Cont: Global warming discussion V

[wobs]

Which is something the atmosphere doesn't really care about.

Trumpet the low value energy as being the be-all and end-all of planet saving goodness, live with the uncertanties.

Wrong. Base load means it is on all the time. Peak supply means it's used less.

 

[Stout]

Wrong. Base load means it is on all the time. Peak supply means it's used less.

Yes, I know what it means.

It means wind and solar are unreliable and China is burning coal because of it.

There's no special pass awarded for only using coal part time.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Stout knows very well that it's the actual, not the potential amount of coal burned that matters.
He's just doubling down on a bad argument because he doesn't have a good one

 

[Stout]

Stout knows very well that it's the actual, not the potential amount of coal burned that matters.
He's just doubling down on a bad argument because he doesn't have a good one

China burns as much coal as the rest of the world combined.

Pull the other one.

Next I suppose you'll be claiming China is building all those new plants "just in case".

 

[Myriad]

The percentage of the world's energy that comes from coal keeps going down.

Yet the amount of energy from coal keeps going up.

How to explain this seeming paradox? It's almost as though total consumption matters.

We don't, needless to say, want to deny the populations who use little energy due to their poverty the chance for better lives. But that's bound to further increase total consumption.

What to do, what to do...

 

[dann]

Akshat Rathi on bsky, July 6, 2026
Correct your priors: Private money is going after clean energy, governments are using public money to prop up fossil fuels
"About 59% of all money spent on the fossil fuel system came from taxpayers in 2015. By 2025, that climbed to 68% and spiked at 78% in 2022." www.bloomberg.com/opinion/arti...
https://bsky.app/#

Who’s Really Keeping Fossil Fuels Alive? Taxpayers
To judge by the way many people discuss the energy transition, we’re engaged in a fight between green idealogues in government and academia on the one hand, and a more realistic private sector that re...
www.bloomberg.com

 

[dann]

The percentage of the world's energy that comes from coal keeps going down.
Yet the amount of energy from coal keeps going up.
How to explain this seeming paradox? It's almost as though total consumption matters.

How to explain it? It's easy! There's no paradox. See previous post. Wind&solar-generated power increases because it's cheap and clean, but Trump, Carney and similar politicians bought by the fossil-fuel industry keep subsidizing oil, gas and coal.

We don't, needless to say, want to deny the populations who use little energy due to their poverty the chance for better lives. But that's bound to further increase total consumption.

Yes, and once again Myriad deliberately confuses increasing total consumption of energy with increasing CO₂ emission. And as always, Myriad's focus is poor people's consumption of energy.
China solar exports hit all-time record in March as Africa, Asia demand jumps (Mongabay, May 25, 2026)

What to do, what to do...

Another question that is so damn easy to answer that it should never have been asked:
Build more wind turbines and solar panels. Replace fossil-fuel transport with electric vehicles, subways and bicycles.
Don't pretend that it's poor people's consumption that's making the planet unsuitable for human habitation.

 

[dann]

Eliot Jacobson on X, July 6, 2026
Breaking News!
Code: y-axis alert!
As of July 5th, the Nino 3.4 sea-surface temperature anomaly has now crossed 1.80°C above the 1991-2020 mean.
The Nino 3.4 SST is now 3.46 standard deviations above the 1991-2020 mean:

Liam McGlinchey on X, July 1, 2026
Nasa confirms the sun isnt driving global warming

 

[wobs]

That looks like CCP propaganda.

I prefer Forbes and their real world analysis.



Yep, that new dam is a helluva project, like you say, for better or for worse.

Not according to the sources I looked up.

Generation is about 36% renewables, while fossil fuels 60%.
They have been building new coal largely to address the large increase in AC. Overall, they have a history of under promising and over delivering on pledges such as cutting CO2.

 

[dann]

Please Advise! Did BC Just Get Shafted by a Pipeline? (The Tyee, July 6, 2026)
Well and truly, says Dr. Steve. Along with the planet.

 

[dann]

As fossil fuels are becoming increasingly outcompeted by the cheaper power from wind and solar, Big Oil now depends on corrupt politicians to prevent their investments from becoming worthless, so the fossil-fuel industry can continue to thrive on ruining the planet.

Who’s Really Keeping Fossil Fuels Alive? Taxpayers (Bloomberg, July 5, 2026)
Takeaways by Bloomberg AI:

• The share of private energy investment going into oil, gas and coal has slumped from about 50% to 28% since 2015, according to an International Energy Agency database.
• The public sector still invests most of its money in dirty power, and state support for fossil fuels is likely to rise to the highest level since 2022 this year.
• The cost of state support for fossil fuels could climb as high as $1.43 trillion this year, according to a study by the United Nations Development Programme.

It is obvious why private energy investment into fossil fuels has slumped: Investing in energy that is costly when there are cheaper alternatives is idiotic, so instead the fossil-fuel industry invests in corrupt politicians.

 

[dann]

The plan to make climate science harder to erase (Grist, July 7, 2026)
As climate information disappears from federal websites, scientists are rebuilding it elsewhere.
The intent behind Climate.us isn’t just to save what was on the Climate.gov website when it died, but to continue to update it with new visuals, explainers, features, and Q&As, making climate science relevant to people with resources that are vetted by scientists.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

That looks like CCP propaganda.

I prefer Forbes and their real world analysis.

Real world 'analysis', or propping up a narrative? When an article uses emotive words like 'staggering' and 'frenzy' instead of numeric analysis, you have to wonder about the motive.

