Skip to main content

View Diary: Germany's solar installations generate 10% of the nation's electricity in May. This is a failure? (196 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And then there is China . (9+ / 0-)

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 07:20:45 PM PDT

    •  China only uses 10% more coal than the US, and (16+ / 0-)

      that is with four times the population. Just saying. We are the coal problem. All of our use is for ourselves, and much of China's is as well, so that the average American slob can fill a shopping cart with plastic crap at Walmart. It all comes back to us.

      Man is simply a monkey with an attitude.

      by rbutters on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 04:10:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In addition to the above (7+ / 0-)

        as noted in the diary, China is manufacturing solar equipment for Germany. They've been a big contributor to increasing manufacturing capacity and lowering prices worldwide.

        "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

        by kyril on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 06:53:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think China has more than 4 times our population (9+ / 0-)

        Last I read, 20% of the world's population is in China.

        China is also prioritizing R&D in renewable clean energy.

        Westerners spend so much effort demonizing the Chinese. Condescending about their culture and ignoring the intellectualism, innovation and accomplishments of their past.  The jackbooted Menace of Mao and his evil Red China is a mere blip in the history of China.

        One day we're likely to suddenly realize they've surpassed everyone in clean energy, sustainability as well as many other things we're ignoring at our own great peril...and I'm not talking about things military and financial.

        Our sense of our own "exceptionalism" is our Achilles heel.

        It always amazes me when we criticize other countries for "acting in their own self-interest" - as though they should consider OUR interests above their own. We, ourselves, are the most self-absorbed, short-sighted, xenophobic and egotistical collection of human beings on this (more than 6,000 year old) Earth.

        "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

        by 417els on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 06:54:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Watching what they are doing re coal (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happymisanthropy, cdreid, 417els

          isn't  any of the things you have mentioned .

          One day we're likely to suddenly realize they've surpassed everyone in clean energy, sustainability as well as many other things we're ignoring at our own great peril...
          When might this be ? Before they triple their coal burning or after ? Would you guess 2050 ? 2100 ? What do you think the planet will be like then ? Do you have any real info ?

          What China does re coal burning is going to important to every person on this planet . We all share the environment .

          "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

          by indycam on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 08:24:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, I'm not saying China is anywhere near "there" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kyril

            yet.  And I'm not putting them on a pedestal.  I'm not "guessing" re times or dates.

            We are in a much better position than China to do major, immediate improvement and innovation, but we deny and obstruct instead.

            China is committed to research and development of clean energy...it is in their own self-interest to do so.  We, instead, are hostage$ to big oil & ga$ and willful wingnuttery. ( And we have our own "clean coal" which is anything but.)

            By WE, I am not including those of us who are realists and see the disaster looming because of inaction.

            "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

            by 417els on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 03:08:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Got any real info to prove this ? (0+ / 0-)
              China is committed to research and development of clean energy.
              Your statement does not go along with the doubling / tripling of their coal burning in the near future .

              I think you have it all backwards .

              "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

              by indycam on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 05:50:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually, I'd like to see a source for your claim (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                417els, translatorpro, kyril

                The claim that China will double or triple its coal consumption (presuming you mean from the amount it uses today). I highly doubt either of those milestones (especially the tripling) will ever be reached.

                For example, the BP Energy Outlook to 2030 has China coal use only growing about 40% from now to 2030. It notes, "[i]n China, rapid coal consumption growth ends after 2020. ... Efficiency gains and structural shifts dramatically reduce coal intensity in China - coal consumed per unit of GDP is almost 60% lower in 2030 than today."

                Another source at odds with your estimate is the LBNL publication China's Energy and Carbon Emissions Outlook to 2050 which has (in their highest-use baseline scenario) Chinese coal consumption peaking in 2030 at around 25% higher than current levels.

                Then there's the question of where the coal for a doubling of national consumption would come from. That LBNL publication claims, "China's remaining extractable coal reserves appear to accommodate extraction levels up to over 4 billion tonnes per year, meeting CIS [baseline scenario] demand, for only for a relatively short period; unless China's reserves turn out to be larger than current estimates, China will be increasingly dependent on coal imports in the long run." The last four (2007 to 2011) editions of the BP Statistical Review of World Energy put the Reserves-to-production (R/P) ratio for coal in China at 45, 41, 38 and 35 years respectively. As consumption increases, the R/P will drop more rapidly. There are likely to be increased prices as the two major exporters in the region (Australia and Indonesia) may struggle with the logistics of meeting Asian demand.

