Climate change: July set to be world's warmest month on record

[gamb00ler]

23 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What is there in the article I linked to that supports your claim that it's the fault of the left and their green idiocy?

Don't you know...we're in the presence of several experts at reading between the lines?

[VincentRJ]

Wow! I've just discovered this long thread about climate change. It reminds me of an even longer thread about the existence of 'God'.
I don't have time to read all the comments, so I hope I'm not repeating issues that have already been addressed.

 

Whilst I'm skeptical about the claimed significance and contribution of human CO2 emissions to the current warming period, I think human activity in general must have some effect on climate. However, quantifying that effect in any precise manner is impossible because of the complexity and chaotic nature of climate. There cannot be any certainty, only degrees of probability based upon computer models which are fed incomplete data.

 

However, there are environmental issues about which we can be fairly certain. We know that CO2 is the 'Gas of Life'. Without it, nothing lives. We know, from satellite images, that the planet, as a whole, has significantly greened during the past 30 years or more, due to the increased levels of CO2.
We can measure the significant effects of increased levels of CO2 on plant growth in 'real' greenhouses.

 

Whilst I don't believe that the current emissions of CO2 are a problem for the environment, I do believe that the increase in the use of fossil fuels could present a future problem which could be disastrous for the world economy.

 

Our prosperity and well-being is fundamentally dependent on the regular supply of affordable energy. Fossil fuels are a limited resource. At the current rate of usage, we probably have hundreds of years of reserves, much of which has yet to be discovered, so no need to worry about that.

 

However, why would anyone presume that the current rate of usage would remain constant, as undeveloped countries become more developed, and developed countries raise their 'working class' to the 'middles class', and everyone becomes wealthier, consuming more energy.

 

I did an internet search on the current world consumption of energy, and found the following site.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix

 

The attached image of a graph shows that fossil fuel use has continued to rise significantly since the alarm about CO2 emissions began. As of 2022, the percentage of energy from nuclear, wind, hydro, solar, biofuels, and othe renewables, is less than 20%, but the rise in the use of fossil fuels, since the alarm about CO2 emissions began in the 1980's, has risen far greater than 20%, more like 60%. Since 1950, the graph shows that fossil fuel use has increased by around 600%.

 

Imagine what would happem if there were no scare about the devastating effect of fossil fuel use on the environment.
Imagine a future scenario, say in a hundred years time when fossil fuel consumption was 1,000% greater than the current usage, and the Arctic and Antarctic were close to depletion of their oil reserves, and energy prices began rocketing. Wouldn't it be too late to begin research on renewables? The economy would collapse disastrously, far worse than any previous economic collapse.

 

The purpose of the scare about CO2 emissions is to motivate the development of alternative and additional sources of energy, which are hopefully cleaner than fossil fuels. Nuclear power is an obvious contender, but has the problem of toxic waste and potentially dangerous accidents.

 

Fossil fuels are not only needed for the energy to drive our economy, but also for many essential products that we use every day.

 

Here's a list of 6,000 products from a barrel of oil. 
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/partial-list-over-6000-products-made-from-one-barrel-oil-steve-pryor

 

If we develop alternative, effecient, and renewable sources of energy, then we will never run out of fossil fuels, which can be used for essential products that can't be produced from renewables. Makes sense?
 

[placeholder]

25 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Whilst I'm skeptical about the claimed significance and contribution of human CO2 emissions to the current warming period, I think human activity in general must have some effect on climate. However, quantifying that effect in any precise manner is impossible because of the complexity and chaotic nature of climate. There cannot be any certainty, only degrees of probability based upon computer models which are fed incomplete data.

Really?

As Zeke Hausfather study shows, most early models from the 60's and 70's re the effect of fossil fuels were astonishingly accurate. And this in an era when computing power was primitive compared to the resources available now. It does become progressively more difficult the more local the predictions become.

 

Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections

Climate models provide an important way to understand future changes in the Earth's climate. In this paper we undertake a thorough evaluation of the performance of various climate models published between the early 1970s and the late 2000s. Specifically, we look at how well models project global warming in the years after they were published by comparing them to observed temperature changes. Model projections rely on two things to accurately match observations: accurate modeling of climate physics and accurate assumptions around future emissions of CO₂ and other factors affecting the climate. The best physics-based model will still be inaccurate if it is driven by future changes in emissions that differ from reality. To account for this, we look at how the relationship between temperature and atmospheric CO₂ (and other climate drivers) differs between models and observations. We find that climate models published over the past five decades were generally quite accurate in predicting global warming in the years after publication, particularly when accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric CO₂ and other climate drivers. This research should help resolve public confusion around the performance of past climate modeling efforts and increases our confidence that models are accurately projecting global warming.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378

[placeholder]

33 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

However, there are environmental issues about which we can be fairly certain. We know that CO2 is the 'Gas of Life'. Without it, nothing lives. We know, from satellite images, that the planet, as a whole, has significantly greened during the past 30 years or more, due to the increased levels of CO2.
We can measure the significant effects of increased levels of CO2 on plant growth in 'real' greenhouses.

