The World's Largest Offshore Wind Farm is Nearly Complete. It Can Power 1 Million Homes (cnn.com) 334
The world's largest offshore wind farm is taking shape off the east coast of Britain, a landmark project that demonstrates one way to combat climate change at scale. From a report: Located 120 kilometers (75 miles) off England's Yorkshire coast, Hornsea One will produce enough energy to supply 1 million UK homes with clean electricity when it is completed in 2020. The project spans an area that's bigger than the Maldives or Malta, and is located farther out to see than any other wind farm. It consists of 174 seven-megawatt wind turbines that are each 100 meters tall. The blades have a circumference of 75 meters, and cover an area bigger than the London Eye observation wheel as they turn. Just a single rotation of one of the turbines can power the average home for an entire day, according to Stefan Hoonings, senior project manager at Orsted (DOGEF), the Danish energy company that built the farm.
The project will take the United Kingdom closer to hitting its target of deriving a third of the country's electricity from offshore wind by 2030. It's the kind of project that can help governments achieve environmental targets set out at this week's United Nations Climate Action Summit in New York. Some 77 countries committed at the summit to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, but climate activists including Greta Thunberg say that major emitters must do more to mitigate rising temperatures.
The project will take the United Kingdom closer to hitting its target of deriving a third of the country's electricity from offshore wind by 2030. It's the kind of project that can help governments achieve environmental targets set out at this week's United Nations Climate Action Summit in New York. Some 77 countries committed at the summit to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, but climate activists including Greta Thunberg say that major emitters must do more to mitigate rising temperatures.
Greta Thunberg (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Greta Thunberg (Score:5, Funny)
Aspergers. The rest of us are idiots compared to the kid.
And I'm smarter than you because I had to explain it to you. ;-)
Re: Greta Thunberg (Score:2)
She is a symbol of a movement, it is really all the kids who are going to be in tough times come about 250.
Re: Greta Thunberg (Score:2)
2050 that is.
Re: Greta Thunberg (Score:2)
It will be incredibly expensive. Humans up until this point have been like kids, taken care of by Mother Nature (Greta is like the adult in the room) . But now we are big enough to make impacts at planetary scale, we need to learn to balance the planetary resource checkbook and get a job. Itâ(TM)s worth it in the end, I believe we will be self genetically engineered creatures managing all life in a vast garden planet with all life domesticated, but getting their is not going to fun, untold suffering.
Th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Greta Thunberg (Score:2)
Here is Al Gore refuting that 14 years ago:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
The last 13 years after that have been the hottest on record. Like nothing in history unless you go back to dinosaur times. Yes, it will crash the economy and civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And that was just a single year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(Greta is like the adult in the room)
I think that's a big chunk of the appeal. The adults are acting childish and then here's a kid who's telling them to get off their asses. 'Them' being politicians in particular but maybe all adults in general as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
She isn't an expert and AFAIK, she has not claimed to be.
What she does have is a voice that more and more people are listening to and agreeing with. On the opposite side there are people like Trump who is actively working to desctroy the envirnment.
What would you rather have eh?
For me, and as a non-american, the sooner Trump is behind bars the better for the whole world.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because she's 16 and see carbon dioxide with her eyes. She's also Joan d'Arc reborn.
(Besides with the internet and more information available at nearly every set of fingertips than at any point in the entirety of human existence -- expertise and logic are now superfluous in the face of emotions and the gut)
Re:Greta Thunberg (Score:5, Insightful)
She doesn't have an 'opinion'. She is calling attention to a real and serious issue while lard-asses like you do nothing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yes
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is implying she's an expert. (Score:2)
She's just quoted because 1. it's currently a news media fashion trend, and 2. she represents the views of a huge load of people. Kinda the majority voice here in Europe.
Of course it being her specifically, is mostly arbitrary. I bet some other kid is sad cause he did it first and nobody cared.
She's a smart kid though, and isn't exactly talking dumb shit, like politicians. She talks straight instead of p.c.. And she *did* strike on her own. Kinda like a Trump from the good and sane alternate universe withou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, because she was highly visible while she was having a school strike because she was on the news a lot, she got the school strike to spread to other places, she got the local politicians to pay attention, and became well known in Sweden and beyond because of this and without any explicit media celebrity-creation machine.
She also speaks well and speaks plainly, doesn't sound like a hippy, isn't a ego inflated movie star, etc. She's also very a-political, not choosing partisan sides, not recommending ca
Re: (Score:2)
People aren't. Politicians and the media.
