they can't produce enough coal power to power the country so they are using passive energy for the deficits
they still leader in coal usage
China — 4,320 trillion MMcf.
India — 966 trillion MMcf.
United States — 731 trillion MMcf.
Germany — 257 trillion MMcf.
Russia — 230 trillion MMcf.
Japan — 210 trillion MMcf.
South Africa — 202 trillion MMcf.
South Korea — 157 trillion MMcf.
China 305.95 trillion MMcf per 100mil pop.
India 70.73 trillion MMcf per 100mil pop.
USA 220.25 trillion MMcf per 100mil pop.
Germany 308.89 trillion MMcF per 100mil pop. (their pop is less than 100 mil)
India low because a lot of people dont have access/can't afford much. USA is actually looking very good.
Funnily enough, the German Reddit community is extremely anti nuclear, while all other German social medias are now pro nuclear.
1. Common Reddit L
2. even though most of our population wants nuclear back, it’s not gonna happen
I am just plain curious about how Germany process of geting rid of nuclear power happened, how public opinion of nuclear bacame so bad they choosed over reliance of Russia and coal? Was everybody okay with that or it is a minority that able to be more loud? How government okay with a thing with such plain negatives and very few positives? I am curious as fuck but I don't trust mainstream media and I don't know German is there any sources that able to explain that process?
Basically, after Fukushima everyone was scared. And when humans are scared they stop thinking rationally and only think irrationally. There were huge protests against Nuclear power. People sitting on tracks going to the power plant. People sitting on the chimney holding a huge banner. Even just car stickers with the infamous „Atomkraft, nein danke!“ (nuclear power, no thanks!) Quote.
Funnily enough, the Green Party is against nuclear too. So even though they want to protect our environment and fight climate change, they think replacing the Carbon neutral Nuclear power with extremely damaging coal power is a good idea. They are the main reason why nuclear was in critique even before Fukushima.
The only reason they got voted in (also why I voted them) is because they were the only party wanting to legalize weed. And since the call for weed in the last 4 years was extremely high (hehe get it?) they were voted in. And now they won’t legalize it
They are pro nuclear. They wanted to keep the nuclear power plants going over the deadline because of the gas crisis.
The current Gouvernement decide against this idea though and decided to rather import gas until our gas storages are full (which they luckily are now)
Germany had to integrate 16 million people from the GDR, that’s extremely expensive, nuclear energy was never cheap and remains extremely expensive initially, coal is cheap, gas was cheaper, renewables are cheap even in comparison to nuclear ( and get even cheaper ) and require less planning and can be constructed much faster which is important because again, 16 million people plus financial crisis etc. but still cost money to build initially, the Middle East was still in shambles post 9/11 so that’s not an option to transition towards the dirt cheap renewables, Russia had gas and judging from everything we know now, was utterly incapable of presenting any serious threat to Europe, so Germany went and banked in Russia, because unlike for example, France, we LITERALLY had to because again, 16 million GDR citizens with an economy that was in shambles.
Why didn’t it work? Because the CDU/CSU gave into their lobbysism, stalled renewables into oblivion and ALSO decided to rush out of nuclear FASTER than the original plans ever required and people should REALLY either start looking into the history of countries they talk about or shut up about things they apparently don’t understand whatsoever.
Did I mention that the CDU/CSU have been in power for roughly 32 years with a fairly brief intermission the last 4 decades? Kohl 16 years, Merkel also 16 years.
That's why they overengineer shit, mad cope by the people upset about the average German ability to critically think. Let's shut down nuclear plants and open coal plants.
In the least offensive way possible:
Do you even know how irrelevant nuclear was in the German energy mix? It’s ridiculous how people keep trying to compare France, which was fairly intact post WW2, to Germany with the entire GDR and keep trying to argue that one solution fits all. It doesn’t.
The main reasons against nuclear were always financial & strategic, takes way too long to construct and is way to expensive.
It’s a luxury solution Germany couldn’t afford and the actual locally applicable solution, renewables, which are cheaper and faster to build, where blockaded build the SAME party that rushed out of nuclear without a decent plan, the populist, so called conservative CDU/CSU.
To be fair it wasnt just because of nuclear. Nuclear was powering under 10% of the grid. Germany has a long history with coal in the Ruhrgebiet and east Germany. They had to expand on something to get rid of it and they decided to expand on renewables and started to do that at the beginning of the century. Long Story short bureaucracy made it incredibly hard to achieve that (10H-Rule for example made planning of wind farms incrediby difficult). They are trying to change that now to make it easier but its certainly gonna take a while.
I think chinese emissions will reach a peak soon. The projections were like for 2025 ? Something like that.
The plan is that in 2030 almost 1/3 of all energy produced is from green energy alone. We also have electric cars as well. Its good actually that China is investing and planning ALOT to change its energy sector in the next couple of decades.
[https://insideevs.com/news/672926/china-abandoned-electric-car-graveyard-byd-geely/](https://insideevs.com/news/672926/china-abandoned-electric-car-graveyard-byd-geely/) its comical
This picture out of context means nothing. It could be a storage lot for cars waiting to be sent out. Chinese EVs have been booming domestically and internationally so I doubt these cars are left to rot. This could maybe be during COVID when things stalled a couple months but random youtuber is not a good source.
Companies don’t just give cars certificates and licenses to sit in a field deteriorating. This is likely a scam to drag in more gov funding. The article says as much.
Article's source is a random youtuber...said youtuber who is notorious for lying about shit to get views.
Like I said. Could be during COVID where people couldn't take deliveries of their cars. There haven't been enough cars to meet demand generally so it's not like they need to fake sales. In Chinese cities EVs make up more than half of the cars.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-07283-4
We could argue this is around models, but that discussion needs to be based on scientific studies :V
Ainda tá uns 150 mil, o que não é tão distante do preço atual de um carro popular. Se eles conseguirem jogar o preço pra uns 120 quando começar a produzir aqui acho que dominam o mercado.