We also know that CO2 is lowering the Ph of the oceans. Which is going to have unhappy consequences for the huge number of organisms that depending on building shells. These range from microscopic foraminifera to mollusks and also to coral reefs which are the incubators and nurseries of a huge variety of animals.

https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification#:~:text=Because of human-driven increased,the ocean becomes more acidic.

 

Also, as far as the foods which currentlly sustain most of humankind, namely grains, the effects of CO2 are not all beneficial.

Increased Levels of CO2 Are Proving to Be Too Much of a Good Thing For Plants

https://www.sciencealert.com/increased-levels-of-co2-are-proving-to-be-too-much-of-a-good-thing-for-plants

[VincentRJ]

As I've mentioned, Placeholder, I don't want to get into endless discussions about the claimed harmful and beneficial effects of CO2. Too much of anything can be bad. People have died from drinking too much water, but water is essential for life. Likewise, people can die when CO2 levels are extremely high, but CO2 is essential for life.

 

The real problem is excessive consumption as countries develop economically. About 2/3rds of the population of many developed countries are overweight or obese, due to too much consumption of food, which is just one example.

 

As people become wealthier, they spend more and more on unnecessary items, such as expensive cars to boost their ego, luxury clothes which eventually end up on the scrap heap, unnecessary large and expensive houses, and many other expensive but unnecessary items which all require the use of energy in their production.

 

The drive towards renewables will curtail that over-consumption, as energy prices rise. It will be interesting to see if the majority of the populations in developed countries accept their static or falling living standards in order to fund the change to renewable energy.

 

In Australia, I've never seen petrol prices as high as they currently are. I recently did a comparison between the current cost of my KIA Cerrato ICE vehicle and the equivalent KIA Battery Electric Vehicle. I calculated the initial extra cost of the KIA BEV would never be recouped even if I could recharge the battery with free elecricity from my solar panels.

 

It will probably take a few decades before BEVs become an affordable option for most people. However, I think it makes perfect sense to attempt to develop alternatives to the gasoline car. I'm all in favour of scientific and technological progress. Potentially, a BEV with an affordable, lightweight, safe and durable battery which doesn't rely upon scarce materials, would be a great achievement. It might never happen, but at least we should try.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

However, I think it makes perfect sense to attempt to develop alternatives to the gasoline car. I'm all in favour of scientific and technological progress. Potentially, a BEV with an affordable, lightweight, safe and durable battery which doesn't rely upon scarce materials, would be a great achievement. It might never happen, but at least we should try.

Who is to say what will exist in 10 years time, but the best current alternative is hydrogen which a proven technology that has been ignored in favour of the blind alley of batteries.

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Who is to say what will exist in 10 years time, but the best current alternative is hydrogen which a proven technology that has been ignored in favour of the blind alley of batteries.

I don't think it's true to claim the technology has been ignored. The major problems with hydrogen as a fuel, are safety issues, plus the additional expense of producing hydrogen from renewable energy.
From the following site:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016236122001867

 

"80% of the whole hydrogen produced is by 'steam methane reforming' (SMR) at an energy efficiency of 74–85%. However, steam methane reforming and other fossil fuel based technologies are neither green nor sustainable. Hydrogen, could only be counted as a renewable and clean fuel if the required power to produce hydrogen comes from a renewable source such as wind or solar power."

 

This issue of the 'additional expense' applies to most, if not all renewable forms of energy. Can you give any example of a 'renewable energy' device which is not dependent on fossil fuels for its construction?

 

If one always recharges one's BEV from electricity produced by solar panels or windmills, one might feel virtuous because of the delusion that one one is not using fossil fuels. However, all these devices, such as BEVs, windmills and solar farms, require massive amounts of fossil fuels for their initial production.

 

The reason why a BEV is so much more expensive than an equivalent ICE vehicle, is because the BEV requires much more energy for its production, and most of that energy is from fossil fuels used to mine, transport and manufacture the materials used to build the car and its batteries.

 

As a rough estimate, I would suggest that before the buyer of a BEV has even begun to drive the car, he has already used, in terms of the purchase price, the amount of fossil fuel that an equivalent ICE vehicle would use after having been driven more than 100,000 km, including the fossil fuel used during the construction of the ICE vehicle.

 

This is the major problem that technological development has to overcome, in order to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. In other words, it all boils down to 'efficiency'. The more efficiently we use our fossil fuels reserves, the longer they will last.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

I don't think it's true to claim the technology has been ignored. The major problems with hydrogen as a fuel, are safety issues, plus the additional expense of producing hydrogen from renewable energy.
From the following site:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016236122001867

 

"80% of the whole hydrogen produced is by 'steam methane reforming' (SMR) at an energy efficiency of 74–85%. However, steam methane reforming and other fossil fuel based technologies are neither green nor sustainable. Hydrogen, could only be counted as a renewable and clean fuel if the required power to produce hydrogen comes from a renewable source such as wind or solar power."

