King COAL!! Oh in China

[Navy1960]

China is aiming to increase its coal production by about 30 per cent by 2015 to meet its energy needs, the Government has announced, in a move likely to fuel concerns over global warming.
Land and Resources Ministry chief planner Hu Cunzhi said the Government planned to increase annual output to more than 3.3billion tonnes by 2015.

That is up from the 2.54 billion tonnes produced in 2007, according to the ministry.

Figures for 2008 have not been issued yet.

Annual production of natural gas would more than double to 160billion cubic metres by 2015, while that of crude oil would increase by 7 per cent to more than 200billion tonnes, Mr Hu said.
China to increase coal output by 30pc - Local News - News - Business - The Canberra Times

Here, we are in this country, reducing capacity all in the name of "global warming". Virtually eleminating technologies or taking them off the table because they don't suit the ideals of the "envirobusiness model" . What is so completely moronic about all this is that in their zeal to place every increasing restrictions on this economy, they ignore countries that build these factories that we cannot build at the rate of 2 a week. So then how is it that technologieslike nuclear are taken off the table all in the name of "global warming" or environmentally unfriendly. Perhaps it's because they are not profitable for those who are pushing the envirobusiness?

 

[dilloduck]

Enviros haven't figured out that air from China can make it around the world. Actually they know that but will NEVER discuss it due do it's agenda altering nature. Actually they prefer to just flat out lie and focus on the small picture.

 

[Navy1960]

Enviros haven't figured out that air from China can make it around the world. Actually they know that but will NEVER discuss it due do it's agenda altering nature. Actually they prefer to just flat out lie and focus on the small picture.

That goes directly to what I have been saying all along though dillo, and that is this business model that "envirobusiness" pedals only works in nations like ours where they can find a receptive audience. The main reason this model does not work in places like China and India is because these nations are not restrictive on technologies that keep their nation vibrant. One other thing to consider here, China is also the worlds largest supplier of "green technologies" to the so called "environbusiness" that has sold the American public that by converting us to a complete green economy they can create millions of new green jobs.

 

[dilloduck]

Enviros haven't figured out that air from China can make it around the world. Actually they know that but will NEVER discuss it due do it's agenda altering nature. Actually they prefer to just flat out lie and focus on the small picture.

That goes directly to what I have been saying all along though dillo, and that is this business model that "envirobusiness" pedals only works in nations like ours where they can find a receptive audience. The main reason this model does not work in places like China and India is because these nations are not restrictive on technologies that keep their nation vibrant. One other thing to consider here, China is also the worlds largest supplier of "green technologies" to the so called "environbusiness" that has sold the American public that by converting us to a complete green economy they can create millions of new green jobs.

Our government is fully aware of this and has no problem selling the US down the river. One can only conclude that they are powerless or in on it.

 

[Toro]

I posted a thread here some time ago about how fires from China's abandoned coal mines emitted more greenhouse gases than all the cars in America.

I'd find it, but I'm too lazy.

 

[Navy1960]

I posted a thread here some time ago about how fires from China's abandoned coal mines emitted more greenhouse gases than all the cars in America.

I'd find it, but I'm too lazy.

It's okay Toro I believe you, the main reason I posted this here is not to support coal in China but was to show the utter foolishness of taking options like Nuclear off the table and promtiong options like wind and solar which have major disadvantages and at the same time complain about the loss of American jobs. I am an ALL energy person myself and believe that technologies exist to at least make that are somewhat environmentally friendly and to simply dismiss one for another because they don't suit the current business model hinders the ability of a society to compete in todays world.

 

[Marek Kris]

China burns a lot coal, and if short maybe some people too.

 

[Old Rocks]

I posted a thread here some time ago about how fires from China's abandoned coal mines emitted more greenhouse gases than all the cars in America.

I'd find it, but I'm too lazy.

It's okay Toro I believe you, the main reason I posted this here is not to support coal in China but was to show the utter foolishness of taking options like Nuclear off the table and promtiong options like wind and solar which have major disadvantages and at the same time complain about the loss of American jobs. I am an ALL energy person myself and believe that technologies exist to at least make that are somewhat environmentally friendly and to simply dismiss one for another because they don't suit the current business model hinders the ability of a society to compete in todays world.