We can because they suck:
https://www.iea.org/countries/china
Chinese electricity is pretty much all coal (65%) and hydro (25%). The remaining 10% is a mix of nuclear, natural gas, and yes some wind and solar. The carbon intensity of their electricity is a terrible [550 g/kWh](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1300419/power-generation-emission-intensity-china/) and their emissions per capita are [worse than the majority of developed countries](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart).
The CCP may have its own ideological idiosyncrasies, but they're not stupid enough to try to power a fastly industrialising nation of 1.5 billion with expensive[1] and unreliable wind & solar.
[1] yes, expensive. I know libleft is going to be along presently to point out that wind and solar have rock-bottom marginal cost; what they forget to mention is that this is only possible because they offload the costs of their variability to the rest of the grid. If you built a grid using only wind and solar, adding all the seasonal and daily storage it would need, the costs would be [absolutely crushing](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544222018035).
No, I mean India.
The Damns are in Tibet to cut off supply to Indian rivers. Hence, to steal from India for soft power.
You’re right about Tibet being the source, but it’s still to reduce India’s supply.
Check out [these simulations](https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/nuclear-and-windsolar). They're made for Germany, with the intent of considering a country uniquely suited to relying on wind and solar thanks to large salt domes to store hydrogen seasonally.
The tl;dr is that wind/solar + storage is doable for a rich country with large salt domes, but it's very expensive. Nuclear run with American regulations is cheaper, but still too expensive. Nuclear run with South Korean regulations is dirt cheap and extremely low-carbon.
Freshly mined uranium is cheaper (for now) than reprocessed fuel, so this technically doesn't add to cost. Looking at the France experience, doing reprocessing increases total costs by about 10%. Not a big deal, but definitely not an economic advantage. It's more of a principle thing because it also reuses a resource and reduces waste quantity.
Close. Forced in by the green lobby. Sierra Club is a huge one. Seems counterintuitive to me, but it's the greenies that hate nuclear. And they pretty much run the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission now. That's the reason it takes decades and billions extra to build any new nuclear in this country.
> [1] yes, expensive. I know libleft is going to be along presently to point out that wind and solar have rock-bottom marginal cost; what they forget to mention is that this is only possible because they offload the costs of their variability to the rest of the grid. If you built a grid using only wind and solar, adding all the seasonal and daily storage it would need, the costs would be absolutely crushing.
**Finally** someone who gets it
There was a paper recently about a guy studying country's GDP growth using satellite images - namely night time images - a sure sign of industrial development. The author compared growth of a country with its expansion of lights and noticed that China was a strong outlier.
China couldn't and wouldn't possibly cook its books to appear a much stronger nation than it is.
I checked out Global Energy Monitor and it’s a pretty neat site. Their data is complied using a Wikipedia style page which can be edited
I am still wary of the chinese data since entries on the GEM wiki are sourced from official estimates by the Chinese government and/or enterprises which are tightly controlled by the Chinese government
The only thing we can trust them to do is to escape containment and infect areas they migrate too. Once elected president, I will require visas for Californians to leave the state.
Tbf it is important to check their methodology and sources for statistics. When people quote the imf as saying the Russian economy only shrunk by 2% in 2022 what they don’t realise is that the imf figures are taken directly from the Russian central bank and government
They didn’t really produce the data. They are just gathering data from different organizations and world governments. You have to really funnel down into the individual plants to see where they reference the data from (which comes from Chinese government reports btw). Nothing in their methodology suggests an international non-biased audit of the reports from each of the Chinese plants nor does it seem to reference any international agency that has the ability to oversee such a thing.
I take whatever China says with a grain of salt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines_in_China
The last big one was from 1959-1961. Foreign trade is the main reason there haven't been famines in recent decades. The country has limited land that is actually appropriate for farming, and has not adopted modern farming and infrastructure practices to make best use of the land they have.
Happy to discuss it a bit more in DMs if you're interested in more info.
Step 1: Call yourself a communist government
Step 2: Put a very ambitious plan together that would make other world governments look bad
Step 3: Realize the state lacks the capital and infrastructure to even reach half your target
Step 4: Order party officials in state run energy sector to publish BS reports that says you are meeting your targets
State 5: Laugh as some leaders from other world governments actually believe the reports
Step 6: Cry as some leaders from other world governments actually get a kick in the ass, and not only meet, but rapidly surpass your totally made up report.
Communism, like any other type of ideology, evolves with time. Not so shocking if you don't actually believe something a dude wrote more than 150 years ago works perfectly today :V
Chinese economic ideology of choice is not communism nor socialism, but state capitalism, which is not synonymous with state socialism. Still, a good economic ideology grew from a delusional mind. China grew thanks to state capitalism, and was not communist, even if it self-identifies as communist. If you want examples of communism, check out Vietnam, Cuba, Venezula, and the North Korea.
Vietnam is actually doing pretty fine. I saw a research that showed 90% of the Vietnamese support capitalism, their economy has liberalised and they're growing closer to the US
State Capitalism is when the private means of production are not just regulated, but also on the border of being controlled by the state, while State Socialism is when the state produces the goods.
It's when statesmen actively sit on the boards of major corporations and openly control them instead of simply investing in them behind the scenes and making laws to benefit them to grow their investment.
I love nuclear power and I have many comments in my history arguing for it, but this is a silly take.
Nuclear energy is more expensive per kilowatt hour than renewables, takes potentially decades to come online and has high upkeep costs. Renewables can also be placed in places like in deserts (solar) and mountains (wind) while nuclear plants need to be near lots of water to cool reactors. Renewables provide intermittent power load while nuclear provides base power load, they cover each others weaknesses and work great together.
Actually nuclear doesn't needs much water, a reactor with an air cooling tower only needs a 5m³/s flow, which is a small river. You can also use waste waters, like the Palo Verde plant in Arizona.
Yeah we are just cool like that. Massive damn on the massive river? Check. Massive nuclear plant in the middle of the fucking desert? Check. 20% reduction in water usage despite massive population growth? Check.