She's a flavor of the month. She's a David Hogg. A Blasey Ford. A whoever that porn star Trump paid hush money to was.
Re:Why are WHO? (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason I'm sure she's onto a good thing is she's triggered the fuck out of a bunch of idiots and they have nothing but personal attacks left to make. If your argument can't win on merit and you have to resort to personal attacks then you've basically admitted for wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People are suffering, people are dying,
Yes. Deaths from natural disasters are down around 0.02% [ourworldindata.org]; lack of modern medicine is orders of magnitude higher, and the lack of reliable, stable power [who.int] is a large cause of that. So pushing for unreliable power sources kills orders of magnitude more than all natural disasters combined.
entire ecosystems are collapsing.
Nope. The number of species on Earth are swelling rapidly [phys.org], highlighting the fact we haven't a really deep understanding of ecosystems or species.
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction
Citation needed, because - as the link right above points ou
I'm not sure you understand where the deaths (Score:3)
The Fuhrer rose to power because the allies post WWII took a big, steaming dump on Germany and primed it's people for an authoritarian dictator and war. We created millions and millions of people with nothing to lose. People ready to look the other way because their economy was crushed under the weight of punitive
Re: (Score:2)
Troll for sure. First off, stop with the Soros conspiracy theory, it's silly. Second, she got famous on her own by parking herself outside the Swedish parliament and making speeches. Third, no evidence for this antifa nonsense, or is that just how you criticize people you disagree with?
GTFOH (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"nothing to add to the conversation that wasn't spoon fed to her so that she can regurgitate it in from of a camera"
A technique that's *never* been used by political parties left or right.
Let's say it again - attacking the messenger just shows that you have nothing to say about the message, i.e. it weakens *your* position, not hers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The messenger and message are both bullshit.
Having already slayed the message, people will naturally turn toward the messengers who keep mouthing off about that bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
So when is China and India going to start taking this seriously?
Whataboutism
Clearly, USA is worse per capital but we are getting better, not worse.
Trump is doing all he can to change that.
If the politicians want this to be a crisis, they should act like it.
That's what Greta said.
As green as my coworker wants to think he is, he produced 5 children. I've produced zero children. Who really fucked the environment harder, especially when we both drive hybrid cars?
Almost certainly your coworker. A carbon tax would make children even more expensive, and help dissuade that kind of behavior — or at least help offset it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's say it again - attacking the messenger just shows that you have nothing to say about the message, i.e. it weakens *your* position, not hers.
I remember not that long ago when professional, PhD scientists who disagreed with the "consensus" or the reasoning behind it were attacked because, even though they are outstanding scientists in their own field, they weren't CLIMATE scientists. They had no right to comment on the science involved in CLIMATE science because they were experts in some other kind of scientist. Did you point out that attacking the messenger showed that the climate alarmists had nothing to say?
Greta isn't even a scientist, she's
Re: (Score:2)
Her position can't possibly be weakened because it's nonsense. She says clearly that cutting emissions by 50% in the next 10 years only has a 50% chance of saving us from catastrophic climate change. Bullshit. We can't cut emissions by 50% in 10 years, anyway. Not going to happen, but, then again, neither is the catastrophe that she's so worried about.
I feel bad for her, because watching her it looks like she really believes that the earth is going basically die in her lifetime because we (older folks)
Re: (Score:3)
She can have an opinion just like anyone else. There are plenty of 16 year old kids with perfectly good , some even great, opinions.
And she is correct. Greedy fucks are destroying the planet for short sighted profit motive.
My God (Score:2, Insightful)
So a turbine powers ~6000 homes. (Score:2)
And, on daily average, it rotates once every 15 seconds, giving roughly 15-16 m/s blade tip speed.
Also, one home is expected to need about 1.2kW on average, or about 29kWh a day.
Which is about 105kJ. A 20th of a Snickers bar.
Jesus ... Has anyone tapped the vast Snickers resources? It could be the next fossil fuel!
Snickers power already in progress. (Score:2)
Has anyone tapped the vast Snickers resources? It could be the next fossil fuel!
Over the last few years a lot of the corn crop HAS been diverted from the production of corn syrup to the production of fuel-grade ethanol.
