Slashdot Mirror
74% of US Coal Plants Threatened by Renewables, But Emissions Continue To Rise (arstechnica.com)
The International Energy Agency (IEA) released a report this week saying that in 2018, "global energy-related CO2 emissions rose by 1.7 percent to 33 Gigatonnes." That's the most growth in emissions that the world has seen since 2013. From a report: Coal use contributed to a third of the total increase, mostly from new coal-fired power plants in China and India. This is worrisome because new coal plants have a lifespan of roughly 50 years. But the consequences of climate change are already upon us, and coal's hefty emissions profile compared to other energy sources means that, globally, carbon mitigation is going to be a lot more difficult to tackle than it may look from here in the US.
Even in the US, carbon emissions grew by 3.1 percent in 2018, according to the IEA. (This closely tracks estimates by the Rhodium Group, which released a preliminary report in January saying that US carbon emissions increased by 3.4 percent in 2018.) "By country, China, the United States, and India together accounted for nearly 70 percent of the rise in energy demand," Reuters wrote.
Even in the US, carbon emissions grew by 3.1 percent in 2018, according to the IEA. (This closely tracks estimates by the Rhodium Group, which released a preliminary report in January saying that US carbon emissions increased by 3.4 percent in 2018.) "By country, China, the United States, and India together accounted for nearly 70 percent of the rise in energy demand," Reuters wrote.
Just keep blaming Trump and ignore the fact that several countries who signed the Paris Accord, including China and India, have increased their use of coal.
Perhaps you want to research how fast a gas turbine is spinning up.
Hint: no one keeps gas turbines as spinning reserves.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The EU just abandoned their 2050 climate goals because there was no chance of reaching it. And Germany has seen coal use slightly rise over the last 10 years - no chance of meeting their own 2020 and 2030 commitments.
The future isn't solar and wind (because it's not working); it's nuclear. That is the only way forward out of pollution and limited power.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Why would you gang up on 3rd world nations? These countries are just developing a middle class and billions of people are coming out of poverty. Its a shame you only look at it from a Western point of view.
The primary emitters are China, India, and the USA. While they all have wealth-distribution and other issues, I'd hardly call them third-world. All three are spacefaring. All three have high-quality universities whose graduates make an impact all over the globe. All three have considerable and unique contributions to world culture and knowledge.
Don't get me wrong, third-world nations should be given support. But you're making a mistake when you claim the OP wants to "gang up" on third-world nations. China, India, and the USA are the "couple counties" the OP suggest the rest of the world should "gang up" on.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
China would be a second world nation as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd world designations have nothing to do with standard of living in those nations.
1st world is the US and allied nations mostly following capitalist economic policies
2nd world was the Soviet Union and other nations within it's sphere of influence, mostly following communist economic policies (China is more 2nd world than Any of the nations that made of the former Soviet Union are today).
3rd World are those nations outside the direct influence of either the 1st or 2nd world Super Powers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
Due to the special conditions around the North Sea (a small sea bordering an ocean) you have high tidal differences, which allows to empty the rivers during low tide and block the incoming seawater during high tide. The difference in height is up to ten feet at the Dutch coast, but only about one foot at Bangladesh's coast.
The tidal changes work like a large natural water pump. The natural pump basically doesn't exist in Bangladesh with only one foot twice per day, and with one foot of sealevel rise, it is totally gone. Instead, Bangladesh would have to install large man-made water to get the water of the Ganges and the Brahmhaputra river out of the country and into the ocean.
I always wonder when people bring up the Dutch dam system if they ever actually look how they work? And why they only exists along the North Sea and nowhere else on the globe? You would expect them to have been built alongside all coasts of the world, if they were an universally appliable concept. Alas, they aren't. They work because the Dutch coast is in fact a mudflat... the largest mutflat of the world. The Dutch dam system only works with mudflats. Everywhere else, it fails, becaue either, you don't have enough tidal changes, or because of the missing mudflats along the coast.