China is on track to meet its ultra-low emissions goals for 2020, study finds

China is on track to meet its ultra-low emissions goals for 2020
Ultra-low emissions control equipment in China Credit: Ling Tang, Beijing University of Chemical Technology and Beihang University; Jiabao Qu, Ministry of Environmental Protection and HeBei University of Science and Technology; Zhifu Mi, UCL; Xin Bo, Ministry of Environmental Protection and the University of Science and Technology; Xiangyu Chang, Xi'an Jiaotong University; Laura Diaz Anadon, University of Cambridge; Shouyang Wang, Chinese Academy of Sciences; Xiaoda Xue, Beihang University; Shibei Li, Ministry of Environmental Protection; Xin Wang, Ministry of Environmental Protection, Xiaohong Zhao; Ministry of Environmental Protection.

Polluting emissions from Chinese thermal power plants declined significantly between 2014 and 2017, according to research involving UCL.

The reductions are important in helping to control China's national emissions which could lead to an improvement in and considerable health benefits.

A team of experts from the UK and China analysed emissions from coal, oil, natural gas and biomass , with a focus on coal-fired power as the major contributors to ambient air pollution.

The study, published today in Nature Energy, analysed data from 2014, when China introduced the ambitious Ultra-Low Emissions (ULE) Standards Policy for renovating coal-fired to limit air pollutant emissions, to 2017.

The team found that between 2014 and 2017, China's annual power plant emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and dropped by 65%, 60% and 72% each year respectively from 2.21, 3.11 and 0.52 million tonnes in 2014 to 0.77, 1.26 and 0.14 million tonnes in 2017, which is in compliance with ULE standards.

This means that China looks to be on track to further reduce its emissions if all thermal power plants meet the ULE standards by 2020. These standards aim to limit the sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions to 35, 50 and 10 milligrams per cubic metre respectively.

UCL co-author Dr. Zhifu Mi (UCL Bartlett School of Construction and Project Management) said: "This is encouraging news for China, as well as other countries wishing to reduce their power emissions. Thermal power plants combusting coal, oil, and biomass are one of the major contributors to global air pollution.

"These significant emission reductions demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of controlling emissions from power plants to reach ultra-low levels, which is an important step towards reducing the number of deaths attributable to air pollution."

The study shows that previous methods of estimating Chinese power emissions overestimated numbers by at least 18%, and in some cases up to 92%. This is because previous research was carried out using ex-ante studies—estimations made ahead of the introduction of ULE standards—which looked at how the standards might affect emissions based on assumptions of changes in emission concentrations.

The research is the first to use data on emission concentrations collected by China's Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems network (CEMS) which covers 96-98% of Chinese thermal power capacity.

The team constructed a nationwide dataset—the China Emissions Accounts for Power Plants (CEAP) - based on data collected from the CEMS network between 2014 and 2017.

CEAP is now publicly available and continues to present, organise and analyse data from the network. This gives accurate results for each power plant as well as real-time results on an hourly frequency.

"With coal being the most widely-used fuel in China, cutting the number of thermal plants within a short timeframe would be challenging. The results of this research are encouraging in demonstrating that coal can be used in a much cleaner way to generate electricity," concluded Dr. Mi.


Explore further

Study offers verdict for China's efforts on coal emissions

More information: Substantial emission reductions from Chinese power plants after the introduction of ultra-low emissions standards, Nature Energy (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41560-019-0468-1 , https://nature.com/articles/s41560-019-0468-1
Journal information: Nature Energy

Citation: China is on track to meet its ultra-low emissions goals for 2020, study finds (2019, October 7) retrieved 19 October 2019 from https://techxplore.com/news/2019-10-china-track-ultra-low-emissions-goals.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
2387 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 07, 2019
Sooo, it's a bunch of Chinese scientists living in London who are still overseen by the Chinese Communist Party, and more Chinese scientists from a Chinese university and the Chinese government, who say that China is on its' way to meeting these goals. Well, nothing fishy about that... why nature posts this propaganda I will never understand.

Oct 07, 2019
The US has fallen way behind China in cleaning up coal power plants.

The U.S. coal fleet is much older than China's: The average age of operating U.S. coal plants is 39 years, with 88 percent built between 1950 and 1990. Among the top 100 most efficient plants in the United States, the initial operating years range from 1967 to 2012. In China, the oldest plant on the top 100 list was commissioned in 2006, and the youngest was commissioned in 2015.

