China coal fired power stations

[oowee]

On 21/11/2019 at 07:29, TIGHTCHOKE said:

We did it albeit a long time ago.

How do you propose to stop them?

Buy less carp. 

 

On 21/11/2019 at 10:42, Westward said:

If - and it's a very big IF - burning fossil fuels causes climate change, the protesters need to realise that China + India are already responsible for 2/3rds of all the world's emissions of CO2 and they are the only countries rapidly increasing those emissions. China alone increases their emissions every 18 months by an amount equal to the total emissions of the UK.

To make it even worse, the reality is that both China and India have "Developing Nation" status which means they aren't bound by international convention to install pollution controls on their coal power stations.

All we can do here is make expensive and pointless little gestures like running electric cars which achieve virtually no pollution benefits but most certainly enable the owners to feel smug.

Buy less carp. The West can bring China to it's knees it just has to pay the price. 

 

[Scully]

51 minutes ago, oowee said:

 

 

Buy less carp. The West can bring China to it's knees it just has to pay the price. 

 

If that’s the case I wonder why the affluent west hasn’t offered to subsidise all those farmers who are burning down the rain forests. 🤔

[oowee]

27 minutes ago, Scully said:

If that’s the case I wonder why the affluent west hasn’t offered to subsidise all those farmers who are burning down the rain forests. 🤔

No conviction for the cause. Take the easy way out until there is no other choice. 

[Scully]

24 minutes ago, oowee said:

No conviction for the cause. Take the easy way out until there is no other choice. 

Possibly logic has determined policy. 🙂

[KB1]

5 hours ago, oowee said:

The West can bring China to it's knees it just has to pay the price. 

Pure fantasy🙄

8 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

Actually with modern scrubbing it’s mostly captured and sold to the fertilizer companies.  In fact it cost more to scrub the air then it does for the coal itself. 

Don't get me wrong, I accept the ying and the yang…….. I was just pointing out that it ain't steam coming out of those stacks🥴

[oowee]

7 hours ago, KB1 said:

Pure fantasy🙄

 

Why?

China relies upon constant growth for stability. 

[Stonepark]

12 hours ago, oowee said:

The West can bring China to it's knees it just has to pay the price. 

 

And exactly what has the average chinese done that they should be punished, because they are progressing through the development stage we went through last century?

 

On a per capita cumulative basis the uk and especially england still remains one of the worlds top polluters, with china only beginning to catch up.

 

 

15 minutes ago, oowee said:

China relies upon constant growth for stability. 

So does the whole of the rest of the world, including us!

[KB1]

2 hours ago, oowee said:

Why?

China relies upon constant growth for stability. 

You seem to be assuming that China is a somewhat weak economy 🙄  I think you'd be surprised about how much of the 'West' is actually owned by China🥴

[oowee]

5 hours ago, Stonepark said:

And exactly what has the average chinese done that they should be punished, because they are progressing through the development stage we went through last century?

 

On a per capita cumulative basis the uk and especially england still remains one of the worlds top polluters, with china only beginning to catch up.

 

 

So does the whole of the rest of the world, including us!

 

Where is the data?  I don't doubt it by consumption if you include pollution by proxy in the third world. Not so sure otherwise. China and US produce 40% of global emissions. China of course a signatory to Paris agreement so acknowledging their own desire to cut emissions. Not punishment but part of a shared endeavor to reduce outputs. 

3 hours ago, KB1 said:

You seem to be assuming that China is a somewhat weak economy 🙄  I think you'd be surprised about how much of the 'West' is actually owned by China🥴

I don't follow why would you suggest they are weak? What they do have is a reliance on growth for stability. 

[KB1]

13 minutes ago, oowee said:

 

Where is the data?  I don't doubt it by consumption if you include pollution by proxy in the third world. Not so sure otherwise. China and US produce 40% of global emissions. China of course a signatory to Paris agreement so acknowledging their own desire to cut emissions. Not punishment but part of a shared endeavor to reduce outputs. 

I don't follow why would you suggest they are weak? What they do have is a reliance on growth for stability. 

"The West can bring China to it's knees it just has to pay the price."  You're words, not mine🥴

[oowee]

3 minutes ago, KB1 said:

"The West can bring China to it's knees it just has to pay the price."  You're words, not mine🥴

Hardly means they are weak? 

[Vince Green]

On 22/11/2019 at 22:35, henry d said:

But the thermal efficiency is less for coal, so mass for mass gas is better and the health benefits of not breathing coal particulates etc...

Coal can be burnt very efficiently if you pulverise it and blow it as a fine dust into the combustion chamber using very hot preheated compressed air. It creates a process not dissimilar to a jet engine. They were ecperimenting with all this stuff alongside flash steam engines back in the 60s for trains (and boats) and the early results were stunning.

But diesel electric was a low tech cop out and the funding dried up.

