Two and a half years ago President Xi promised to “strictly control coal-fired power generation projects” in China. Before this solemn pledge the CCP had approved a blockbuster 54 gigawatts of coal fired power plants in just two years. Afterwards, to show how committed they were to Net Zero principles and international agreements, they *only* approved 131 GW. As President Xi promised — he’s “strictly in control” (of a massive increase). He’s also strictly in control of the world’s manufacturing.
After being deceived, the UN, Greenpeace, and Joe Biden promptly did nothing at all — it’s not like the future of life on Earth is at stake. And John Kerry somehow saw only “agreement” and “hope”.
When faced with this environmental catastrophe, the BBC told the world about China’s green power surge instead, and only mentioned the coal in passing as an aside. China had spawned a world record in coal plant construction, but apparently these coal plants are not so bad because many are built on renewable parks, “partly as backup for all the new wind and solar farms”. As if CO2 emissions are neutralized just by the presence of the sacred talisman of “renewables”. It’s a religion.
Meanwhile the International Energy Agency (IEA) — a kind of mini UN energy bureaucracy — predicts China’s peak coal will happen next year. Righto.
Apologists, all of them for planet destroying polluters.
Just for comparison: Australia has one 1,000 MW plant in the “pre-permit” stage. (Collinsville). A whole gigawatt of dreamtime coal plant. It’s so “pre” that even though it was suggested four years ago, and awarded $4m for a feasibility study, no feasibleness has been announced. In the same years, China built about 300 coal plants.
At least Europe has some nuclear plants.
Likewise the US:
All this data on coal plants comes not from overpaid academics, Ministries of Energy, or publicly funded “news” broadcasters. None of them, apparently, give a toss about actual CO2 emissions. Instead, this was done by some NGO’s who are paid to be perplexed but at least they are honest in their confusion.
These people believe propaganda put out by both the UK and by China, and are caught in the headlights, genuinely surprised…
China Pledged to ‘Strictly Control’ Coal. The Opposite Happened.
Lauri Myllyvirta, Byford Tsang, Foreign Policy
The recent about-face on coal is odd for Beijing, which generally under-promises and over-delivers on climate commitments. Controlling new coal power projects is one of the few pledges China has made from now until 2025. Furthermore, more coal power is not necessary to keep the lights on, since China has a booming clean energy sector.
By many measures, China is the front-runner in the global clean technology race. Its renewable energy investments accounted for 55 percent of the global total in 2022. Just two Chinese companies have captured over half of the world’s electric vehicle battery market, and 60 percent of electric cars sales in 2022 occurred in China.
Someone should tell them that “half the worlds renewables” only made 7% of China’s total energy needs.
All the back up coal plants made 57%.
Thanks to NetZeroWatch for the inspiration.
The West is being shafted. Madness on steroids.
420
S-afted by themselves! Quite a FEAT.
Meanwhile China has kept its promise to ‘control’ coal fired power stations. Every one of Chinas stations is under the control of Govt permits. What idiot in the west thought control meant reduce? China never said reduce!
60
I was in China week before last and travelled extensively. Coal fired power and transmissions lines everywhere. CRanes on top of buildings, people were happy-ate 5star, stayed 5star, travelled on 300k/hr trains in comfort. No BLM protests or Greenies gluing themselves to the road. I jokingly say I Cant wait for them to take over-at least they are capitalists.
10
China wants to switch from cars powered by imported oil to cars powered by locally produced coal.
That is why EV production in China has been promoted
360
With its UN-inspired “Developing Nation” status, China gets the last laugh!
390
Not only China:
New Delhi: The Union coal ministry on Monday announced plans to increase India’s coal production to 1.404 billion tonne by 2027, with an eye to further boost it to 1.577 billion tonne by 2030.
Current domestic production hovers around one billion tonne annually. This increase in output aims to ensure ample supply of domestic coal to India’s thermal power plants, which are essential for the country’s growing energy needs.
