America has not built a new coal plant in over 5 years, and it is doubtful that we will do ANY new ones.
As others have previously told you, it's not the number of coal plants that matters but how much coal they burn and how efficiently they do it.
So what if you aren't building any new ones, it just means you are using the dirtier old ones built in the 70's for longer and at higher utilization.
Now, our new nat gas plants, are so many times cleaner than the best that China has to offer. However, more than 80% of our new plants are wind/solar, not nat gas.
Renewables didn't quite break 50% utility scale capacity, andn remember capacity doesn't equal production especially for wind and solar.
And 80% are wind/solar, seems strange since CO2 from electricity generation is expected to rise in the US in 2018. (Transport is also going up by the way) Maybe you need to show your work instead of just pulling numbers from your ass again.
Many times cleaner than China's best? Care to show some evidence? Maybe try less obvious lies
Unlike China where you constantly put up MORE new coal plants than you do AE.
You must be sick of people constantly pointing out to you that China is replacing inefficient coal with more efficient coal and using less coal to produce more electricity than before. Though still not enough times to get inside your bubble of ignorance yet.
Hopefully, once you folks have your nuke reactors going, you will build those instead.
They seem like practical people who are concerned about pollution so no doubt they will.
Without Tesla no electric vehicles, just like without Apple there would be no mobiles phones. Clearly the same level of bullshit. China was investing in electric vehicles the same time as Tesla and others.
You will have to admit with your track record, and supplying no links to back up all your claims it's all looking quite hollow.
Energy isn't even the biggest sector, thats transportation. So coal is less and less relevant. Increases in gas and petroleum almost cancel them out. And coal is predicted to be flat in the US for the next few decades, not continually decreasing like you claim with no evidence.
And then there is the fact transportation has increased for the last 5 years that have numbers
2012-2016 1,665.8 1,681.6 1,721.2 1,739.2 1,786.1
And are predicted to keep on rising even with electric vehicles.
The largest sources of transportation CO2 emissions in 2016 were passenger cars (42.0 percent), medium- and heavyduty
trucks (23.4 percent), light-duty trucks, which include sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans (17.3
percent), commercial aircraft (6.7 percent), other aircraft (2.6 percent), rail (2.3 percent), pipelines (2.2 percent), and
ships and boats (2.2 percent).
So passenger cars, SUV's pickup trucks etc, produced more than twice medium and heavy trucks, and nearly 60% of the total...
Makes your claim 'questionable'. Let's check back of a napkin, Transport is 28% of the total, medium and heavy trucks are 23.4% of that , for about 7% of the total CO2. Using your lowest estimate, there are no trucks left to change after 4 years as the CO2 for trucking is already zero... Is it even remotely plausible that the US only has 20,000 Trucks...
You are clearly just pulling numbers out of your arse.
The reason for going with emissions/$, is that neither you nor I decide the co2. Gov and businesses do.
You must hate it how the government forced you to live in Colorado. Hate how Trump forced you to buy expensive insulation and fancy windows. And how Obama instigated that minimum 10KW solar mandate.
But what I don't understand is how is Tesla losing money when they can force people like you to buy expensive cars and powerwalls?
Why are you trying to claim credit for choosing to use less CO2? Is that *'other person' wrong and people really do decide?
* That 'other person' was actually you only a few days ago...
Oh so it wasn't a real question. It was just bait so you could then rant about whataboutism when someone answered it.
Well done, you trolled me well and truly.
So can you give me some links to the "Pentagon trolls?
So I gave you some...
I personally think both sides are wrong to do this, but that's hardly relevant to the question you asked, and the tangent you seem to have gone off onto. You could educate your citizens, to be resistant to trolls and foreign propaganda. But then I guess they would be resistant to your own propaganda too, and maybe smart enough to ask too many of the wrong kinds of questions of those in charge.
Updated September 28, 2017, 8:40 a.m.
