More coal outta China
 

While you were paying attention to other things,

...basically saying that their pledge on this was, ha-ha-only-kidding.

WSJ story behind paywall

Shouldn't the thread title read "More Coal Into China", then?

Kidding, that's all I got to bitch about today. So far.

The pollution comes out. ;)

And heads our way.

Financial Times: China ramps up coal power in face of emissions efforts

China has 987 coal plants and has now gone into ramping up construction on 121 more. That's more new plants than the US currently has in operation.

US = 86

EU = 149

Last year China raised its coal output by 25.5GW while the rest of the world lowered its coal output by 2.8GW

China's efforts will easily make all anti-emissions efforts in the US and EU into a pittance

But somehow the outrage is directed at ourselves. Narcissistically we believe we are the only answer when we are not even going to be the source of problem

Undermining our own growth when China is unwilling to do so is clearly suicide

Wasted efforts all around

http://cellar.org/img/coalplants.jpg

Coal plants in 2018

White = Marked for closing
Yellow = Operating
Red = New

Carbon Brief: Mapped: The world’s coal power plants

Are you saying you'd rather do this? Not me. :headshake

I remember those days here.

NYTimes: Japan Races to Build New Coal-Burning Power Plants, Despite the Climate Risks (metered paywall)

Fukushima caused Japan to end its nuclear program (instead of modernizing). So now it's racing to build 22 new coal plants, big ones that...

California is closing its last nuclear plant in 2024

Good luck

Hmm... really time to do Thorium, and/or pebble-beds and Candus.

To light off thorium-232, you need a source of thermal neutrons -- or something that spits a lot of alphas, like a plutonium "spark plug" in the fuel rod. Transmutation yields U-233, which delivers the useful heat in its very rapid decay. This very hot isotope is awfully hard to handle and so cannot be very useful in nuclear proliferation -- its gamma output can fry electronic bomb triggers so things get, well, erratic -- but its heat will drive a steam turbine if you just friggin' leave it in the fuel rod.

Thorium's common, four times as common as uranium, and pretty much just comes in one isotope -- you don't need an Oak Ridge to make fuel of it. And at worst, you've got Plutonium For Peace into the bargain. Using it up, that is; IIRC you eventually have lead. Thorium's radioactivity is not especially frightening, either: alpha emitter, and a slow-ticking half life slightly longer than the age of the Universe, which accounts for being four times as abundant in the crust as uranium is. Probably supplied at less than one quarter of uranium's price.

Wonder what's developed since I first read of this in 2013? We've got six threads including searchterm "thorium" since that year and a couple more from earlier onsite.

Not a damn thing because the public is still worried about the radiation from their microwave oven might make their chicken reanimate or some shit. The word radiation/radioactive is a trigger to stop all reasonable thought.

Nuclear waste will creep into your house at night and smoke your cigars. Well bury the shit, we don't need a failsafe 10,000 year bunker, bury it in the nuclear test sites that are already keep out forever.

Thorium just needs better marketing.

And a Bronx Project...

If Republicans would pretend to believe in climate change arguments could be made to appeal across political boundaries.

Nobody thinks we aren't warming -- we people of liberty just don't consider neofascism or hyper-socialism any solution, and are enraged that anyone would offer either. Out upon tyranny and those who suspend their morals to enable it!

Free market, all unsung, has been quietly at work on it for ten years... anyone besides me willing to take notice? Do we indeed need outlawing stuff? I reckon we'll be shifting some met(allurgical) coal to feedstock for synthetic oil, and wouldn't that be nice! It's a 1940's technology that's price competitive down to $30/bbl -- as it stands. No telling what further innovations we'd come up with.

If you're genuinely worried about ppm of carbon dioxide, quit your Fascist bitchin' and go nuclear unreservedly. Solid-state pollutants have trouble running around promiscuously getting into things we'd rather they not.

It's nice that many people have moved on to the next excuse not to do anything, but plenty of people still think (or at least claim) we aren't warming, and plenty more think or claim that it's a natural solar cycle. Trump himself said it's a Chinese hoax, and then said it wasn't a hoax, but it wasn't manmade and would change back again. And then said that he just didn't want to spend money on it. Senator Inhofe brought a snowball into the Senate in February of 2015, as evidence that it was unseasonably cold.

At least "the free market will fix it" isn't technically science denial.

Though I'm not sure how a person can "go nuclear unreservedly"; it seems like that would be just as much a government action as any other.

I think he was hoping to make a snowflake cry with that statement about nukes.

Not sure how that would follow. Nuclear power is the best option in many places.

But I suspect that he has an image of "liberals" that would be very bizarre to an outside observer.

So why are GM cars only getting bigger - consuming more fuel - not doing anything to address the problem? Clinton even gave them a boatload of money in the mid 1990s to develop solutions. Instead, patriotic American companies (companies that innovate) now dominate such markets.

Put $35 of gas in a tank. How many actually move the car? $4. What do the other $31 do? Contribute to global warming. Somehow that company, when not required by regulations, simply stops addressing the problem - stops innovating. (As a result it constantly looses market share to other innovative - patriotic American - companies.)

So where is this free market that is innovating? Ironically only where government regulations are encouraged and implemented in venues where honesty exists and global warming really is a man made problem. Where people believe in facts. And ignore preaching by religious extremists and communist - ie Senator Inhofe.

As if global warming, nukes, and a Miami Dolphin mascot have something in common. Yes, he is preaching to people who will automatically believe even a mascot is relevant - because the Central Committee orders them to believe.

And also believe Snowflake has tears. After all, Inhofe saw those tears. Again, we must believe him. He is an expert - and also smarter than the Generals.

"So why are GM cars only getting bigger - consuming more fuel - not doing anything to address the problem? "

Tw, do you own stock in ford or something?

I have a vision of the senseless, the immature, and the illiberal who believe themselves virtuously liberal -- and it would terrify you.

I dislike selfrighteous fascists, old or new; they are still fascists regardless of intentions. While I'm not, being of the people of freedom.

What is this?

At a supposition, it's a statement that history ended in 1972. A moment before the gas crisis.

The remainder of the post, while very backward-looking, is not as objectionable.

They make pills for that.

Yeah, Ford's the one that actually stopped making cars.

The Kung Flu has helped the air quality, also it might stay a little better since 25% of the small business won't reopen, They ran out of money, lost lease, can't afford stock, etc.

I was going to go looking for that, nice work B.

I did when that stock was providing a 250% ROI. Review old posts where those reason for profits (and how anyone else could have also profited) were defined - before they happened.

I would not buy a Ford. It has made major improvements since 2000 - when all Ford products were crap. But it still is not good enough.

Meanwhile, back then I could not collect enough money to buy enough Ford stock. Facts and numbers made obvious the future ROI. Profits were significantly higher than I expected.