China’s coal solution has carbon downside across globe

[ScienceRocks]

China’s coal solution has carbon downside across globe
China’s coal solution has carbon downside across globe | Special reports pages | The Seattle Times


Hexigten Qi, China —

The new coal plant here is an industrial fortress of boilers, tanks and towers that stretches across a lonely plateau in Inner Mongolia.

All day long and through the night, it vents huge gray clouds of steam and emits an awful stench.

Though it may seem odd, this is part of China’s campaign to combat the nation’s notorious urban smog. The plant transforms low-grade coal into a cleaner-burning methane gas that can be piped to cities, replacing dirtier fuels that now are used to cook meals, heat homes and produce electricity.

The Chinese leadership has called for the accelerated development of these coal-to- gas plants, and more are under construction in areas distant from major urban centers.

But embracing this technology to fight air pollution involves a serious environmental trade off. The plants that produce this gas spew far more carbon emissions than those that burn coal to generate electricity.

“They’re going to lock in emissions. China — and the world — will bear the consequences for decades,” said Robert Jackson, professor of environment and energy at Stanford University.

A study published last year in Energy Policy found that producing, transporting and combusting this coal-generated gas results in up to 82 percent more carbon emissions than burning China’s coal directly to generate electricity.

If all the plants with initial government approval are built, they could boost the nation’s annual carbon emissions by more than 7 percent over 2012 levels, according to an analysis prepared for The Seattle Times by a co-author of that study.

Such large-scale development would be a significant blow to global efforts to curb CO2 emissions, which already are changing the planet’s climate and causing the oceans to become more acidic.
Those emissions are climbing at rates that pose far more severe risks to the planet, and reversing that trend is heavily dependent on China making cuts in its carbon emissions.

The gas plants are part of a broader expansion of the Chinese coal industry in Inner Mongolia and other provinces in the north and west.

The truth is 70gw of solar isn't going to do much. Between this and the reality that more coal will be built China will be over 10gt this year.

 

[Mr. H.]

China should be importing low-sulfur/high BTU coal from the U.S.

Thanks to the EPA, we sure as fuck have no use for it.

 

[westwall]

China’s coal solution has carbon downside across globe
China’s coal solution has carbon downside across globe | Special reports pages | The Seattle Times


Hexigten Qi, China —

The new coal plant here is an industrial fortress of boilers, tanks and towers that stretches across a lonely plateau in Inner Mongolia.

All day long and through the night, it vents huge gray clouds of steam and emits an awful stench.

Though it may seem odd, this is part of China’s campaign to combat the nation’s notorious urban smog. The plant transforms low-grade coal into a cleaner-burning methane gas that can be piped to cities, replacing dirtier fuels that now are used to cook meals, heat homes and produce electricity.

The Chinese leadership has called for the accelerated development of these coal-to- gas plants, and more are under construction in areas distant from major urban centers.

But embracing this technology to fight air pollution involves a serious environmental trade off. The plants that produce this gas spew far more carbon emissions than those that burn coal to generate electricity.

“They’re going to lock in emissions. China — and the world — will bear the consequences for decades,” said Robert Jackson, professor of environment and energy at Stanford University.

A study published last year in Energy Policy found that producing, transporting and combusting this coal-generated gas results in up to 82 percent more carbon emissions than burning China’s coal directly to generate electricity.

If all the plants with initial government approval are built, they could boost the nation’s annual carbon emissions by more than 7 percent over 2012 levels, according to an analysis prepared for The Seattle Times by a co-author of that study.

Such large-scale development would be a significant blow to global efforts to curb CO2 emissions, which already are changing the planet’s climate and causing the oceans to become more acidic.
Those emissions are climbing at rates that pose far more severe risks to the planet, and reversing that trend is heavily dependent on China making cuts in its carbon emissions.

The gas plants are part of a broader expansion of the Chinese coal industry in Inner Mongolia and other provinces in the north and west.

The truth is 70gw of solar isn't going to do much. Between this and the reality that more coal will be built China will be over 10gt this year.

Some day I would like to see some actual science that shows carbon is bad. So far we have a whoooole lot of computer models that have been shown to be less than worthless, we have an extensive historical data set that shows CO2 lags warmth, so I just don't see any correlation between CO2 increase and warmth.

Not that warmth is bad mind you. Warmth is good. Cold is bad.

 

[RGR]

Some day I would like to see some actual science that shows carbon is bad. So far we have a whoooole lot of computer models that have been shown to be less than worthless, we have an extensive historical data set that shows CO2 lags warmth, so I just don't see any correlation between CO2 increase and warmth.

Not that warmth is bad mind you. Warmth is good. Cold is bad.

What you are referring to is called a "spurious relationship".

A is related to B, B is related to C, therefore C must cause A.