I prefer real world analysis that shows actual generation rather than capacity:-

Analysis: Coal power drops in China and India for first time in 52 years after clean-energy records

Power generation from solar and wind increased by 450TWh in the first 11 months of the year and nuclear power delivering another 35TWh. This put the growth of non-fossil power generation, excluding hydropower, squarely above the 460TWh increase in demand. Growth in clean-power generation has kept ahead of demand growth and, as a result, power-sector coal use and CO2 emissions have been falling since early 2024.

The Chinese government is allowing a number of new plants to be built to allay fears of insufficient capacity. You could call this propaganda, because it's more political than practical. By the time the few coal plants that actually get approved come online, non-fossil sources will have made them largely redundant.

Your Forbes article says that China added 70 gigawatts of coal power capacity. That's less than 6% of the ~1,200 gigawatts total. The Capacity factor only has to drop by 6% to make the real world effect be negative.

Unlike most other countries, China's coal plants are shifting from supplying base load to supplementing other sources when needed.

Coal power in China

Falling capacity factors are forcing Chinese coal generation to take on an untypical role of peaker plants (outside of China gas-fired plants provide this capability, but Chinese authorities don't wish to be dependent of foreign gas). In February 2024 the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) announced upgrading coal plants for more effective flexible operation and developing the gas generation where local resources are available. In 2026, China added capacity market payments at CNY330 ($47.5) per kW per year for coal power plants and similar for batteries, paying these facilities to stand by while not producing energy.

China is making progress. Wind, solar and nuclear capacity is rapidly expanding. Within the next 3 years we should see a dramatic drop in coal use as non-fossil generation increases. Coal plants will be around for a long time to come, but used a lot less. Their capacity will then become practically irrelevant.

 

[Stout]

Not according to the sources I looked up.
View attachment 73150
Generation is about 36% renewables, while fossil fuels 60%.
They have been building new coal largely to address the large increase in AC. Overall, they have a history of under promising and over delivering on pledges such as cutting CO2.

Also AI/server farms and illegal crypto mining.

 

[Stout]

Like Communist China where all the coal plants are government owned BC/Canada is taking a similar tack. We have to pay for these expensive social problems the population is demanding somehow.

Maybe nobody will buy this oil from this new pipeline. That would be the real test, wouldn't it?

 

[Stout]

China is making progress. Wind, solar and nuclear capacity is rapidly expanding. Within the next 3 years we should see a dramatic drop in coal use as non-fossil generation increases. Coal plants will be around for a long time to come, but used a lot less. Their capacity will then become practically irrelevant.

What percentage of generation do you think coal is going to be in 3 years? We're at 60% now. Half that?

 

[dann]

Unlike most other countries, China's coal plants are shifting from supplying base load to supplementing other sources when needed.

The irony is that Trump's (more so than the fossil-fuel industry's) 'investments' (i.e. subsidies) in fossil-fuel extraction are bound to make electricity in the USA more expensive than in China, thus making the U.S. manufacturing industry less competitive and more dependent on government subsidies.
This means that Trump will also have to raise tariffs, thus making everything produced in the USA more expensive for the end consumers who will resort to buying Chinese goods from neighboring countries, i.e. Mexico and Canada.

Americans Found a Loophole to Buy Banned Chinese EVs... And It's Working (OsoFrezno on YouTube, July 4, 2026 – 11:11 min.)
Americans are finding new ways to buy Chinese electric vehicles despite steep U.S. tariffs and restrictions—and it's raising serious questions about whether the government's crackdown is actually working.
In this video, I react to reports and discussions about how some buyers are exploring legal import pathways through countries like Mexico and Canada to get access to affordable Chinese EVs that are largely unavailable in the U.S. market. As car prices continue to climb and the cost of living puts pressure on households, many Americans are asking whether these cheaper electric vehicles could change the industry.
Are Chinese automakers about to disrupt the U.S. car market? Is this a loophole lawmakers didn't expect? And what could this mean for companies like Tesla, Ford, GM, and the future of electric vehicles in America?

 

[dann]

Like Communist China where all the coal plants are government owned BC/Canada is taking a similar tack. We have to pay for these expensive social problems the population is demanding somehow.
Maybe nobody will buy this oil from this new pipeline. That would be the real test, wouldn't it?

You keep repeating the lie that coal, oil and gas are back by popular demand.
Are you paid by fossil fuel to repeat the propaganda lie? Or is it, as I suspect, because you own stock in fossil-fuel companies?

 

[Stout]

The irony is that Trump's (more so than the fossil-fuel industry's) 'investments' (i.e. subsidies) in fossil-fuel extraction are bound to make electricity in the USA more expensive than in China, thus making the U.S. manufacturing industry less competitive and more dependent on government subsidies.
This means that Trump will also have to raise tariffs, thus making everything produced in the USA more expensive for the end consumers who will resort to buying Chinese goods from neighboring countries, i.e. Mexico and Canada.

Fake video. Chinese EVs are not yet for sale in Canada except for the supercar that cost's well over $100K.

I do admire the video's willingness to attack American unionised labour while completely ignoring the myriad of imported vehicles available in the country.

Are you paid by fossil fuel to repeat the propaganda lie? Or is it, as I suspect, because you own stock in fossil-fuel companies?

No and maybe, I pay some guy to look after that stuff for me. Are you a CCP bot?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

What percentage of generation do you think coal is going to be in 3 years? We're at 60% now. Half that?

China targeting half of power from non-fossil sources by 2030

China is aiming for half of its electricity to come from non-fossil sources by 2030... Analysts said the plan's renewable energy targets were conservative relative ‌to the sector's recent growth trajectory, suggesting actual renewable deployment may outpace the official goals.

This isn't what I think, it's what analysts who have studied it a lot me than me 'think. It would be foolish of me to think I could 'outguess' experts on the subject.