Re: (Score:2)
What is so difficult to believe? I use about 2200 kWh per year, which is pretty much exactly the average for a single person household in Germany. That's about 5 kWh per day, one fifth of the amout you've calculated and for some reason consider ridiculously low.
Re: (Score:2)
Was just thinking about WW II when I saw this. (Score:2, Insightful)
UK's current electricity consumption is about 5 GW. That says this project, running at capacity, would be providing something in the ballpark of a fifth the country's power.
Now imagine a few mines, planted on the underwater cabling by submarines, cutting the wires and suddenly dropping that feed.
Here's an Easier Way to Knock Out a Power Grid (Score:2)
Pull down a few high tension towers in the middle of nowhere. Chances are there aren't any redundant lines and it will take weeks if not months to restore. Don't even need explosives, submarines, just a tow truck.
Saw that in 1998 with the Quebec ice storm.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to think that would work, but the utilities have helicopters that can fly in a new tower inside a few days. There are other parts that are much more vulnerable for a long term impact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
UK's current electricity consumption is about 5 GW..
According to gridwatch.co.uk, the UK's power consumption is about 28.3GW at the moment. Where did you get 5GW from?
Re: (Score:2)
nice script for a thriller move. But this farm is only 75 miles from shore, and you might be interested to know the USA and England jointly track subs. Such a thing would be act of war, I almost pity the nation stupid enough to try it.
You do know underwater cables can be and are repaired, replaced, maintained.
Re: (Score:2)
Might want to check your numbers there. The city of London should be more than 5GW.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a few cruise missiles aimed at nuclear and coal plants. Imagine if one single bomb took out the National Grid control centre.
Anyway, that sea is heavily monitored and patrolled by multiple nations. They wouldn't waste time with those cables, they would launch their nukes at strategic targets like London and GCHQ.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine existing hitting transmission towers on the ground with a truck. Or a saw. Or maybe a rock. Or damaging them in any other sort of way. Why do you think that underwater transmission cables are any more vulnerable than the regular stuff that we have now?
This delivers 1GW (Score:5, Insightful)
This delivers about 1GW, presumably when wind conditions are optimal.
When the air is still, it has no output. At those times we have to burn gas for power.
That means that we have to keep 1GW of gas fired power stations available, even though we are not using them all the time.
I am not trying to denigrate this project - it will reduce the amount of gas we burn for power - but what we really, really, really need is a method of storing lots of electricity.
Really really? (Score:2)
What we really, really, really need is to manage demand for electricity to suit generation. Separate wiring into essential and non-essential and allow non-essential to be switched off as necessary. Maintain essential $/kWh at 10x non-essential, and include a max demand tariff so users playing clever games auto-switching from non-essential to essential when non-essential is blacked out, they get hit. If end user wants to store energy locally from non-essential, then they get the cost benefit from this.
Re:This delivers 1GW (Score:4, Insightful)
Fallback to solar also, or geothermal, or hydro, or ... Yes, we need energy storage. But even before such storage exists the wind power will still be highly valuable, especially as the wind is quite common out on the sea.
Don't Panic. It's Not Helping. (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this the kind of panic Greta is asking for?
https://www.insidesources.com/... [insidesources.com]
Throughout the Northeast, activists have held up natural gas pipeline construction projects, either by protesting or by persuading state or local government officials to deny permits or create other legal hurdles.
âoeNew Hampshireâ(TM)s natural gas-fired generation has declined in the past three years and now is at its lowest level since 2002,â the EIA concluded. âoeThe decrease has been compensated for primarily by increases in coal-fired generation and hydroelectric power.â
Merrimack Station could convert to cleaner-burning natural gas. But no pipeline runs to the plant.
âoeThere is no plan to convert the plants to natural gas because there is no supply line nearby,â the New Hampshire Union Leader reported in January.
Activists have been so successful in blocking new natural gas pipeline construction that theyâ(TM)ve guaranteed the continued operation of the very coal-fired power plant they now demand be shut down.
I swear that if these panicked idiots don't stop this bullshit and actually think about what they are doing then they are going to get us all killed.
Those windmill projects need backup power for when the wind doesn't blow. Right now this means natural gas. There are a lot of very nice developed sites to put these natural gas generators but they need pipelines to them so the generators have fuel. These sites exist where there are existing electrical transmission lines to get the electricity out, and train lines to get the equipment in. Sites that the utilities already own and have staff to run.