Temperature is rising at the end of the LIA.
The Industrial Revolution begins at the end of the LIA.
Atmospheric CO2 rises with the progression of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore CO2 caused the rise in temperature.

A single trip down the temperature track of natural variability since the last ice age shows that mother nature has been swinging the thermostat without any help from us for a long, LONG time.

 

[ScienceRocks]

As a person that makes his living off of extreme weather... Well, let's just say that I hope China builds many of these.

 

[OnePercenter]

China should be importing low-sulfur/high BTU coal from the U.S.

Thanks to the EPA, we sure as fuck have no use for it.

WTF! The US exports 14 tons per month. More lies from the chief liar.

 

[westwall]

China should be importing low-sulfur/high BTU coal from the U.S.

Thanks to the EPA, we sure as fuck have no use for it.

WTF! The US exports 14 tons per month. More lies from the chief liar.

14 tons? So the equivalent of SEVEN automobiles? Either your number is wrong, or you really are a retard if you think that's a lot.

 

[westwall]

Some day I would like to see some actual science that shows carbon is bad. So far we have a whoooole lot of computer models that have been shown to be less than worthless, we have an extensive historical data set that shows CO2 lags warmth, so I just don't see any correlation between CO2 increase and warmth.

Not that warmth is bad mind you. Warmth is good. Cold is bad.

What you are referring to is called a "spurious relationship".

A is related to B, B is related to C, therefore C must cause A.

Temperature is rising at the end of the LIA.
The Industrial Revolution begins at the end of the LIA.
Atmospheric CO2 rises with the progression of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore CO2 caused the rise in temperature.

A single trip down the temperature track of natural variability since the last ice age shows that mother nature has been swinging the thermostat without any help from us for a long, LONG time.

Yeah, I know. There's also a busload of confirmation bias involved as well.

 

[OnePercenter]

China should be importing low-sulfur/high BTU coal from the U.S.

Thanks to the EPA, we sure as fuck have no use for it.

WTF! The US exports 14 tons per month. More lies from the chief liar.

14 tons? So the equivalent of SEVEN automobiles? Either your number is wrong, or you really are a retard if you think that's a lot.

My bad. That's 14 million tons per month.

 

[Old Rocks]

China’s coal solution has carbon downside across globe
China’s coal solution has carbon downside across globe | Special reports pages | The Seattle Times


Hexigten Qi, China —

The new coal plant here is an industrial fortress of boilers, tanks and towers that stretches across a lonely plateau in Inner Mongolia.

All day long and through the night, it vents huge gray clouds of steam and emits an awful stench.

Though it may seem odd, this is part of China’s campaign to combat the nation’s notorious urban smog. The plant transforms low-grade coal into a cleaner-burning methane gas that can be piped to cities, replacing dirtier fuels that now are used to cook meals, heat homes and produce electricity.

The Chinese leadership has called for the accelerated development of these coal-to- gas plants, and more are under construction in areas distant from major urban centers.

But embracing this technology to fight air pollution involves a serious environmental trade off. The plants that produce this gas spew far more carbon emissions than those that burn coal to generate electricity.

“They’re going to lock in emissions. China — and the world — will bear the consequences for decades,” said Robert Jackson, professor of environment and energy at Stanford University.

A study published last year in Energy Policy found that producing, transporting and combusting this coal-generated gas results in up to 82 percent more carbon emissions than burning China’s coal directly to generate electricity.

If all the plants with initial government approval are built, they could boost the nation’s annual carbon emissions by more than 7 percent over 2012 levels, according to an analysis prepared for The Seattle Times by a co-author of that study.

Such large-scale development would be a significant blow to global efforts to curb CO2 emissions, which already are changing the planet’s climate and causing the oceans to become more acidic.
Those emissions are climbing at rates that pose far more severe risks to the planet, and reversing that trend is heavily dependent on China making cuts in its carbon emissions.

The gas plants are part of a broader expansion of the Chinese coal industry in Inner Mongolia and other provinces in the north and west.

The truth is 70gw of solar isn't going to do much. Between this and the reality that more coal will be built China will be over 10gt this year.

Some day I would like to see some actual science that shows carbon is bad. So far we have a whoooole lot of computer models that have been shown to be less than worthless, we have an extensive historical data set that shows CO2 lags warmth, so I just don't see any correlation between CO2 increase and warmth.

Not that warmth is bad mind you. Warmth is good. Cold is bad.

Like hell you will. No matter how much it is proven, you will go to your grave in denial. Mentally, you are in stasis and have been for a long time.

 

[Old Rocks]

Some day I would like to see some actual science that shows carbon is bad. So far we have a whoooole lot of computer models that have been shown to be less than worthless, we have an extensive historical data set that shows CO2 lags warmth, so I just don't see any correlation between CO2 increase and warmth.

Not that warmth is bad mind you. Warmth is good. Cold is bad.

What you are referring to is called a "spurious relationship".

