General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

Again the BBC data for 2018 shows opposite, so we have to wait until 2020 to see how it progress in 2019. But so far US emmision since new Administration took over, have increased last year according with new Administration policies.
:confused: You're claiming that the BBC; [Report: US 2018 CO2 emissions saw biggest spike in years] doesn't show a spike in 2018???
 
Even the US is reducing it's CO2 emissions despite the admin's efforts. It seems their businesses have different priorities though there has been a spike in 2018 the use of renewable energy etc. makes their operations more efficient and thus more profitable.
See: EPA and EIA Electricity Generation and EIA Release on the same topic.

There's a noticeable tail-off in overall emissions from 2007 (the record year), which corresponds with a combination of the financial crash (reduced industrial output), a burst in wind generation and a massive increase in natural gas generation (presumably shale gas) - both collectively at the expense of coal. See EIA Generation by Energy Source for more detailed stats.

I think the statement that renewables has led to more efficiency and profitability is dubious at best.
 
Historically renewable energy cost significantly more to produce than the equivalent fossil fuel source, (nuclear doesn't count, that has always been subsidized to the eyeballs) now improved tech and economies of scale mean that it is out competing fossil fuels.
 
Historically renewable energy cost significantly more to produce than the equivalent fossil fuel source, (nuclear doesn't count, that has always been subsidized to the eyeballs) now improved tech and economies of scale mean that it is out competing fossil fuels.
You didn't answer the question. Think logically - if renewables were so much better than thermal/nuclear, why is it so hard for them to penetrate the energy mix without government intervention?

To expand on that government intervention (at least in the UK); that is raising thermal energy costs through a carbon tax, direct production subsidies above the wholesale cost of energy, indirection production subsidies in not having to carry the cost of connecting infrastructure and preferential market access (renewable energy is always bought first, irrespective of cost).

It is true that in the last CFD auction round a couple of the Offshore wind suppliers were awarded a strike price only £10/MWh above the wholesale market price (£57.50 versus £47.17 day ahead price) but none of those even are supposed to be operational until 2022 and are only 3 instances in about 37 total CFD awards.

Gasification (£75) and biomass (£75) aren't even at the races. Solar is close (£50-£80).

Solar and wind are obviously intermittent, so need alternative power sources to supply when they're not running full capacity - something that should (in my opinion) be built into their costs and environmental feasibility. Onshore + Offshore wind has a load factor of about 30%, Solar about 11%

To put those numbers into context; gas LCOE is (according to BEIS) expected to be ~ £47 for projects commissioning in 2020.

This is a long way of saying; I disagree with you. I can see us being on the path - but I'll believe renewables are on parity with fossil fuels in a purely economic sense when I see them being spun up and delivering consistent and reliable power without subsidy. And not before.
 
Fossil Fuels sells - Renewable Energy sources doesn't. This is why in my opinion Fossil Fuels will be here for 100 more years.
( Why else destroy Venezuella - which has the biggest reserves of Oil, if they are not going to keep on using it)

If we look at this data: https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/fossil_fuels_electricity_generation/
We can see in US between 2000 and 2016, no significant changes.
China increased by 4x - and i doubt, they would be able to replace it with anything else anytime soon, considering how much Energy they consume.

Europe - as the only place with least Oil and Gas reserves, obviously will continue to persue Alternative sources for Energy, unless they want to be forever dependant on imports of Oil and Gas - that's a lot of wasted money.

As for developing countries - I doubt they will be able to go Full nuclear like France. Whether they go Fossil or Renewable i have no idea. But they probably won't have choice, depending on which country has more influence on them. But i think US would be interested in them going Fossil Fuel energy, especially Coal, so they can sell their massive reserves. Else if everyone will start avoiding coal energy, it will be a massive amount of money beeing wasted. Got to sell it while you can. ( We can already see how South Afrika has been adapted to this plan, other African countries willl probablly follow them)

So i think only Europe has most motivation to go for Renewable Energy, because they lack Fossil Fuel resources to sustaine them selves.

So to summ up:
CO2 will keep on rising and rising, no mater how much you go Green in Europe, because Asia will continue to be the biggest CO2 supplier for many decades.
 
Last edited:
@Starbow, i think what people are pointing out is that 'despite' individual efforts of any particular administration (and the people they work for (the ones that put them in power etc)), the global shift is moving away from fossil fuels. This happens in a number of ways and in the USA in particular is being driven by individual corporations (not the Big Oil sector obviously) deciding their future is better served by divesting from fossil fuels. China has actually (we covered in the thread earlier) been the biggest convert to renewable energy and out of the top most CO2 polluting countries is leading the way in terms of changing it's energy infrastructure.

So despite the best efforts from the parties with the most investments (Big Oil and associates), the global transition is towards renewables. It would be moving more quickly if so much was not being invested in slowing the transition down.