The ministry also said that coal stocks at thermal power plants have been rising since 16 October, and stand at approximately 20 million tonne. Stocks at mines have hit 41.59 million tonne. Overall, including transit and captive mines, the stockpile has grown to 73.56 million tonne, up 12% from the previous year’s 65.56 million tonne.
150
Take home message is that China is good at building stuff.
Ought to be interesting when industry meets deindustrialization.
It isn’t easy being green.
250
“China is good at building stuff”?
Really?
It needs correcting:
China is good at building stuff all that could be seen as long lasting or living up to the advertising.
91
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/15/world/us-china-climate-announcement-summit-intl-hnk/index.html
Where has this been heard before? everywhere
20
That used to be correct. Take tyres for example. You want value for money, buy Chinese made tyres from one of the bigger manufacturers and the cost per klm will be miles lower than a MIchelin, Bridgestone or Goodyear.
00
[…] By Jo Nova […]
10
The end of coal = the end of Western Civilisation.
But that’s the plan.
501
But only for the plebs. 😎
How many of the elite could actually understand or repair anything?
Better select the expendables carefully.
Anyone considered that?
70
I still think the elites have failed to consider the effect on their lifestyle when the plebs are bombed back to the Middle Ages. The standard of living of the elites back in the Middle Ages was not that much better than the general populous. Who will maintain the infrastructure in their green future?
60
Mr. Connor: In time, the elite in the West will discover that they are not elite after all, they are plebs to the CCP.
30
“By many measures, China is the front-runner in the global clean technology race. ”
All that clean technology needs lots of backup. Filthy, dirty coal backup for every last GW.
‘Clean energy’ is nothing more than a second grid (one which isn’t very reliable) overlaid on the old grid (which is reliable). Why pay for one power plant when you can pay for two? It’s the energy equivalent of getting veneers on your teeth. Your teeth are still nasty and yellow and rotten underneath, but they sure do look sparkly white on the outside.
The fact that none of the geniuses behind ‘Net Zero’ policies understand that is astounding.
420
As I said here the other day, when I was out with my neighbour and his young kids in the vicinity of the Stockyard Hill wind plantation in Victoriastan, I explained to the kids how those monstrosities were meant to produce electricity from wind to which the five and six year old both responded “but how can they produce electricity when there’s no wind”.
Young kids can work it out. Our politicians and industry “leaders” cannot.
Be assured however that some promoters of “renewable” madness do understand what’s going on. Just follow the money trail and you’ll find the Elites that tell the useless idiots what to think and do.
460
Turtle Bowen please take note stop listening to the canberra bubble,china could not give a s–t about zero whatever and its only interest in renewables is to have enough coal fired stations to power the manufacture of solar panel to sell to gullible countries and politicians so every 25 yrs(if you are lucky)china will supply new panels to replace failed units.
renewable energy is not feasible without large lumps of taxpayers money being poured in to the renewable money pit Australia wake up we need to build new power stations to keep our quality of life.
380
Does anyone know the age of the oldest China made solar panels we have? If they last 25 years, I’d call that a miracle. I have personally seen two situations where total life was 6 years and they were stuffed. In that life of 6 years, there were multiple inverter failures.
160
A recent hail storm saw our neighbours roof top solar replaced, well inside ten years.
They’re nice people but I feel put upon when they enjoy “cheap solar” which the rest of us subsidize.
140
Kalm Keith. I’m interested to know if they got government subsidies of any sort to do the replacement. Also, where did the scrap end up?
The endless pouring of government funds into this stuff is only going to rise exponentially if Bowen is pouring funds into the development stages and is now facing the extra cost of subsidies to fund replacements for failed solar and windmill systems. This would accelerate our rush to national impoverishment no end.
50
Yes; the circular “endless pouring” to fund the appearance of free electricity is setting up the the nation and the few taxpayers left for an ugly future.
I didn’t have the heart to ask about the replacement funding because they had to get their tiled roof done as well.
