cheap solar panels (which go to sunny places like North Africa, Australia, US) Which they're subsidizing to assist their domestic industry in controlling the market. Otherwise why are they exporting them rather than using them in place of coal, in a country closer to the equator than the continental US? > There's no excuse in starting a whole space industry that's increasing emissions via inarguably carbon-positive fuel in this warming climate The Falcon 9 produces 300 tons of CO2 per launch and there were 60 launches in 2022, totaling 18,000 tons. In the same year China emitted 11.4 billion metric tons of CO2. One of these doesn't even rise to the level of a rounding error, the other is a huge problem.