                China's coal consumption tripling from what it burned in 2000, that I could believe. (That is roughly what the above sources indicate, with graphs starting from 2000 in some cases. Maybe that was a source of confusion, just speculating.) But from the amount used currently, I don't think that is plausible.

                •  So they are burning more than before (0+ / 0-)

                  its just a question of how much more ?

                  "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                  by indycam on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 06:41:41 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  ... (0+ / 0-)

                  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...

                  The coal power capacity that China has added in the past five years exceeds that of all the U.S. coal power plants combined. By 2015, Chinese capacity is expected to triple that of the United States.
                  http://www.reuters.com/...
                  China coal imports to double in 2015, India close behind
                  http://www.china-mike.com/...
                  China is projected to increase its energy demand by 75% between 2008 and 2035, according to the International Energy Agency.
                  China relies on coal for almost 70% of its total energy supply (compared to the U.S.’s 30%).
                  By 2030, China’s carbon dioxide emissions could equal the entire world’s CO2 production today, if the country’s carbon usage keeps pace with its economic growth.

                  "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                  by indycam on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 07:14:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  None of those links support what you wrote (0+ / 0-)

                    China "capacity ... expected to triple that of the United States" does not mean a doubling/tripling of the amount of coal they burn.

                    "China coal imports to double in 2015" doesn't either - imports are currently a tiny fraction of the amount burned.

                    "China is projected to increase its energy demand by 75% between 2008 and 2035" doesn't either, especially as the proportion of primary energy met by coal is expected to decline by 2035 in that country.

                    China has not yet reached its peak year of coal consumption, but the amount burned in that peak year - whenever it happens - will almost certainly not be double the 2012 amount, and will certainly not be triple.

                    It's important to keep energy discussion reality based.

                    •  I am reality based , you just have not seen (0+ / 0-)

                      the truth of it yet .

                      especially as the proportion of primary energy met by coal is expected to decline by 2035 in that country.
                      By what percent ?
                      What I am seeing is an increase of coal burning , a doubling / tripling
                      while the percentage stays in the 70 / 80 % range .  

                      If they burn 1 pound of coal today and do nothing else , coal is 100%
                      If tomorrow they burn 2 pounds of coal  and get an equivalent amount of energy from another source , they are the burning percentage wise less coal while burning twice as much coal . Percentage goes down while pounds go up . So please don't try and play the percentage game .

                      expected to triple that of the United States" does not mean a doubling/tripling of the amount of coal they burn.
                      How do they triple "capacity" without doubling coal burning ?
                      Show me the math .
                      Take the numbers from now , triple them and then tell me where that energy is coming from ?
                      Solar isn't going to do it .
                      Hydro isn't going to do it .
                      Wind isn't going to do it .
                      The nukes they are building are not going to do it .
                      Solar hydro wind and nuke together isn't going to do it .
                      Do the math for yourself .
                      Then look at what they are doing .

                      "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                      by indycam on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 01:55:01 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I have to disagree (0+ / 0-)

                        I can't see how an unsourced claim that China will triple its current rate of coal consumption is reality based at all.

                        What I am seeing is an increase of coal burning , a doubling / tripling while the percentage stays in the 70 / 80 % range
                        Again, by what sources? The ones you posted directly contradict that.
                        If they burn 1 pound of coal today and do nothing else , coal is 100%
                        If tomorrow they burn 2 pounds of coal  and get an equivalent amount of energy from another source , they are the burning percentage wise less coal while burning twice as much coal . Percentage goes down while pounds go up . So please don't try and play the percentage game .
                        There's no game being played here, you can look at the publications I noted for yourself. They have China coal consumption increasing, sure, but nothing even close to doubling from what it is today.
                        expected to triple that of the United States" does not mean a doubling/tripling of the amount of coal they burn.
                        How do they triple "capacity" without doubling coal burning ?
                        Show me the math .
                        Sigh. I have a lot of respect for what you write here but this is a math fail. You've taken a quote about China being expected to have three times as much coal burning capacity as the United States, and misinterpreted that to mean there must be some time in the future China when will burn three times as much coal as China does now. (Which would be 1.5 times the current global consumption.) No energy outlook study predicts anything like that, and China doesn't have the coal reserves to sustain it.

                        Getting beyond the basics of reserves, it is important to also consider the variation in coal quality and the logistics of transportation. In estimates of world coal reserves there's a lot that will simply never be burned a long distance from where it lies in the ground now, because it would cost more energy to mine and ship thousands of miles than the energy it would produce in a power plant.