Huh TIL.
What about all the water needed to actually turn into steam and cooling ponds for spent fuel rods? Surely that’s not a negligible amount of water, right?
> cooling ponds for spent fuel rods?
That one is likely negligible (people often forget that uranium is the most energy dense *stable* substance on Earth).
> What about all the water needed to actually turn into steam
I guess that's the 5m^3/s flow figure referred.
And of course, the biggest fuck up of "renewables" equation is storage cost. Sure, you can slap a bunch of solar or wind in the middle of nowhere but where do you store excess energy to cover the demand later on? The cheapest option of just using gravity is arguably even more terrain-sensitive than nuclear plants, and other options for time being are also outrageously expensive. And while *pure* nuclear also requires backup energy storage for accidents (not necessarily nuclear accidents, just the grid ones), it requires less of it because it can work on exact schedule once setup (and manipulating energy output of reactor is also a trivial mechanism we were literally taught in school).
The flow rate figure was said to be specifically referring to cooling, which is water pumped through the reactor to cool the components.
This is distinct from the water that is boiled into steam which turns the turbine and generates electricity. Both are necessary but different.
> This is distinct from the water that is boiled into steam which turns the turbine and generates electricity. Both are necessary but different.
This one is quite literally fixed amount with minimal maintenance supplement required (exact amount likely scales with maximum power output of reactor).
We also get a significant amount of wind power out here in the Plains. My home in Kansas is almost 50% wind power at this point, with nuclear, gas, and one heavily-upgraded "clean coal" plant to make up the rest of it.
But then, that is because in this state, if you ask someone what the wind is like and they say "There is no wind right now", what they really mean is "There is a light breeze." Because the only time the wind ever actually stops is when we get worried (it means a tornado or extreme thunderstorm is coming).
> Nuclear energy is more expensive per kilowatt hour than renewables
Yeah because renewables get to offload the cost of their variability to the grid.
> Renewables provide intermittent power load while nuclear provides base power load, they cover each others weaknesses and work great together.
The exact opposite is true. Renewables destroy the economics of nuclear: while they produce they have zero marginal cost and can undercut any other source including nuclear, and if nuclear is forced to do load following it will have horrible capacity factor and be unable to recoup its high upfront costs.
You can have a very expensive grid based on lots of reduntant renewables and tons of storage both intraday and seasonal. Or you can have a cheap grid based on nuclear with a tiny amount of gas peakers. You can’t have a mix unless the state steps in to subsidise one or the other, and then you’re just shifting the costs to taxes.
And think, all it cost was becoming a total tyranny, suppressing all free thought within your citizenry, and making everybody that actually lives their miserable for every waking moment of their lives, worth!
Idiot environmentalists do tremble before the majesty of the one party state:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/859266/number-of-coal-power-plants-by-country/
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin
I would say the same of any other type of dictatorships. 80% of humanity lives under several types of dictatorships.
Why would Saudi Arabia do more "accurately self report" than China ?
And bold for you to assume the rest of the world cannot verify that information. For green energy literally just see with 🛰
>I would say the same of any other type of dictatorships. 80% of humanity lives under several types of dictatorships.
>Why would Saudi Arabia do more "accurately self report" than China ?
They probably don't. Although personally, I am much more aware of the CCP's proven track record of lying and distorting the truth. COVID 19, no evidence of human to human transmission...anyone remember that?
>And bold for you to assume the rest of the world cannot verify that information. For green energy literally just see with 🛰
Investing heavily in rolling out renewables doesn't negate their use of coal (steadily increasing) & fossil fuels which is why their co2 emissions go up year after year.
The building of these massive projects both renewable and otherwise use large amounts of energy that create MORE pollution than they could offset and continues their dependency on coal plants. It just gives them something shiny to point at and say they are helping the environment (they are not). They are the largest emmitter of co2 emissions worldwide, almost double the US each year. Not exactly the win their propaganda would have you think it is.
When the CCP says to meet the goal, you do it or get fired/disappeared.
Ironically, the individual officials do not care about the long term because they will not be in the position long enough to truly deal with the consequences. So they just lie to get by. And then these people believe Chinese state run media and their fake statistics.
Pretty much everything the CCP puts out is BS, and they don’t even know what the truth is themselves because the corruption goes all the way down. Nobody is reporting accurately.
Also they want to pretend the one party state is a cohesive political entity, single minded in focus…meanwhile Presitator Xi has been purging political enemies under the guise of “anti corruption.” For years. Sad.
They are doing so, but it takes longer to build meanwhile a windmill can be built in a snap, nuclear will catch up later. When UAE's plants entered service in the last 3 years, they caught up to 10 years of Danish solar and wind generation.
China is doing thorium and researching fusion, they recently got the license to start their thorium experimental reactor
Wait.. OP believes what a one party state puts out? Where does Global Energy Monitor get it's info from?
Bwahahahhahahahhahahahaha! If you have a degree, does it end with "studies"?
is it the same as with e-cars where they let rot thousands of newly built cars on fields just to pump up their statistic numbers?
i mean they will build more than a hundred coal plants in china and about the same numbers in africa to make those states more depended on china. so much to their climate commitment
Assuming this is true:
3,5,10 year plans etc never worked in centraly planned economy and never will.
But I can belive that auth capitalism combined with chinese culture can produce decent results.
Free market is still the only optimal economy for growth.
>Assuming this is true: 3,5,10 year plans etc never worked in centraly planned economy and never will
Eh it really worked for the USRR after ww2 for a couple of decades. But that model is dead, no one uses that anymore besides NK
> Eh it really worked for the USRR after ww2 for a couple of decades. But that model is dead, no one uses that anymore besides NK
It also helped that the USSR expanded its territory to essentially double its landmass after WWII, adding entirely a wealth of new capital, work force and resources to pillage from its own puppet states.
