Chinese companies building numerous overseas coal plants(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Chinese companies building numerous overseas coal plants
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html
58 comments
So the Paris climate accord will have the same impact as all previous international climate agreements: zero. That is shocking, positively shocking.
"The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit."
I've been watching some lectures on climate change recently, all of the climatologist I've seen in the lectures were claiming that staying below 2℃ is impossible to achieve anyway. Staying at 2℃ or less, requires around 2050 the world going into negative carbon emissions, which nobody know yet how to do exactly.
I've been watching some lectures on climate change recently, all of the climatologist I've seen in the lectures were claiming that staying below 2℃ is impossible to achieve anyway. Staying at 2℃ or less, requires around 2050 the world going into negative carbon emissions, which nobody know yet how to do exactly.
Don't believe everything you hear from talking heads on TV.
We could put the earth into an ice age for under 1% of global GDP. Discussing geo-engineering is generally seen as a moral hazard, though, so western commentators act like no such possibility exists.
The real threat is ecosystem collapse.
We could put the earth into an ice age for under 1% of global GDP. Discussing geo-engineering is generally seen as a moral hazard, though, so western commentators act like no such possibility exists.
The real threat is ecosystem collapse.
Talking heads giving lectures on current state of climate in universities , taking really critical look at it.
Maybe not the most optimistic crowd, though :)
> We could put the earth into an ice age for under 1% of global GDP. Discussing geo-engineering is generally seen as a moral hazard, though, so western commentators act like no such possibility exists.
Yes it exists, but taking this road is the same road that took is to the point where we are right now. I am not very certain it will help at all.
Maybe not the most optimistic crowd, though :)
> We could put the earth into an ice age for under 1% of global GDP. Discussing geo-engineering is generally seen as a moral hazard, though, so western commentators act like no such possibility exists.
Yes it exists, but taking this road is the same road that took is to the point where we are right now. I am not very certain it will help at all.
The only way to do it that cheap is with sulfate aerosols. We don't have the data to use the right amount yet but that's fixable. A larger problem is it would make ocean acidification even worse. That might end up being better than the alternative but its not a step to take casually.
Thus the moral hazard. If geo-engineering were a major point in climate change discussions, some would feel a false sense of security. Ultimately, this could increase the odds of such drastic measures would be needed. The other thing is that we just can't know how much acidity it would take to cause an ecosystem collapse until it's too late.
That said, sulfate aerosols are one of the oldest proposed plans and our technology has advanced considerably since then. Perhaps some people working on or funding work on a better solution are on reading this thread.
I sure hope someone is quietly tackling it because the political efforts around CO2 emmissions agreements of the past 50 years are not working very well despite a great deal of activism.
That said, sulfate aerosols are one of the oldest proposed plans and our technology has advanced considerably since then. Perhaps some people working on or funding work on a better solution are on reading this thread.
I sure hope someone is quietly tackling it because the political efforts around CO2 emmissions agreements of the past 50 years are not working very well despite a great deal of activism.
What about marine cloud brightening? Wikipedia claims that could be done for a couple of billion $/year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening#Costs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening#Costs
What are the news on ocean iron releases?
It's something that does not cause acidification, and seems to be very easy to start or interrupt if a problem arises. It's also toward economical gains, as it can be done around ocean farming to increase yelds.
It's something that does not cause acidification, and seems to be very easy to start or interrupt if a problem arises. It's also toward economical gains, as it can be done around ocean farming to increase yelds.
"We could put ...". And your basis for that confident assertion?
Honestly? It's from voracious reading over many years, and including both pop and more academic sources. Books almost always go deeper than what you'll find in video format.
That said, if you try googling geo-engineering and climate change for a few minutes, you'll almost certainly find some of the techniques people have evaluated, their trade-offs and how the issue of moral hazard adds a cost to discussing them.
That said, if you try googling geo-engineering and climate change for a few minutes, you'll almost certainly find some of the techniques people have evaluated, their trade-offs and how the issue of moral hazard adds a cost to discussing them.
