GRA wrote:On a more positive note, via the NYT:
There is NOTHING positive about the world's two largest populations and polluters rapidly increasing their pollution. By quoting fake news and praising China and India's practices, you are showing your extreme hypocrisy.
Reg. please, stop hyperventilating.
I quite agree that promising to reduce emissions is nothing like actually reducing them. That's one reason I find it hard to get too excited about the Paris agreement, or our pulling out of it. AFAIC, voluntary agreements aren't worth the paper they're written on. What would matter would be mandatory agreements with an enforcement mechanism and the willingness to use it, and Paris lacks all of that. We've already seen just how many countries failed to meet their goals under Kyoto, most embarrassingly including the host, Japan: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/nov/26/kyoto-protocol-carbon-emissions
No, the main value of Paris, IMO, was that for the first time we were able to get China and India to agree to set any
goals for themselves, and to slow the growth of fossil-fueled plants. Both countries are running as fast as they can just trying to stay in place, as electricity demand has risen rapidly (slowing in China though).
Your info re China is out of date:
In August 2013 the State Council said that China should reduce its carbon emissions by 40-45% by 2020 from 2005 levels, and would aim to boost renewable energy to 15% of its total primary energy consumption by 2020. In 2012 China was the world’s largest source of carbon emissions – 2626 MtC (9.64 Gt CO2), and its increment that year comprised about 70% of world total increase. In March 2014 the Premier said that the government was declaring “war on pollution” and would accelerate closing coal-fired power stations.In November 2014 the Premier announced that China intended about 20% of its primary energy consumption to be from non-fossil fuels by 2030, at which time it intended its peak of CO2 emissions to occur. This 20% target is part of the 13th Five-Year Plan and was reiterated by the president at the Paris climate change conference in December 2015, along with reducing CO2 emissions by 60 to 65% from 2005 levels by 2030. . . .
In the 13th Five-Year Plan for power production announced by the NEA in November 2016, by 2020 coal capacity will be limited to 1100 GWe by cancelling and postponing about 150 GWe of projects. Gas in 2020 is projected at 110 GWe, hydro 340 GWe, wind 210 GWe, and solar 110 GWe of which distributed PV is to be 60 GWe. Nuclear 58 GWe was reiterated for 2020. Non-fossil 770 GWe will then produce 15% of electricity.
Which was followed by:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... hina-india
The report said the amount of new capacity starting construction was down 62% in 2016 on the year before, and work was frozen at more than a hundred sites in China and India. In January, China’s energy regulator halted work on a further 100 new coal-fired projects, suggesting the trend was not going away.
Again, your info re India is out of date:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/worl ... imate.html
Just a few years ago, the world watched nervously as India went on a building spree of coal-fired power plants, more than doubling its capacity and claiming that more were needed. Coal output, officials said, would almost triple, to 1.5 billion tons, by 2020.
India’s plans were cited by American critics of the Paris climate accord as proof of the futility of advanced nations trying to limit their carbon output. But now, even as President Trump pulls the United States out of the pact, India has undergone an astonishing turnaround, driven in great part by a steep fall in the cost of solar power.
Experts now say that India not only has no need of any new coal-fired plants for at least a decade, given that existing plants are running below 60 percent of capacity, but that after that it could rely on renewable sources for all its additional power needs.*
Rather than building coal-fired plants, it is now canceling many in the early planning stages. And last month, the government lowered its annual production target for coal to 600 million tons from 660 million.
* Highly questionable absent cheap storage. See below re Chinese curtailment of PV/Wind.
Now, would I prefer that China and India give up coal-fired plants entirely? Sure. Is that realistic? Not now, barring a complete shift to nukes (which they're also building in large numbers) for baseload. At least the coal plants they are building, especially in the case of China, are much more efficient and less polluting than the ones they are replacing, as both countries' politicians are increasingly being driven by public pressure over air pollution:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/informatio ... power.aspx
China is well advanced in developing and deploying supercritical and ultra-supercritical coal plants, as well as moving quickly to design and deploy technologies for integrated (coal) gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants. Nevertheless it consumed about 4.3 billion tonnes of coal in 2013, more than half the world total, and coal peaked at more than 70% of China’s primary energy then, dropping to 64% in 2015 as fossil fuel generation declined. By 2020 it is expected to use some 3.5 billion tonnes of coal annually, and for coal to comprise only 55% of primary energy consumption. However, after authority for approving new coal-fired plants was given to provincial governments late in 2014, in 2015 state-owned companies received preliminary or full approval to build 165 GWe of new coal-fired capacity, some of which would be offset by retirement of older plants. But total coal consumption dropped by 3.7% in that year, and in October 2016 coal-fired plants had an average load factor of only 46%. In March 2016, the NEA ordered 13 provinces to suspend approvals of new projects until 2017, and another 15 to delay construction of new projects that had already been approved. Taken together, this required about 110 GWe of suspensions.
Wind and solar generating capacity has been expanding rapidly, much of it with private investment encouraged by government policies, such as CNY 0.54 per kWh feed-in tariff (FIT). In 2016, 17.3 GWe of new wind capacity and 34.8 GWe of solar PV was installed, but the capacity factors decreased. There is a high level of curtailment on wind generation, because of inadequate grid connections. In 2016 some 50 TWh of potential wind output – about 20% on average and up to 50% in some provinces – was curtailed, according to the National Energy Administration, and several provinces* have been ordered to stop approving wind projects until they improve transmission infrastructure. In 2016 the curtailment was mainly in Gansu (43% of production), Xinjiang (38%), Jilin (30%), Inner Mongolia (21%), and Heilongjiang (19%).
There is a similar situation for grid-connected solar, with 7 TWh being curtailed – about 20% in the main five provinces, and the capacity factor is about 17%. In 2016 NDRC reduced wind FITs by 5% to 13% and solar utility FITs by 24% to 31%. The 13th Five-Year Plan has about 16 GWe/yr of wind addition, and aims to reduce grid curtailment from wind to 5%. However, having made huge investments, many wind and solar power producers have been affected by grid curtailment rates in the 30% range for the past few years.
Which assumes that such money transfers would ever have taken place, and that's as likely as NATO countries meeting their agreed financial commitments, or charity donor countries meeting theirs. Again, it's all voluntary, and not worth the paper it's written on. What does matter is that politicians have to think about it, and then convince their own public why it's not a good idea to take steps that reduce air pollution, regardless of whether or not they believe in AGCC.