The United States only has one ultra-supercritical power plant. Everything else is subcritical or, at best, supercritical. In contrast, China is retiring its older plants and replacing them with ultra-supercritical facilities that produce more energy with less coal and generate less emissions as well. Out of China's top 100 units, 90 are ultra-supercritical plants.

Oct 07, 2019
Hilarious. I can't believe that anyone believes this story, even in China. The Chinese government lie about everything, but especially the green BS.

Oct 07, 2019
China leads the world in planning new coal plants. Oh I see, Chinese CO2 is OK but Western CO2 emissions are bringing about the end of the world.

Oct 07, 2019
Certainly a great improvement. Further reductions in CO2 need to follow.

Oct 07, 2019
In Dec of 2018, EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced a new rule that allowed coal-fired power plants to emit more than 35 percent more global warming pollution than the current law allows, following Trump's plan to revitalize the U.S. coal industry. The result is the increase of current 635 g CO2e / KWH to 862 g CO2e / KWH. This number is important because ultra-supercritical allows >45% efficiency and < 700 g CO2e / KWH emission. The US only has one ultra-supercritical power plant. Everything else is subcritical or, at best, supercritical. In contrast, China is retiring its older plants and replacing them with ultra-supercritical facilities that produce more energy with less coal and generate less emissions as well. Out of China's top 100 units, 90 are ultra-supercritical plants. This new EPA rule effectively scuttled any incentives for upgrading coal plants in the US and that is precisely what the Trump EPA coal ruling was designed to do.

Oct 07, 2019
China leads the world in planning new coal plants. Oh I see, Chinese CO2 is OK but Western CO2 emissions are bringing about the end of the world.

You have outdated data. As of 2018, "There are no provinces in China where new coal generation capacity is needed," the report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance and Cliamteworks says. In fact after cancelling more than 100 coal plants, "China (still) faces a potential hit of $US237 billion from at-risk coal assets," the report says. "Most recent investment data show that China is still constructing over 120GW of new coal generation capacity. These plants are all, according to our analysis, highly risky investments that will under-perform."


Oct 07, 2019
This report reflects my personal experience regularly visiting China. I see blue skies quite often these days whereas in the past, it was uniformly murky. A friend recently went to Beijing and said "lots of blue skies". I didn't really believe him but recently went to Zhengzhou and Xi'an and saw blue skies myself where it was always gray before.

Perhaps the naysayers could relate their personal experience.

Oct 07, 2019
Germany has set a goal of closing all of their remaining 84 coal plants in the next 19 years. Counter that kind of leadership with the U.S. president - who vows to 'revive' the coal industry. It is market forces that are making that promise - just another empty campaign promise. The U.S. coal industry has shed about 100,000 jobs over the past 20 years. Employment is currently holding steady at around 50,000 jobs, currently buoyed by exports. That is certain to change over the next decade - and the U.S. coal industry will continue it's decline. Renewable energy will continue to expand - at an ever increasing pace.
https://www.latim...ory.html

Oct 08, 2019
Germany has set a goal of closing all of their remaining 84 coal plants in the next 19 years.
A recurring pattern:
natural gas(methane(CH₄): 70x worse than CO₂) replaces coal, and Eco-nuts credit "renewables";
"renewables" = 80% cheap fracked gas + 20% intermittent/expensive/unreliable renewables.

If it isn't coal, then it's oil/gas/fracking that keeps lights on when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining or during prolonged droughts.

Renewable energy will continue to expand - at an ever increasing pace.
If by "renewable" you mean "natural gas", you're correct.
Because solar/wind not even those who propagandize it or produce it, buy or use it.
"China is a net exporter of solar panels / wind turbines."
"China has 50 nuclear plants under construction and nearly 200 additional units in the planning stage..."
"China is funding its nuclear power future by selling solar panels to those who don't know better."

Oct 08, 2019
What about all the coal power plants that China is planning/selling/building in overseas countries now beholden to China for loans/debts which they can never repay unless China and the corrupted/beholden political systems in those countries devastate those countries' resources/environments just like all 'colonial powers' of old did. Any supposed reduction in emissions from individual power plants is way overshadowed by the massive cumulative emissions from vast numbers of NEW power plants being constructed by China elsewhere. This is a flawed/political propaganda 'report' aimed at presenting China as somehow 'benign' in this field (and is part of the overarching propaganda efforts to influence international communities and pretend China is not a treat in this and in many other fields). Do not be gulled by such campaigns. Go renewables for reasons of economy, security, health and climate change effects stabilisation. Good luck to us all.