A huge job
20
It is now so bad in Queensland that last month our power bill was negative $58. Our subsidized solar panels (we held off for years on principle until our bill reached $1000/qtr) gave us a 13c/kw rebate then the gubmint gave us $137.50 of our own money back as a cost of living allowance. So, they produce policies that deliberately increase the cost of living, then use our taxes and duties to give it back to us like they are helping us. Thats money churn for you right there.
00
Can’t say precisely but someone I knew was having his solar panels being checked out by a Council engineer. He was given an OK but the bloke pointed to his neighbours place and pointed out that the neighbour had lost money buying cheap panels, which wouldn’t last**.
It was about 5-6 years and the neighbour had to replace them. And again 4 years later but storm damage also helped. My friend was still getting (a slightly reduced) output.
** the engineer saw signs of warping.
70
My on-grid solar panels were made in Germany. They are 13 years old and I am still getting maximum output higher than their 3kW rating.
I also have off-grid panels that were made in China. They are 250W Trina panels that I bought 4 at a time averaging $220 per panel over the summer of 2011/12 and through to April 2012 to get total of 3kW. They are still matching the German panels for output. One lot of 4 panels has faded plastic insulation but no impact on panel operation yet. Trina have now made 90GW of panels so there are a lot out there.
My original on-grid inverter was Chinese made. It had a large in-built transformer, which is rare now. It lasted 3 years. The installer told me that there was a warehouse full of these inverters all with the same card fault that was more expensive to replace than to replace the entire unit with a German design made in Thailand. The Chinese manufacturer had gone out of business due to the large number of failures and inability to make good under warranty so the installer took the hit.
110
The Left endlessly tell us that wind power is “the cheapest and most reliable form of electricity production”.
So why is it necessary for China to build two coal fired power stations per week when there is this superior wind alternative?
And why do they need to be exempt from CO2 emissions restrictions?
No China apologist will ever answer my question. Including at least two who post here.
330
“And why do they need to be exempt from CO2 emissions restrictions?.”
The answer is because China is classified as a developing country by the WTO because of its vast income disparities and the fact that roughly 600 million Chinese live below the poverty line.
67
Indeed, China is a developing nation. Its developed artificial islands in the South China Sea and developed new territorial map lines to lay claim to them. It has also developed intimidatory tactics to ward off neighbours who have legitimate claims to waters near their respective coasts.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/24/why-does-china-claim-almost-the-entire-south-china-sea
It has also developed the Belt and Road Initiative, a scheme some cynical people may say has lured other smaller developing nations into debt traps. Now please excuse me, I think I’m developing a headache…
150
Also developed a space program, battery powered car industry, ‘renewable’ energy component industry, enormous military, etc., etc.
Let’s see what else develops.
120
No China apologist will ever answer my question. Including at least two who post here.
China is regarded as a developing country by the WTO
111
But obviously it isn’t a developing country given that it has nuclear power, nuclear weapons, a space program, modern cities, a huge manufacturing base, a huge and aggressive military etc..
Only a fool or a China apologist considers it is truly a developing country.
100
‘On 28 May 2020, Li Keqiang, the Premier of China, said that “China has over 600 million people whose monthly income is barely 1,000 yuan (USD 140.’ (wiki)
Li was assassinated a couple of weeks ago, he is sadly missed.
Comrade its the per capita argument that is flawed, for god’s sake put the planet first.
31
I don’t think you understand what a China apologist is definitively, a bit of self-reflection may prove educational. You didn’t ask a question, you made a statement and l didn’t dispute the WTO definition of China as a “developing nation” therein. I don’t think you’re picking up what I’m putting down. Ian contains the same amount of letters as Bot, that makes me wonder….
00
Good post Jo and of course you’re correct about China and they’ll continue to build 100s MORE coal power stns for decades.
But India, Africa and Asia etc will follow China because they want to have a higher standard of living as well.