 

This issue of the 'additional expense' applies to most, if not all renewable forms of energy. Can you give any example of a 'renewable energy' device which is not dependent on fossil fuels for its construction?

 

If one always recharges one's BEV from electricity produced by solar panels or windmills, one might feel virtuous because of the delusion that one one is not using fossil fuels. However, all these devices, such as BEVs, windmills and solar farms, require massive amounts of fossil fuels for their initial production.

 

The reason why a BEV is so much more expensive than an equivalent ICE vehicle, is because the BEV requires much more energy for its production, and most of that energy is from fossil fuels used to mine, transport and manufacture the materials used to build the car and its batteries.

 

As a rough estimate, I would suggest that before the buyer of a BEV has even begun to drive the car, he has already used, in terms of the purchase price, the amount of fossil fuel that an equivalent ICE vehicle would use after having been driven more than 100,000 km, including the fossil fuel used during the construction of the ICE vehicle.

 

This is the major problem that technological development has to overcome, in order to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. In other words, it all boils down to 'efficiency'. The more efficiently we use our fossil fuels reserves, the longer they will last.

Nuclear powered submarines make hydrogen as a by product of producing O2 by electrolysis.

I have no problem using nuclear energy to make hydrogen on land if renewables are not sufficient.

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Nuclear powered submarines make hydrogen as a by product of producing O2 by electrolysis.

I have no problem using nuclear energy to make hydrogen on land if renewables are not sufficient.

Do you have a problem with using champagne as a mouthwash? Because that makes more sense than using nuclear energy to make hydrogen. Not only would it be extremely costly, but why would you want to waste electricity that could go directly into the grid just to make a fuel?

[placeholder]

15 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

As I've mentioned, Placeholder, I don't want to get into endless discussions about the claimed harmful and beneficial effects of CO2. Too much of anything can be bad. People have died from drinking too much water, but water is essential for life. Likewise, people can die when CO2 levels are extremely high, but CO2 is essential for life.

You introduced this as an issue, not me. I do notice that you aren't pursuing your claim that that it's impossible to quantify the effect of CO2 on global temperature. Clearly it's not.

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

IIf one always recharges one's BEV from electricity produced by solar panels or windmills, one might feel virtuous because of the delusion that one one is not using fossil fuels. However, all these devices, such as BEVs, windmills and solar farms, require massive amounts of fossil fuels for their initial production.

 

The reason why a BEV is so much more expensive than an equivalent ICE vehicle, is because the BEV requires much more energy for its production, and most of that energy is from fossil fuels used to mine, transport and manufacture the materials used to build the car and its batteries.

 

As a rough estimate, I would suggest that before the buyer of a BEV has even begun to drive the car, he has already used, in terms of the purchase price, the amount of fossil fuel that an equivalent ICE vehicle would use after having been driven more than 100,000 km, including the fossil fuel used during the construction of the ICE vehicle.

You sure about that?

How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables

Citing data from the likes of National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Vestas, Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy, and Bernstein estimates, Venkateswaran determined that the biggest contributors to the carbon footprint of wind turbines are steel, aluminum and the epoxy resins that hold pieces together — with the steel tower making up 30% of the carbon impact, the concrete foundation 17% and the carbon fiber and fiberglass blades 12%. 

Good news: amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural gas, and a surprise 75% less than solar. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/04/28/how-green-is-wind-power-really-a-new-report-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/?sh=5897d36373cd

 

Green or not? Environmental challenges from photovoltaic technology

The booming demands for energy and the drive towards low-carbon energy sources have prompted a worldwide emerging constructions of photovoltaic (PV) solar energy facilities. Compared with fossil-based electrical power system, PV solar energy has significantly lower pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. However, PV solar technology are not free of adverse environmental consequences such as biodiversity and habitat loss, climatic effects, resource consumption, and disposal of massive end-of-life PV panels. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749123000684#:~:text=The booming demands for energy,greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions.

 

YSE Study Finds Electric Vehicles Provide Lower Carbon Emissions Through Additional Channels

With new major spending packages investing billions of dollars in electric vehicles in the U.S., some analysts have raised concerns over how green the electric vehicle industry actually is, focusing particularly on indirect emissions caused within the supply chains of the vehicle components and the fuels used to power electricity that charges the vehicles.

But a recent study from the Yale School of the Environment published in Nature Communications found that the total indirect emissions from electric vehicles pale in comparison to the indirect emissions from fossil fuel-powered vehicles. This is in addition to the direct emissions from combusting fossil fuels — either at the tailpipe for conventional vehicles or at the power plant smokestack for electricity generation — showing electric vehicles have a clear advantage emissions-wise over conventional vehicles.

https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/yse-study-finds-electric-vehicles-provide-lower-carbon-emissions-through-additional

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

You sure about that?