Coal-fired electricity generation in China, the world’s largest coal consumer, is expected to remain flat through 2040, according to EIA’s International Energy Outlook 2017 (IEO2017). Other fuels, such as renewables, natural gas, and nuclear power, are expected to make up increasing shares of China’s electricity generation.
Despite declines in coal’s generation share, IEO2017 projects that coal will remain an important component of China’s energy mix, peaking at nearly 4,400 billion kilowatthours (bkWh) by 2030. However, as China continues to replace older, less efficient generators with more efficient units, China’s power sector coal consumption is expected to peak as soon as 2018, at 4,800 million metric tons.
Strange you didn't mention America's increasing production and export of coal in 2017 isn't it.
It's clear to anyone who cares to look that China is still developing and growing and America has passed that level already. It's much easier for a country that is one of the most polluting at 16t per person to decrease a tiny bit (and still be one of the most polluting, EU average is 6.9) than it is to move over a billion people out of subsistence farming and into an industrialised economy (using half the US amount). Do you expect them to stay farmers forever?
At the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Wednesday, FBI Director James Comey said a number of curious things, but one comment in particular stood out. When asked about Russian influence in the U.S. election and the ability to combat a foreign actor’s misinformation campaign, the Director said, “We need to arm ourselves with good troll armies pushing back.”
Even if that were the case, you're surely closing the barn door after the horses have bolted. It's not like Fake News hasn't been a thing for a long time.
'global warming' changed to 'climate change' precisely because of idiots like you who would point to 1 place it got a little colder and denied there was even a change.
You didn't understand that global meant the global average, and not literally every little piece of the globe was getting warmer.
Slashdot Mirror
America has not built a new coal plant in over 5 years, and it is doubtful that we will do ANY new ones.
As others have previously told you, it's not the number of coal plants that matters but how much coal they burn and how efficiently they do it.
So what if you aren't building any new ones, it just means you are using the dirtier old ones built in the 70's for longer and at higher utilization.
Now, our new nat gas plants, are so many times cleaner than the best that China has to offer. However, more than 80% of our new plants are wind/solar, not nat gas.
Renewables didn't quite break 50% utility scale capacity, andn remember capacity doesn't equal production especially for wind and solar.
And 80% are wind/solar, seems strange since CO2 from electricity generation is expected to rise in the US in 2018. (Transport is also going up by the way) Maybe you need to show your work instead of just pulling numbers from your ass again.
Many times cleaner than China's best? Care to show some evidence? Maybe try less obvious lies
Unlike China where you constantly put up MORE new coal plants than you do AE.
You must be sick of people constantly pointing out to you that China is replacing inefficient coal with more efficient coal and using less coal to produce more electricity than before. Though still not enough times to get inside your bubble of ignorance yet.
Hopefully, once you folks have your nuke reactors going, you will build those instead.
They seem like practical people who are concerned about pollution so no doubt they will.
LOL so guaranteed hourly wage to make a living wage. But not enough hours to earn enough to live on. You really thought this through didn't you.
So what do they get? You forgot to say.
Without Tesla no electric vehicles, just like without Apple there would be no mobiles phones. Clearly the same level of bullshit. China was investing in electric vehicles the same time as Tesla and others.
You will have to admit with your track record, and supplying no links to back up all your claims it's all looking quite hollow.
Energy isn't even the biggest sector, thats transportation. So coal is less and less relevant. Increases in gas and petroleum almost cancel them out. And coal is predicted to be flat in the US for the next few decades, not continually decreasing like you claim with no evidence.
And then there is the fact transportation has increased for the last 5 years that have numbers 2012-2016 1,665.8 1,681.6 1,721.2 1,739.2 1,786.1
And are predicted to keep on rising even with electric vehicles.
The largest sources of transportation CO2 emissions in 2016 were passenger cars (42.0 percent), medium- and heavyduty trucks (23.4 percent), light-duty trucks, which include sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans (17.3 percent), commercial aircraft (6.7 percent), other aircraft (2.6 percent), rail (2.3 percent), pipelines (2.2 percent), and ships and boats (2.2 percent).
