Overzeetop

My only reason to believe that is not what is happening is that China, and the Chinese, are too smart to using coal as a peaking or emergency source of power. The only thing worse than coal for peaking is nuclear. Oil, Gas, and hydro are all much better for short-to-mid term peaking and batteries - something they’re very good at and have vast resources for - are perfect for short term emergency/failover loads. I believe (without documentation) that they are building extra capacity for the possibility of another expansion - the incubation of so many “third world” economies and partnerships across Asia and Africa to spur demand for their domestic production. If they don’t use it, it was a jobs program; if they find they need it, they will accept short term cash and economic power for a worsening of the world environment. In a way, the largest communist country on earth is also the largest capitalist power. Ironic.

his past year, China couldn’t run their hydro at peak capacity because of a drought.

Well, yes. The simple facts we have are that fossil fuel use is up. What happens next year will be speculation, but what we know is that they are using more coal this year, and they are hedging their future bets by building out their coal generation capacity. So if climate change means a further drop in hydro output, or more cloud cover where they install solar, or they need to make more power than they’re installing because the world wants more steel (I’m in the building industry and steel supply is still a bit tight) - they can start belching out a massive amount of CO2.

Only time will tell - and I hope you turn out to be the one who is right :-)

China has increased their coal generation in terms of absolute GW, and increase the coal usage per GW this year. I’m not sure where your data is from. Here’s mine:

“China’s CO2 emissions have seen explosive growth over recent decades, pausing only for brief periods due to cyclical shocks.” and “…CO2 is rebounding in 2023 from zero-Covid lows (see: Why emissions grew in Q3 of 2023)…”

both from a link in the original posted article, https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/

“Domestic coal output tonnage has continued to grow in 2023, following the steep increase in 2022 resulting from government efforts to boost output. However, coal quality has declined, resulting in a much smaller increase in energy supply from domestic coal. Poor quality of coal supplied has also pushed users to shift to imported coal for blending, the result being a record surge in imports.”

https://energyandcleanair.org/china-energy-and-emissions-trends-june-snapshot

The analysis points to a reduction in 2024, but that is speculation. What is clear is that 2023 is higher. And if the Chinese economy should pick back up and steel and concrete production come back up to recent historic levels, the CO2 is definitely going go continue to go up for a while. They’re bringing renewables online, yes, but if we look at what is actually happening the CO2 is currently increasing. Both of us would be speculating beyond that.

That says nothing about reducing total energy output, though. They’re only talking about paying back installation costs for additional capacity. Adding 50% more capacity and then running everything at 80%, for example, still means burning more coal and making more power. And, often, running a plant at below optimal will decrease it’s efficiency, leading to a higher CO2 load for every kWh. It’s an incentive for growth and surplus capacity, not an incentive to lower carbon emissions.

I presume “decline” is used in the percentage sense and not the absolute sense. If the total power amount of carbon-based fuel generation plants is increasing, and the fuel is coal ©, then the carbon emissions must go up in an absolute sense. But the rapid deployment of non-carbon fuel power sources are increasing faster than the the carbon based, so percentage will go down. Am I reading this wrong?

Also, in a linked article: "And, as Myllyvirta highlights, numbers in the communique stating that coal consumption rose 4.3% in 2022 and total energy use rising 2.9% “appear to contradict weak or falling industrial output”

So consumption of coal - the most carbon-producing fuel - rose in 2022, and according to this article their energy consumption jumped again after Covid restrictions were lifted this year. Renewable installation is rising faster than carbon installation (280GW installed this year vs 136GW of coal “under construction”). The data given in these articles seems intentionally inconsistent, from annual installation (only given for renewable) to total capacity (only given for future Coal). One has to wonder if The Guardian is running their articles through some kind of Donald Trump AI filter to ensure that no verifiable content gets printed.

Its a joke - yes.

Though, realistically, an empathy test would probably filter out a large portion of the haters. It’s harder to hate when you internalize the condition of others.

Sad, but true. About the only way to control it would be to require online comments to be directly identifiable to the person. Even Republicans appear to be embarrassed - and attempt to expunge their vitriol - when their homophobic, misogynistic, and racist comments and activities online are publicized. And even that wouldn’t eliminate it, it would just push it back underground to further fester.

I don’t know how deep that area is, but damage to a pipe and the comm cable cut makes me wonder if it was some numbnut dragging an anchor - plain incompetence rather than an act of sabotage. Not that it wasn’t sabotage, just that it seems sloppy for someone looking to disrupt gas supplies.

TBF the train to Haneda on my exit was delayed by two hours, also. But that was due to a couple of drunk caucasians running around on the tracks.

Huh. I’ve spent only 0.035% of my life in Japan, but I was on that train (or at least that line) last year. Glad nobody was seriously hurt.

Yeah, it’s kind of a pissing contest in the top ten. I saw another list with us one below Canada and I assumed it was probably our (now useless, decades long) tiff with Cuba that put them ahead. Several of the places on my bucket list are on the difficult list for USA, but I also don’t really feel safe enough to travel there, nor do I expect them to become (politically) friendly in my traveling lifetime. It’s okay, though - I probably don’t have enough money to see everywhere I’d like to go anyway.

I looked it up and I think we dropped to 9th this year, 8th last, but then Japan dropped by 4 putting Singapore in the top slot all by itself. I was chatting with a Senegalese poster on reddit a while back and the hoops he would have to jump through to enter the EU as a tourist are crazy, and it takes months to accomplish. I get the reasons for visas, but three’s a part of me that is baffled at how humans drew imaginary lines on dirt and then spend a non-trivial fraction of our waking time making sure people don’t go on the wrong side of them.

America is only tied for eighth ninth in passport strength, thanks to Singapore taking the top spot from Japan. There are 40 countries which have the same privilege coming into the US (called the Visa Waiver Program here). Of course, the US has had an ETA for quite a while, so this is a tit for tat.

We do need one, but Americans, as well as many other friendly countries, have what is called “Visa on Arrival” which means that you are automatically afforded a Tourist visa just for the asking and you can get it when you arrive at the country. It’s easy for Americans, who hold one of the strongest passports in the world, to forget that that visa process for many people can be a long and expensive one, even for something as seemingly mundane as tourism.

This basically adds a “pre-authorization” step once every 3 years to make sure you’re not an axe murderer or fall into any other ne’er-do-well category so they don’t have to watch you pitch a fit at immigration when you get denied entry.

Edit: I’ll add that I pay $100 every five years (Global Entry) so that I can get back into the US on my return flight with as little friction as possible.

Exactly - the title and the article is incorrect. Americans will still be afforded a visa-on-arrival for tourism and other approved short term stays. Additionally, the authorization is valid for three years and can be used for multiple stays within the EEA. I believe the UK is also implementing an ETA (edit, maybe I got the acronym right this time), but I think it is only valid for two years at a time.

In a way it’s silly, but it also reduces that chance of a disruption/entry denial at the entry point to the Area.

The X, in this context, is pronounced like “sh” right?