Oct 08, 2019
China has 50 nuclear plants under construction and nearly 200 additional units in the planning stage...


Could you give us a source for your assertion?

The World Nuclear Association says
Mainland China has about 45 nuclear power reactors in operation, about 15 under construction, and more about to start construction

https://www.world...wer.aspx

Oct 09, 2019
"China has 50 nuclear plants under construction and nearly 200 additional units in the planning stage. If eight billion people are to enjoy hot showers and cold beer, they had better put off thinking about sunshine and wind turbines."
https://www.ellsw...nergies/

...Go renewables for reasons of economy, security, health and climate change effects...
"Go renewables" = "Go fracking"
"renewables" = 80% cheap fracked gas +20% intermittent/expensive/unreliable renewables.

"Renewables Threaten German Economy & Energy Supply, McKinsey Warns In New Report" - Sep 2019
http://www.forbes...-report/
"Risk of blackouts"
http://www.spiege...323.html

""Renewables" are like a parasite on the economy. Too many and they kill the host."

Oct 09, 2019
Willie - your source is 5 years old - and does not give any source for the assertion. If you read any up to date reporting - you will see that the 50 number you quote is BS. In reality - China is struggling in terms of nuclear commitments - which don't even come close to their renewable energy commitments.
Chinese companies have not really broken into global markets for nuclear energy. Most of China's nuclear sales to date have been heavily subsidized exports to Pakistan, aimed more at furthering geostrategic goals than economic benefits—and facing little or no competition
Did you catch the part about heavily subsidized? https://www.world...-pan-out

Oct 10, 2019
...which don't even come close to their renewable energy commitments...
"renewable energy commitments" ≠ "emission reduction commitments"
"100 Percent Renewable Pledges Do Not Equal Carbon-Free Power" - May 2019
"The intermittent nature of solar and wind energy mean companies may be underestimating emissions"
https://www.scien...e-power/
"What is behind the curious decline in generation of renewable energy" - Oct 2019
"Renewable energy generation fell 20% in August despite a notable expansion in capacity."
"Wind power generation fell despite an expansion in installed capacity. As of June, the combined installed capacity of wind and solar energy was 15% higher year-on-year."
https://www.livem...939.html

"Renewable Energy is a Scam" - Aug 2019
https://www.youtu...uB1z95gA

Oct 10, 2019
renewable energy commitments" ≠ "emission reduction commitments
Sure they do.

I notice you did not provide a current source for your assertion that China has "50 nuclear plants under construction and nearly 200 additional units in the planning stage..."

But even if you are able to come up with one - it would not change the fact that renewable energy is becoming the low carbon source of choice - due to the low cost - that keeps on falling. https://renewecon...i-51069/

Yes - that is 1.7 cents a Kwh.....

Oct 11, 2019
...it would not change the fact that renewable energy is becoming the low carbon source of choice - due to the low cost...
"low cost renewable energy" = 80% cheap fracked gas + 20% intermittent/expensive/unreliable renewables.
"low carbon source"?Think again. Natural gas is a polite term for methane (CH₄) 70x worse than CO₂.

...1.7 cents a Kwh...
"1.7 cents a Kwh"? But not even those who are advertising it, are buying/using it, "snake oil salesmen".
"Extinction Rebellion camp using a diesel generator for power." - Oct 8, 2019
https://twitter.c...18190594
https://www.irish...t-172379
Because they know by practice that your "cheap" solar/wind is a joke at producing huge amounts of reliable energy.

...low cost - that keeps on falling...
"low cost - that keeps on falling" because it's a low quality product; no one wants indeed to buy/use it, stupid.

Oct 11, 2019
1.7 cents a Kwh"? But not even those who are advertising it, are buying/using it
Yes they are - I just showed you a project in Dubai - where they have bid 1.7 cents a Kwh - for 900 MW of solar power. This is phase 5 of a 5 GW power plant. So obviously they are buying/using it - and you just keep repeating talking points - that make no sense. Shame that all you have is insults - but no knowledge of the subject.