How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables

Citing data from the likes of National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Vestas, Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy, and Bernstein estimates, Venkateswaran determined that the biggest contributors to the carbon footprint of wind turbines are steel, aluminum and the epoxy resins that hold pieces together — with the steel tower making up 30% of the carbon impact, the concrete foundation 17% and the carbon fiber and fiberglass blades 12%. 

Good news: amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural gas, and a surprise 75% less than solar. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/04/28/how-green-is-wind-power-really-a-new-report-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/?sh=5897d36373cd

 

Green or not? Environmental challenges from photovoltaic technology

The booming demands for energy and the drive towards low-carbon energy sources have prompted a worldwide emerging constructions of photovoltaic (PV) solar energy facilities. Compared with fossil-based electrical power system, PV solar energy has significantly lower pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. However, PV solar technology are not free of adverse environmental consequences such as biodiversity and habitat loss, climatic effects, resource consumption, and disposal of massive end-of-life PV panels. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749123000684#:~:text=The booming demands for energy,greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions.

 

YSE Study Finds Electric Vehicles Provide Lower Carbon Emissions Through Additional Channels

With new major spending packages investing billions of dollars in electric vehicles in the U.S., some analysts have raised concerns over how green the electric vehicle industry actually is, focusing particularly on indirect emissions caused within the supply chains of the vehicle components and the fuels used to power electricity that charges the vehicles.

But a recent study from the Yale School of the Environment published in Nature Communications found that the total indirect emissions from electric vehicles pale in comparison to the indirect emissions from fossil fuel-powered vehicles. This is in addition to the direct emissions from combusting fossil fuels — either at the tailpipe for conventional vehicles or at the power plant smokestack for electricity generation — showing electric vehicles have a clear advantage emissions-wise over conventional vehicles.

https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/yse-study-finds-electric-vehicles-provide-lower-carbon-emissions-through-additional

Great news, Placeholder. ????

Now all you need to do is explain why BEVs cost so much more than ICE vehicles. Is it because their construction involves the use of very expensive renewable energy sources and equipment, like battery-operated cranes, earth-movers and trucks, to mine and transport the scarce metals.? ????

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Great news, Placeholder. ????

Now all you need to do is explain why BEVs cost so much more than ICE vehicles. Is it because their construction involves the use of very expensive renewable energy sources and equipment, like battery-operated cranes, earth-movers and trucks, to mine and transport the scarce metals.? ????

Do they cost so much more than ICE vehicles? China is the by far the world's leading producer of EVs. They have the most experience in mass production. They are managing to produce EVs at a fraction of the cost of those sold by European and American manufacturers. But the Western EV manufacturers are learning. There's a learning curve to manufacturing. The Chinese are just further along on it.

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/evs-experience-curve-pete-o-connor

[VincentRJ]

13 hours ago, placeholder said:

Do they cost so much more than ICE vehicles? China is the by far the world's leading producer of EVs. They have the most experience in mass production. They are managing to produce EVs at a fraction of the cost of those sold by European and American manufacturers. But the Western EV manufacturers are learning. There's a learning curve to manufacturing. The Chinese are just further along on it.

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/evs-experience-curve-pete-o-connor

Thanks for your response, Placeholder. I do understand, as new technology is introduced into the market, the initial price tends be very high, then gradually falls as production methods improve and expand. The introduction of the digital camera a few decades ago, is a classic example of this process.

 

I hope a similar process occurs with regard to electric cars. That would be fantastic.
However, the issue I'm addressing is the necessity for the continued use of fossil fuels in this process. Ask yoursef, why are all products that are imported from China much cheaper than similar products manufactured in Europe and the US.

 

Do you not understand that the major, essential reason, is the availability of cheap energy from the use of fossil fuels in China? As the Chinese economy grows, so does the use of fossil fuels
Another major reason is the lower salaries that are paid to the workers in China. This actually reduces the indirect role of fossil fuels in the manufacturing process because the workers, with less money to spend, will buy fewer products that require fossil fuels, so their 'carbon footprint' is lower than the equivalent worker in Western countries.

 

The actual price of everything is both directly and indirectly related to the energy used to produce and market all products. Consider an example of the same product which is sold in different shops at different prices. The cost of producing the product in the factory is the same, and requires the same amount of energy, but the same product sold in a fancy shop at a fancy price, results in more energy being used because the owner and/or the workers in the fancy shop are able to spend more money as a result of higher profits.

 

Here are some relevant quotes regarding China's energy supplies.

 

"China approved more than 50 gigawatts of new coal power in the first half of 2023, research by environment group Greenpeace showed, with the world's top carbon polluter focused on energy security rather than cutting fossil fuel consumption."
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-energy-security-push-drives-up-fossil-fuel-approvals-research-2023-08-03/

 

"The new analysis shows that China’s CO2 emissions grew 4% in the first quarter of 2023, compared with a year earlier. This means first-quarter emissions were the highest on record, exceeding the previous peak reached in the first three months of 2021."
 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-hit-q1-record-high-after-4-rise-in-early-2023/#:~:text=The new analysis shows that,first three months of 2021.