I can hear it now, "But we'll use batteries!" Where are these batteries? Where can I buy them? How soon can I get them on site and operational? The answer is that nobody knows and so we need options. We can build new natural gas turbines to supply this power, or we can keep burning coal in boilers that are far beyond being in need of replacement.
This is ignoring the problems of offshore wind being more expensive than nuclear power. But let's just assume it is cheaper than nuclear power. We still need natural gas until there are enough batteries to go around. Natural gas can't be easily transported in any way other than a pipe. Without a pipe the utilities will have to bring in coal and/or fuel oil to keep the lights on this coming winter.
Greta says we should panic. I say we should think. Think about how this expansion of wind and solar power is changing the electrical grid. You people think it was so smart to hold up the construction of oil and gas pipelines? I say these protesters are ignorant, foolish, unintelligent, and just godawful screaming banshees that should be leaving this to the experts. Not only are they ignorant, they are willfully ignorant. It's not that difficult to look up how this works. We need reliable power or people will be freezing to death.
All you children need to stop panicking, let the adults do their job, go back to school, and when you are old enough then you can help us keep fixing this problem.
Re:Don't Panic. It's Not Helping. (Score:4, Informative)
Christ almighty, nuclear power is just about the most expensive way to produce electricity.
So is offshore wind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If the people in the UK can afford offshore wind to get low CO2 energy then they can afford nuclear power.
Here it comes, "But what about..."
Yes, what about that? I'll let Dr. Malhotra explain.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
I see Dr. Malhotra made a recent addition to his site that is relevant here.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
As it stands now we will not see wind and solar replace coal any time soon. We need to do more. Do more that costs less. This means natural gas, hydro, and nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Those figures are 4 years old. Look at the latest CFDs: around £40 per MWh. It's like you're talking about an iPhone 6s
https://assets.publishing.serv... [service.gov.uk]
units (Score:2)
"The project spans an area that's bigger than the Maldives or Malta,
I would guess that nobody on /. has a clue how big that is.
If you must use islands as standard units of area, at least use something we know (Rhode Island, or Manhattan )
How much cancer will that generate (Score:2)
I've heard from a stable genius that windmills cause cancer. Is this going to give the North Atlantic cancer? Three eyed fish?
Re:Title correction (Score:5, Interesting)
The wind is ALWAYS blowing, somewhere.
The sun is ALWAYS shining, somewhere.
And we need energy storage capacity for night time when the sun is below the horizon.
It's not magic. It's just a matter of building it. As a civilization we've already built quite a few large projects, including the current electrical grid and its generation plants.
Re: (Score:3)
A global grid was designed back in the 50's (40's?) by Bucky Fuller using his Dymaxion Map as a plan for routing the grid. Of course, this was back during the Cold War era and the notion of anything spanning East and West was anathema. And, to be fair, the engineering technology probably wasn't there at the time. It is now.
Re: (Score:2)
The wind is ALWAYS blowing, somewhere.
The sun is ALWAYS shining, somewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the ocean, man, the wind is quite common....
Re:Title correction (Score:5, Interesting)
Offshore wind farms produce about 35% to 40% of their rated dataplate capacity on average. Some days they'll produce 2%, some days 60% and more. Our need for electricity is less variable -- it's cyclic with the seasons and the time of day but remarkably predictable, unlike the wind.
Elsewhere in the UK an 840MW combined-cycle gas turbine generator is under construction at Keadby in Lincolnshire (alongside an existing 730MW CCGT plant). That new CCGT unit will power 650,000 homes when they need electricity by burning gas rather than hoping the wind is blowing sufficiently to keep the lights on in a fraction of the "1 million homes" powered by the Hornsea 1 offshore wind farm.
Re: (Score:2)
Offshore wind farms produce about 35% to 40% of their rated dataplate capacity on average. Some days they'll produce 2%, some days 60% and more. Our need for electricity is less variable -- it's cyclic with the seasons and the time of day but remarkably predictable, unlike the wind.
Elsewhere in the UK an 840MW combined-cycle gas turbine generator is under construction at Keadby in Lincolnshire (alongside an existing 730MW CCGT plant). That new CCGT unit will power 650,000 homes when they need electricity by burning gas rather than hoping the wind is blowing sufficiently to keep the lights on in a fraction of the "1 million homes" powered by the Hornsea 1 offshore wind farm.
Can you cite any of these numbers?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The UK already has a huge existing network of gas-fired generators supplying 42% of Britain's electricity.