Never forget that the NON OECD countries have emitted another 14.3 billion tonnes of co2 since 1988 and the OECD have emitted ZIP over that 1988 to 2021 period. See OWI Data.
Why don’t they teach kids the proper data and evidence at school instead of their very dangerous BS and FRAUD?
163
You should correct that statement…it is totally incorrect and missleading which doesnt help when you are trying to proove a point .
44
So Chad here’s the link. The OECD 11.54 B Ts per year in 1988 and 11.7 B Ts per year in 2021. NON OECD 10.02 B Ts per year in 1988 and 24.4 B Ts in 2021.
About 1 + B Ts missing in 2021 from air travel and shipping.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=OWID_WRL~Non-OECD+%28GCP%29~OECD+%28GCP%29
90
AGAIN Chad, China co2 emissions in 1988 were 2.43 B Ts/year and in 2021 were 11.47 B Ts/ year = an increase of about 9 B Ts/ year in 2021 or 9 B Ts MORE/ year in just 33 years.
Australia co2 emissions in 1988 were 0.260 B Ts/year and in 2021 increased to 0.391 B Ts/ year = an increase of about 0.131 B T s/year, in 33 years.
And Aussie population in 1988 was about 16.5 million and 25.4 million in 2021 or an increase of about 54%.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=AUS~CHN
50
And in that 33 years Australia lost most of it’s manufacturing and that is what kept our emissions down. In that time our electricity climbed from about 6 cents per kWh to the current 55 cents. Access charges went from under one cent per day to the current $1.80 per day. So Bowen’s cheap transmission is just more BS.
180
Neat summary, Thanks.
60
AGAIN here’s the OWI Data link for NON OECD and OECD countries’ co2 emissions per year since 1988 to 2021.
The links are active so you can easily check the data per year etc.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?time=1988..latest&country=Non-OECD+%28GCP%29~OECD+%28GCP%29
50
Sorry that link didn’t work. Here’s the full link and you can check the data per year from the active graphs.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=OWID_WRL~Non-OECD+%28GCP%29~OECD+%28GCP%29
60
Neville, i understand the data, but the way you stated it was false..
So at a rate of 11.+BT/ year over that period (33yrs) ,.
……..that would be 363+ BT total ,..over that period !
I know you were trying to say the OECD annual emissions had not INCREASED over that period, but that is very different to stating they were zip ! (Zero)
I would have been more accurate to say that over the past 20 yrs the OECD had REDUCED its emissions, whilst the non OECD had more than DOUBLED !
41
Chad I meant ZIP increase per year from the OECD, but of course I didn’t mean that the original 11.54 B T’s a year didn’t apply for the next 33 years.
In fact there was a small OECD increase by 2021 of 0.16 B Ts a year.
51
[…] By Jo Nova […]
10
Pure childish debating formula (The one they teach in schools and universities and the court system) Argue in any way you can to support your argument.
And their argument is, anti-west.
90
Andrew Dessler has been having a hard time of it since Dr Koonin soundly beat him in two debates and he was silly enough to try and debate Eschenbach online and Willis easily disposed of him.
Here’s the exchanges from Willis online at WUWT today.
“Willis Eschenbach
Editor”
November 10, 2023 10:39 pm
My comments are on his substack page here. TL:DR version?”
“I pointed out that the IPCC said there was not only no emergency, there was no sign of global warming in almost all phenomena.
“He said if I posted again I’d be banned from his substack.
“Willis Eschenbach
“Nov 3
“Andrew, you are TOTALLY misrepresenting what the IPCC says. In Table 12.12 of Chapter 12, WGI, the IPCC states that there is NO signal of global warming visible in:
Frost
Mean precipitation
River flood
Heavy precipitation
Pluvial flood
Aridity
Hydrological drought
Agricultural drought
Ecological drought
Fire weather
Mean wind speed
Severe wind storm
Tropical cyclone
Sandstorm
Dust storm
Snow, glacier, and ice sheet
Heavy snowfall and ice storm
Hail
Snow avalanche
Relative sea level
Coastal flood
Coastal erosion
Marine heatwave
Ocean acidity
Air pollution weather
Radiation at surface.