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Thanks for your response, Placeholder. I do understand, as new technology is introduced into the market, the initial price tends be very high, then gradually falls as production methods improve and expand. The introduction of the digital camera a few decades ago, is a classic example of this process.

 

I hope a similar process occurs with regard to electric cars. That would be fantastic.
However, the issue I'm addressing is the necessity for the continued use of fossil fuels in this process. Ask yoursef, why are all products that are imported from China much cheaper than similar products manufactured in Europe and the US.

 

Do you not understand that the major, essential reason, is the availability of cheap energy from the use of fossil fuels in China? As the Chinese economy grows, so does the use of fossil fuels
Another major reason is the lower salaries that are paid to the workers in China. This actually reduces the indirect role of fossil fuels in the manufacturing process because the workers, with less money to spend, will buy fewer products that require fossil fuels, so their 'carbon footprint' is lower than the equivalent worker in Western countries.

 

The actual price of everything is both directly and indirectly related to the energy used to produce and market all products. Consider an example of the same product which is sold in different shops at different prices. The cost of producing the product in the factory is the same, and requires the same amount of energy, but the same product sold in a fancy shop at a fancy price, results in more energy being used because the owner and/or the workers in the fancy shop are able to spend more money as a result of higher profits.

 

Here are some relevant quotes regarding China's energy supplies.

 

"China approved more than 50 gigawatts of new coal power in the first half of 2023, research by environment group Greenpeace showed, with the world's top carbon polluter focused on energy security rather than cutting fossil fuel consumption."
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-energy-security-push-drives-up-fossil-fuel-approvals-research-2023-08-03/

 

"The new analysis shows that China’s CO2 emissions grew 4% in the first quarter of 2023, compared with a year earlier. This means first-quarter emissions were the highest on record, exceeding the previous peak reached in the first three months of 2021."
 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-hit-q1-record-high-after-4-rise-in-early-2023/#:~:text=The new analysis shows that,first three months of 2021.

I'm on my phone right now I don't want to bother trying to cut and paste I can do that later. But guess what country is by far leader installing renewable energy? If you guessed any country but China, you would be wrong.

[VincentRJ]

10 hours ago, placeholder said:

I'm on my phone right now I don't want to bother trying to cut and paste I can do that later. But guess what country is by far leader installing renewable energy? If you guessed any country but China, you would be wrong.

I don't dispute that. China is the leader in the production of many products, especially solar panels and now electric cars. As I've mentioned before, they are able to rapidly expand the production of these products because they have the intelligence to refrain from restricting the availability of cheap fossil fuel, and they also employ cheap labour.

 

If you look at the attached graph, you will see that China's increase in fossil fuel use far exceeds the increase in 'so-called' renewable energy.

 

I say 'so-called' because I think there is a distortion in the claimed percentage figures for renewables. For example, when a claim is made that 17% of China's electricity is generated by renewables, I don't believe that the 17% takes into consideration the amount of fossil fuels that were used in the construction and installation of the 'so-called' renewable devices, such as windmills and solar panels.

 

If it takes, say, half the lifetime of the renewable device to produce the equivalent amount of electricity that the fossil fuel, used in it's construction and installation, could have produced from a coal-fired power station or gas generator, then the true percentage of actual renewable energy would be half of 17%, that is, 8.5%.

 

https://www.iea.org/countries/china
 

[gamb00ler]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

I say 'so-called' because I think there is a distortion in the claimed percentage figures for renewables. For example, when a claim is made that 17% of China's electricity is generated by renewables, I don't believe that the 17% takes into consideration the amount of fossil fuels that were used in the construction and installation of the 'so-called' renewable devices, such as windmills and solar panels.

 

If it takes, say, half the lifetime of the renewable device to produce the equivalent amount of electricity that the fossil fuel, used in it's construction and installation, could have produced from a coal-fired power station or gas generator, then the true percentage of actual renewable energy would be half of 17%, that is, 8.5%.

It looks to me like you don't really know what you're talking about.  There's a lot of "I think", "I don't believe" and "If... say, half".... in other words where's the beef?

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

It looks to me like you don't really know what you're talking about.  There's a lot of "I think", "I don't believe" and "If... say, half".... in other words where's the beef?

Do you have anything to say about the topic?

[placeholder]

On 10/10/2023 at 9:12 PM, VincentRJ said:

I don't dispute that. China is the leader in the production of many products, especially solar panels and now electric cars. As I've mentioned before, they are able to rapidly expand the production of these products because they have the intelligence to refrain from restricting the availability of cheap fossil fuel, and they also employ cheap labour.

 

If you look at the attached graph, you will see that China's increase in fossil fuel use far exceeds the increase in 'so-called' renewable energy.

 

I say 'so-called' because I think there is a distortion in the claimed percentage figures for renewables. For example, when a claim is made that 17% of China's electricity is generated by renewables, I don't believe that the 17% takes into consideration the amount of fossil fuels that were used in the construction and installation of the 'so-called' renewable devices, such as windmills and solar panels.