                        Coal can get a lot more expensive (in financial and energy cost delivered to the plant) when it is burned a long distance from where it is mined. That's why today only one seventh of coal is burned in a different country from its original location, and much of the international trade is higher-value coking coal and hard coal with relatively high calorific content. Lignite in particular has low enough energy content that it is often only economic to burn it in a plant that is close to a mine and has a low-energy transportation mechanism direct from mine to plant such as a conveyor belt.

                        China's peak year of coal consumption is some time in the future, and will come from an increase both of its domestic production and increased imports, but that peak year is extremely unlikely to be an amount twice - and a practical certainty it won't be triple - the amount it burns in 2012. Throwing around unsourced claims of doubling and tripling is wrong and unhelpful to discussion.

                        •  I ask a question , you did not answer . (0+ / 0-)

                          Sigh .

                          Take the numbers from now , triple them and then tell me where that energy is coming from ?
                          If coal is 70ish % now and 30ish % is other .
                          Now double / triple those numbers and tell me where that energy is coming from .
                          Coal = ? %
                          Hydro = ? %
                          Solar = ? %
                          Nuke = ? %
                          Gas = ? %

                          Make the numbers realistic ,
                          make the numbers add up .

                          "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                          by indycam on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 06:07:56 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  The problem is in the question (0+ / 0-)
                            If coal is 70ish % now and 30ish % is other .
                            Now double / triple those numbers and tell me where that energy is coming from .

                            Make the numbers realistic ,
                            make the numbers add up .

                            You can't expect an answer containing realistic numbers that add up when you ask a question with ridiculous assumptions.

                            The publications I cited have looked at many variables: growth rates in China and world population and GDP; fossil fuel reserves; the current inefficiency of coal use in China; and many others. From this they have produced outlooks that don't involve that nation's coal use even doubling in the forseeable future.

                            You are taking a very different, overly simplistic and very backwards approach: assuming that some unstated time from now China will have triple its current energy use, and that it will be able to meet this with a similar proportion of coal use that it has now. Just one of the many problems with this approach, is explaining where in the world this coal will be found and mined.

                            There may come a time when China has the demand for three times its current rate of utilized energy. But your assumptions about what that energy profile will look like: (a) energy efficiency in the country then will be similar to now, so the primary energy demand will also be tripled; (b) when that time comes coal in particular will be burned just as inefficiently (in many small plants instead of the larger higher efficiency plants that are generally replacing them) as it is now; (c) it will be using a similar proportion of coal to meet this tripled primary energy demand - well, these assumptions are simply at odds with reality. They cannot burn something that does not exist.

                            I cited the BP SRWE showing over the past four years China having a coal reserves to production ratio of 45, then 41, then 38, then 35 years. (Actually since I wrote that comment yesterday the 2012 edition has been released, and now it is 33 years. Triple the consumption rate and that be 11 years.) Just import it? Well, some coal has high enough energy content to be worth shipping around the world, but the stuff at the low end of the coal energy content spectrum is only economic to use close to where it was mined. It's not like oil, you can't just look at tables of global reserves and assume most of what's left could end up shipped to China.

                            For your hypothetical year in which China burns three times as much coal as 2012, what year will that be? Where is the coal going to come from? Make the numbers realistic.

                          •  You have become even more offensive , (0+ / 0-)

                            that is a sure sign of failure .
                            You have failed to once again answer the question .  
                            I have no interest in speaking with you now or in the future .

                            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                            by indycam on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 07:40:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As you wish (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't see where there was anything offensive, but I will call out unsupported (unsupportable as I see it) "doubling/tripling" claims when I read them.

              •  At the moment I don't have links at hand... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kyril

                But think I've bookmarked some info.  I'll try to find it..  

                I'd like to know what your info is.  Not being confrontational, indycam...I honestly would like to know more.  

                This diary & thread will probably have floated on down the line, but I'll come back here to post what I can find.

                "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

                by 417els on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 07:40:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Our coal use is going down (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Visceral, cdreid

        their use is going up up up .

        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

        by indycam on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 08:10:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  China is not half the people in the world . (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cdreid

        They are 1/7 th of the world .

        Moreover, China is the world’s top coal consumer, accounting for nearly half of global consumption in 2010
        http://www.google.com/...

        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

        by indycam on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 08:16:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is not true . (0+ / 0-)
        We are the coal problem.
        We don't control China . We don't dictate to China .
        China does not ask us for permission .

        China does not control how much coal we burn .
        They trade with us .
        http://www.census.gov/...

        We do not control Germany . We don't dictate to Germany .
        Germany does not ask us for permission .

        Germany does not control how much coal we burn .
        They trade with us .
        http://www.census.gov/...

        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

        by indycam on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 09:02:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site