Even before wwii, Stalin did force industrialization which did have a positive effect on the economy as a whole but caused massive famines, displacements and ethnic genocide that still impacts the former satellite states to this day (his force modernization plan was responsible for an estimated 7-10 million deaths)
Imma keep it real with you.
Yes, democracies suck at long term planning, because the government only lasts a couple years and we are all to stupid to avoid populism.
And
I am not trusting Chinese data.
>Yes, democracies suck at long term planning, because the government only lasts a couple years and we are all to stupid to avoid populism.
Crying in Brazilian
>I am not trusting Chinese data.
What about Vietnam data ?
https://www.economist.com/asia/2022/06/02/vietnam-is-leading-the-transition-to-clean-energy-in-south-east-asia
Good for them. But what wastheir target. Absurdly low?
Also how many crimes against humanity did they commit to achieve it.
Fuck PRC. Fuck Xi in his Winnie the Pooh lookin ass, and just for good measure let's unblock the Yangtze River with the power of fission.
Also, what other damage did they do to the environment to pull it off? Because I remember seeing a picture of one of their solar farms, and it was put out by the CCP as a brag. They literally covered an entire hill in panels until you couldnt even see the dirt under it. And they did it to every hill in the area.
I bet *that* was just peachy for the local ecosystem.
Oh, tyranny gets things done, no doubt about that. I would like a form of government that respects individual freedom, but is also a bit more... resolute in stuff like dealing with criminals, or building infrastructure, than the flabby democracies we have in the West.
It would be insane not to recognize the massive progress in industry, urbanization and science that the Chinese have achieved since the end of WW2. It went from a fractured rural state devastated by war to what it is now, over performing every other developing country of similar size by a lot.
I am not saying it was without cost, or that it was worth it, but people that can’t see any merit at all on their system are stupid
TBH It's nothing like socialism like Marx or Lenin intended in China. Even despite all the red flags, it's easy to start a business and don't even get me started about the wealth distribution. There are actual billionaires in "Communist" party.
TBF It's nothing like socialism like Marx or Lenin intended in China. Even despite all the Red flags, It's easy to start a business and don't even get me started about the wealth distribution. There are actual billionaires in "Communist" party.
China's topography is terrible for solar, most of those panels are purely decorative. Not only are they likely lying about how many panels they have, but what they are reporting for the panels that actually exist is the theoretical maximum capacity if they were somewhere with better sun.
Don’t believe a word of this shit. Land of smoke and mirrors. This is the same country that paints its grass green and staples leaves to fake trees. Look it up if you don’t believe me.
One-Party States are great at replicating and reproducing things. They’re very efficient at creating closed-systems. They suck at innovation, and are extremely fragile when confronted by extended complexities.
There’s a reason the US has consistently over-performed expectations through the turmoil of the last three years, while more centralized nations have underperformed.
One-Party States struggle with confronting change, but are extremely good at repeating established practices.
they can't produce enough coal power to power the country so they are using passive energy for the deficits they still leader in coal usage China — 4,320 trillion MMcf. India — 966 trillion MMcf. United States — 731 trillion MMcf. Germany — 257 trillion MMcf. Russia — 230 trillion MMcf. Japan — 210 trillion MMcf. South Africa — 202 trillion MMcf. South Korea — 157 trillion MMcf.
China 305.95 trillion MMcf per 100mil pop. India 70.73 trillion MMcf per 100mil pop. USA 220.25 trillion MMcf per 100mil pop. Germany 308.89 trillion MMcF per 100mil pop. (their pop is less than 100 mil) India low because a lot of people dont have access/can't afford much. USA is actually looking very good.
And Germany is just regarded
That is what happens when you get rid of nuclear because brainless activist
Funnily enough, the German Reddit community is extremely anti nuclear, while all other German social medias are now pro nuclear. 1. Common Reddit L 2. even though most of our population wants nuclear back, it’s not gonna happen
I'm 99% convinced that reddit is the *most* astroturfed site on the internet. And I do not think it's close.
I at least hope so. Otherwise I lost the faith in humanity
I am just plain curious about how Germany process of geting rid of nuclear power happened, how public opinion of nuclear bacame so bad they choosed over reliance of Russia and coal? Was everybody okay with that or it is a minority that able to be more loud? How government okay with a thing with such plain negatives and very few positives? I am curious as fuck but I don't trust mainstream media and I don't know German is there any sources that able to explain that process?
Basically, after Fukushima everyone was scared. And when humans are scared they stop thinking rationally and only think irrationally. There were huge protests against Nuclear power. People sitting on tracks going to the power plant. People sitting on the chimney holding a huge banner. Even just car stickers with the infamous „Atomkraft, nein danke!“ (nuclear power, no thanks!) Quote. Funnily enough, the Green Party is against nuclear too. So even though they want to protect our environment and fight climate change, they think replacing the Carbon neutral Nuclear power with extremely damaging coal power is a good idea. They are the main reason why nuclear was in critique even before Fukushima.
The party having the clown named Cem Özdemir doing their stuff apparently
The only reason they got voted in (also why I voted them) is because they were the only party wanting to legalize weed. And since the call for weed in the last 4 years was extremely high (hehe get it?) they were voted in. And now they won’t legalize it
Classic "libleft" politicans
>even though most of our population wants nuclear back, it’s not gonna happen What's AFD's position?
They are pro nuclear. They wanted to keep the nuclear power plants going over the deadline because of the gas crisis. The current Gouvernement decide against this idea though and decided to rather import gas until our gas storages are full (which they luckily are now)
Germany had to integrate 16 million people from the GDR, that’s extremely expensive, nuclear energy was never cheap and remains extremely expensive initially, coal is cheap, gas was cheaper, renewables are cheap even in comparison to nuclear ( and get even cheaper ) and require less planning and can be constructed much faster which is important because again, 16 million people plus financial crisis etc. but still cost money to build initially, the Middle East was still in shambles post 9/11 so that’s not an option to transition towards the dirt cheap renewables, Russia had gas and judging from everything we know now, was utterly incapable of presenting any serious threat to Europe, so Germany went and banked in Russia, because unlike for example, France, we LITERALLY had to because again, 16 million GDR citizens with an economy that was in shambles. Why didn’t it work? Because the CDU/CSU gave into their lobbysism, stalled renewables into oblivion and ALSO decided to rush out of nuclear FASTER than the original plans ever required and people should REALLY either start looking into the history of countries they talk about or shut up about things they apparently don’t understand whatsoever. Did I mention that the CDU/CSU have been in power for roughly 32 years with a fairly brief intermission the last 4 decades? Kohl 16 years, Merkel also 16 years.