 

If it takes, say, half the lifetime of the renewable device to produce the equivalent amount of electricity that the fossil fuel, used in it's construction and installation, could have produced from a coal-fired power station or gas generator, then the true percentage of actual renewable energy would be half of 17%, that is, 8.5%.

 

https://www.iea.org/countries/china
 

Your argument is based on your belief that electric power is cheaper in China than it is in the industrialized west due to the cheaper cost of power generated by coal.  Are you sure that electric power is cheaper in China?ttps://www.statista.com/statistics/1373596/business-electricity-price-china/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/190680/us-industrial-consumer-price-estimates-for-retail-electricity-since-1970/#:~:text=Industrial consumers of electricity in,comparison to the previous year.

It seems that energy costs in the US for example,  where coal makes up a far smaller percentage of power provided, rates *have been mostly less than in China.

[VincentRJ]

11 hours ago, placeholder said:

Your argument is based on your belief that electric power is cheaper in China than it is in the industrialized west due to the cheaper cost of power generated by coal.  Are you sure that electric power is cheaper in China?ttps://www.statista.com/statistics/1373596/business-electricity-price-china/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/190680/us-industrial-consumer-price-estimates-for-retail-electricity-since-1970/#:~:text=Industrial consumers of electricity in,comparison to the previous year.

It seems that energy costs in the US for example,  where coal makes up a far smaller percentage of power provided, rates *have been mostly less than in China.

"It seems that energy costs in the US for example,  where coal makes up a far smaller percentage of power provided, rates *have been mostly less than in China."

 

We should distinguish between 'total power generated' and 'electricity'. The percentage of total energy in the form of electricity tends to be around 20% of total energy.

 

The articles you linked in your post do not suggest that electricity cost in China are higher. Refer attached image of "Household electricity prices worldwide in March 2023, by select country (in U.S. dollars per kilowatt-hour)"

 

The current retail price for household electricity in China, at 8 cents per KWh, is less than half the price of electricity in the USA, at 18 cents per KWh, according to your linked articles.

 

However, household retail price is not the same as industrial retail price. Your linked articles shows the rise in US industrial electricity prices since an extreme low in 1970, before the alarm about Global Warming began. Refer attached graphic images.

 

It seems the industial retail price in the US, as of 2022, is only very marginally more expensive than the domestic price of electricity in China. I couldn't find a reference in your linked articles to the industrial price of electricity in China, so I searched the internet and found the following site.
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/price-monitoring-center-ndrc-transaction-price-production-material-electricity

 

"Electricity for Industry: 35 kV & Above: Beijing data was reported at 0.800 RMB/kWh in Aug 2023." 

 

0.800 Chinese Yuan = 0.112 US-Dollar, which is just about 11 US cent. In other words, the current price of electricity for industry in Beijing is higher than it is in the US. That is strange. How can that be?
After further research, I came across the following site, showing the current electricity prices, on average, in China in 2023.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1373596/business-electricity-price-china/

 

"Business electricity prices in China 2019-2023
Published by Statista Research Department, Oct 6, 2023
Electricity prices for businesses amounted to 8.8 U.S. dollar cents per kilowatt-hour in China in March 2023. Business electricity prices decreased in the country from over 10.4 U.S. dollar cents per kilowatt-hour in June 2020. Household electricity in China was cheaper, amounting to 7.6 U.S. dollar cents per kilowatt-hour in March 2023."

 

I also searched for the percentage of electricity in China and the US  that is generated from renewables. The results were revealing.

 

"Renewable energy generates about 20% of all U.S. electricity."
https://www.energy.gov/eere/renewable-energy#:~:text=modernize the grid.-,Renewable Energy in the United States,that percentage continues to grow.

 

However, China's installed non-fossil fuel electricity capacity exceeds 50% of total.

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-installed-non-fossil-fuel-electricity-capacity-exceeds-50-total-2023-06-12/

 

Any higher price of electricity in China, if there really is any, could be attributed to its greater use of renewables to produce electricity. Agreed? ????
 

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

"It seems that energy costs in the US for example,  where coal makes up a far smaller percentage of power provided, rates *have been mostly less than in China."

 

We should distinguish between 'total power generated' and 'electricity'. The percentage of total energy in the form of electricity tends to be around 20% of total energy.

 

The articles you linked in your post do not suggest that electricity cost in China are higher. Refer attached image of "Household electricity prices worldwide in March 2023, by select country (in U.S. dollars per kilowatt-hour)"

 

The current retail price for household electricity in China, at 8 cents per KWh, is less than half the price of electricity in the USA, at 18 cents per KWh, according to your linked articles.

 

However, household retail price is not the same as industrial retail price. Your linked articles shows the rise in US industrial electricity prices since an extreme low in 1970, before the alarm about Global Warming began. Refer attached graphic images.