--------------
This is an interesting look at another of the global issues we are all facing, how modern agricultural methods is damaging us:

'The recent news about glyphosate and cancer only highlights a broader problem with our system: our obsession with killing the natural world is poisoning us':


The recent headlines announcing billions of dollars in damages to people who have gotten cancer after using Roundup are just the tip of a very large iceberg. There are over 1,000 lawsuits against Monsanto’s parent company, Bayer, waiting to be heard by the courts. Beyond concerns about that specific glyphosate-based weedkiller, we should be talking about the innumerable other potentially punishing chemicals in our food system.

After all, our food and our health are deeply connected. American healthcare spending has ballooned to $3.5tn a year, and yet we are sicker than most other developed countries. Meanwhile, our food system contains thousands of chemicals that have not been proven safe and many that are banned in other countries.

How did we get to this point? Unlike much of the developed world, the American regulatory system doesn’t operate on the precautionary principle. In other words, instead of potentially hazardous substances being banned from our food, as they are in, say, Europe, chemicals of concern are typically considered innocent until proven guilty. As a result, we are the guinea pigs in our own experiment. And our desire for food that is fast, cheap and abundant only compounds the speed with which we are introduced to new, untested substances.

It has been a deadly race to the bottom. For decades we’ve operated on the principle that if we can selectively kill off the unwanted parts of the natural world, we can control our futures. Farmers operate that way, but also homeowners, highway crews and landscapers. We spread herbicides, fungicides, pesticides, insecticides, fertilizers, antibiotics, hormones and various other toxins which kill everything around. Even good things.

We’re becoming aware of the loss of what we can see: bees, butterflies, the diverse plant life of our ecosystems. We also need to worry about the invisible microbiome and fungi in the soil that nurture life above, store carbon and absorb water.
It really is a system we need to avoid in the EU zone, the UK in particular (as we have less space in particular).
 
Last edited:
@Starbow, i think what people are pointing out is that 'despite' individual efforts of any particular administration (and the people they work for (the ones that put them in power etc)), the global shift is moving away from fossil fuels. This happens in a number of ways and in the USA in particular is being driven by individual corporations (not the Big Oil sector obviously) deciding their future is better served by divesting from fossil fuels. China has actually (we covered in the thread earlier) been the biggest convert to renewable energy and out of the top most CO2 polluting countries is leading the way in terms of changing it's energy infrastructure.

So despite the best efforts from the parties with the most investments (Big Oil and associates), the global transition is towards renewables. It would be moving more quickly if so much was not being invested in slowing the transition down.

--------------
This is an interesting look at another of the global issues we are all facing, how modern agricultural methods is damaging us:

'The recent news about glyphosate and cancer only highlights a broader problem with our system: our obsession with killing the natural world is poisoning us':




It really is a system we need to avoid in the EU zone, the UK in particular (as we have less space in particular).
I don't think you realise the scope of Energy consumption of China.
In 2000 according to that site, China was using 1 000 Billion kWh to 4 000 Billion kWh in 2016 - all on Fossil fuels. Do you really believe after investing so much money to build this Energy Sector on Fossil Fuels, they will abandon it for Renewable energy? Especially if Western leaders insist on it? They love listening to them right?

Similar we see in US: in the year 2000 2692 billion kWh - to 2016 2654 billion kWh on Fossil Fuel.

I don't see it as a transition or conversion, they are not replacing Fossil Fuel Energy in US, they are just adding Reneweble Energy to the growing sector instead, but the pollution from Fossil Fuel is still the same in US as it was in 2000 or something like that.

And i think it's normal to not relly on 1 sources for Energy Sector - because it will make your Energy Sector vulnerable. So investing in Renewble and Nuclear Energy is just a form of security - but it doesn't mean they are changing to it.

I think this is how Media spining it making peope believe that they are converting to Renewable Energy were in reality they are not.
 
Apart from the fact they've cancelled plans for new coal power stations, plan to retire 20GW of coal power plants, Non fossil fuel power generation to increase by 20% by 2030, Solar to increase by 240GW by 2040 (+7% per annum), Wind to increase by 280GW by 2040 (+5% per annum), Nuclear to increase by 58GW by 2020. Coal generation to fall to 50% of total generation by 2040 in line with Paris commitment.


In communist China Beijing does what it ****ing likes.
 
Last edited:
Apart from the fact they've cancelled plans for new coal power stations, plan to retire 20GW of coal power plants, Non fossil fuel power generation to increase by 20% by 2030, Solar to increase by 240GW by 2040 (+7% per annum), Wind to increase by 280GW by 2040 (+5% per annum), Nuclear to increase by 58GW by 2020. Coal generation to fall to 50% of total generation by 2040 in line with Paris commitment.
If you could find that graph, you certainly should be able to find this. Starbrow's analysis is spot on - renewables are proving to be the mechanism for growth.

