No. You can't do that and show an increase in the same chart for the same year. This is called cognitive dissonance. You're going into a mental pretzel trying to justify your claim that the chart is showing consumption, when it is only showing capacity (both the removal of power plants and addition of new ones).
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
-
On today's TMC Podcast, we ask the question "What is the Tesla Cybercab?". Join us on YouTube live at 1PM and participate in the chat.
Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.
- Thread starter nwdiver
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
No. You can't do that and show an increase in the same chart for the same year. This is called cognitive dissonance. You're going into a mental pretzel trying to justify your claim that the chart is showing consumption, when it is only showing capacity (both the removal of power plants and addition of new ones).
‘Water is more valuable than oil’: the corporation cashing in on America’s drought
In an unprecedented deal, a private company purchased land in a tiny Arizona town – and sold its water rights to a suburb 200 miles away
www.theguardian.com
More valuable than oil, water rights of Colorado is ending up in a cap and trade situation.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
The chart is not showing capacity at all. The graph is only giving differential coal consumption year by year. Please study mathematical analysis.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
@Oil4AsphaultOnly
Since I am not believed I report the tweet containing the discussed graph. As everybody can see the reported graph represents "Coal power added and retired".
So positive bars represent added coal power, meaning additional coal used to produce power in that year, while negative bars represent retired coal power, meaning the difference of coal with respect to previous year that has NOT been used to produce power.
Wish to remind that power is defined as energy produced/length of time.
In fact the y-axis is given in GWs.
1W= 1Joule/1second
Last edited:
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
@Oil4AsphaultOnly
Actually I was giving a better look to the tweet and I realized that by added coal power it didn't mean additional coal power consumption but additional coal power plants meaning that the CAPACITY increased, or decreased for retired coal power (plants).
But eventually it's SAME THING because the tweet also says "with coal production and consumption at record high" meaning that the new coal plants were working full time using coal and retired coal plants were not working at all of course.
And the graph doesn't give absolute values but incremental values with respect to previous year as I said.
Sorry for the misunderstaing. As you can see I recognize when I make a mistake.
Last edited:
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Finally.
But remember that capacity is NOT the same as consumption. Just look at the years between 2015 and 2019, when capacity factors for the coal power plants were DECLINING. Having the power plants doesn't mean they have to be running at full output.
Just refer back to my IEA chart showing actual global consumption up to the end of 2022. I'm waiting for the IEA to update it with data for 2023. It should be nowhere near as dramatic as the charts for power plant capacity, which is just a talking point to beat over China's head.
In the end, complaining about China's coal consumption is just political theatre, since no one within the english speaking realm of influence has the power to change China's policies and actions. The best you can do is to NOT buy "made in china", but then how will you get your solar panels and Li-Ion cells?!
With CATL's release of their own megapacks, I suspect that the capacity factors of china's wind and solar farms will go up significantly, so it would be very interesting to see how their fossil fuel consumption changes these next few years.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
Yes it's important to check carefully fossil fuel consumption of China which looks like one of the Countries whose emissions are more important.
To this purpose also Satellites can be used. ESA has a Satellite Programme having this task.
You can not buy "made in China" when it is possible. You can not invest in China. You can encourage domestic and EU production of solar panels and batteries. Tariffs will encourage domestic production. You can signal more aggressively to China that carbon violations will increase tariffs. There are things you can do to exert pressure that are not "theater".
While tariffs are an absolute negative for the global economy and wealth, they can certainly be a negative influence on carbon emissions.
Lastly, you can treat China as a place that we will need to be independent from and promote alternative pipelines. By independence, you gain the power to have tariffs that hurt.
You can't improve the carbon situation without reining in China. India is a big problem also but pressure is easier to exert - even to the point of military pressure.
I am not saying that all carbon comes from China but it does seem like the fastest way to reduce the growth in coal/carbon is to work towards slowing economic growth in China. That is more realpolitik than theater.
While tariffs are an absolute negative for the global economy and wealth, they can certainly be a negative influence on carbon emissions.
Lastly, you can treat China as a place that we will need to be independent from and promote alternative pipelines. By independence, you gain the power to have tariffs that hurt.
You can't improve the carbon situation without reining in China. India is a big problem also but pressure is easier to exert - even to the point of military pressure.
I am not saying that all carbon comes from China but it does seem like the fastest way to reduce the growth in coal/carbon is to work towards slowing economic growth in China. That is more realpolitik than theater.
No, it isn't eventually the same thing. You want to track capacity factors. You can have more capacity and more consumption and still be on a downtrend. The statement "production and consumption at record high" ignores that we've had annual records interrupted only by recession and pandemics. What we need to know is the rate of growth of consumption. Production is less important because you can have overproduction.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
I was thinking to this matter and I realized that I have been deceived by the English. The author of the graph should have written "coal power plants added and retired" rather than "coal power added and retired" IMO. For you who are English mother tongue it was obvious, but for me English is second language. That's why I misunderstood and I thought it was consumption rather than plants.
In fact I realized that I was wrong only when I saw the sentence written in small letters at the bottom of the graph.
Last edited:
Dr. J
Active Member
Correct. And it turns out that a capacity increase and a production increase are not necessarily coincident (happening at the same time), although this situation *could* presage (predict, foretell) a future increase in coal-fired electricity production to *use* that added capacity. However, it could also indicate that China is redistributing coal electric-production capacity around the nation to back up increased renewable usage/capacity. They should use batteries for that, but whatever.
For the world, electricity production from coal was up 1% in 2023 through October, according to this source.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/com...wer-generation-hit-new-highs-2023-2024-01-18/
"Coal-fired electricity generation was 8,295 terawatt hours (TWh) through October, up 1% from the same period in 2022 and the highest on record, according to environmental think tank Ember."
The US now has an actual plan to connect clean energy to the grid
The US Department of Energy has just released its first-ever roadmap to speed up the connection of more clean energy to the grid.
electrek.co
ENERGY
Trump’s goal, he says, is for the U.S. to have the lowest-cost energy and electricity of any nation in the world, including China.Under the mantra “DRILL, BABY, DRILL,” he says he would ramp up oil drilling on public lands and offer tax breaks to oil, gas, and coal producers. He would roll back Biden administration efforts to encourage the adoption of electric cars and reverse proposed new pollution limits that would require at least 54% of new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be electric by 2030.
And again, he says, he will exit the Paris Climate Accords, end wind subsidies and eliminate regulations imposed and proposed by the Biden admiration targeting incandescent lightbulbs, gas stoves, dishwashers and shower heads.
Looks like Florida will be underwater in the next 4 years. I am thinking of Lemmings, the game. LOL
Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution
More Americans accept theory of creationism than evolution
true poll taken in 2007, and now stronger than ever. Put this in context with trying to do everything that can be done about stopping or even slowing down the use of fossil fuels. Americans who a clear thinkers are up against the Trump cult coupled with the evangelical movement of Christian Nationalism. Sorry, having a depressing day thinking about all of this.
Dr. J
Active Member
Apparently, we have evolved, as of 2021.
Evolution now accepted by majority of Americans
The level of public acceptance of evolution in the United States is now solidly above the halfway mark, according to a new study based on a series of national public opinion surveys conducted over the last 35 years.
www.sciencedaily.com
Looks like your %50 believers in evolution beats the %40 I found who do not! JOY!Apparently, we have evolved, as of 2021.
Evolution now accepted by majority of Americans
The level of public acceptance of evolution in the United States is now solidly above the halfway mark, according to a new study based on a series of national public opinion surveys conducted over the last 35 years.www.sciencedaily.com
Dr. J
Active Member
Similar threads