 

It seems the industial retail price in the US, as of 2022, is only very marginally more expensive than the domestic price of electricity in China. I couldn't find a reference in your linked articles to the industrial price of electricity in China, so I searched the internet and found the following site.
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/price-monitoring-center-ndrc-transaction-price-production-material-electricity

 

"Electricity for Industry: 35 kV & Above: Beijing data was reported at 0.800 RMB/kWh in Aug 2023." 

 

0.800 Chinese Yuan = 0.112 US-Dollar, which is just about 11 US cent. In other words, the current price of electricity for industry in Beijing is higher than it is in the US. That is strange. How can that be?
After further research, I came across the following site, showing the current electricity prices, on average, in China in 2023.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1373596/business-electricity-price-china/

 

"Business electricity prices in China 2019-2023
Published by Statista Research Department, Oct 6, 2023
Electricity prices for businesses amounted to 8.8 U.S. dollar cents per kilowatt-hour in China in March 2023. Business electricity prices decreased in the country from over 10.4 U.S. dollar cents per kilowatt-hour in June 2020. Household electricity in China was cheaper, amounting to 7.6 U.S. dollar cents per kilowatt-hour in March 2023."

 

I also searched for the percentage of electricity in China and the US  that is generated from renewables. The results were revealing.

 

"Renewable energy generates about 20% of all U.S. electricity."
https://www.energy.gov/eere/renewable-energy#:~:text=modernize the grid.-,Renewable Energy in the United States,that percentage continues to grow.

 

However, China's installed non-fossil fuel electricity capacity exceeds 50% of total.

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-installed-non-fossil-fuel-electricity-capacity-exceeds-50-total-2023-06-12/

 

Any higher price of electricity in China, if there really is any, could be attributed to its greater use of renewables to produce electricity. Agreed? ????
 

Power is the way electric energy is refered to. As in power plants. Energy consumption, is another thing entirely.

Once again, you've been claiming that China's has an edge in the cost of power because of coal consumption and that's why autos are cheaper to manufacture. Now you're claiming that power costs more in China because of  renewables and therefore autos aren't cheaper to manufacture because of that?. Make up your mind.

Also, you're confusing capacity with usage. China has built lots of wind power fields but hasn't connected them to the grid. That's what happens in the socialist sector of the Chinese economy.

Also, you're mistakenly assuming that renewables refers basically to solar and wind. Actually, renewables also includes hydroelectric power. But if you just take the percentage of how much wind and solar contribute to China's economy it was 11.75% in 2021.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China#:~:text=In early 2020%2C renewable energy,29.4% of total power generation.

In In the US it was 13.05 percent.

https://renewablesnow.com/news/renewables-provide-21-of-us-electricity-in-2021-774994/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China#:~:text=In early 2020%2C renewable energy,29.4% of total power generation.

 

 

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Power is the way electric energy is refered to. As in power plants. Energy consumption, is another thing entirely.

Once again, you've been claiming that China's has an edge in the cost of power because of coal consumption and that's why autos are cheaper to manufacture. Now you're claiming that power costs more in China because of  renewables and therefore autos aren't cheaper to manufacture because of that?. Make up your mind.

Also, you're confusing capacity with usage. China has built lots of wind power fields but hasn't connected them to the grid. That's what happens in the socialist sector of the Chinese economy.

Also, you're mistakenly assuming that renewables refers basically to solar and wind. Actually, renewables also includes hydroelectric power. But if you just take the percentage of how much wind and solar contribute to China's economy it was 11.75% in 2021.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China#:~:text=In early 2020%2C renewable energy,29.4% of total power generation.

In In the US it was 13.05 percent.

https://renewablesnow.com/news/renewables-provide-21-of-us-electricity-in-2021-774994/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China#:~:text=In early 2020%2C renewable energy,29.4% of total power generation.

 

 

"Once again, you've been claiming that China's has an edge in the cost of power because of coal consumption and that's why autos are cheaper to manufacture. Now you're claiming that power costs more in China because of  renewables and therefore autos aren't cheaper to manufacture because of that?. Make up your mind."

 

No. I didn't claim that. I claimed: "If you look at the attached graph, you will see that China's increase in fossil fuel use far exceeds the increase in 'so-called' renewable energy."

 

Fossil fuels include oil and natural gas which are actually more efficient at producing electricity than coal. Coal is used for many products other than electrical energy, such as Steel and Cement production, Paper, Aluminium, Chemical and Pharmaceutical products, and plant fertilizers, and so on.

 

"Also, you're confusing capacity with usage. China has built lots of wind power fields but hasn't connected them to the grid. That's what happens in the socialist sector of the Chinese economy."

 

No. It's not me who is confusing capacity with usage, but possibly the articles on the internet. I can only get such information from the internet. I don't rely upon the Masss Media because of their bias is towards alarmism.

 

"Also, you're mistakenly assuming that renewables refers basically to solar and wind. Actually, renewables also includes hydroelectric power. But if you just take the percentage of how much wind and solar contribute to China's economy it was 11.75% in 2021."