It's not a case of "anyway" though - 2.1 degrees is worse than 2, 3.1 is worse than 3. If 2 is impossible that means the safe scenario is now impossible and a certain amount of flooding of cities etc. is inevitable, but we can still affect how bad it's going to be.
True, but if we are facing massive climate change with unpredictable catastrophic effects then isn't that a good reason to build up as much industrial and military capacity as possible to withstand those unpredictable effects?
That certainly seems to be what most people are doing even if they are saying something different.
That certainly seems to be what most people are doing even if they are saying something different.
> True, but if we are facing massive climate change with unpredictable catastrophic effects then isn't that a good reason to build up as much industrial and military capacity as possible to withstand those unpredictable effects?
No, I don't think so. We have a pretty good idea of what kind of things are going to happen - if we were serious about trying to withstand them we'd be putting more efforts into flood defences, desalination plants, disaster-relief type stuff - and on a longer-term level maybe food-supply work. Even if you believe what's needed is industry, in the long-term the scientific uses of oil and plastics are far more vital than burning it moving people between the office and the suburbs. But no-one really believes at a visceral level that the oil supply is limited, because we've spent our whole lives living with abundant oil. Add in a dose of classic tragedy of the commons - reducing carbon emissions makes things better for everyone, while building up your own economy/industry and ignoring emissions hurts the common cause but is profitable for individual nations.
No, I don't think so. We have a pretty good idea of what kind of things are going to happen - if we were serious about trying to withstand them we'd be putting more efforts into flood defences, desalination plants, disaster-relief type stuff - and on a longer-term level maybe food-supply work. Even if you believe what's needed is industry, in the long-term the scientific uses of oil and plastics are far more vital than burning it moving people between the office and the suburbs. But no-one really believes at a visceral level that the oil supply is limited, because we've spent our whole lives living with abundant oil. Add in a dose of classic tragedy of the commons - reducing carbon emissions makes things better for everyone, while building up your own economy/industry and ignoring emissions hurts the common cause but is profitable for individual nations.
The parent comment said "build up as much industrial and military capacity as possible to withstand those unpredictable effects".
And then you said: "if we were serious about trying to withstand them we'd be putting more efforts into flood defences, desalination plants, disaster-relief"
These are the same.
And then you said: "if we were serious about trying to withstand them we'd be putting more efforts into flood defences, desalination plants, disaster-relief"
These are the same.
My point is there are specific, narrow things we could be doing; it's not grounds for a general-purpose industrial/military buildup (which frankly sounds suspiciously like an excuse to carry on with business-as-usual rather than doing anything hard).
>(which frankly sounds suspiciously like an excuse to carry on with business-as-usual rather than doing anything hard).
That's what I took from it too. Grab everything we can and dig in.
That's what I took from it too. Grab everything we can and dig in.
> going into negative carbon emissions, which nobody know yet how to do exactly
Pretty sure planting a lot of trees is a good start
Pretty sure planting a lot of trees is a good start
I definitely is a good start, with precondition on stopping deforestation.
But trees won't give negative carbon emissions unless industry cuts emissions dramatically. And also, the other problem with trees is you might have to convert farmlands back to forest, what happens to the food production then?
But trees won't give negative carbon emissions unless industry cuts emissions dramatically. And also, the other problem with trees is you might have to convert farmlands back to forest, what happens to the food production then?
I guess my point was that we do know how to do it, just not how to muster the will. In a war economy climate change would be disaster averted in a decade.
You have to keep planting them. And you have to watch that they are developing ecosystems to encourage more carbon sequestration into the ecosystem. And you have to keep it up, and water them, and fight attempts to strip the plot and turn it back into monoculture farmland, and you probably need to make sure no fires happen in the first couple hundred years until you're ok with natural fires dumping carbon back into the atmosphere which also entails some kind of light controlled burn or very targeted application of intense heat for any species that rely on fires to reproduce.
I'm totally for it, I love having trees everywhere, especially as I walk to most of my destinations.
I'm totally for it, I love having trees everywhere, especially as I walk to most of my destinations.