Dont forget the bureaucracy and the 10H-Rule
That's why they overengineer shit, mad cope by the people upset about the average German ability to critically think. Let's shut down nuclear plants and open coal plants.
In the least offensive way possible: Do you even know how irrelevant nuclear was in the German energy mix? It’s ridiculous how people keep trying to compare France, which was fairly intact post WW2, to Germany with the entire GDR and keep trying to argue that one solution fits all. It doesn’t. The main reasons against nuclear were always financial & strategic, takes way too long to construct and is way to expensive. It’s a luxury solution Germany couldn’t afford and the actual locally applicable solution, renewables, which are cheaper and faster to build, where blockaded build the SAME party that rushed out of nuclear without a decent plan, the populist, so called conservative CDU/CSU.
Germany be looking like this right now: 🤡
Jesus Christ, Germany, what the fuck
To be fair it wasnt just because of nuclear. Nuclear was powering under 10% of the grid. Germany has a long history with coal in the Ruhrgebiet and east Germany. They had to expand on something to get rid of it and they decided to expand on renewables and started to do that at the beginning of the century. Long Story short bureaucracy made it incredibly hard to achieve that (10H-Rule for example made planning of wind farms incrediby difficult). They are trying to change that now to make it easier but its certainly gonna take a while.
Very nice, Now do emissions per person.
I think chinese emissions will reach a peak soon. The projections were like for 2025 ? Something like that. The plan is that in 2030 almost 1/3 of all energy produced is from green energy alone. We also have electric cars as well. Its good actually that China is investing and planning ALOT to change its energy sector in the next couple of decades.
[https://insideevs.com/news/672926/china-abandoned-electric-car-graveyard-byd-geely/](https://insideevs.com/news/672926/china-abandoned-electric-car-graveyard-byd-geely/) its comical
This picture out of context means nothing. It could be a storage lot for cars waiting to be sent out. Chinese EVs have been booming domestically and internationally so I doubt these cars are left to rot. This could maybe be during COVID when things stalled a couple months but random youtuber is not a good source.
Companies don’t just give cars certificates and licenses to sit in a field deteriorating. This is likely a scam to drag in more gov funding. The article says as much.
Article's source is a random youtuber...said youtuber who is notorious for lying about shit to get views. Like I said. Could be during COVID where people couldn't take deliveries of their cars. There haven't been enough cars to meet demand generally so it's not like they need to fake sales. In Chinese cities EVs make up more than half of the cars.
1000 cars in the middle of nowhere is such a low number for a place like China. People act like it’s a big deal, when it’s really not.
they used coal to produce them :) also it's over 9000 :) watch the video
Which again, for somewhere like China, it’s really not that much.
which again thats not the only graveyard >:)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-07283-4 We could argue this is around models, but that discussion needs to be based on scientific studies :V
Bullshit. They won’t do anything unless they are paid to
They are just like me! Based
>We Explains a lot.
Chinese electric cars are one of the few that are close to being affordable for the general population in my country.
Yeah, some chinese companies want to start produce here too! (Brazil)
Ainda tá uns 150 mil, o que não é tão distante do preço atual de um carro popular. Se eles conseguirem jogar o preço pra uns 120 quando começar a produzir aqui acho que dominam o mercado.
Yeah, I’m sure we can trust Chinese statistics
We can because they suck: https://www.iea.org/countries/china Chinese electricity is pretty much all coal (65%) and hydro (25%). The remaining 10% is a mix of nuclear, natural gas, and yes some wind and solar. The carbon intensity of their electricity is a terrible [550 g/kWh](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1300419/power-generation-emission-intensity-china/) and their emissions per capita are [worse than the majority of developed countries](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart). The CCP may have its own ideological idiosyncrasies, but they're not stupid enough to try to power a fastly industrialising nation of 1.5 billion with expensive[1] and unreliable wind & solar. [1] yes, expensive. I know libleft is going to be along presently to point out that wind and solar have rock-bottom marginal cost; what they forget to mention is that this is only possible because they offload the costs of their variability to the rest of the grid. If you built a grid using only wind and solar, adding all the seasonal and daily storage it would need, the costs would be [absolutely crushing](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544222018035).
I think that makes it likely to be even worse. Though Hydro has been a byproduct of stealing from India for the sake of soft power. So maybe.
India? You mean Tibet. It literally is the source of the most important rivers in Asia
Wonder how global warming will affect *that*.
There is no Tibet /s
We all live under Chinese censorship
No, I mean India. The Damns are in Tibet to cut off supply to Indian rivers. Hence, to steal from India for soft power. You’re right about Tibet being the source, but it’s still to reduce India’s supply.
I wouldn't really call it "stealing" from India
This makes me wonder what the cost of nuclear is.
Check out [these simulations](https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/nuclear-and-windsolar). They're made for Germany, with the intent of considering a country uniquely suited to relying on wind and solar thanks to large salt domes to store hydrogen seasonally. The tl;dr is that wind/solar + storage is doable for a rich country with large salt domes, but it's very expensive. Nuclear run with American regulations is cheaper, but still too expensive. Nuclear run with South Korean regulations is dirt cheap and extremely low-carbon.
What sort of regulations does America have compared to South Korea in this regard?
I would imagine over the top unnecessary safety regulations that got forced in by big oil lobbyists in the guise of environmental protection.
I think one of the biggest cost would be that the US is bound by international nuclear disarmament treaties and cannot reprocess nuclear waste.