NONE OF THOSE show any sign of being affected by global warming, much less any bogus “emergency”.
In other words, to misquote Mark Twain, “The claims of the death of the climate have been greatly exaggerated”.
“I cover all of this and more in my post
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
So you are free to continue to hyperventilate and scream “THE SKY IS FALLING! EVERYONE PANIC!”
And we’re free to point out that you are totally misrepresenting both the facts and the IPCC’s conclusions, both of which show that there is no climate emergency.
My best to all,
w.
“Andrew Dessler
“Nov 5
Author
“Willard: did you even read the piece? It starts ‘The term “emergency” is not a scientific one. There is no laboratory test or scientific calculation that will yield the result that climate change is an “emergency” or “catastrophe” or any similar word. Rather, the decision whether it’s an emergency is a mix of the scientific evidence combined with personal judgment.’ Thus, your argument that the “IPCC science doesn’t support it” means you simply didn’t understand my argument. Overall, your comments are so dumb that I’m going to block you unless the comments improve. So be warned: your next comment may be your last.
“Willis Eschenbach
Nov 5
Andrew, I gave you a list of where the IPCC says not only is there no emergency however you define it, there is no sign of any global warming signal. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.
“The list covers storms, tornadoes, cyclones, floods, droughts, sea level rise, and lots more, almost every phenomenon except the warming itself. See my comment above, and the underlying IPCC Table 12.12.
I fail to see how this is “dumb”. I get that you don’t like it. Why should you? It’s a list of IPCC-backed scientific facts that contradict your claim of an emergency. But that’s how science works.
Your argument seems to be “I don’t care what the IPCC says, I, Andrew Dressler, think it is an emergency”.
Which is fine, and as you point out, you’re free to say an emergency exists.
However, since I’ve pointed out all the phenomena where the IPCC says not only no emergency but no sign of global warming affecting the phenomenon at all, perhaps you’d be so kind as to point out exactly which phenomena constitute your emergency?
As to your warning of censorship if I don’t fall in line, I’m not surprised that you don’t want to hear any disagreement, particularly scientific disagreement backed by the IPCC.
And sadly, I’m also not surprised that your go-to response is to threaten to censor my views. It is a response that is far too common among mainstream climate scientists when their holy writ is questioned.
In closing, you say “Rather, the decision whether it’s an emergency is a mix of the scientific evidence combined with personal judgment.”
So, if you’d like to back up your “emergency” claim with the scientific evidence you allude to above, that would be great.
For example, you state flatly that it was predicted that our actions “would result in sea-level rise, ocean acidification, and more frequent extreme weather events, such as heat waves and extreme precipitation. We now have enough data that we can see these predictions coming true.”
But as I just pointed out, the IPCC itself says that those predictions are NOT coming true, that in fact despite half a century of warnings such as yours there’s no sign of changes in most of those things.
So … what do you know that the IPCC folks don’t know?
I’ll refer you again to the following compendium of scientific evidence backing up the IPCC’s claims. I’ve posted this all over the web. Nobody has found one untruth in it to date. Here’s why the claims of an “emergency” are simply not borne out by the facts.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
My best to you and yours,
w.
“Andrew Dessler
Nov 5
Author
“I really don’t understand why you cannot figure this out: I look at the evidence out there (e.g., more extreme temperatures, more extreme precip events, sea level rise, ocean acidification) and conclude “this is an emergency”. Someone else, perhaps someone who’s spent the last 20 years trying to downplay the risk of climate and doesn’t want to admit they’re wrong, will say “that’s not an emergency.” Your conclusion is based on your values.
“Willis Eschenbach
Nov 5
“Thanks for your reply, Andrew. You say there are “more extreme precip events, sea level rise, ocean acidification”.