Oct 12, 2019
...project in Dubai...
...5 of a 5 GW power plant...
...they are buying/using it...
"Dubai"? solar = 'decorative facades' for fossil fuels' vested interests.
"You could build a billion solar panels but you cannot defeat the night."
https://uploads.d...0b4b.jpg
5GW of solar backed up by 5GW of oil/gas, stupid.

Countries more interested in solar/wind are exactly the ones with vast reserves of coal/oil/gas. Coincidence? No. They are perfectly aware that solar and wind lock-in their main product. That's why they are all too happy to invest in and promote solar and wind.

...1.7 cents a Kwh - for 900 MW of solar power...
"Californians Learning That Solar Panels Don't Work in Blackouts" - Oct. 10, 2019
https://news.bloo...lackouts
Solar and wind are parasites, cannot survive without a host(fossil-fueled grid).

Oct 12, 2019
They are perfectly aware that solar and wind lock-in their main product
Or maybe they see the writing on the wall, they know the future is renewable energy - and they want in on the cheap energy. It's called progress Willie.

Solar and wind are parasites, cannot survive without a host(fossil-fueled grid)


Well gee - better tell that to Costa Rica. And when Countries like Germany, Portugal etc. etc. reach 100% renewables - you will still be howling at the moon.

Oct 13, 2019
they know the future is renewable energy
"renewable energy" = 80% cheap oil/gas/fracking + 20% intermittent/expensive/unreliable renewables

...better tell that to Costa Rica...
Costa Rica: >90% electricity is Hydro, >70% overall energy consumption(transport, industry, etc.) is from fossil fuels.
In the Transportation Sector, solar and wind are clearly a joke: just try to replace horses with solar panels/windmills, a thing that fossil fuels already done centuries ago.
"The most dishonest trick of solar and wind proponents is to include large hydro when showing the share of renewables in the energy grid, and then talk primarily about how solar and wind can help decarbonize the economy."
"Most fans of renewable energy explicitly reject renewable hydroelectricity if it involves damming a river. Most renewable energy-lovers are also dam-haters."

...reach 100% renewables...
"100% renewables" = 80% cheap natural gas + 20% intermittent renewables, stupid.

Oct 13, 2019
Costa Rica: >90% electricity is Hydro
But none the less disproves your assertion that
Solar and wind are parasites, cannot survive without a host(fossil-fueled grid)
That's all we need to know Willie - that your assertion is false - that you are here to spread disinformation - and have been called out for doing so.

Also note - even your base statistics are wrong - Costa Rica is not >90% hydro - that is false. Currently it is 68% hhydro, 17% wind, 14% geothermal - etc.
You cant even take 10 seconds to check your facts.
https://ticotimes...ent-says

Oct 13, 2019
Costa Rica: >90% electricity is Hydro
But none the less disproves your assertion that
Solar and wind are parasites, cannot survive without a host(fossil-fueled grid)
You can power a whole region only with hydro without solar/wind, but you cannot power even a small city/island(off-the-grid, >20k inhabitants) only with solar/wind without coal/gas-fired backup plants running all time to compensate intermittencies because batteries are prohibitively expensive dirty toxic. And your "1.7 cents a Kwh" is just another scam.

"Costa Rica will run on more than 98% renewable energy..."
"Less known is that just short of 70% of Costa Rica's overall energy consumption is from fossil fuels."
First, try to replace horses with solar panels/windmills; combustion engines have already done it times ago, stupid.
https://www.indep...111.html

"100% Renewables" = "100% Scam"

Oct 13, 2019
You can power a whole region only with hydro...
Yes you can. And you can use hydro as backup for renewables. You can also use other kind of storage as backup for renewables. None of this addresses the fact that you said
Solar and wind are parasites, cannot survive without a host(fossil-fueled grid)
Which is false. Costa Rica proves it to be false.
You also said
Costa Rica: >90% electricity is Hydro
Which is false. You cannot even take a few seconds to actually check data. You are just interested in spreading fud.

Oct 13, 2019
...hydro as backup for renewables...
Hydro requires backup only during droughts,
while solar/wind needs coal/gas-fired backup plants running all time to compensate intermittencies.
Two systems, at least two costs, in the end: electricity at least 5x costlier.

Intermittent renewables don't complement Hydro, they are parasites.