I am sure somebody could dust off the old notes and start again but the problem then, and still is now, coal comes out of the ground for free.  There is little incentive to burn it more efficiently. Unless you NEED to do it on a moving platform like a locomotive or a ship when the amount of coal you can carry is limited and takes up cargo space.

Otherwise, the only motivation is to mine it as cheaply as possibly and burn it in a low tech low cost power station with the least effort possible 

Edited November 24, 2019 by Vince Green

[Stonepark]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

 

Where is the data?  I don't doubt it by consumption if you include pollution by proxy in the third world. Not so sure otherwise. China and US produce 40% of global emissions. China of course a signatory to Paris agreement so acknowledging their own desire to cut emissions. Not punishment but part of a shared endeavor to reduce outputs. 

I don't follow why would you suggest they are weak? What they do have is a reliance on growth for stability. 

Just as an indicator for overall pollution (ahown by Co2).

 

[oowee]

Interesting chart but it won't help us achieve the targets that we have mostly signed up for. 

How about we take co2 levels from 2016 and increase trade taxes dependent on co2 increases. Ie up 10% then tax increases by the same. 

[Townie]

I had the pleasure of a trip for work to Lagos in Nigeria a few years ago. I was picked up each morning and evening to join a practically stationary queue of cars, all maintained as well as you might imagine judging by the exhaust fumes. It struck me that it was one road in one city in one country in the entire developing world, so anything we do about the environment is practically meaningless. I was feeling guilty at the time about having a car with a 2 litre engine too.

[Scully]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

Hardly means they are weak? 

But isn’t that what bringing them to their knees entails? 

[Vince Green]

49 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

Just as an indicator for overall pollution (ahown by Co2).

 

That's very interesting, my guess would be that a significant percentage of the USA energy usage goes on air conditioning. In the summer every house, even the very poor ones in poor neighbourhoods have the aircon running flat out and a typical unit is 3.5KW or more

[oowee]

55 minutes ago, Scully said:

But isn’t that what bringing them to their knees entails? 

I don't think China can be described as a weak country by any means but there is certainly a fragility about the way it is constructed politically and economically. We just have to use the levers we have to encourage the change that we want to see. 

[Scully]

30 minutes ago, oowee said:

I don't think China can be described as a weak country by any means but there is certainly a fragility about the way it is constructed politically and economically. We just have to use the levers we have to encourage the change that we want to see. 

What would those levers be? 

[oowee]

18 minutes ago, Scully said:

What would those levers be? 

Purchasing power, foreign investment in and out, education, movement of people, control of assets, knowledge sharing and participation pressure on it's banking.

https://www.ft.com/content/0c7ecae2-8cfb-11e8-bb8f-a6a2f7bca546

[Vince Green]

When Trump tried to start a trade war with China the analysts on the money web sites said he had better not because he would lose. Not that he probably took a blind bit of notice. China is still Communist even though they are massive exporter. They don't have to seek the approval of an electorate or consider public opinion in any way. Factories are told what to produce and there is no internal competition.

In many ways its Orwellian but its flippin' efficient.

[Scully]

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

Purchasing power, foreign investment in and out, education, movement of people, control of assets, knowledge sharing and participation pressure on it's banking.

https://www.ft.com/content/0c7ecae2-8cfb-11e8-bb8f-a6a2f7bca546

Really? Do you not think that perhaps, if they were the tiniest bit concerned about what the west may do, they may have had second thoughts? 

[henry d]

4 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

When Trump tried to start a trade war with China the analysts on the money web sites said he had better not because he would lose. Not that he probably took a blind bit of notice. China is now fascist even though they are massive exporter. They don't have to seek the approval of an electorate or consider public opinion in any way. Factories are told what to produce and there is no internal competition.

In many ways its fascist but its flippin' efficient.

Sorted...

[oowee]

3 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

When Trump tried to start a trade war with China the analysts on the money web sites said he had better not because he would lose. Not that he probably took a blind bit of notice. China is still Communist even though they are massive exporter. They don't have to seek the approval of an electorate or consider public opinion in any way. Factories are told what to produce and there is no internal competition.

In many ways its Orwellian but its flippin' efficient.

Massive debt that rely's upon sustained growth. They rely on the population funding the growth paid by dividends. If they cannot pay the dividends the country will be at risk.

1 minute ago, Scully said:

Really? Do you not think that perhaps, if they were the tiniest bit concerned about what the west may do, they may have had second thoughts? 

I think they see the West as weak and reluctant to take action for fear of damage to it's own economies. It does not mean that we do not have the strings to exert pressure should we choose to use them. 

The other option is to do nothing until China dictates the terms to the West.

[Vince Green]

5 minutes ago, henry d said:

Sorted...

Clearly you do not know the difference between Communist and Fascist. Fascist doesn't exist except as an adjective. Communist is well documented. China is communist.

 

Edited November 24, 2019 by Vince Green