The IPCC, in Table 12.12, AR6, WGI, says there is NO sign of global warming affecting sea level rise. None. Here’s the table.
Or you can see it in context at the link below:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter12.pdf
It also says there is NO sign of global warming affecting extreme precipitation.
And it says there is NO sign of global warming affecting the alkalinity of the ocean (so-called “acidification”).
And my own exhaustive list of scientific data in my post bear this out.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
So perhaps you can understand my perplexity. Just where is this “emergency” you speak of?
And are you claiming that the IPCC is wrong? Because they sure don’t agree with you. Where you say “global warming emergency”, they say “no scientific evidence of that”.
My best to you and yours,
w”.
“Andrew Dessler
Nov 5
Author
“Let me just say your reading of the IPCC report is wrong. Also, it’s very very irritating that you’re still trying to argue scientific facts for a value judgment — that’s the entire point of this post. This argument is over. Walk away. If you respond, you’re banned.
“This is just tap dancing. He first claims in the head post and then quotes to me that “Rather, the decision whether it’s an emergency is a mix of the scientific evidence combined with personal judgment.”
But when I asked for his scientific evidence of an emergency, suddenly I was the bad guy “trying to argue scientific facts for a value judgment”.
The best part?
“If you respond, you’re banned”.
“And if I can’t respond, I’m effectively banned anyhow”.
Pathetic”.
w.”
201
China’s share of energy consumption from fossil fuels is 82%, Australia’s is 86%:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-energy-source-sub?country=~CHN
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-energy-source-sub?country=~AUS
Many of China’s new coal plants are replacing dated and more polluting plants.
429
According to this https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-coal-plant-tracker/
between 2000-2023 China retired about 120000MW of generating power but made more than a million MW from new plants.
34
Percentages are used by people that want to hide the absolute quantities. Obviously China ‘s fossil fuel use dwarfs Australia’s.
Anyway, the only reason is the 5% difference in hydro. China has destroyed most of its river ecology for hydro, more obscene than green.
170
China is also not shy to use Nuclear also…!
We could learn from that maybe ?
….or is that still considered a “Fossil “ fuel ?
41
OK let’s use absolutes. China: 8 tCO2 per capita, Australia 15 tCO2 per capita.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&country=CHN~AUS
16
We have per capita parity, seems reasonable.
China is experiencing economic collapse, so its unlikely that any of these mooted coal fired plants will see the light of day.
41
Simon, the Left endlessly tell us that wind power is “the cheapest and most reliable form of electricity production”.
So why is it necessary for China to build two coal fired power stations per week when there is this superior wind alternative?
And why do they need to be exempt from CO2 emissions restrictions?
You and other China apologists always refuse to answer my questions.
143
Simon, please answer my questions.
121
I’m hardly a China apologist. China says lots of nice things about reducing greenhouse gas emissions while continuing to increase them. They aren’t the only country guilty of that though.
As you are well aware, the opportunities for wind are limited to sites with consistent wind and non-competing land use.
214
Simon what does non competing mean and does that include the much more expensive offshore wind farms as well.
And Koalas, birds, bats etc love their patch of dirt and all the other animals and forests etc.
And I’m sure the Whales, Dolphins, sharks etc wouldn’t like these TOXIC towers invading their oceans either.
And the capacity factors are about 30% and then if they don’t last for 15 to 20 years that has to be further discounted as well.
140
And add to that the need to derate the output. Some overseas wind sites are derating as much as 50% in 10 years, which brings their efficiency down to only 15%.
90
Let’s try again, Simon.
The Left endlessly tell us that wind power is “the cheapest and most reliable form of electricity production”.
So why is it necessary for China to build two coal fired power stations per week when there is this “superior” wind alternative?
131
The 82% energy China obtains from fossil fuels would be much greater than the 86% Australia obtains from fossil fuels, so China’s CO2 emissions are still much higher than Australia’s.
