25 GW of solar (in optimal conditions) generates about the same amount of electricity in a year as five 1 GW nuclear units. At the rate China is building nuclear, and plans to build future new nuclear units, the "carbon offset" of new nuclear will quickly outpace the offset of all the solar already installed, and never look back, and that's not taking credit forall the installed nuclear, which puts it at quite a head start over that installed 25GW. Also, remember, the solar panels will need to be replaced at least once during the 60 + year lifespan of the new nuclear units. Countries that have invested heavy in solar and wind are also trending to shift more resources to wind and less to solar, and the costs begin to mount, so don't be surprised if China makes a similar shift, although to a lesser extent since they have a significant stake in their existing panel manufacturing business.
The worst air quality in specific areas, or the worst air quality averaged over the whole country? The fact that certain areas in China have highly concentrated pollutant levels is actually irrelevant. What matters is total contribution, and you can measure that as a percentage of total "clean air" generation or per capita. You can choose a point in time, and look at the path they and others are on with respect to percentages of "clean" vs "dirty" air power. You can consider demand growth issues in the process, and then draw your conclusions.
Not sure what your point is, or what China's censorship has to do with its energy production comparison, but to answer your question, no, I don't think blocking websites is a technical glitch.
China is in a different place than we are for sure, but even Germany has had to build more coal plants, and they don't have nearly the growth issues China is facing. China could go all coal, but they are not. The first round of Nukes is intended to prepare them for a lot more to follow.
In short, you can't ignore China's growth challenges.
China is kicking the worlds ass when it comes to clean air generation progress. The nuclear plants they have under construction will generate more electricity than all of Germany multi-hundred billion euro wind and solar effort and the US's combined. And then.... they plan to build more. Meanwhile, we send them huge sums of money for PV panels that are not even making a blip on the offset chart.
And, they will continue because they don't have to deal with a political element that drives solutions down paths driven by the uninformed.
You can't just go and build hydro dams, there are very few places left where you could get a permit to do so. The ones that exist are being used to their fullest extent because hydro is the lowest cost form of generation, so they are not serving as backup to other renewables. Natural gas is the primary backbone to offset renewable reliability issues. And, coincidentally, very low natural gas generation costs have also been the biggest offset for higher renewable costs.
Lets not even talk about that fact that SA has seen overall demand drop significantly due to the failure of several large industries, with no indication they will return. So, from that perspective, the goals got a lot easier to attain. Of course political speak, by its nature, always sounds good. "will not add a dollar to energy prices", but of course, we also won't talk about the actual costs and how they are paid.
Overall, they have been able to use primarily wind to achieve what they have. While they've spent a lot on solar as well, its still a small and somewhat irrelevant piece of the pie. It appears the Aussies have figured out that emphasis on wind makes much more sense.
The Pale Grass Blue butterfly was chosen for a reason. It is one of the most susceptible & sensitive species to environmental effects. In this case, they had to force feed them a constant diet of the most highly contaminated leaves they could find to get an indication there may be some effect. Isn't it kind of curious why no other species were included in this study?
This is simply showing a new climate driver that has not been factored in before. There is still much to learn. It kind of makes those that claim local extreme weather is a result of GW look silly. At this point, there really is no model that ties weather patterns to GW with any confidence. Certainly there are theories on the long term impacts, but there are great uncertainties involved. Ultimately, with advance GW, wind shifts in a warmer climate could carry more water to presently drier areas, or something totally different could happen. We don't have the models to really know at this point. Ice melt and ocean level changes would seem much easier to model and predict.
I agree. People should be able to choose their own end of life path, and those that are 'stuck' in total dependency can't even control that aspect. A heartbreaking situation.
JFC. Did I say the words "ready to die" ?? you insist on misquoting to make your points, intentionally noncomprehending...that or you're just stupid.
I stopped reading at this. They guy said he hopes to die at 75. I made the crazy assumption that he expected he would be ready to die, or otherwise he would be hoping to die before he was ready. Now THAT would be stupid, IMHO.
What you seem to be saying is that everyone is different, and that no general rule should apply. I would agree. There are many people who, at some point in their late lives, will no longer find enjoyment or value for various reasons. But there are plenty that will, even with discomfort and disability. If this guys wants to plan his life end, fine. If he doesn't want to exercise and doesn't care about extending extra effort for maintaining his health, then fine as well, but don't indicate that doing makes no sense in general.
I never said they had predominant exposure to the healthy, you just filled that in all by yourself. But, healthy seniors do have regular doctor visits. Many have minor health issues to manage, but are overall in good shape. Not all doctors work in the emergency ward, but I wouldn't point to that as a flaw in your response. If you don't believe doctors see a lot of generally healthy elderly people, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
There is something to that mindset, I don't doubt. I have a friend who's wife is a physical therapist, she sees kids that have suffered all types of injuries, and lives in fear of exposing her kids to any kind of danger. No trampolines, limited sports choices, etc. Not completely unreasonable, but definitely skewed by the cases she treats. I once had a dentist tell me I shouldn't be playing flag football because he'd seen a case where a guy lost some teeth.
The answer is that people who suspect conspiracies aren’t really skeptics. Like the rest of us, they’re selective doubters. They favor a worldview, which they uncritically defend. But their worldview isn’t about God, values, freedom, or equality. It’s about the omnipotence of elites.