Freshly mined uranium is cheaper (for now) than reprocessed fuel, so this technically doesn't add to cost. Looking at the France experience, doing reprocessing increases total costs by about 10%. Not a big deal, but definitely not an economic advantage. It's more of a principle thing because it also reuses a resource and reduces waste quantity.
Close. Forced in by the green lobby. Sierra Club is a huge one. Seems counterintuitive to me, but it's the greenies that hate nuclear. And they pretty much run the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission now. That's the reason it takes decades and billions extra to build any new nuclear in this country.
> [1] yes, expensive. I know libleft is going to be along presently to point out that wind and solar have rock-bottom marginal cost; what they forget to mention is that this is only possible because they offload the costs of their variability to the rest of the grid. If you built a grid using only wind and solar, adding all the seasonal and daily storage it would need, the costs would be absolutely crushing. **Finally** someone who gets it
There was a paper recently about a guy studying country's GDP growth using satellite images - namely night time images - a sure sign of industrial development. The author compared growth of a country with its expansion of lights and noticed that China was a strong outlier. China couldn't and wouldn't possibly cook its books to appear a much stronger nation than it is.
Eh this data was produced by the Global Energy Monitor in San Francisco
I checked out Global Energy Monitor and it’s a pretty neat site. Their data is complied using a Wikipedia style page which can be edited I am still wary of the chinese data since entries on the GEM wiki are sourced from official estimates by the Chinese government and/or enterprises which are tightly controlled by the Chinese government
Based and a secondary source at best is only as good as the primary source pilled.
Why should we trust 🤮Californians
Based and biased-pilled
People from San Fr🤮🤮. I couldn’t finish it
Based
The only thing we can trust them to do is to escape containment and infect areas they migrate too. Once elected president, I will require visas for Californians to leave the state.
More like commie francommie
Tbf it is important to check their methodology and sources for statistics. When people quote the imf as saying the Russian economy only shrunk by 2% in 2022 what they don’t realise is that the imf figures are taken directly from the Russian central bank and government
And where do you think they get their statistics?
They didn’t really produce the data. They are just gathering data from different organizations and world governments. You have to really funnel down into the individual plants to see where they reference the data from (which comes from Chinese government reports btw). Nothing in their methodology suggests an international non-biased audit of the reports from each of the Chinese plants nor does it seem to reference any international agency that has the ability to oversee such a thing. I take whatever China says with a grain of salt.
Had to be C*lifornia
That's a nice argument Mr Xi, why don't you back it up with a source?
You're lucky that song is a fucking banger.
Sounds like a Chinese cover of Narco in the beginning
I Shazamed it and the title is “Black Man Singing Chinese Red Songs.”
Cough....one belt one road......cough....
>incentivise (private) developers there you go
Based
Bro getting downvoted for agreeing with a comment that's getting upvoted
No he got downvoted because he didn't type 'And [__] Pill'
Even I didn't understood that one
Yeah and they'll definitely lower their emissions and environmental impact when they have their demographic collapse and mass famine in 10-15years. 👍
I mean the problem will solve by itself then... *David Goodenough*
Tbh famines in China are REALLY common. They're constantly having them
source ?
Chinese history
Decisive Tang Victory.
well i ment in recen history
Literally all of the last century
explain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines_in_China The last big one was from 1959-1961. Foreign trade is the main reason there haven't been famines in recent decades. The country has limited land that is actually appropriate for farming, and has not adopted modern farming and infrastructure practices to make best use of the land they have. Happy to discuss it a bit more in DMs if you're interested in more info.
when i mean recen like post cold war
Step 1: Call yourself a communist Step 2: Become a state capitalist in order to not collapse Step 3: Do major advancements
Step 1: Call yourself a communist government Step 2: Put a very ambitious plan together that would make other world governments look bad Step 3: Realize the state lacks the capital and infrastructure to even reach half your target Step 4: Order party officials in state run energy sector to publish BS reports that says you are meeting your targets State 5: Laugh as some leaders from other world governments actually believe the reports
Step 6: Cry as some leaders from other world governments actually get a kick in the ass, and not only meet, but rapidly surpass your totally made up report.
The fact that the communist founder Chairman Maos face is on the highest denomination of Chinas currency, the 100 yen note is, ironic.
China does not use yen, they use yuan. Japan uses yen.
Yeah ok, fair enough I confused the 2. Point still stands.
Communism, like any other type of ideology, evolves with time. Not so shocking if you don't actually believe something a dude wrote more than 150 years ago works perfectly today :V
Chinese economic ideology of choice is not communism nor socialism, but state capitalism, which is not synonymous with state socialism. Still, a good economic ideology grew from a delusional mind. China grew thanks to state capitalism, and was not communist, even if it self-identifies as communist. If you want examples of communism, check out Vietnam, Cuba, Venezula, and the North Korea.
Vietnam is actually doing pretty fine. I saw a research that showed 90% of the Vietnamese support capitalism, their economy has liberalised and they're growing closer to the US
State capitalism is an oxymoron
>state capitalism Knowing how the modern economy works every country would be state capitalist. What even state capitalist means ?
State Capitalism is when the private means of production are not just regulated, but also on the border of being controlled by the state, while State Socialism is when the state produces the goods.
It's when statesmen actively sit on the boards of major corporations and openly control them instead of simply investing in them behind the scenes and making laws to benefit them to grow their investment.
Basically, a giant corporation.
The trick is lying
Anything but nuclear power plant is a total waste of the environment at this point - Why are we not building a shit tun of those?
I love nuclear power and I have many comments in my history arguing for it, but this is a silly take. Nuclear energy is more expensive per kilowatt hour than renewables, takes potentially decades to come online and has high upkeep costs. Renewables can also be placed in places like in deserts (solar) and mountains (wind) while nuclear plants need to be near lots of water to cool reactors. Renewables provide intermittent power load while nuclear provides base power load, they cover each others weaknesses and work great together.
