China Building 15 New Coal Fired Power Plants
- Thread starter MrHotDice
- Start date
No political benefit to energy virtue signaling in that country. They can just do what they need to do.
I doubt anyone brought this up at COP27 in Egypt last week.
What does Greta think about this?
They need more power to build all those windmills and solar panels they're selling us so we can decline into an equitable "green" third world country.
Theyre so much smarter than Democrats its not even funny. Maybe we could work a trade...
I’ve said this one million times. If Russia (somewhat) and India and China don’t get on board you can recycle everything you ever touch and it won’t matter. If everyone in the USA did the same it would be like 2-4% difference. So throw your fairmilk milk bottles and your bota box wine in the trash and you’ve done nothing but make yourself feel better when you go to bed.
To your point, China has >3X the US population and India has almost 3X. If they build enough coal fired electric plants to keep the lights and HVAC on in those countries, whatever the US does won't make much difference at all. Except to the people of the US who will endure rolling blackouts like Germany, Australia and Sri Lanka.
The only way to solve this is to give about $50B more to Ukraine and get everyone vaccinated.
Seeing that they own about every relevant country’s politicians now it’s not surprising they tell them all to eat ish.
FINALLY you politards have a place to discuss your nonsense. I know it’s been a rough few weeks.
Yeah... this topic isn't political at all lol.
The only thing I know right now China is in deep shit in the next 10-20 years.
Declining birth rates, massive elderly population that’s going to need to be taken care of, worker dissatisfaction becoming so bad that companies are more and more looking around to places like India for cheap manufacturing labor (especially in tech) , an economy that’s being propped up right now by a massive real estate bubble and got wrecked by their insanely strict Covid lockdowns.
And because of the global economies massive investment into China the last 40 years they crash they’re going to burn the world with them.
So building some coal plants doesn’t concern me. What they could do when the chickens come home to roost does.
Declining birth rates, massive elderly population that’s going to need to be taken care of, worker dissatisfaction becoming so bad that companies are more and more looking around to places like India for cheap manufacturing labor (especially in tech) , an economy that’s being propped up right now by a massive real estate bubble and got wrecked by their insanely strict Covid lockdowns.
And because of the global economies massive investment into China the last 40 years they crash they’re going to burn the world with them.
So building some coal plants doesn’t concern me. What they could do when the chickens come home to roost does.
Thank you! Can we not stay on topic here? This is about Calipari and Matt Jones. No need to make it political.
15 new plants doesn't scratch the surface. China has over 1100 plants. They have been adding over 50 per year for infinity. The US is below 250 now.
Those numbers don't explain it all. Our huge plants that were built in the 50s are in the 1000-2000 MW range. We don't have the gumption to build anything like that anymore. We are shuttering those. Their plants are in the 4000-7000 MW range.
The one thing Ds like is self inflicted scarcity.
Look at how the west is starving itself while the peach bar grows bigger year in and year out.
While on the one hand I agree with you, because it is a fact, and you might as well add Indonesia to the list as well, OTOH, if you believe that climate change is a real danger, then what else do you suggest? Cross your fingers and hope the climate deniers are right and there is nothing to worry about? Or wait until we cook or the coast lines flood, or farm land dries out, or other irreversible damage happens?
And before the other posters on this thread start piling on, I know most of you think climate change is all BS anyway and we should be drilling and burning every night and day, so I won't try to argue with you on the topic. Deal?
Last edited:
China says a third of electricity will come from renewables by 2025
China will aim to ensure that its grids source about 33% of power from renewable sources by 2025, up from 28.8% in 2020, the state planning agency said on Wednesday in a new "five-year plan" for the renewable sector.
www.reuters.com
That doesn't say anything about reducing coal consumption in china.China says a third of electricity will come from renewables by 2025
China will aim to ensure that its grids source about 33% of power from renewable sources by 2025, up from 28.8% in 2020, the state planning agency said on Wednesday in a new "five-year plan" for the renewable sector.
Though China has yet to announce a formal energy cap, the new non-fossil fuel energy consumption figure implies that total primary energy use could reach 5 billion tonnes of standard coal by 2025.
They are currently using a little over four billion tons. China's increase alone will be twice the US total consumption(0.497 billion tons)
You got excited when you read windmills and solar though.
"Well, China is being responsible using green energy. If not, China's would be burning 8 billion tons!"
Consumption of Coal and lignite | World Coal consumption | Enerdata
World Coal and Lignite consumption: Get global Coal energy statistics and graphs for coal and lignite consumption.
As you and I have discussed (and I think agree), the answer is pronounced 'nuclear'. Safe, sustainable, plentiful energy with negligible carbon impact. I don't think there is any way possible for solar and wind to completely replace other options: LNG-fired plants, nuclear, hydro, etc. I'm all for eliminating coal-fired plants but only when a viable alternative is already in place. The replacement can, of course, include renewables. What other countries have done is assume the renewable sources are capable of replacing the coal-fired plants and have found out, too late, that that assumption is false. Hence a German company plowing under windmill farms to mine coal and Germans supposedly accumulating firewood for the cold winter as gas shortages are expected to be severe and widespread.