Come on. Pakistan has an energy crisis which is ruining the country. You want to hold them back economically in the name of the environment? This really is on western countries to pay for them to get clean energy if that's what they really want.
Malawi? Don't develop electricity generation in Africa! You might make them less poor!
Malawi? Don't develop electricity generation in Africa! You might make them less poor!
What's the point of them achieving economic "success" if the world is too screwed to survive in? They're in an area of the world that will be heavily impacted by climate changes. I think your comment seems a bit loaded to be frank.
Agree. We could use anything to have uninterrupted power for 24 hours. Although coal plants are being build but current government is also investing in hydel, solar and wind farms. I think coal will be a short term fix while we sort out economy and then focus more on renewables.
What happened to solar becoming cheaper than coal? I thought we were close.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-01/cheaper-s...
Natural gas is cheaper than coal in the US:
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/article...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-01/cheaper-s...
Natural gas is cheaper than coal in the US:
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/article...
Two words - "base load". In developing economies, sufficient base load power doesn't exist. Solar and Wind do nothing at scale when a stable base load power supply doesn't exist.
SolarCity is experimenting with batteries powered by intermittent power supply in small islands but nothing at scale really exists a practical proven tech.
Natural gas requires high security LNG terminal infra if you're not a producer
SolarCity is experimenting with batteries powered by intermittent power supply in small islands but nothing at scale really exists a practical proven tech.
Natural gas requires high security LNG terminal infra if you're not a producer
I imagine it's much harder to quickly prop up solar generation than it's to build a few coal plants.
You would need some backbone before you can add solar on top (e.g. what happens at night?)
You would need some backbone before you can add solar on top (e.g. what happens at night?)
That's a valid point, but it's not all about western sensibilities. If the increase in global warming makes events like the 2010 floods a regular event, it's not clear that the plants will be a net benefit to Pakistan itself. Especially considering that there are decent alternatives to coal nowadays.
Which decent uninterrupted power alternatives to coal ?
Solar + gas?
In any case, even if there aren't any, the question still stands. Being poor is no defense against the effects of climate change.
In any case, even if there aren't any, the question still stands. Being poor is no defense against the effects of climate change.
Solar + gas costs at least twice the cost of coal alone.
And being poor means that my primary problem is "What will I eat tomorrow". So "What might happen in 50 years" is really secondary. I'll solve it after solving my primary problem.
And being poor means that my primary problem is "What will I eat tomorrow". So "What might happen in 50 years" is really secondary. I'll solve it after solving my primary problem.
I don't think people in the first world really understand the importance of this point. There are countries where a small increase in prices causes starvation at the margins. You are not going to get those people interested in AGW until they feel more secure in the present.
>Solar + gas costs at least twice the cost of coal alone.
But Pakistan is borrowing money for coal plants that will be used for 40 years, while solar+gas will be cheaper within a decade.
But Pakistan is borrowing money for coal plants that will be used for 40 years, while solar+gas will be cheaper within a decade.
Being poor is no defense against the effects of climate change.
But being wealthy is a fairly good defence against the effects of climate change. Reliable affordable electricity is a prerequisite to wealth.
But being wealthy is a fairly good defence against the effects of climate change. Reliable affordable electricity is a prerequisite to wealth.
if you don't produce gas, you need really complex and expensive LNG terminals that are also a security nightmare.
Coal is non explosive, easily carted around safely
Coal is non explosive, easily carted around safely
Pakistan is a gas producer, though.
[deleted]
Totally agree. As a citizen of a not (so) developed country I saw all this complains as hypocritical thinking from the developed nations that for centuries did the same but now that the rest of the world tries to catch up start crying.
This is where inequality and different stages of society are going to make environmentalism and nature conservation a pain in the ass.
As you said, the developed nations did the exact same thing (including to less developed ones they also stole resources from), and now they expect the rest of the world not to do the same?
People won't give up on a 'modern' lifestyle or better conditions just because it's bad for the environment. Even less so because a bunch of people living in better conditions say it could be bad for them in the distant future.