First, all the alternatives have major disadvantages, including nuclear. But, together, they can create a grid that is far more robust than the present one, and does not result in the alteration of our climate in a manner that is dangerous to our present civilization.

While noting that China is still aggressively pursueing coal fired energy, one should also look at what they are doing in the fields of wind and solar energy. They are now the # 1 producer of both. And they are planning to export to this nation, in 2010, solar panels that will sell, retail, for $1 watt or less. Perhaps you should be considering the implications of these facts, and concentrate less on calling your fellow Americans names, and more on ways to get our energy industries moving.

 

[Navy1960]

I posted a thread here some time ago about how fires from China's abandoned coal mines emitted more greenhouse gases than all the cars in America.

I'd find it, but I'm too lazy.

It's okay Toro I believe you, the main reason I posted this here is not to support coal in China but was to show the utter foolishness of taking options like Nuclear off the table and promtiong options like wind and solar which have major disadvantages and at the same time complain about the loss of American jobs. I am an ALL energy person myself and believe that technologies exist to at least make that are somewhat environmentally friendly and to simply dismiss one for another because they don't suit the current business model hinders the ability of a society to compete in todays world.

First, all the alternatives have major disadvantages, including nuclear. But, together, they can create a grid that is far more robust than the present one, and does not result in the alteration of our climate in a manner that is dangerous to our present civilization.

While noting that China is still aggressively pursueing coal fired energy, one should also look at what they are doing in the fields of wind and solar energy. They are now the # 1 producer of both. And they are planning to export to this nation, in 2010, solar panels that will sell, retail, for $1 watt or less. Perhaps you should be considering the implications of these facts, and concentrate less on calling your fellow Americans names, and more on ways to get our energy industries moving.

While I fail to see where I have called any of my fellow Americans names here, and as a matter of fact Rocks, I think in every energy debate, I've made it quite clear, I believe that no energy solution should be left off the table. In fact, in several posts, I have also made it clear that the largest producers of solar, lithium ion batteries, etc, are not in this country. My points have always been that when a "special interest" group promotes a technology as "green" and at the same time condemn other technologies, i.e. nuclear that is not telling the entire story nor is it being completely up front. So each time I see that I will call that to the attention to whomever will listen. I do so though in a manner that could hardly be considered name calling. I might suggest that when you have a free moment go and look at my environmental posts and you will see that they are all consistant and all backed up with data and at no time will you see me say, whacko, nut, etc. etc. you will however here me use the words "enviro-business" quite often and scam or scheme. I look forward to debating any issue on this topic you wish.......Navy

 

[Old Rocks]

Why nuclear is hard to sell.

Remember when the nukes were supposed to deliver power that would be too cheap to meter? And then the plants were 'foolproof'? Then came Three Mile Island. But it really wasn't that close a thing. Except that later investigation showed that it was a very close thing, indeed. Then there is the matter of storing nuclear waste. Of course, I believe I have a solution to that. Store the waste wherever the people that are benefiting from the jobs that the plants provide. With special facilities located in the neighborhoods of the major stockholders in the power companies.

No, I am not against nukes. But they are spendy, and have special problems of their own. So we need a mix of intermittent and steady sources. Wind, photovoltaic, wave, and tide are all intermittent. Hydro, solar thermal, slow current, geothermal, and nukes are steady. We need to develop all of these sources. We need to build a distributed grid to pick up and deliver the power where generated or needed. This is going to take a major effort both on the part of the government and on the part of private corperations. We should be past debating whether it should be done, and be considering the best way to do it.

As you stated, and I have stated many times, it will take a mix of all sources to do the job at a reasonable cost. This job requires a full tool kit, not a fits all crescent wrench.

 

[Old Rocks]

A new, fourth generation of nuclear reactors—the General Atomics GT-MHR and the South African PBMR—is ready to replace the standard reactors that have been producing power for 40 years. These new high-temperature reactors are almost 50 percent more efficient than conventional nuclear reactors, and supersafe.
Inside the Fourth-Generation Reactors

 

[Old Rocks]

Interesting possibilites for nuclear waste.

Could a New Generation of Power Plants Turn Nuclear Waste Into Clean Fuel? | 80beats | Discover Magazine