 

No.  I'm well aware that hydro electric is an important contributor to renewable energy. In fact, in certain areas which have a regular rainfall and a landscape suitable for dam construction, the combination of wind, solar and hydro, could produce all the electricity required. But such electricity cannot produce all the products that modern societies require.

 

Refer attached image of the numerous products that require oil and natural gas; from the following site.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/11/f68/Products Made From Oil and Natural Gas Infographic.pdf

 

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

 

Refer attached image of the numerous products that require oil and natural gas; from the following site.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/11/f68/Products Made From Oil and Natural Gas Infographic.pdf

 

To dispatch the obvious irrelevancy first. This has absolutely no relevance to power generation at all. If natural gas or petroleum is being used for something other than energy production then in that case it's not a fuel. This is like claiming that a house made out of wood is a house made out of fuel. 

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

To dispatch the obvious irrelevancy first. This has absolutely no relevance to power generation at all. If natural gas or petroleum is being used for something other than energy production then in that case it's not a fuel. This is like claiming that a house made out of wood is a house made out of fuel. 

The following article from 'Time Magazine' addresses very well the point I was trying to get across.
https://time.com/6175734/reliance-on-fossil-fuels/

 

"Modern economies will always be tied to massive material flows, whether those of ammonia-based fertilizers to feed the still-growing global population; plastics, steel, and cement needed for new tools, machines, structures, and infrastructures; or new inputs required to produce solar cells, wind turbines, electric cars, and storage batteries. And until all energies used to extract and process these materials come from renewable conversions, modern civilization will remain fundamentally dependent on the fossil fuels used in the production of these indispensable materials. "

 

As I've mentioned in earlier posts, I think it's sensible to search for alternative sources of energy because fossil fuels are a necessity for many products that are required for populations to flourish, and eventually the reserves will become depleted  if we don't find alternative sources of fuel.
In other words, we should save the fossil fuels for the essential products that renewable electricity cannot produce.

[placeholder]

On 10/13/2023 at 8:34 AM, VincentRJ said:

The following article from 'Time Magazine' addresses very well the point I was trying to get across.
https://time.com/6175734/reliance-on-fossil-fuels/

 

"Modern economies will always be tied to massive material flows, whether those of ammonia-based fertilizers to feed the still-growing global population; plastics, steel, and cement needed for new tools, machines, structures, and infrastructures; or new inputs required to produce solar cells, wind turbines, electric cars, and storage batteries. And until all energies used to extract and process these materials come from renewable conversions, modern civilization will remain fundamentally dependent on the fossil fuels used in the production of these indispensable materials. "

 

As I've mentioned in earlier posts, I think it's sensible to search for alternative sources of energy because fossil fuels are a necessity for many products that are required for populations to flourish, and eventually the reserves will become depleted  if we don't find alternative sources of fuel.
In other words, we should save the fossil fuels for the essential products that renewable electricity cannot produce.

Here is a claim you made:

 

"However, the issue I'm addressing is the necessity for the continued use of fossil fuels in this process. Ask yoursef, why are all products that are imported from China much cheaper than similar products manufactured in Europe and the US.

Do you not understand that the major, essential reason, is the availability of cheap energy from the use of fossil fuels in China? As the Chinese economy grows, so does the use of fossil fuels
Another major reason is the lower salaries that are paid to the workers in China. This actually reduces the indirect role of fossil fuels in the manufacturing process because the workers, with less money to spend, will buy fewer products that require fossil fuels, so their 'carbon footprint' is lower than the equivalent worker in Western countries."

.

Isn't fertilizer still manufactured in the developed nations that have access to large amounts of natural gas, like the USA an Canada?  Is there a prohibition on using coal via coke to create steel in the more developed nations? Or, for that matter, on using fossil fuels in various industrial products? Where does the alleged Chinese edge come from?

You claimed that you weren't referring to electric power prices but to energy costs as a whole. So are you claiming that natural gas and coal are cheaper in China than in developed nations? Maybe now, because of the squeeze the Russians find themselves in, natural gas is cheaper for them but before? Or, are the Chinese subsidizing the costs of fossil fuels? Where does this alleged edge come from?

[Danderman123]

Acapulco reels from catastrophic damage in the wake of Hurricane Otis

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Acapulco reels from catastrophic damage in the wake of Hurricane Otis

Yes, there are hurricanes, as always, but that doesn't prove that mankind is making them worse, and nothing I've seen that could stop them anyway.

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes, there are hurricanes, as always, but that doesn't prove that mankind is making them worse, and nothing I've seen that could stop them anyway.

Severe hurricanes in the eastern Pacific used to be rare.

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Severe hurricanes in the eastern Pacific used to be rare.

How do you know? 

[Danderman123]

25 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How do you know? 

I used to live in Mexico. Hurricanes on the east coast were occasional, hurricanes hitting the west coast were rare.

 

Most hurricanes in the eastern Pacific drift out to the west.