It is cheaper & more ecologically friendly to build a coal/gas-fired power plant, because a wind/solar farm(bird-chopper/landscape-destroyer) will require anyway a coal/gas-fired backup plant to compensate intermittencies. Wind/solar aren't alternative to fossil fuels.
http://pbs.twimg....vxFg.png
http://pbs.twimg....1fTH.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....lfnY.jpg

...Costa Rica proves it to be false...
~1000GW of installed-capacity of intermittent renewables around the world and you have only Costa Rica(>90% electricity=hydro+geothermal, >70% overall-energy=fossil fuels), stupid "snake oil salesman".

Oct 13, 2019
while solar/wind needs coal/gas-fired backup plants running all time to compensate intermittencies
You keep repeating the same false information. Costa Rica is a perfect example - that disproves your false information. Intermittent renewables certainly can function without fossil fuel back ups. Why do you just keep repeating lies?

Oct 13, 2019
@WillieWard.

Here is yet another example that makes your tiresome 'denialist spiel' sound ever more in conflict with the evolving reality around you:

https://www.abc.n...11572762

Note the point: the energy company is finding it cheaper, safer and eminently practicable to provide stand-alone solar/battery system for customers rather than keep maintaining/replacing grid-connection wires/poles that are lost to wildfires (which wildfires are in many cases started by said grid-connecting wires/poles sparking). Not only do they save due to not having to maintain/lose wires/poles in bushfires, but they also avoid the DAMAGES and COMPENSATION CLAIMS that landowners/local govts make against the power company due to said wildfires and other outage situations. Add this to all the other evolving-reality-under-your-nose examples out there which you must surely be aware of by now. Give it up, Willie. :)

Oct 14, 2019
...Costa Rica is a perfect example...
"Costa Rica has few people, warm climate, little industry, and is powered mostly by hydro."
"No country ever dragged itself out of agrarian poverty without an Industrial Revolution. And no Industrial Revolution was ever powered by sunshine and breezes."
"You can't run an industrial i.e. "civilised" economy on "renewables". That's why we stopped using them about 200 year ago."
"Low energy does not equal prosperity, it equals poverty"
"And of course, Costa Rica per capita emissions have been climbing steadily" thanks to penetration of intermittent renewables.
http://knoema.com...r-capita

...is finding it cheaper, safer and eminently practicable to provide stand-alone solar/battery system for customers...
"A Good Product (Mostly) Sells Itself – a good product doesn't need excessive marketing"
Mainstream mass media is constantly propagandizing solar/wind that not even they use.

Oct 14, 2019
@WillieWard.
is finding it cheaper, safer and eminently practicable to provide stand-alone solar/battery system for customers

"A Good Product (Mostly) Sells Itself – a good product doesn't need excessive marketing"
Mainstream mass media is constantly propagandizing solar/wind that not even they use.
I've given you many examples of solar/wind+battery systems "selling themselves" because they solve problems of energy security and costs of old/over-extended grid systems. I even gave you an example in my last post where even the energy company itself thought it a good idea to give customers a stand-alone solar+battery system because it made economic and safety/security sense; so why do you keep doing this? You know it's futile; because cost-benefit considerations are increasingly coming down in favour of renewables+battery systems. Give it up, @Willie; do something more constructive/less futile with what's left of your life; your family/friends would want you to. :)

Oct 15, 2019
...I've given you many examples of solar/wind+battery systems "selling themselves"...
...cost-benefit considerations are increasingly coming down in favour of renewables+battery systems...
But in real life: "renewables" = "natural gas", methane (CH₄) ~80x worse than CO₂, which is replacing carbon-free nuclear energy, a crime in the face of Climate Change.
"New power plant opens near Susquehanna nuclear site" - Oct 2, 2019
"Caithness Energy's new $1 billion natural gas power plant that uses Pennsylvania's natural resources has opened less than three miles away from the Susquehanna nuclear power plant."
"In Pennsylvania and nationwide, nuclear power has been losing ground to natural gas."
https://www.citiz....2540290
"Natural Gas Drilling Produces Radioactive Wastewater"
https://www.scien...tewater/

Oct 15, 2019
@WillieWard.
...I've given you many examples of solar/wind+battery systems "selling themselves"... ...cost-benefit considerations are increasingly coming down in favour of renewables+battery systems...
But in real life: "renewables" = "natural gas", methane (CH₄) ~80x worse than CO₂,
No, mate. My longstanding point has always been a SENSIBLE target/mix of 75% RENEWABLES (solar, wind, geothermal) and 25% GAS (natural-gas plus bio-gas) which over the coming decades would more than address/reverse the AGW already in train. So your mischaracterising the situation re renewables/gas is already dead in the water, mate.

replacing carbon-free nuclear energy, a crime in the face of Climate Change.
I also have been pointing out for you the EXTREME DANGERS from NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION; so get real, mate, we would be swapping one disaster (fossils) with another (nuclear; imagine what global terrorism/hostilities would look like then!).