Coal generating falling to 50% of overall supply <> less coal.
 
Chinese coal consumption peaked in 2013, in 2018 it accounted for 59% of Chinese energy generation.
Coal consumption in 2013 was 4,800,000,000 tons
Coal consumption in 2018 was 3,830,000,000 tons
 
I don't think you realise the scope of Energy consumption of China.
In 2000 according to that site, China was using 1 000 Billion kWh to 4 000 Billion kWh in 2016 - all on Fossil fuels. Do you really believe after investing so much money to build this Energy Sector on Fossil Fuels, they will abandon it for Renewable energy? Especially if Western leaders insist on it? They love listening to them right?

Similar we see in US: in the year 2000 2692 billion kWh - to 2016 2654 billion kWh on Fossil Fuel.

I don't see it as a transition or conversion, they are not replacing Fossil Fuel Energy in US, they are just adding Reneweble Energy to the growing sector instead, but the pollution from Fossil Fuel is still the same in US as it was in 2000 or something like that.

And i think it's normal to not relly on 1 sources for Energy Sector - because it will make your Energy Sector vulnerable. So investing in Renewble and Nuclear Energy is just a form of security - but it doesn't mean they are changing to it.

I think this is how Media spining it making peope believe that they are converting to Renewable Energy were in reality they are not.
I think your analysis is spot on here.
 
I don't think you realise the scope of Energy consumption of China.
In 2000 according to that site, China was using 1 000 Billion kWh to 4 000 Billion kWh in 2016 - all on Fossil fuels. Do you really believe after investing so much money to build this Energy Sector on Fossil Fuels, they will abandon it for Renewable energy? Especially if Western leaders insist on it? They love listening to them right?

Similar we see in US: in the year 2000 2692 billion kWh - to 2016 2654 billion kWh on Fossil Fuel.

I don't see it as a transition or conversion, they are not replacing Fossil Fuel Energy in US, they are just adding Reneweble Energy to the growing sector instead, but the pollution from Fossil Fuel is still the same in US as it was in 2000 or something like that.

And i think it's normal to not relly on 1 sources for Energy Sector - because it will make your Energy Sector vulnerable. So investing in Renewble and Nuclear Energy is just a form of security - but it doesn't mean they are changing to it.

I think this is how Media spining it making peope believe that they are converting to Renewable Energy were in reality they are not.
I suspect the issue is that you view it as a financial investment in the capitalist manner.
That doesn't seem to be the way that the communist Chinese government views it. Their primary concern seems to be the number of people that need to be retrained when each plant is closed. As for being told what to do by the West, they seem to revel in the opportunity to show how much their doing compared to Washington's inactivity.
 
Exactly as i was saying. 'Dirty' CO2 energy production is decreasing (and has been for a few years now), clean/renewable energy production is increasing, and not just in china. As we have covered all through this thread, on many occasions. Is it 'small' scale yet? No (the world economy being the dinosaur it is). But it is heading in the right direction.
 
Exactly as i was saying. 'Dirty' CO2 energy production is decreasing (and has been for a few years now), clean/renewable energy production is increasing, and not just in china. As we have covered all through this thread, on many occasions. Is it 'small' scale yet? No (the world economy being the dinosaur it is). But it is heading in the right direction.
Surprising !

I read that, in recent years, the global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) have steadily increased to 37.1 billion tonnes in 2018. A 2.7% increase over one year. Many reports point out that there is a real gap between countries' current climate policies and the possibility of containing global warming below 2°C.

And only 16 countries out of 197 respect the Paris agreement.
 
The UK is claiming that all its coal power plants will be closed by 2025, which will just leave gas as the last fossil fuel for electricity generation.
 
And yet renewables weren't mentioned in that.

Think logically - if renewables were so much better than thermal/nuclear, why is it so hard for them to penetrate the energy mix without government intervention?
You ask that knowing that fossil fuels still get billions a year in gov't subsidy's?
If a tenth of that money was put towards Hydrogen development and infrastructure, gas/diesel would be dead in a few years.
The playing field is not level.
 
You ask that knowing that fossil fuels still get billions a year in gov't subsidy's?
If a tenth of that money was put towards Hydrogen development and infrastructure, gas/diesel would be dead in a few years.
The playing field is not level.
Except they don't. Go read what those "subsidies" are.
 
Except they don't. Go read what those "subsidies" are.
An example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#Subsidies_by_country

We have the dirtiest oil that used to be called tar sands, but are now called oil sands. Marketing works i guess.
These companies come in, promise to restore the land when they've finished, rake in tax incentives, destroy the land, claim bankruptcy, close shop, leave land and water tables unfit to support any animal life.
Nowhere do bonds or other insurances come into play. It's a bad joke.
 
Top Bottom