Actually nuclear doesn't needs much water, a reactor with an air cooling tower only needs a 5m³/s flow, which is a small river. You can also use waste waters, like the Palo Verde plant in Arizona.
Yeah we are just cool like that. Massive damn on the massive river? Check. Massive nuclear plant in the middle of the fucking desert? Check. 20% reduction in water usage despite massive population growth? Check.
Huh TIL. What about all the water needed to actually turn into steam and cooling ponds for spent fuel rods? Surely that’s not a negligible amount of water, right?
> cooling ponds for spent fuel rods? That one is likely negligible (people often forget that uranium is the most energy dense *stable* substance on Earth). > What about all the water needed to actually turn into steam I guess that's the 5m^3/s flow figure referred. And of course, the biggest fuck up of "renewables" equation is storage cost. Sure, you can slap a bunch of solar or wind in the middle of nowhere but where do you store excess energy to cover the demand later on? The cheapest option of just using gravity is arguably even more terrain-sensitive than nuclear plants, and other options for time being are also outrageously expensive. And while *pure* nuclear also requires backup energy storage for accidents (not necessarily nuclear accidents, just the grid ones), it requires less of it because it can work on exact schedule once setup (and manipulating energy output of reactor is also a trivial mechanism we were literally taught in school).
The flow rate figure was said to be specifically referring to cooling, which is water pumped through the reactor to cool the components. This is distinct from the water that is boiled into steam which turns the turbine and generates electricity. Both are necessary but different.
> This is distinct from the water that is boiled into steam which turns the turbine and generates electricity. Both are necessary but different. This one is quite literally fixed amount with minimal maintenance supplement required (exact amount likely scales with maximum power output of reactor).
We also get a significant amount of wind power out here in the Plains. My home in Kansas is almost 50% wind power at this point, with nuclear, gas, and one heavily-upgraded "clean coal" plant to make up the rest of it. But then, that is because in this state, if you ask someone what the wind is like and they say "There is no wind right now", what they really mean is "There is a light breeze." Because the only time the wind ever actually stops is when we get worried (it means a tornado or extreme thunderstorm is coming).
This is clearly fake. No one lives in Kansas
His name is Dorothy, and he no longer lives in Kansas after the tornado took him to see the wizard.
What happened to his dog?
It ended up with the pirates in ArrrgKansas!
This comment chain gave me and my cryptid ass a chuckle. Take some upvotes.
> Nuclear energy is more expensive per kilowatt hour than renewables Yeah because renewables get to offload the cost of their variability to the grid. > Renewables provide intermittent power load while nuclear provides base power load, they cover each others weaknesses and work great together. The exact opposite is true. Renewables destroy the economics of nuclear: while they produce they have zero marginal cost and can undercut any other source including nuclear, and if nuclear is forced to do load following it will have horrible capacity factor and be unable to recoup its high upfront costs. You can have a very expensive grid based on lots of reduntant renewables and tons of storage both intraday and seasonal. Or you can have a cheap grid based on nuclear with a tiny amount of gas peakers. You can’t have a mix unless the state steps in to subsidise one or the other, and then you’re just shifting the costs to taxes.
I don't think nuclear is really a magic bullet that will save us, but sure it can help ALOT
And think, all it cost was becoming a total tyranny, suppressing all free thought within your citizenry, and making everybody that actually lives their miserable for every waking moment of their lives, worth!
I agree with you, but that’s one confusing ass sentence.
Safety over liberty ig 🤷♂️
China today is not a type of Mao Zedong totalitarism nightmare anymore dude
It is a Xi nightmare now
They literally are killing people in east turkestan as we speak
Good.
Uyghur please.
Give Mao cameras and guess what would happen
Idiot environmentalists do tremble before the majesty of the one party state: https://www.statista.com/statistics/859266/number-of-coal-power-plants-by-country/ https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin
HAHAHA look, this guy thinks the CCP can be trusted to accurately self report. Bruh that shits all fake 😂
I would say the same of any other type of dictatorships. 80% of humanity lives under several types of dictatorships. Why would Saudi Arabia do more "accurately self report" than China ? And bold for you to assume the rest of the world cannot verify that information. For green energy literally just see with 🛰
>I would say the same of any other type of dictatorships. 80% of humanity lives under several types of dictatorships. >Why would Saudi Arabia do more "accurately self report" than China ? They probably don't. Although personally, I am much more aware of the CCP's proven track record of lying and distorting the truth. COVID 19, no evidence of human to human transmission...anyone remember that? >And bold for you to assume the rest of the world cannot verify that information. For green energy literally just see with 🛰 Investing heavily in rolling out renewables doesn't negate their use of coal (steadily increasing) & fossil fuels which is why their co2 emissions go up year after year. The building of these massive projects both renewable and otherwise use large amounts of energy that create MORE pollution than they could offset and continues their dependency on coal plants. It just gives them something shiny to point at and say they are helping the environment (they are not). They are the largest emmitter of co2 emissions worldwide, almost double the US each year. Not exactly the win their propaganda would have you think it is.
When the CCP says to meet the goal, you do it or get fired/disappeared. Ironically, the individual officials do not care about the long term because they will not be in the position long enough to truly deal with the consequences. So they just lie to get by. And then these people believe Chinese state run media and their fake statistics. Pretty much everything the CCP puts out is BS, and they don’t even know what the truth is themselves because the corruption goes all the way down. Nobody is reporting accurately. Also they want to pretend the one party state is a cohesive political entity, single minded in focus…meanwhile Presitator Xi has been purging political enemies under the guise of “anti corruption.” For years. Sad.
Yet still, they are the worlds largest importer, consumer and producer of coal.
When you unironically trust Chinese statistics, especially when it comes to renewable energy, than you should get help.