The statistic is about as useful as something that says China’s CO2 production per head of population is lower than Australia’s
61
Good point Simon. So if we up-grade our coal plants to HELE status we will cut CO2 emissions. Please tell Bowen that.
90
AGAIN Simon, China co2 emissions in 1988 were 2.43 B Ts/year and in 2021 were 11.47 B Ts/ year = an increase of about 9 B Ts/ year in 2021 or 9 B Ts MORE/ year in just 33 years.
Australia co2 emissions in 1988 were 0.260 B Ts/year and in 2021 increased to 0.391 B Ts/ year = an increase of about 0.131 B T s/year, in 33 years.
And Aussie population in 1988 was about 16.5 million and 25.4 million in 2021 or an increase of about 54%.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=AUS~CHN
50
But Simon, it’s still coal regardless of the relative CO2 output by ‘new technology’ plants.
Your statement implies coal is OK if we build new tech plants.
That is not what Australian governments believe. Even though they accept the income generated from the coal we export – essential to keep us afloat while Bowen, with his crazy plans being executed, will ruin us economically – our governments preach coal is bad, prevent its mining continuity in Australia where possible, and seem totally disinterested as to how the nation stays afloat in the near future. Or, in a nutshell, how do they think the huge social security expenditures they keep bringing down will be funded in a nation with decreasing income and investments.
The preaching in Australia is NOT coal is good with new technology. The preaching by all our governments, bureaucracies, elites, universities and the disinterested is, coal is poison and must be eradicated.
Many investor companies in green industries know the theory is codswallop but they made certain to ask the government to guarantee it would not change course in midstream after they invested. Many are not interested in the theme of global warming so much as they are in taking advantage of the subsidies and profits on offer. Many are seeing even that has not been adequate enough for them stay afloat when the crazy technology is built on large scale, at huge cost, and is found to be technologically inadequate and has short lifespan before needing replacement and disposal costs to be met.
60
Has anyone seen the gigantic train line China has built – much of it elevated. Its over 1800km. Built for one reason only: To transport coal.
However, China is in free-fall at the moment. Bidens minions have become strongly anti china after the links between so many republicans to chinese corporations.
40
Australia’s inland rail line….
A lot of “discussion” as certain unbuilt portions may be subject to periodic (annual?) flooding.
Would not a few kilometers of raised (elevated) lines mitigate the flooding and possibly increase the speed limitations on the line?
Oh !
The cost of building things in Australia is too high.
50
China’s going to make progress next year apparently. It’s always next year, or the next, or the next….
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/
60
The big reason we don’t enjoy the benefits of cheap coal fired energy to power our economy and bring prosperity is that Australia is made in China.
80
Of course they are strictly controlling it, but that is the build and commissioning…communist style. It should not be news to anybody – they’ve been talking the talk for ever, but not so much walking the talk.
50
Personally I don’t care how much CO2 China produces. After all CO2 does no harm and indeed is good for the climate. We should be grateful to them I would say.
160
Exactly.
But they are laughing at us, for cutting our own throats over a superstition.
130
‘ … over a superstition.’
Its millenarian madness. a Western cult.
50
China was given carte-blanche to build as many coal plants as it liked until 2030 in a deal with the Obama administration made in 2014.
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/climate-obama-announces-us-china-agreement-msna456811
Blame Obama if you dont like Chinese emissions.
You cant blame the Chinese for having IQ’s over 90.
40
China doesn’t need to be given permission by anyone to do anything while it can get the resources and the technology and the manpower to do what it likes.
It will do exactly as it wishes. Part of that is acting like a magician. Getting everyone to watch the right hand while the left hand makes the coin disappear.
20
If the West is willing to destroy itself by banning reliable energy for the fake reason that CO2 has some effect on climate, etc. then so be it.
It SHOULD mean the diminishing reserves of fossil fuels will last longer for the rest of the world, but it won’t.