It is no hardship to power a few of these stations down when the wind is generating close to its peak output.
You can see this in action right now:
https://www.gridwatch.templar.... [templar.co.uk]
Currently the National Grid is being powered by 25.9% nuclear (6.48GW), 17.5% gas (4.39GW) (CCGT) and 33.69% wind (8.43GW). The rest is made up from ICT from other countries (France has an excess nuclear baseload at night to se
Re: (Score:3)
Can you cite any of these numbers?
Onshore wind turbines, well-sited in good locations produce about 30% of dataplate on average. Offshore wind is 5-10% better than that, from industry reports I saw some time back.
Published values say Britain generated 57.1TWh of wind power in 2018, that's an average of about 6.5GW. Articles I've Googled suggest Britain has about 22GW of dataplate wind capacity on-grid, that's about 30% if the numbers are right.
As for variability, well, the amount of grid-connected wind el
Re: (Score:3)
The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.
Re: Title correction (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you seriously raising expensive decommissioning costs to make *nuclear* look better?? That's not going to work out so well for you
It's true that nuclear currently has rather high decommissioning costs, but:
1. Averaged out over the total amount of energy produced during the lifetime of the plant, it's really not all that bad;
2. A lot of the historically high decommissioning costs were due to incredibly shoddy waste storage procedures, which would not be an issue going forward; and
3. Most of the remaining decommissioning costs are a fairly trivial problem which could be drastically reduced simply by building new reactors on the same site as the decommissioned ones and using them to burn the "waste" which is still largely stored on-site.
Decommissioning costs for wind and solar on the other hand are a problem of scale; you have to tear down and reprocess (or junk) a LOT more infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The sailboat doesn't have a 200 m long mast. Even the Royal Clipper's masts are only 60 m long. And the turbine blade at the top adds another 60-80 meters. The winds are steader at higher altitude.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Title correction (Score:4, Informative)
It Can Power 1 Million Homes, if the wind is blowing.
I was under the impression that, "120 kilometers (75 miles) off England's Yorkshire coast" and through a 75 meter circle 25-to-100 meters in the air, the wind was pretty much ALWAYS blowing.
But a few days grid-level energy storage would cover even the worst calm spells.
Re: (Score:2)
... through a 75 meter circle 25-to-100 meters in the air ...
Oops. 100 meter circumference, not diameter. Make that a 32-meter circle 68-to-100 meters in the air. (Even better.)
Re: (Score:2)
Could be wrong, but I believe hub height is 100m— 65-140m in the air...
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even read TFS? 75m circumference....
Re: (Score:2)
If your infrastructure includes load following plants like combined cycle gas turbines, one of the best ways to store intermittent energy sources is as unburned fossil fuels. It doesn't get you to zero emissions, but it's probably the lowest marginal cost way of reducing emissions in the short term.
Re:Title correction (Score:4, Interesting)
This is part one of a the phase project. When it's finished they expect to have a capacity factor around 70%. For comparison nuclear in the UK has a capacity factor of 82%.
In any case, with a few more like this in the North Sea capacity factor won't be an issue. The wind never stops blowing in the North Sea.
Re:Title correction (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think you can compare nuclear capacity factor to wind. Nuclear plants schedule downtime for maintenance and swap out fuel. Wind goes down whenever the weather decides to change.
Re:Title correction (Score:4, Funny)
Worse, when the wind changes direction the grid starts sucking electricity out of your home.
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear can go offline without notice in the event of a fault, so requires backup generation to be available at short notice.
Wind is highly predictable in the short term and because the generation is distributed it's also very reliable - a single windmill experiencing a fault only takes out a small part of the total output.
So no, you can't compare them, wind is far less burdensome in terms of fault tolerance and spare capacity requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
The World's Largest Offshore Wind Farm is Nearly Complete. It Can Power 1 Million Homes, if the wind is blowing.
The wind will stop blowing in the North Sean and North Atlantic, sure ... that's going to happen. But, seriously, the whole point is that the wind never stops blowing nor does the sun stop shining everywhere at the same time. You should not believe everything you hear at a Trump rally.
You haven't been to the north sea, have you? (Score:2)
There is no such thing as no wind blowing there.
It's like saying "WHEN the sun is shining in the Sahara desert".
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Title correction (Score:4, Informative)
Energy storage is going to be a necessary component. And I don't think anyone has said that once we have windpower that we just stop all other forms of electricity generation. Your comment is rather like a strawman here, easily refuted but designed to make people think "aha, these green people are all stupid!"