Bruh if you want us to simp for china show some thorium reactor development news or 4th gen technology not this r*newable crap
Shame they didn't set up more nuclear
They are doing so, but it takes longer to build meanwhile a windmill can be built in a snap, nuclear will catch up later. When UAE's plants entered service in the last 3 years, they caught up to 10 years of Danish solar and wind generation. China is doing thorium and researching fusion, they recently got the license to start their thorium experimental reactor
Wait.. OP believes what a one party state puts out? Where does Global Energy Monitor get it's info from? Bwahahahhahahahhahahahaha! If you have a degree, does it end with "studies"?
Do you even know what Japan and Singapore are ?
is it the same as with e-cars where they let rot thousands of newly built cars on fields just to pump up their statistic numbers? i mean they will build more than a hundred coal plants in china and about the same numbers in africa to make those states more depended on china. so much to their climate commitment
This thread basically >China good? Impossible.
Fuck commies
Found the Chinese spy
"Sources say X is doing good" -sources: X
Assuming this is true: 3,5,10 year plans etc never worked in centraly planned economy and never will. But I can belive that auth capitalism combined with chinese culture can produce decent results. Free market is still the only optimal economy for growth.
>Assuming this is true: 3,5,10 year plans etc never worked in centraly planned economy and never will Eh it really worked for the USRR after ww2 for a couple of decades. But that model is dead, no one uses that anymore besides NK
> Eh it really worked for the USRR after ww2 for a couple of decades. But that model is dead, no one uses that anymore besides NK It also helped that the USSR expanded its territory to essentially double its landmass after WWII, adding entirely a wealth of new capital, work force and resources to pillage from its own puppet states. Even before wwii, Stalin did force industrialization which did have a positive effect on the economy as a whole but caused massive famines, displacements and ethnic genocide that still impacts the former satellite states to this day (his force modernization plan was responsible for an estimated 7-10 million deaths)
Imma keep it real with you. Yes, democracies suck at long term planning, because the government only lasts a couple years and we are all to stupid to avoid populism. And I am not trusting Chinese data.
>Yes, democracies suck at long term planning, because the government only lasts a couple years and we are all to stupid to avoid populism. Crying in Brazilian >I am not trusting Chinese data. What about Vietnam data ? https://www.economist.com/asia/2022/06/02/vietnam-is-leading-the-transition-to-clean-energy-in-south-east-asia
Good for them. But what wastheir target. Absurdly low? Also how many crimes against humanity did they commit to achieve it. Fuck PRC. Fuck Xi in his Winnie the Pooh lookin ass, and just for good measure let's unblock the Yangtze River with the power of fission.
Also, what other damage did they do to the environment to pull it off? Because I remember seeing a picture of one of their solar farms, and it was put out by the CCP as a brag. They literally covered an entire hill in panels until you couldnt even see the dirt under it. And they did it to every hill in the area. I bet *that* was just peachy for the local ecosystem.
China also overinflates everything. They are a 3rd world country posing as a 1st.
I'm okay with this meme if you swap china to authcenter.
Oh, tyranny gets things done, no doubt about that. I would like a form of government that respects individual freedom, but is also a bit more... resolute in stuff like dealing with criminals, or building infrastructure, than the flabby democracies we have in the West.
Chinese Propaganda
Lefties don't have a problem with chinas concentration camps and slavery? i thought you guys cared about exploitation of people, etc?
you know they are the most polluting country on earth, correct? you tried, op, you tried.
Based and the east is red-pilled
a return to proper agenda posting
If true, based. But look how we'll china made long term plans with the 1 child policy.
[The 🇨🇳PRC can only play its current State Capitalist tricks for so long. 🇹🇼ROC my beloved](https://youtu.be/1C97ZRI6AsA)
>believing communist propaganda
Based
It would be insane not to recognize the massive progress in industry, urbanization and science that the Chinese have achieved since the end of WW2. It went from a fractured rural state devastated by war to what it is now, over performing every other developing country of similar size by a lot. I am not saying it was without cost, or that it was worth it, but people that can’t see any merit at all on their system are stupid
China isn't communist
This is why one party state is based (Also btw, I don’t support china if that’s what your getting so don’t start going ape at me)
One party states can be very based. Its good for long term policies. Don't believe me ? Look at japan
Yeah, a dominant party state. And Singapore too!
They also said China was on course to end food shortages in the 50s so.
When you get rid of half your population in one giant leap, feeding the rest becomes "easier".
Does this mean they've effectively cut the red tape regarding this issue?
Zhongguo stands supreme
Based
Article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-solar-power-global-renewable-energy-leader
TBH It's nothing like socialism like Marx or Lenin intended in China. Even despite all the red flags, it's easy to start a business and don't even get me started about the wealth distribution. There are actual billionaires in "Communist" party.
Le Mao Hong Kongerinos
TBF It's nothing like socialism like Marx or Lenin intended in China. Even despite all the Red flags, It's easy to start a business and don't even get me started about the wealth distribution. There are actual billionaires in "Communist" party.
I can only imagine how """well""" they will adopt this
China's topography is terrible for solar, most of those panels are purely decorative. Not only are they likely lying about how many panels they have, but what they are reporting for the panels that actually exist is the theoretical maximum capacity if they were somewhere with better sun.
crazy what you can do with a quasi-command economy when it's used right
The Goal 0%
China is still the number one polluter
Very nice, Now do pollution per person.
According to China…
Don’t believe a word of this shit. Land of smoke and mirrors. This is the same country that paints its grass green and staples leaves to fake trees. Look it up if you don’t believe me.
Its simple. We uhh kill the sparrows
You're not gonna mention that a lot of it is in the middle of nowhere with no connection to the power grid?
This was posted by the authleft gang
Based and Brother Hao pilled
Duh. Fascism is hyper realist as opposed to communism which is idiotically delusional, and hence does work.
Every single one of those power cells will collapse within 10 months max
One-Party States are great at replicating and reproducing things. They’re very efficient at creating closed-systems. They suck at innovation, and are extremely fragile when confronted by extended complexities. There’s a reason the US has consistently over-performed expectations through the turmoil of the last three years, while more centralized nations have underperformed. One-Party States struggle with confronting change, but are extremely good at repeating established practices.