QuoteAnyone can see that coal is collapsing, and renewables are increasing exponentially.
I'd say instead, it grows as far as economical situation allows. We also have economical crisis here - see the dent in 2008 year and we can now expect another one.
But it would be "success" of coronavirus - not "renewables". So far the consumption of coal was more than offseted by increased production of shale gas.
Britain’s largest solar farm, capable of generating enough clean electricity to power 91,000 homes. The project is expected to be constructed one mile north-east of Faversham close to the village of Graveney and may also include one of the largest energy storage installations in the world.
How many acres of flat and apparently fertile soil this project consumed? The British seem to have talent for such an exploitation of "renewables" - probably because of their colonial history.
Wood plant Drax is importing wood to the UK overseas and kept afloat by £2 million a day in government subsidies. Isn't it just what proves my point?
How do the carbon footprint of foods compare? Progressivists have even more elaborated arguments on behalf of multinational corporations importing the food overseas: Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local . According to their "logic" the Scottish or Swiss cows utilizing local grass from mountain hayfields (where it would decay into methane anyway without any usage) damage life environment way more than tomatoes planted under hothouses and/or bananas, transported across globe overseas by boats burning dirty bunker oil.
I'd say instead, it grows as far as economical situation allows.
Zephir,
Ref, my previous post that explains the situasion.
When the global yearly increase in electricity demand is around 2,5%, and the growth of renewables is from 15 to 25% yearly it means renewables will overtake more ans more of other energy sources.
In a few years Solar and wind is larger than nuclear, then Hydro power, then coal....
And in latest design you can combine farming and solar plants 😉
China: 1 coal power plant/week -- now stopped due to deadly smog in Peking.
Further you must multiply the above figures with the mass produced. This shows Chinas Rice and US/Argentina/Brazils cattle are the two worst for the climate.
One VERY IMPORTANT difference between methane and CO2.
Methane will warm the earth for a few years. Yes. But it has a low atmospheric occupancy. It does not build up, and all that warming can be reversed in just a year or two if we stop farming ruminants.
More than you ever wanted to knowabout the comparison and why a single figure does not do it well.
How do the carbon footprint of foods compare? Progressivists have even more elaborated arguments on behalf of multinational corporations importing the food overseas: Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local . According to their "logic" the Scottish or Swiss cows utilizing local grass from mountain hayfields (where it would decay into methane anyway without any usage) damage life environment way more than tomatoes planted under hothouses and/or bananas, transported across globe overseas by boats burning dirty bunker oil.
It does not build up, and all that warming can be reversed in just a year or two if we stop farming ruminants.
How many people would you like to stop eating rice & meet ??? 4'000'000'000 or some more ?
I would opt for CoV-10, for an advanced stop.
As I mentioned, combining solar panels and agriculture is a win win for both.
I'd say instead, it grows as far as economical situation allows.
That graph is for the world. Look at the graph for the U.S., or UK. You will see that in advanced industrial countries, coal is falling both a percent and in absolute terms.
Coal use is stable in China, which uses the most coal. Other sources are growing. The government plans to begin reducing coal there soon, both in percent and absolute numbers.
[It does not build up, and all that warming can be reversed in just a year or two if we stop farming ruminants.]
How many people would you like to stop eating rice & [meat] ??? 4'000'000'000 or some more ?
I do not see what rice has to do with it. We are not ruminants.
Anyway, I am in favor of developing in vitro meat. That will end nearly all production of ruminants. It will greatly reduce the use of energy, water and land, and it will produce much cleaner meat, without additives or contamination. It will eventually be much cheaper than meat from animals. Production is much cleaner and faster than growing animals, and it does not need crowded meatpacking plants which are unhealthy for the workers. In fact, it hardly needs any workers, which will increase unemployment, unfortunately. Progress is being made in this technology.
This is not the same as the "impossible burger" now being sold in restaurants and grocery stores. That is made entirely of vegetables. That is remarkably similar to real hamburger. I had one at Burger King. I could barely tell the difference. In vitro meat is grown from animal cells. It is also called "cultured meat."
QuoteCoal use is stable in China, which uses the most coal. Other sources are growing
Yep, tar sands, shale gas... Good job, green victory is nearing...
here is a Nice electricity statistics from UK.
Fossil fuels on decline, while renewables many times higher last decade.
Reduced electricity demand since 2005 is due to energy efficiency increase 😀
And to continue the good news from last post:
Here is the same electricity statistics from Germany.
Germany have had a total increase in demand due to strong economic growth in industries, but look at which source supported the growth most 😁
QuoteGlobal economic growth means higher electricity consumption in rich countries and in poor countries.
OK, let say diplomatically, I'm not exactly Keynesian... Isn't it apparent from my all previous posts?
By this September 2020, testing of finalist proto-types will begin. (that's the pre-Covid schedule)
Yep, tar sands, shale gas...
Chinese investment in tar sands are limited to a venture in Canada which did not work. It produces negligible amounts of fuel. Chinese investments in wind, solar, nuclear and electric cars are gigantic. Their investment and actual use of coal is declining. See:
https://www.iea.org/data-and-s…licies-scenario-2001-2040
@interested observer This is not about sympathy. Would you trust in perpetuum mobile, if it would make energy more expensive in all countries which adopted it?
QuoteChinese investment in tar sands are limited .. Chinese investments in wind, solar, nuclear and electric cars are gigantic.
I'm not sure whose point you're trying prove/demonstrate - well again. Didn't we talk long enough that "renewables" should generate subsidizes and profit instead of consuming it?
Investments tell nothing about global sustainability of energetics - this is Keynesianism again. After all, there are huge investments behind fossil fuel energetics as well.
The question is, which technology generates more energy per dollar invested - this is what matters here.
BTW "renewables" wouldn't get sustainable even if they wouldn't consume any subsidizes. They wouldn't become sustainable, even if they would generate profit like oil for Saudis or if they would make electricity cheaper like hydro-dams in Norway (because cost of their recycling isn't still involved in its price). They would become sustainable only if they would generate enough of energy for full recycling of iron, concrete, glass etc consumed from waste, thus eliminating consumption of raw sources and all other inputs completely, including full recuperation of energy and resources consumed by labour source involved in sustainable running of this closed circle. Only if "renewables" would change into actual renewables, i.e. fully closed system, then they would become really sustainable in similar way like biosphere was, before people entered it. This is very distant target for contemporary technology.
In this moment I'm only expecting, that "renewables" should make electricity cheaper for to have some economical meaning at all. Without it it would be better not to increase consumption of fossils by proliferation of "renewables": we wouldn't delay end of fossils anyway - but at least we wouldn't accelerate it. Sometimes it's more ecological to do nothing instead of something.
haha, you keep showing a graph you do not understand.
And as I told you, all technologies require subsidies in the beginning, but now (as I showed) we see an increasing number of wind and solar plants built without subsidies.
Strange however, that Nuclear still require subsidies 60 years after the start.
By this September 2020, testing of finalist proto-types will begin. (that's the pre-Covid schedule)
I think they ought to call this the 'global air conditioning prize'. I'm sorry to say that I think this is just a sticking plaster solution. Why some finalists - big profitable companies -need innovation prize money to make better products is totally beyond me. As for the global part, AC is only used in rich parts of the world, 90% of the poor have no power to run it or money to buy it.