42% of UK electricity supplied by natural gas (Score:2)
42% of UK electricity is supplied by natural gas.
Gas power stations can get up to speed in 10-20 minutes. So when the wind isn't blowing, the UK fires up its gas fired power plants. When the wind IS blowing, the UK doesn't have to import so much foreign gas.
Not as sexy as battery reserves, perhaps, but very effective in practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People are suffering, people are dying, entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth.
Alarmist inanity never solved anything and if you bother to look at history objectively a smaller percentage of people are dying and suffering than at any time in history. And it's precisely the economic growth that we've enjoyed over the last two centuries that has enabled this. If you want to go back to living in mud huts and constantly worry about starving, you're welcome to it, but humanity didn't struggle through tens of thousands of years of history to throw it all away.
And that same economic growt
Re: Angry Birds Part Duex (Score:4, Insightful)
But you don't seem to realize that these same (panic) claims have been made by reputable scientists (climatologists, etc.) for many decades now.
Centuries, more like. Malthus proposed his overpopulation catastrophe over 200 years ago. People even that far back (yes, including scientists) were proposing population controls and even eugenics as a way to address the issue. How did that go?
As a species we've always been good at making and panicking over doomsday predictions based on our current circumstances. Of course, the fact that none of our past panics have ever panned out the way we predicted doesn't mean that the current panic can't possibly be the One That Ends Us All .... but you would be a fool to bet on it.
Re: (Score:3)
"French energy giant EDF has said the cost of building the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant could increase by up to £2.9 billion.
It raised the bill for the project in Somerset to between £21.5 billion and £22.5 billion, an increase of £1.9 billion to £2.9 billion compared to what was previously estimated."
Re: Cool, but ultimately pointless (Score:2)
Your point about China and coal is based in facts, but there is more to the picture: China just came into a boom of wealth from comparative poverty via free market reforms that emulate the west, and you have a lot of problems involving copying us, eg IP theft because it has been so profitable. Thereâ(TM)s a good chance if we lead they will follow.
Re: (Score:2)
"In 2017, renewable energy comprised 36.6% of China's total installed electric power capacity, and 26.4% of total power generation, the vast majority from hydroelectric sources. ... In 2015, China became the world's largest producer of photovoltaic power, with 43 GW of total installed capacity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
i know its wiki, but i'm lazy. They probably sourced it.
Re: (Score:2)
Your point about China and coal is based in facts, but there is more to the picture: China just came into a boom of wealth from comparative poverty via free market reforms that emulate the west, and you have a lot of problems involving copying us, eg IP theft because it has been so profitable. Thereâ(TM)s a good chance if we lead they will follow.
He said, posting from his Apple device.
Re:Cool, but ultimately pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And we should continue to pressure India, China, and others as well.
Who is pressuring them? Every climate conference, agreement, plan, etc. just looks the other way when they keep accelerating the rate at which they pollute, and only "commit" to the weakest of measures to plan on reducing shit in the future.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Planet doesn't care about per capita, that figure is meaningless.
China and India dwarf everyone else, and not with just carbon (not much of an issue, actually), but with actual harmful shit from every industry imaginable.
Would you rather swim naked in the Ganges river or the Mississippi?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
China hit peak coal five years ago and has been in decline ever since. The new coal plants are replacing old ones that are closing.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes and no. It is true that new plants are replacing old ones (remember this is a net win for emissions due to efficiency and filtration). But China is going through an economic slump that started 5 years ago.
So on the one side looking at the number of coal fired plants is silly because you're comparing old rotten apples to nice fresh ones in terms of the smell in the house.
On the other side their primary coal consumption figures have been trending the wrong direction in the past 2 years after the initial e
Re: (Score:2)
First, I doubt that the lard-ass rent-a-cops sitting at the land-based plants are much more secure. Second, I'd assume that they'd at least have camera views on that area and make sure that people are deployed before many charges get set. But the bottom line is that these, being more decentralized are a more difficult target of attack than the big ol' smoking coal-belcher in your back yard.
Why do you hate wind power so much?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you under the illusion that a truck with some charges can't take out a conventional power plant?
Re: (Score:3)
Are you under the illusion that a truck with some charges can't take out a conventional power plant?
Concrete barriers make it harder.
hahahaha (Score:2)