A is related to B, B is related to C, therefore C must cause A.

Temperature is rising at the end of the LIA.
The Industrial Revolution begins at the end of the LIA.
Atmospheric CO2 rises with the progression of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore CO2 caused the rise in temperature.

A single trip down the temperature track of natural variability since the last ice age shows that mother nature has been swinging the thermostat without any help from us for a long, LONG time.

Yeah, I know. There's also a busload of confirmation bias involved as well.

Very interesting graph. Since you deniers do not deny it's credibility, I might point out that you should look at the name of the author. Not only that, but it shows that we are exiting the interglacial, and that it has been cooling for last 7000 years.

Abrupt Climate Change

Large, abrupt, and widespread climate changes with major impacts have occurred repeatedly in the past, when the Earth system was forced across thresholds. Although abrupt climate changes can occur for many reasons, it is conceivable that human forcing of climate change is increasing the probability of large, abrupt events. Were such an event to recur, the economic and ecological impacts could be large and potentially serious. Unpredictability exhibited near climate thresholds in simple models shows that some uncertainty will always be associated with projections. In light of these uncertainties, policy-makers should consider expanding research into abrupt climate change, improving monitoring systems, and taking actions designed to enhance the adaptability and resilience of ecosystems and economies.

 

[Old Rocks]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g]Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" - YouTube[/ame]

Since you like RB Alley's graph, you might also like this video.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Only 188 MW Of Distributed Solar PV Installed In 1st Quarter In China

It was just a few days ago that we were reporting on China’s ambitious new solar energy goals — goals which would see China’s installed solar capacity triple in just 3 years, up to 70,000 MW. Impressive ambitions.

But those ambitions certainly aren’t reflected in the most recent figures out of the country, figures that show that during the whole first quarter of 2014, only 188 MW of distributed solar PV were installed. Not exactly inspiring numbers.

Read more at Only 188 MW Of Distributed Solar PV Installed In 1st Quarter In China | CleanTechnica


Ounch!

 

[OnePercenter]

Only 188 MW Of Distributed Solar PV Installed In 1st Quarter In China

It was just a few days ago that we were reporting on China’s ambitious new solar energy goals — goals which would see China’s installed solar capacity triple in just 3 years, up to 70,000 MW. Impressive ambitions.

But those ambitions certainly aren’t reflected in the most recent figures out of the country, figures that show that during the whole first quarter of 2014, only 188 MW of distributed solar PV were installed. Not exactly inspiring numbers.

Read more at Only 188 MW Of Distributed Solar PV Installed In 1st Quarter In China | CleanTechnica


Ounch!

188mw will power 30,000 homes. Nice start!

 

[westwall]

China’s coal solution has carbon downside across globe
China’s coal solution has carbon downside across globe | Special reports pages | The Seattle Times


Hexigten Qi, China —




The truth is 70gw of solar isn't going to do much. Between this and the reality that more coal will be built China will be over 10gt this year.

Some day I would like to see some actual science that shows carbon is bad. So far we have a whoooole lot of computer models that have been shown to be less than worthless, we have an extensive historical data set that shows CO2 lags warmth, so I just don't see any correlation between CO2 increase and warmth.

Not that warmth is bad mind you. Warmth is good. Cold is bad.

Like hell you will. No matter how much it is proven, you will go to your grave in denial. Mentally, you are in stasis and have been for a long time.

That's where you're absolutely wrong olfraud. I always acknowledge GOOD scientific work. To date the AGW scientists haven't produced anything but excrement. Only in your twisted minds are computer models considered "facts".

And please, show us empirical data that says warmth is bad. I can present you loads from the PETM that says warmth was FANTASTIC back then. The fossil record is replete with evidence of how beneficial the warmth was, back then, to the mammals.

You can only trot out computer models of known uselessness.

 

[westwall]

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" - YouTube

Since you like RB Alley's graph, you might also like this video.

If CO2 is such a "powerful" control knob, why does it lag hundreds of years behind global warming?

 

[priceless]

Not that warmth is bad mind you. Warmth is good. Cold is bad.

Go look at a south-bound train full of coal and realize that all that coal is going to be burnt in the summer to generate cold air. It may be counter-intuitive to imagine, but the net amount of heat in those air-conditioned cities is augmented by the energy from the coal being burnt. It is the same effect that the coal would have if it was burnt directly for heat.

Would you build a giant coal furnace outside a southern city in the summer to add to the already-scorching heat? The culture of adding to nature's heat by burning coal in summer to cool buildings left unshaded by tree-removal is foolish and arrogant. How long can we expect to stave off the natural consequences of undermining and perverting nature's natural thermostat?

 

[whitehall]

Blame China for a change.

 

[Mr. H.]

Blame China for a change.

The U.N. needs to put the hammer down on the Chinee.


Sent from my ass using USMessageBoard.com