Be sensible, @Willie; give it up. :)

Oct 15, 2019
Willie
You can't run an industrial i.e. "civilised" economy on "renewables"
Yes you can. There are many industrial societies - such as Germany, Britain, Denmark etc. etc. that are on course to decarbonize their economies - primarily with renewables. Some day there may be industrial societies - that are 100% wind/solar and storage. We don't know the future - because we are not there yet. The fact remains that it is possible. It has not been done yet - any more than there are societies that are 100% nuclear. So what? It is possible. If you don't believe us - wait about 50 years and see. It is probably going to take that long to retire all the fossil fuel plants. Smart money is on the renewables - over nukes - just based on cost. Why not hang on for the ride - and see where it goes? Your religious addiction to nukes makes you lie. That is sad. I fully accept that nukes can run the world - and I will be very happy if they bring the cost down - and do so.

Oct 16, 2019
... target/mix of 75% RENEWABLES (solar, wind, geothermal) and 25% GAS (natural-gas plus bio-gas)...
More renewables = more blackouts, more expensive electricity, more energy poverty.
"California's Green Energy Dreams turn into its Power Outage Nightmare" - Oct 12, 2019
"For example, homes that have solar panels are as dark as those who didn't install such systems."
https://legalinsu...ghtmare/

There are many industrial societies - such as Germany, Britain, Denmark etc. etc. that are on course to decarbonize their economies - primarily with renewables.
"renewables" = "natural gas", stupid.

...PROLIFERATION...
"Nuclear energy programs do not increase likelihood of proliferation, Dartmouth study finds"
https://www.eurek...0317.php
"Why Nuclear Energy Programs Rarely Lead to Proliferation"
http://www.mitpre..._a_00293

Oct 16, 2019
More renewables = more blackouts, more expensive electricity, more energy poverty


Yawn - more misinformation from Willie.
Are wind and solar killing grid reliability? No, not where the grid's technology and regulations have been modernized. In those places, overall grid operation has improved, not worsened


https://theconver...ty-76741

renewables" = "natural gas", stupid
False information - and childish insults. The last refuge of an uninformed individual. Renewables = renewables. That is why globally renewables account for the majority of the new power installations.

Oct 17, 2019
...Are wind and solar killing grid reliability?...
With solar and wind alone without fossil fuels to back them up, just try to power a small region(off-the-grid, >20k inhabitants) with limited hydro and biomass resources.

Solar and wind are scams, they only exist to steal taxpayers' money(through subsidies/tax incentives/mandates) and to favor fossil fuels over hydro and carbon-free nuclear.
"People who don't have roof-top solar" are paying for other people's rooftop solar"

"Renewables = renewables"? Think again.
Sunlight and Breeze are Renewable and Free, but Solar Panels and Windmills aren't. They don't grow on trees and don't last forever.
Intermittent renewables are neither cheap nor clean nor environmentally friendly.
They are Eco-hypocritical energy solutions, fossil-addicted parasites.
"Abandoning the concept of renewable energy"
https://osf.io/pr...v/hdb2g/

"installed-capacity" ≠ "emissions avoided "

Oct 17, 2019
With solar and wind alone without fossil fuels to back them up, just try to power a small region(off-the-grid, >20k inhabitants) with limited hydro and biomass resources
You have to keep expanding your criteria Willie - cuz you know that the world is changing. Yes - the countries that currently have the most renewables - are countries with large hydro available as backup. We know that. But the world is changing. What will you be saying - when Germany hits 100% renewables? Sure that is a few decades away - but it is expensive to convert a whole country over to new energy systems. Rome was not built in a day Willie.

Oct 17, 2019
...when Germany hits 100% renewables?...
"Sure that is a few decades away" with natural gas playing as "renewable". But just with "solar/wind+batteries/storage", it'll be never.
"Wind and solar can't even produce enough energy to manufacture the hardware they are made from. They are a parasite on the larger economy, making a few people wealthy at everyone's expense. They are wealth-destroying technologies."
"Wind and solar will be viewed as little more than museum artifacts in another 10 years. Simply not economically viable in many places on earth."