It seems that ALL ‘green’ initiatives need to use huge amounts of fossil fuel to create their various objectives. Apart from hydro most ‘renewable’ energy sources last a maximum of 25 years, so EVERY renewable energy source will need replacing every 25 years or less!
Even this does does not include the vast amounts of new energy sources needed to power EVs, etc.
China has invested vast amounts on ‘green’ energy such as hydro, solar and wind, but it does not mean they are so stupid as to not realise they can not depend on this. China argues that when it produces the same amount of CO2 per CAPITA as the West then they will buckle down.
At least they are taking care of the needs of their people, for whatever reason. Best of luck to them.
30
The graph is interesting. On the flattened map of the Earth, Europe being the west in more ways than one, the further east one goes the more concentrated and numerous coal plants become. That would be a bonanza for Australia if we weren’t so much sheep (mice have more brains) led by dumb leaders obeying external powers. They see our problems, mainly policy induced by themselves, and do nothing. In fact, they double down eg Bowen, Albo and Pliberseck.
Has anyone heard of such ruinous virtue signalling by any other government in history? Our governments shut down our wealth while the nations that are generally expanding coal plant numbers contain our adversaries. Instead of the West holding the power in our hands to shut down those adversaries, we toss away that power and depend on our adversaries to supply the heavy industrial requirements we have transferred to them. It couldn’t get worse even if our adversaries wrote the rules on Anthropogenic Global Warming! Could it?
60
Very pertinent summary.
A L L
Australia. Lacks. Leaders.
As the recent referendum showed, we still seem to have a functional voting system, but the plebs don’t seem capable of understanding the machinations of national politics.
So we vote for more of the same.
10
I watched ABC news tonight where they had a serious story about UHI in Sydney, it mentioned black rooves, lack of trees and hard surfaces. The old man in the story said it reached 49.5 C last year and that he was quite distressed, even with his small fan. What they failed to mention when the silent killer heat arrives is that there is no need for anybody to suffer because we are the only humans in history than can control the climate in our homes – the only problem is we can afford the gas or electricity to heat or cool ourselves.
40
And all the new suburban developments with the lot sizes so small, a tree (much less two or more) can no longer be planted in what is termed the back yard.
30
Small lots, small back yards, excuse me!
This seems to refer to Australia. 3 million square miles of it.
Here in Sarf Lunnon, yes, I understand why some back fences are less than four metres from the house – terraced housing in the UK’s cities has been like that since Queen Vistoria.
But in Australia … even in big cities like Sydney and Melbourne – is this another manifestation of the fabled fifteen-minute cities?
Auto, well-surprised!
40
Yes, but you need to realise that 90% of the population live in about 5% of the land area !
City lot sizes have always been “compact” ,..5-600 sq mtr is common, and new urban “detached house” developments seem to be ending with lot sizes not much bigger.
Modern lifestyle ? Some modern city appartments do not even have kitchen facilities !
20
Yes and the public health people complain our kids are getting obese and not getting enough exercise. So let them play on the street? Or get the adults to take them to the park in their spare time between both parents working? Or convince the teenagers to “play” at playgrounds made for their younger siblings? We really don’t care about kids health. The pursuit of the dollar to make life bearable is wrecking family life and the health of the population.
30
The EV world takes another hit!
https://principia-scientific.com/e-bus-loses-power-going-up-hill-rolls-backward-hits-nine-cars/
As far as we know, It was very fortunate that no one was injured. Neither The Police or Google (bus owner) was able/prepared to shed any light.
10
So, what ..no brakes ?..
…..i dont think you can blame that on electrification !
01
zero interest rates and windmills and solar panels show up.
You are a gem ms jonova
10
Pure Austrailnian girl, doesn’t get any better than that.
10
yea, we got shipped off here, rabble of porridge, of convicts
10
[…] JoNova, Global Energy Monitor. Fair Use, Political Parody. Government idiocy Intermittent Wind and […]
00
[…] By Jo Nova […]
00
[…] China promised to strictly control coal then started 182 coal power plants instead […]
10