Mark wrote: > > China is the world's largest burner of coal. Western imperialist countries > have turned China into their capitalist manufacturing center, and the > Western countries are importing green technology that's produced by > burning coal in China. If this continues, we will lose any chance of > staying below 1.5C while we produce green energy commodities for some date > in the future. >
Yes, and China doesn't deny this either. Additionally half the rolling stock on their railroads is occupied by trains carrying coal from the mines in the north to the rest of China, mostly in the south of the country. It is slowly destroying their economy even as it fuels it. A single blizzard halting train traffic in the north can black out southern China for days. China gets over half it's generation from firing coal. They use it extensively in steel producing as well. There are many, many figures to show this, from as high as 55% of generation down from 77% in the 1990s. Some is due to efficiency, some is due to the massive build out of hydro energy, some due to the increase in renewable energy and nuclear energy. Obviously they should do more than they are. > > [Mark] Growing use of coal and renewables are positively correlated in > China. That may indicate that there's no such thing as an "energy > transition". > > No, they are trying to minimize coal use but they are slow about it. Their growing military budget is part of the cause as well as the various gas and coal lobbies inside the CCP that fight for resources. Their "goals" are to phase out coal. I'm not sure mark what you mean by Growing use of coal and renewables are positively correlated in China. You mean more coal = more RE?? Mark responded to this: > > Unprecedented Solar and Wind Growth: China is projected to reach its 2030 > goal of 1,200 GW of solar and wind capacity six years ahead of schedule, > with capacity already reaching 1,680 GW by July 2025. with... > > That's not what we should be looking at. We need fossil fuels to be > reduced rather than the total energy production increased, which China and > other capitalist countries are doing by leveraging both types. The US oil > industry makes great use of wind and solar because flow-generated energy > works well for their applications. In other applications, stock-generated > energy like oil, gas, and coal work better - and are cheaper. The > capitalists will tend to go with the least costly or most profitable > solution. As long as China's energy needs are expanding to make more > plastic shit for export, the Chinese state and capitalists will likely not > reduce overall GHG production in Chinese industries. > > > So a few things on this. First "capacity" is not relevant. A solar farm that has a capacity of 100MWs in China only produces about 1/5th of the name-plate capacity due to the Earth's rotation giving "capacity" for only about 5 hours a day and some hours leading up to and down after solar high. So that 100MWs equals only around 20MWs of actual generation in that scenario. Actual generation is known as "capacity factor " the industry term for it that no one who advocates RE will ever cite. What is important is the overall units of coal burned, not that is is a percentage of overall generation necessarily. I believe Mark is absolutely correct in this. Secondly, cheapness is only a small factor in capitalist energy production under normal planning operations by utilities and industries. But China, integrating itself as the worlds second or first trading nation is and always has been short on generation. So they support ALL forms of energy generation without exception. There is no real commodity market for energy generation as all loans come from state banks and they will loan to anyone entity willing to produce any form of generation. So that is driven by Imperialist trading practices, I believe is true but that means even expensive forms of generation (such as hydro) get an OK. Mark wrote: > > Who thinks that planet Earth can support the Chinese population living > like the European and North American populations? Are they all going to > have two cars per family, live in single-family bungalows far away from > their workplaces, two dozen computers on the home giganetwork, air > conditioning, and etcetera? Again, I think your metrics are wrong. > > Mark has written this previously. I don't think anyone advocates this, not even the Chinese. They've wanted to, and achieved, lifting around 800,000,000 people out whatever standard they use for "poverty" already. That is the "middle income" layer that benefits directly from the increase in exports China has achieved globaly. So they already "kind of" achieved that goal. But the world itself, billions without enough "stuff" at all, especially electricity, are trying to climb out this Imperialist economic poverty. This, generally, doesn't mean "like the standard of living of the U.S. and Europe". it means having some electricity from the grid: some way of lighting ONE room in their house so their kids can study at night; running a small half-height fridge so left over food doesn't spoil (or keeps their insulin cool and safe if they have diabetes); maybe their kid's room having a small air conditioner to fight off respitory stress that is endemic, often, in tropical countries. That is what "development" really means. Mark asked: > > There are two different things going on: China is the world's workshop and > also a consumer of the products that they make. China has about 80% - 90% > of the world solar market, and they lead in practically all sectors of > renewables like wind, grid, and batteries. But does that mean that the > typical Chinese worker or farmer is benefiting from this in their > apartments and houses? I don't know. > > > First, it's wrong to segregate out RE from all other forms of generation. The grid only sees "electricity" not where it comes from. So what ever the energy is measured in "MWhrs" (or KWhrs for individual use). All generation goes to who ever turns on their light switch or starts the mass transit trains or a piece of machinery (and in fact only produced...generated...when that switch is closed). So the degree that all living standards have risen in China then the answer is "yes" everyone benefits from RE...as they do from the massive number of hydro generation and nuclear energy as well. I should add that many workers are benefiting from living in new apartments brought on by the huge expansion of the productive forces in China. Mark concludes in responding to Marv: > > > No country has met any targets. Rather than waiting to 2030 to find out > how well it goes in China, we should instead discuss how to reduce energy > needs rather than expand them at the astounding rate that China does, as > you have shown. > I think this is poising the question with a false dichotomy. The demand , real demand in the developing world for more generation has to be addressed first, not last, IMO. How ALL generation is fueled is critical. If had truly low carbon grids increases in "demand" would be secondary. Countries and region in fact due have this and many countries have lowered their carbon footprint and continue to do so. Norway, Sweden, France and the province of Ontario to cite industrialized areas have all done this when they increased their hydro or their hydro and nuclear. That is a real positive development in holding back increases in GHG emissions. ALL nations should emulate this and we can beginning to attack that increase of 1.5C of climate temperature. That can only achieved with addressing energy impoverishment as well as the solutions for low carbon development. David -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#40555): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/40555 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/117439078/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