...but it is expensive to convert a whole country over to new energy systems...
It is not a matter whether it's expensive, it's more a matter of physics/thermodynamics/electrochemistry/ basic math, stupid.
First try to replace horses with solar panels/windmills.
Or try to power your "Rome"(>20k inhabitants, off-the-grid) only with solar/wind+batteries/storage.
But you can't, without lying you can't, maniac pathological liar.

Oct 17, 2019
Wind and solar can't even produce enough energy to manufacture the hardware they are made from
You keep telling that lie. Maybe you should research the subject of EROI.
It is not a matter whether it's expensive
That certainly is an important metric. If we can supply low carbon electricity - at 2 cents Kwh - that is a much better option - than 12 cents Kwh - capeesh?????

Oct 18, 2019
~1000GW of installed-capacity globally, and there is no practical evidence that wind/solar is reducing emissions or has good ERoI, there are only biased theoretical studies based on meta-analysis.

"New installations of wind turbines have essentially flatlined globally." - Oct 2019
"Suddenly, S-curves. S-curves everywhere."
https://pbs.twimg...rmat=png
""Renewables" are like a parasite on the economy. Too many and they kill the host."

"...If we can supply low carbon electricity - at 2 cents Kwh - that is a much better option..."
except "batteries never included", neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs.

Renewables are scam.
Fossil-addicted parasites.
Politicians will still put money into wind&solar because they all run off the most abundant renewable resource known to politicians: taxpayers' money.

22 hours ago
and there is no practical evidence that wind/solar is reducing emissions
There is a lot of evidence that wind and solar are reducing emissions. Take the U.K just as an example -
The decrease in carbon dioxide emissions was driven by the continuing downward trend in
emissions from power stations, with a 9.9 per cent decrease between 2017 and 2018. This is
mainly as a result of changes in the fuel mix used for electricity generation, away from coal
and towards renewables


Once again you are totally wrong Willie.

https://assets.pu...port.pdf

17 hours ago
@WillieWard.

Your 'spiels' fall into the category of 'uninformed investment/contracting decisions' and/or 'selective/limited definitions/renewables' and/or 'outdated/false characterisations'. Biomass will be a relatively SMALL part of the mix compared to future solar/wind; and that biogas energy will be recovered mostly from farm/animal waste and forest/landfill waste which would otherwise have rotted anyway, contributing their CO2/methane directly to the atmosphere anyway. Your UK reference involved bad business acumen/decision on the part of the people who contracted renewables power (ie, they agreed to too high a price because they did not allow for TRANSITION PERIOD fluctuations in the price of local fossil/gas alternatives; so it had nothing to do with the actual renewables sources/systems per se. And your other 'counter-arguments' depend on IGNORING the TRANSITIONAL PERIOD; which naturally would still use much fossils UNTIL TRANSITION to 25% gas and 75% solar/wind achieved. :)

13 hours ago
@Willie
New installations of wind turbines have essentially flatlined globally
At least we are installing lots of wind. You can't say the same for nukes. I asked you a question before. Can you show me one country that is on target to get 100% of electricity from nukes - by 2050? I showed you Germany, as an example of the transition. Crickets chirping.
If you look at global electricity production - you see the only source that is currently sloping up - is renewables. Starting in about 2,000 - renewables began a slow trend upwards. That trend is accelerating. We are just reaching grid parity today - so that trend will continue to accelerate. https://techxplor...als.html

1 hour ago
...Take the U.K just as an example...
"Natural Gas Let The UK Go Seven Days Without Coal, Activists Credit Renewables" - May 2019
https://climatech...ral-gas/

"...This is mainly as a result of changes in the fuel mix used for electricity generation, away from coal and towards renewables..."
"renewables" = natural gas, stupid.

"...At least we are installing lots of wind..." to act as 'facades' to keep the expansion of the gas(fracking) industry, stupid.

"... I showed you Germany, as an example of the transition..." "transition" to gas, stupid.

you see the only source that is currently sloping up - is renewables.
"renewables" = natural gas
"Renewables get the press, but natural gas is growing much faster." - Mar 2019
https://www.natio...growing/

RE promoters are modern "snake oil salesmen".

40 minutes ago
renewables" = natural gas, stupid
Nope - renewables = renewables. Competition for cheapest electricity is accelerating. And the winner is....... https://www.forbe...d4334772

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more