UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[Big Tea]

You do realise that we are burning MORE fossil fuels worldwide than ever before, don't you? this is not the latest data but the 2018 report is much the same.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress ... =962&h=578

But if you split that by region some that were almost zero 2 decades ago are among the highest per head.
It also replaces a huge amount of burned wood.

Figures and graphs do not show the story

Compare this graph. It can account for much of the rise in the other graph but still contains far more renewables
(3 valleys project is huge)



source
(https://www.google.co.uk/search?client= ... fQ-2WIN5dM:)

[Brake Horse Power]

I have found some more information about China, if you look at the graph in the link, over 30% was renewable in 2016. And they are still pushing on. The only troubling part is that coal consumption projection is more or less the same in 2040, however renewables grow so much because the energy consumption will grow significantly


https://www.iea.org/weo/china/

[Big Tea]

I have found some more information about China, if you look at the graph in the link, over 30% was renewable in 2016. And they are still pushing on. The only troubling part is that coal consumption projection is more or less the same in 2040, however renewables grow so much because the energy consumption will grow significantly


https://www.iea.org/weo/china/

Well as I see it, fossil fuel not burned is the same as it being saved. Still quite a lot though

My fear with this is that they decide they need some cash and sell the coal they do not use to someone else.
Its not a saving then.

[Greg Locock]

If you are looking at the same graph I am then China is burning twice as much coal in 2015 as it was 10 years earlier, and non-fossil fuels aren't even beginning to match the rise in demand for energy, by a factor of 5 or so.

[loner]

If you are looking at the same graph I am then China is burning twice as much coal in 2015 as it was 10 years earlier,

are they .. coz i thought they are reducing the coal usage
a few months old article in Reuters

The Chinese capital was ordered to cut PM2.5 concentrations to less than 60 micrograms as part of a 2013 action plan designed to head off public anger about rising pollution.
The city has since closed nearly 2,000 factories in the cement, foundry and furniture-making sectors, shut down coal-fired power plants and eliminated over 2 million high-emission vehicles over the past five years.

Beijing meets 2017 air pollution target set under 2013 clean-up plan
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chin ... SKBN1ES0J6

[Just_a_fan]

If you are looking at the same graph I am then China is burning twice as much coal in 2015 as it was 10 years earlier, and non-fossil fuels aren't even beginning to match the rise in demand for energy, by a factor of 5 or so.

But other countries have backed away from coal. The UK, for example, regularly has periods where no coal is burned in eletricity production.

[strad]

i thought they are reducing the coal usage
a few months old article in Reuters

From what I read they are using a lot more coal.
They have not shown any real concern for the environment.
And why should everyone else be content with slashing theirs so that China can use more?????

[Tommy Cookers]

the UK to end coal burning - so what !
Drax has now just completed the conversion of coal burning units to wood burning
the atmospheric particulate has greatly increased

135% increase ('as much particulate as 3 million diesel cars') was found with 3 wood burning units and 1 coal burning unit
135% increase over the original 6 coal units
now complete the 4 wood units will treble the particulate but generate a bit less electricity than 4 of the coal units did

but the particulate is still within legal limits so that's ok

[strad]

By the earlier logic it's ok cause Porsche is stopping making diesels.

[Big Tea]

I wish every country would spend half as much on fusion research as they waste on standing still land making other problems.

You may say 'what if it turns out not to be viable' ?

Fine. Really disappointed, but we then know not to hold our breath waiting for it or wasting time trying to develop it when they could look at something else.

[roon]

i thought they are reducing the coal usage
a few months old article in Reuters

From what I read they are using a lot more coal.
They have not shown any real concern for the environment.
And why should everyone else be content with slashing theirs so that China can use more?????

There may be value in developing within self imposed constraints such as efficiency targets. It may offer the potential advantage of increasing security through independence from various resources, while being an intellectual exercise that could benefit other areas.

I wish every country would spend half as much on fusion research as they waste on standing still land making other problems.

You may say 'what if it turns out not to be viable' ?

Fine. Really disappointed, but we then know not to hold our breath waiting for it or wasting time trying to develop it when they could look at something else.

With research like this it seems difficult to know what work, completed and ongoing, is valid. It's a pretty complex topic, fusion. I imagine very difficult to get funding for, and to audit the funding in situ, due to that very reason. Think of the orbital rocket industry. For fifty years it stagnated, lost a vision for exploration, remained expensive, got inflated with nepotists. Then one guy who got a sweet $180 mil tech-startup payout founded a new company and now there's tail sitter rockets quickly becoming normalized, and people are talking about humans on the moon and mars with a 1950s level of fervency. So maybe someone with a fat wallet and no risk of going hungry needs to start a fusion project.

[Greg Locock]

China made a very temporary reduction in coal consumption last year, which got all sorts of people excited, and is now back on its original path, the same people declined to notice this.

[Big Tea]

I wish every country would spend half as much on fusion research as they waste on standing still land making other problems.

You may say 'what if it turns out not to be viable' ?

Fine. Really disappointed, but we then know not to hold our breath waiting for it or wasting time trying to develop it when they could look at something else.

With research like this it seems difficult to know what work, completed and ongoing, is valid. It's a pretty complex topic, fusion. I imagine very difficult to get funding for, and to audit the funding in situ, due to that very reason. Think of the orbital rocket industry. For fifty years it stagnated, lost a vision for exploration, remained expensive, got inflated with nepotists. Then one guy who got a sweet $180 mil tech-startup payout founded a new company and now there's tail sitter rockets quickly becoming normalized, and people are talking about humans on the moon and mars with a 1950s level of fervency. So maybe someone with a fat wallet and no risk of going hungry needs to start a fusion project.

There are several ongoing projects, all getting quite large funding. In particular a European based international one at ITER. https://www.iter.org.

The problem with much of the research seems to be, as much as cost, the 'national' part and the 'its ours' feeling.
Still, they claim they are a decade away from getting it right, and have been for the last 3 decades.

[loner]

i thought they are reducing the coal usage
a few months old article in Reuters

From what I read they are using a lot more coal.
They have not shown any real concern for the environment.
And why should everyone else be content with slashing theirs so that China can use more?????

yeah must've been a smokescreen
China coal power building boom sparks climate warning.
26 September 2018
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45640706

[strad]

According to this study, there was a surge in new coal projects approved at provincial level in China between 2014 and 2016. This happened because of a decentralisation programme that shifted authority over coal plant construction approvals to local authorities.

That sounds like a smoke screen to me as it could not be approved at the provincial level without the tacit if not full blown approval of the central government.