I am OK with nuclear, we can build them a hell of a lot better now than in the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl days. Although I think the miniature nuclear sites have a lot of long term promise, more so than the traditional mega plants. But we can also use solar, wind, hydro and some fossil fuel all at the same time, doesn't have to be a single magic bullet, in fact, I am pretty sure there is no one solution.
But first, have to agree there is a problem which needs to be addressed, otherwise, there will always be cheaper alternatives in the short run. Which is a very short sighted and dangerous POV, in my opinion.
But first, have to agree there is a problem which needs to be addressed, otherwise, there will always be cheaper alternatives in the short run. Which is a very short sighted and dangerous POV, in my opinion.
(1) I don’t think you need to deny climate change to know that climate change alarmism is BS. We have facts to demonstrate that. All you have to do is go back to the narratives promoted during Al Gore’s “truth” days to know the alarmism is BS. We are well past the point of no-return according to the early climate fools.
(2) Reparations are a joke, unless globalism is your real objective and climate catastrophe is simply your tool.
(3) Next generation of nukes would be in the construction stages right now if the self-proclaimed panicked truly were panicked. But, climate activists can only just now give lip service to nuclear.
The virtue signaling and rejection of the obvious solutions reveals the climate alarmist perspective as a true pile of shat.
I repeat. Coal is political. Have you heard of the Wacky Green New Deal? Have you heard from the lips of the President of The United States he is ordering the shut down of coal plants that will put coal miners out of work. He said it and Biden is the definition of political.
I doubt you even know about Hunter's Laptop. Liberals are the most "in the dark creatures on earth". You celebrate the suppression of information.
If the thread was, "tell the smartest person on the board to go **** themselves," then yes.
That's why it belongs in the political thread, genius.
Who said I was liberal? I'm merely pro-keep-that-shit-off-the-main-board-and-back-to-the-political-circle-jerk-thread.
Are you aware that you're not being forced to respond to anything you don't like?
Seems obvious... especially but evidently not.
I mean... who's dumb enough to think that "China" and "coal" wouldn't be political (other than MGGA)?
There I go again... another macro-aggression lol... I guess stupidity brings it out in me (dang... I just did it again!).
By the fruits you produce. Just like I understand oranges come from orange trees.
Congrats. The smartest idiot is still an idiot, my liege.
Costs of Wind and Solar Energy Are Skyrocketing
Advocates of wind and solar energy have argued that the cost of those energy sources would decline over time as they are more widely adopted. That never made any sense, and it has not proved true. In fact, the cost of both wind and solar energy is destined to continue rising sharply as the...
www.powerlineblog.com
KY needs NIL money. Get the dang coal plants running again.
What worries me is that 'rare earth metals' are just that - rare. And for the largest economies in the world to commit to as much renewable energy as possible, the amount of rare earth metals needed is going to be staggering. I would guess the demand will, by several thousand percent, outstrip the supply. Econ 101: demand >> supply = increasing prices. Plus, they're rare and, by definition, may not be enough in existence to feed the global economies. Not to mention that much of the rare earth mining operations are owned by China who, by the way, hates our guts and wants to dominate the world. (Seems like we may be trading OPEC holding our economy hostage for China holding our economy hostage. The big difference is we sit on a lot of oil reserves and very little rare earth metals.) Holding our economy hostage to their mining operations seems like a pretty effective way of doing so. Not to mention that China has, shall we say, a rather checkered history when it comes to human/civil rights, environmental issues, etc. I'm sure quadrupling rare earth metals mining (or more) won't impact the environment, right?Costs of Wind and Solar Energy Are Skyrocketing
Advocates of wind and solar energy have argued that the cost of those energy sources would decline over time as they are more widely adopted. That never made any sense, and it has not proved true. In fact, the cost of both wind and solar energy is destined to continue rising sharply as the...
And, Tsk is correct, by the way. The true answer is and should be 'all of the above'. Personally, I'm a whole lot more enthusiastic about hydrogen-driven automobiles than I am about electric. But, the big money, governmental influence, etc. is all about all-electric when they have no plan of the logistics to make it work. Last time I looked, hydrogen is literally everywhere. Yes, it's expensive to produce and the infrastructure is barely in the fetal stage. But, hydrogen-driven cars would not require millions of miles of electric cable be strung all over the US to charging stations. Just empty a couple of gas storage tanks at each of the numerous gas stations already across this country (with some modifications, undoubtedly) and the infrastructure problem is basically solved. The amount of government money spent on hydrogen technology is a drop in the bucket compared to all-electric.
Well, according to COP27 China is a "developing country" and can continue to pollute without restrict AND be entitled to American taxpayer money for doing so!
Agreed but I would rather be a superpower than be a third world country with pollution in 50 years versus let them run the first world and still cause 60-80% pollution because those countries aren’t going to give a care.
Agreed but I would rather be a superpower than be a third world country with a huge pollution in 50 years versus let them run the first world and still cause 60-80% pollution because those countries aren’t going to give a care.
In 50 years, having arable land and water may make you a superpower
Similar threads