Slashdot Mirror
25 GW of solar (in optimal conditions) generates about the same amount of electricity in a year as five 1 GW nuclear units. At the rate China is building nuclear, and plans to build future new nuclear units, the "carbon offset" of new nuclear will quickly outpace the offset of all the solar already installed, and never look back, and that's not taking credit forall the installed nuclear, which puts it at quite a head start over that installed 25GW. Also, remember, the solar panels will need to be replaced at least once during the 60 + year lifespan of the new nuclear units. Countries that have invested heavy in solar and wind are also trending to shift more resources to wind and less to solar, and the costs begin to mount, so don't be surprised if China makes a similar shift, although to a lesser extent since they have a significant stake in their existing panel manufacturing business.
The worst air quality in specific areas, or the worst air quality averaged over the whole country? The fact that certain areas in China have highly concentrated pollutant levels is actually irrelevant. What matters is total contribution, and you can measure that as a percentage of total "clean air" generation or per capita. You can choose a point in time, and look at the path they and others are on with respect to percentages of "clean" vs "dirty" air power. You can consider demand growth issues in the process, and then draw your conclusions.
My original post stands on its own, regardless of the lens through which you desire to view those statements.
Not sure what your point is, or what China's censorship has to do with its energy production comparison, but to answer your question, no, I don't think blocking websites is a technical glitch.
China is in a different place than we are for sure, but even Germany has had to build more coal plants, and they don't have nearly the growth issues China is facing. China could go all coal, but they are not. The first round of Nukes is intended to prepare them for a lot more to follow.
In short, you can't ignore China's growth challenges.
Yes, they are starting from a much more dire point that we are.
No admiration, just stating facts. Your interpretation is your own problem
A big picture, fact based view... in case anyone is interested.
http://www.economist.com/news/...
Hey kid, you wanted a robot for your birthday, here it is.
China is kicking the worlds ass when it comes to clean air generation progress. The nuclear plants they have under construction will generate more electricity than all of Germany multi-hundred billion euro wind and solar effort and the US's combined. And then.... they plan to build more. Meanwhile, we send them huge sums of money for PV panels that are not even making a blip on the offset chart.
And, they will continue because they don't have to deal with a political element that drives solutions down paths driven by the uninformed.
You can't just go and build hydro dams, there are very few places left where you could get a permit to do so. The ones that exist are being used to their fullest extent because hydro is the lowest cost form of generation, so they are not serving as backup to other renewables. Natural gas is the primary backbone to offset renewable reliability issues. And, coincidentally, very low natural gas generation costs have also been the biggest offset for higher renewable costs.
Lets not even talk about that fact that SA has seen overall demand drop significantly due to the failure of several large industries, with no indication they will return. So, from that perspective, the goals got a lot easier to attain. Of course political speak, by its nature, always sounds good. "will not add a dollar to energy prices", but of course, we also won't talk about the actual costs and how they are paid.
Overall, they have been able to use primarily wind to achieve what they have. While they've spent a lot on solar as well, its still a small and somewhat irrelevant piece of the pie. It appears the Aussies have figured out that emphasis on wind makes much more sense.
The Pale Grass Blue butterfly was chosen for a reason. It is one of the most susceptible & sensitive species to environmental effects. In this case, they had to force feed them a constant diet of the most highly contaminated leaves they could find to get an indication there may be some effect. Isn't it kind of curious why no other species were included in this study?
Its really more in the greater ability to take risks and make quick decisions.
Wait till the big asteroid hits, then we'll be glad we have a warming bias to our system.
This is simply showing a new climate driver that has not been factored in before. There is still much to learn. It kind of makes those that claim local extreme weather is a result of GW look silly. At this point, there really is no model that ties weather patterns to GW with any confidence. Certainly there are theories on the long term impacts, but there are great uncertainties involved. Ultimately, with advance GW, wind shifts in a warmer climate could carry more water to presently drier areas, or something totally different could happen. We don't have the models to really know at this point. Ice melt and ocean level changes would seem much easier to model and predict.
I agree. People should be able to choose their own end of life path, and those that are 'stuck' in total dependency can't even control that aspect. A heartbreaking situation.
JFC. Did I say the words "ready to die" ?? you insist on misquoting to make your points, intentionally noncomprehending...that or you're just stupid.
I stopped reading at this. They guy said he hopes to die at 75. I made the crazy assumption that he expected he would be ready to die, or otherwise he would be hoping to die before he was ready. Now THAT would be stupid, IMHO.
That's the robots job!
What you seem to be saying is that everyone is different, and that no general rule should apply. I would agree. There are many people who, at some point in their late lives, will no longer find enjoyment or value for various reasons. But there are plenty that will, even with discomfort and disability. If this guys wants to plan his life end, fine. If he doesn't want to exercise and doesn't care about extending extra effort for maintaining his health, then fine as well, but don't indicate that doing makes no sense in general.
I never said they had predominant exposure to the healthy, you just filled that in all by yourself. But, healthy seniors do have regular doctor visits. Many have minor health issues to manage, but are overall in good shape. Not all doctors work in the emergency ward, but I wouldn't point to that as a flaw in your response. If you don't believe doctors see a lot of generally healthy elderly people, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Someone should tell this robot to stop misplacing things.
There is something to that mindset, I don't doubt. I have a friend who's wife is a physical therapist, she sees kids that have suffered all types of injuries, and lives in fear of exposing her kids to any kind of danger. No trampolines, limited sports choices, etc. Not completely unreasonable, but definitely skewed by the cases she treats. I once had a dentist tell me I shouldn't be playing flag football because he'd seen a case where a guy lost some teeth.
The answer is that people who suspect conspiracies aren’t really skeptics. Like the rest of us, they’re selective doubters. They favor a worldview, which they uncritically defend. But their worldview isn’t about God, values, freedom, or equality. It’s about the omnipotence of elites.
I wonder what the 'ethics' are in telling society at what age we are worthless and should die.