So passenger cars, SUV's pickup trucks etc, produced more than twice medium and heavy trucks, and nearly 60% of the total...
Makes your claim 'questionable'. Let's check back of a napkin, Transport is 28% of the total, medium and heavy trucks are 23.4% of that , for about 7% of the total CO2. Using your lowest estimate, there are no trucks left to change after 4 years as the CO2 for trucking is already zero... Is it even remotely plausible that the US only has 20,000 Trucks...
You are clearly just pulling numbers out of your arse.
to maximize fuel use
Ahh thats why American airlines keep going broke. Try minimizing fuel use instead :)
The reason for going with emissions/$, is that neither you nor I decide the co2. Gov and businesses do.
You must hate it how the government forced you to live in Colorado. Hate how Trump forced you to buy expensive insulation and fancy windows. And how Obama instigated that minimum 10KW solar mandate.
But what I don't understand is how is Tesla losing money when they can force people like you to buy expensive cars and powerwalls?
Why are you trying to claim credit for choosing to use less CO2? Is that *'other person' wrong and people really do decide?
* That 'other person' was actually you only a few days ago...
Oh so it wasn't a real question. It was just bait so you could then rant about whataboutism when someone answered it.
Well done, you trolled me well and truly.
So can you give me some links to the "Pentagon trolls?
So I gave you some...
I personally think both sides are wrong to do this, but that's hardly relevant to the question you asked, and the tangent you seem to have gone off onto.
You could educate your citizens, to be resistant to trolls and foreign propaganda. But then I guess they would be resistant to your own propaganda too, and maybe smart enough to ask too many of the wrong kinds of questions of those in charge.
Did you end up finding even 1 place that regularly mines 5km underwater?
Updated September 28, 2017, 8:40 a.m. Coal-fired electricity generation in China, the world’s largest coal consumer, is expected to remain flat through 2040, according to EIA’s International Energy Outlook 2017 (IEO2017). Other fuels, such as renewables, natural gas, and nuclear power, are expected to make up increasing shares of China’s electricity generation. Despite declines in coal’s generation share, IEO2017 projects that coal will remain an important component of China’s energy mix, peaking at nearly 4,400 billion kilowatthours (bkWh) by 2030. However, as China continues to replace older, less efficient generators with more efficient units, China’s power sector coal consumption is expected to peak as soon as 2018, at 4,800 million metric tons.
Strange you didn't mention America's increasing production and export of coal in 2017 isn't it.
It's clear to anyone who cares to look that China is still developing and growing and America has passed that level already. It's much easier for a country that is one of the most polluting at 16t per person to decrease a tiny bit (and still be one of the most polluting, EU average is 6.9) than it is to move over a billion people out of subsistence farming and into an industrialised economy (using half the US amount). Do you expect them to stay farmers forever?
At the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Wednesday, FBI Director James Comey said a number of curious things, but one comment in particular stood out. When asked about Russian influence in the U.S. election and the ability to combat a foreign actor’s misinformation campaign, the Director said, “We need to arm ourselves with good troll armies pushing back.”
https://ivn.us/2017/05/03/come...
The U.S. Department of Defense spent an average of more than US$626 million annually on propaganda
Pentagon employees account for 40 percent of the federal public relations workforce and also have the highest combined salaries, the audit revealed.
These 2 are about America expanding it's propaganda to domestic audiences, that's a kind of trolling isn't it?
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/...
https://www.globalresearch.ca/...
Even if that were the case, you're surely closing the barn door after the horses have bolted. It's not like Fake News hasn't been a thing for a long time.
'global warming' changed to 'climate change' precisely because of idiots like you who would point to 1 place it got a little colder and denied there was even a change.
You didn't understand that global meant the global average, and not literally every little piece of the globe was getting warmer.
If by long you mean short, and slow you mean fast. Also by today you mean many years ago.