The only fix is to figure out how to make renewable energy cheaper and easier than non renewable energy worldwide. So it wins on a financial level rather than a moral feel good one.
As you said, the developed nations did the exact same thing (including to less developed ones they also stole resources from), and now they expect the rest of the world not to do the same?
People won't give up on a 'modern' lifestyle or better conditions just because it's bad for the environment. Even less so because a bunch of people living in better conditions say it could be bad for them in the distant future.
The only fix is to figure out how to make renewable energy cheaper and easier than non renewable energy worldwide. So it wins on a financial level rather than a moral feel good one.
I believe that renewable is the solution, more so now that the price has become viable. My country for example went from being oil dependant to produce energy to be almos 100% renewable in less than 5 years by building hundreds of eolic turbines.
But we have a small population and our economy is stable, there are other places where we can not expect to do this.
But we have a small population and our economy is stable, there are other places where we can not expect to do this.
Don't forget that some of the developed nations developed by establishing rule (by force) over other places and stripping them of resources before granting them independence.
Societies don't have to reinvent every single step of development. It's not unreasonable for developing countries to skip some steps.
Right. At the time the Western nations were developing fossil fuel energy, they didn't know about global warming, and there wasn't any renewable energy tech besides hydro.
Now it is all changed. Oh, and by going for coal now, developing nations are going to make their electricity more expensive for the next 40 years than it would be if they went with renewables. Is that smart for economic development. And besides that they are going to be promoting climate changes that will be very damaging, including economically, to their own countries.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the developing countries are buying all these coal plants from China at least partly because the people making the decisions got bribed. From what I understand, that is the norm when it comes to China.
Now it is all changed. Oh, and by going for coal now, developing nations are going to make their electricity more expensive for the next 40 years than it would be if they went with renewables. Is that smart for economic development. And besides that they are going to be promoting climate changes that will be very damaging, including economically, to their own countries.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the developing countries are buying all these coal plants from China at least partly because the people making the decisions got bribed. From what I understand, that is the norm when it comes to China.
It's only cheaper in the very short term. In the long term Pakistan's society will pay more for healthcare and energy as coal becomes unable to compete with solar and other sources.
Building a powerplant that is supposed to operational for 50 years when it may only be economically viable for 5 or 10 leads to a warping of the per-unit economics, even before taking into consideration public health and environmental damage.
Pakistan should ask the west for a zero interest after inflation loan to install green alternatives.
Building a powerplant that is supposed to operational for 50 years when it may only be economically viable for 5 or 10 leads to a warping of the per-unit economics, even before taking into consideration public health and environmental damage.
Pakistan should ask the west for a zero interest after inflation loan to install green alternatives.
While I agree with you regarding zero interest loans for green(er) alternatives...
What makes you think coal only has a 5 to 10 year viable economic life span? If the world starts moving toward green(er) alternatives won't coal become cheaper?
What makes you think coal only has a 5 to 10 year viable economic life span? If the world starts moving toward green(er) alternatives won't coal become cheaper?
There is a absolute limit on the cost of coal: What it costs to get it out of the ground and into the powerplant. Even if the price of coal per unit weight goes down to 0 it will still have a cost to transport it. I think that in the medium term that is what coal is up against; a solar alternative that is cheaper in the long run.
The less important coal becomes on a global scale, the less infrastructure and expertise that will be maintained for extraction and processing. This type of lack of supply should drive up prices as well. Consider the ease of buying and maintaining a horse vs a car.
Investment will descrease which will decrease supply making what is still dug up more expensive.
It probably will become cheaper, since as volume goes down mines that are only marginally profitable now will close, leaving only the most efficient.
Coal should be gasified then the gas product used. This releases something like 75% more energy than burning coal directly and it is a cleaner process once produced.
you mean Nazi oil? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II
[deleted]
So, the US denies climate change, is not a signatory to the Paris accord, is the biggest fossil fuel user, and is now the biggest oil producer thanks to ita fracking programme. They can’t exactly be pointing fingers.
"Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent. "The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit."