China Vows End To Building Coal-Fired Power Plants Abroad (axios.com) 139
Chinese President Xi Jinping told the United Nations General Assembly Tuesday that his country "will not build new coal-fired power projects abroad" and plans to boost support for clean energy in developing nations. Axios reports: The pledge, if maintained, would mark a breakthrough in efforts to transition global power away from the most carbon-emitting fuel. Nations, including the U.S., have been urging China -- historically a key source of coal-plant finance -- to make such a commitment.
Xi's pledge on coal financing comes just weeks before a critical United Nations climate summit. However, his remarks did not provide any details on the commitment or its implementation timeline. China is by far the world's largest coal producer and consumer, and is still building new coal-fired power generation domestically. Xi reiterated China's pledge to have it's greenhouse gas emissions peak before 2030 and to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, but did not offer strengthened domestic commitments.
Xi's pledge on coal financing comes just weeks before a critical United Nations climate summit. However, his remarks did not provide any details on the commitment or its implementation timeline. China is by far the world's largest coal producer and consumer, and is still building new coal-fired power generation domestically. Xi reiterated China's pledge to have it's greenhouse gas emissions peak before 2030 and to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, but did not offer strengthened domestic commitments.
So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
so they'll continue building them at a frantic pace inside China, and they'll let other people build them abroad.... so nothing changed then. Got it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
so nothing changed then.
Plenty has changed. China will install more than 20 GW of wind power this year. That is a 70% increase over 2020. China plans to install 35 GW of wind next year. Several coal projects have been canceled.
China has half the per capita carbon emissions of America, so perhaps we should focus on fixing our own problems before pointing fingers at others.
Re: So.... (Score:3)
Those new coal plants can likely ramp quite fast, so the wind is to save on coal. Coal being trivial to stockpile and providing great energy security.
They are not going to build significant storage and are going to be burning coal for at least half a century when the wind doesn't blow, if nothing apocalyptic happens.
Chinese are not dumb.... (Score:2)
Nope.
Why burn coal when you could build more renewables for half the price ?
Chinese are not dumb.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They are not going to build significant storage and are going to be burning coal for at least half a century when the wind doesn't blow, if nothing apocalyptic happens.
A simple quick google search shows that this isn't true [rechargenews.com]. Building storage is logical to do once you have too much of a problematic source like nuclear or when you have lots of a source like wind or solar which can generate extra energy with no significant marginal costs. I'm guessing that the Chinese grid is only just getting to the stage where they need this and they have other problems such as technical limits of HVDC transmission.
I think the key understanding here is that, whereas the US seems to see r
Re: (Score:2)
Right, they're doing it for strategic and not ecological reasons.
We would do it too if we weren't one of the most mineral-rich nations on the planet.
Neither nation behaves as if it believes in AGW and that is why we're fucked
Re: So.... (Score:4, Informative)
Right, they're doing it for strategic and not ecological reasons.
We would do it too if we weren't one of the most mineral-rich nations on the planet.
Neither nation behaves as if it believes in AGW and that is why we're fucked
Right, they're doing it for strategic and not ecological reasons.
We would do it too if we weren't one of the most mineral-rich nations on the planet.
Neither nation behaves as if it believes in AGW and that is why we're fucked
The Chinese will be affected by a changing climate like everybody else and they know it. The difference between China and the US is that the Chinese are not in denial about climate change even existing, they are not in denial abut the consequences of that and they are not in denial about the fact that renewables have out competed any form of fossil fuel except nat-gas on price. What matters is less and less having access to oil deposits, what will matter more and more is having access to lithium deposits. Whatever the Democrats in the US do on the renewables issue will be torn down by the next Trumpublican administration and replaced with state subsidised Coal. For the Trumpublicans it is not important to do the most economically and technologically sensible thing when planning your energy grid, the only thing that matters is subsidising coal and drown yourself in CO2 to own the libs. Meanwhile China and the EU will benefit from the US deliberately missing the bus on renewable tech because the Trumpublicans think that it's another way to own the libs.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between China and the US is that the Chinese are not in denial about climate change even existing
Neither are the majority of American decision-makers. They're just in denial about the likely effects. Even the Bush administration acknowledged AGW... on its way out the door.
What matters is less and less having access to oil deposits
What matters more and more is NOT BURNING FOSSIL FUELS and releasing sequestered carbon.
what will matter more and more is having access to lithium deposits
Luckily we have massive lithium reserves in the US [usgs.gov].
Whatever the Democrats in the US do on the renewables issue will be torn down by the next Trumpublican administration and replaced with state subsidised Coal.
Eh, maybe. Trump actually didn't boost coal much, because economics says it's dumb. Meanwhile democrats are failing to do anything substantive about AGW themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between China and the US is that the Chinese are not in denial about climate change even existing
Neither are the majority of American decision-makers. They're just in denial about the likely effects. Even the Bush administration acknowledged AGW... on its way out the door.
Half of American decision makers are scared shitless of the half of the nation that has drunk Trumps cool aid. That's a millstone around America's necks that neither China nor the EU has.
What matters is less and less having access to oil deposits
What matters more and more is NOT BURNING FOSSIL FUELS and releasing sequestered carbon.
Well DUUUH!!! That's what I was saying. Electric cars, grid storage, are taking over and all of it needs Lithium and not oil.
what will matter more and more is having access to lithium deposits
Luckily we have massive lithium reserves in the US [usgs.gov].
Firstly I do not recall saying that the US didn't have any Lithium deposits. Secondly, the US has 6,8 million tons of lithium deposits. Argentina, Chile and Bolivia have a collective 47 million tons b
Re: (Score:2)
On top of that the US just ceded the biggest single deposit to China when you people pulled out of Afghanistan
This isn't the olden days, you can't just run around extracting whatever you want from wherever you want any more.
Re: So.... (Score:2)
They are going to build some battery storage to cover the ramping of coal plants when the wind drops, they aren't going to build storage to cover lack of PV for the night and they certainly aren't going to build storage capable of covering a dunkelflaute.
Europe has made gas the backup for renewables and are now getting raped for it, China won't. China will be burning coal for the next 50 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe did not "make" any back ups for renewables.
We replaced 50% of our conventional plants energy production with renewables.
And: those plants are still there and only need to be powered up.
You should once play sim city, so you grasp the most simplest things about energy grids. Just because I add new power plants to the grid, I do not need magically back up for the new added power plants. The old ones are still there ... a no brainer.
Re: So.... (Score:2)
We made it the backup by closing down the alternatives.
Europe can't just bring up more excess coal capacity when gas prices are high in a dunkelflaute, it can pay or freeze. Much like Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe is not relying on gas.
I doubt electricity production is 30% gas based. Then again, we have enough storage and our own gas fields that outside gas price changes do not really affect ut.
Gas prices are negotiated long ago. There are no real influences on gas price fluctuation for the next winter.
This word "dunkelflaute", does not exist. It is a /. invention.
Re: So.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China has the biggest coal reserves on the planet.
And I'm pretty sure if they search for it, absurd amounts of coal and gas as well.
Re: (Score:2)
China has the biggest coal reserves on the planet.
And I'm pretty sure if they search for it, absurd amounts of coal and gas as well.
USA / 250 Billion Tonnes, Russia / 160 Billion / Australia 147 Billion / China 138 Billion / India 101 Billion (yankee definition of Billion ;-) )
So China is fourth and notably far behind Australia, however almost all of Chinas reserves are high quality [wikipedia.org], which puts them second in the world for Anthracite & bituminous coal so you aren't completely and utterly wrong and I hadn't realised that there was such an imbalance in their reserves.
I understood that China was dependent on imported coal, but I've now
Re: (Score:2)
China is one of the biggest coal exporters. :D
So, yes, I'm not utterly wrong
Re: (Score:2)
China is one of the biggest coal exporters. :D
So, yes, I'm not utterly wrong
No it isn't [statista.com].
Re: (Score:2)
That was 2019.
Perhaps you want to look over the recent 20 years (and even accumulate the numbers)
China always was in the top ten, and often number 1.
Re: (Score:2)
That was 2019.
Perhaps you want to look over the recent 20 years (and even accumulate the numbers)
China always was in the top ten, and often number 1.
You mean coal producers. You said "coal exporters". They have been in the top 10 of producers consistently, however they export almost none of their coal, I assume deliberately aiming to conserve the reserves for their own development? That means they haven't been in the top 10 of exporters for ages.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanx for the correction, seems I'm not up to date :D When my country was still importing coal from China, it was considered to be one of the top exporters. But: I'm out of the loop more than 10 years, and did not pay attention to those changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Shale gas is every where the same. Everywhere.
It is a remanent from the planet forming and has nothing to do with "fossiles".
Re: (Score:3)
More likely China plans to build more LFTR [wikipedia.org]s rather than more solar or wind. Even with all that Wind and solar capacity you say was added they both when combined with all the other "renewable" energy sources, excluding hydro-electric, amount to only around 3% of the worlds electrical generation capacity.
LFTRs are more consistent, reliable, smaller, don't kill birds, annoy the locals with noise, and can be retrofired to older existing coal plants to leverage the turbines and generator portion of the old powe
Re:So.... (Score:4, Interesting)
More likely China plans to build more LFTR [wikipedia.org]
Number of LFTRs in commercial operation worldwide: 0.
Re: (Score:2)
But they are supposed to be trying to build this and just have fired up one.
https://slashdot.org/submissio... [slashdot.org]
Unfortunately people labelled this as "spam".
Re: (Score:3)
Number of LFTRs in commercial operation worldwide: 0.
How is that relevant? Seriously, please explain why that matters.
The same could be said of solar and wind energy 50 years ago.
All that means is that the first nation to get one working as a commercial power plant will have that much greater and advantage over the rest of the world. China is committed to developing LFTRs. The people they have working on it are not idiots and the technologies needed to make a LFTR exists today. All that has been needed is someone to put the pieces together and build one.
An
Re:So.... (Score:4, Informative)
China is committed to developing LFTRs.
China is committed to building a research reactor and nothing more.
LFTRs are far from a proven technology. They are decades away from commercial development, if that ever happens at all. There is a long list of reactor technologies that looked great on paper but were never economically viable.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a long list of reactor technologies that looked great on paper but were never economically viable.
Yeah, like all of them so far. None of them pay for themselves, except in a certain sense the military ones. They all require subsidy.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that relevant? Seriously, please explain why that matters.
Because your idea is just bollocks?
The same could be said of solar and wind energy 50 years ago.
Simply: wrong?
All that means is that the first nation to get one working as a commercial power plant will have that much greater and advantage over the rest of the world.
Simply again: no? Who the funk cares how China is generating its power as long as it does not produce CO2?
And that is exactly what China is doing.
Perhaps. Let's see.
Re: (Score:2)
It's relevant because at the moment LFTR is at the development stage, still building prototypes to try to work out all the issues. So it's decades away from commercial scale energy production and we can't wait that long. China can't wait that long.
Meanwhile China is installing huge amount of new wind power and battery production is ramping up incredibly fast too. Even if nothing goes wrong with the research reactor they are building, but the time commercial designs are up and running they won't be needed.
LFTR is a joke. (Score:2)
LFTR is a joke.
Not a very good one.
Re: (Score:2)
LFTR is a joke.
Not a very good one.
How so?
Please enlighten us on why its a bad joke.
Re: (Score:3)
Because, the running reactor in itself may be somewhat safer than a conventional, but the chemical reprocesssing plant that has to run continuously close by is just not economically and technically feasible.
Chemical processing of a hot (thermically), and extremely radioactive, while extremely corrosive liquid salt (constant generation of hydrogen fuoride of tritium, a real nightmare)
is just not realistic, and would generate an extreme amount of nuclearly contaminated chemical waste, with high corrosive and
Re: (Score:3)
You really haven't kept up to date on it have you?
To address your points.
The corrosion problem was solved long ago. Read up on Hastaloy-n [haynesintl.com], a corrosion resistant alloy that is perfect for LFTR tech that was developed in the 1960s.
Processing hot fluids is not as hard as you seem to think. Just look at metal and glass production for starters. Its just a mater of keeping everything hot enough to remain a liquid where you want it. While the aim is to keep the entire process in a LFTR at the fluid phase there i
Re: (Score:2)
The USA already had two test LFTRs running back in the 1960s so I'll trust the experts with who know when they say it works.
Those thorium reactors in the 1960s never solved the fuel contamination problem. They were shut down before they got that far, in favor of light water reactors.
As you said, Hastaloy-n does seem to solve the corrosion problem. I believe that was finally tested, though it requires finding a chemist crazy enough to work with fluoride compounds, which is not an easy task. The great unsolved problem for LFTRs is in-loop real time fuel reprocessing, and that is a difficult problem indeed. Kirk Sorensen tended
Re: (Score:2)
I found an interview with some of the engineers who worked on the MSRs at Oak Ridge. Though they said the shutdown was because of the Integral Fast Reactor that was being developed at the. The IFR tech is also making a bit of a comeback lately but not as strongly as MSRs are.
Fluoride compounds aren't really that dangerous. Could you be confusing it with Fluorine, which is highly reactive and volatile?
All in all yes, MSRs need some work. But they are currently the best Carbon neutral energy source being d
Re: (Score:2)
Tritium isn't produced by any part of the LFTR
LFTRs contain lithium.
Lithium consists of two isotopes: Li6 (7%) and Li7 (93%).
Both absorb neutrons and fission into tritium.
Li6 + N => He + T
Li7 + N => He + T + N
LFTRs also use beryllium, which absorbs neutrons to produce Li6, then thence tritium.
Be9 + N => He + Li6
Tritium production isn't all bad since tritium is valuable stuff. But it is something that LFTR designers need to deal with.
Re: (Score:2)
I did some more digging and found out the details in an interview with some of the engineers who worked with the MSRs at Oak Ridge.
So yeah, I was wrong about the Tritium. Not the first time and won't be the last. :)
Thanks for the info about lithium => Tritium breeding chain. I knew about it in general but not the details.
Re: (Score:2)
Did some more digging on the Tritium issue you raised. and found that indeed there was an issue with it being formed in the system.
The engineers who actually worked on the MSRs at ORNL stated that they felt the issue could be resolved as could the remaining corrosion issues. If the program hadn't been canceled when it was they probably would have had it worked out long ago
Of course the problem of what to do with that Tritium is easy to solve. Just use it to fuel the Fusion reactors when that tech starts
Re: (Score:2)
What does the fancy abbreviation LFTR mean?
Re: (Score:2)
What does the fancy abbreviation LFTR mean?
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor [wikipedia.org].
Nerds love thorium. But, alas, the love is unrequited.
Re: (Score:2)
So we now have molten salt and Thorium in one reactor :D
Sounds at least scientific interesting.
Re: (Score:1)
If per capita levels of carbon emissions are a relevant metric, then one should also consider what one gets for it. Given that the economic output as measured by GDP for the two countries are in the same ballpark, but China's population is approximately 4x that of America's, the argument can be made America creates wealth on a per unit of carbon emission per capita basis.
Admittedly, the above does have its own holes (foremost of which is that it does not take into account non-carbon based energy sources).
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, fix your problems, Shanghai "Bill". You're not fooling anyone, CCP astroturfer.
Re: (Score:2)
On Slashdot anyone who knows anything about China, anyone who has ever been there, is a CCP shill. I get accused of being one all the time and I'm still waiting for my WeChat payments.
Re: (Score:2)
Well as we have discussed before, per capita doesn't matter. It's total emissions that we need to worry about. So lets actually take a look at data that matters.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resourc... [ucsusa.org]
Well, what do you know. China emissions are almost twice that of the United States. How about that?
So yeah, I think while the US brings its emissions to all time lows and is continuing to go down we can continue to call China out on its emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Well as we have discussed before, per capita doesn't matter.
Then you are wrong.
As any person (or conglomerate of persons, aka a nation) can reduce its per capita production.
China emissions are almost twice that of the United States. How about that?
China has 4 times the population of the US. So: only half of the CO2 of you: per capita.
If you do not "grasp per Capita", then look at countries like Kuwait e.g.
So yeah, I think while the US brings its emissions to all time lows :P
For US levels
Seems you do not gr
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we did and you where even part of the conversation. You, as usual, argued this per capital bullshit. Several of us concluded you where wrong, showed you where wrong, and then discounted anything else you have to say. Just to let you know, your option in this matter, still doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we did and you where even part of the conversation.
I was also part of the conversation. Mr. O'Sphere is correct and you are wrong.
"Per capita" is the only sensible way to measure emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Then divide China into 6 countries/regions. Each having 350million inhabitants.
And suddenly USA is the top polluter.
Why you want to draw artificial borders, is beyond me.
The only thing which is important, is per capita. A human being polluting the planet with CO2 (or what ever). That has to be pushed down. You can do your share, your country con do its share.
Complaining "but what about that other country" does not help, when people living there actually do not even contribute to global warming 10% of what y
Re: (Score:2)
Then divide China into 6 countries/regions. Each having 350million inhabitants.
The Bullshit, strong in you it be.
Lets divide the United States in to 50 provinces, each having 350 million ... Oh whats the point. It wouldn't matter if I had a signed tablet from God, you wouldn't listen. The only reason you use per capita now is to bash the United States. The only reason.
Since we have been over this and it was decided, I'm just going to dictate it to you and you two can take it or leave it. Not wasting time you two.
Per capita doesn't matter, all that matters is total over all numbers. End of discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets divide the United States in to 50 provinces, each having 350 million ...
You can't. As USA only has 375million inhabitants.
Per capita doesn't matter, all that matters is total over all numbers. End of discussion.
Per capita is the only thing that matters.
As "many people together" can lower their CO2 output. A few alone, can't.
The USA is the many people who have an high CO2 output. It is super simple for the USA to lower it (they actually did over the last 10 years). China - despite the fact that it is mo
Re: (Score:2)
That is lot of text to type for a close discussion that is close and nobody is reading any more. Come back again when the discussion is still open, speak nicer, and more humbly when you are admitting your are wrong. Then maybe someone will read what you have to say and consider it.
Till then, have a nice day.
Re: (Score:2)
Have a nice day, too idiot.
I actually did not admit, I was wrong.
I pointed out: you are wrong.
But you are to stupid to grasp it: hence you are an idiot.
Simple, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you don't know when to quit do you? Look, I know it sucks being wrong? I've actually been wrong twice in the last few yeas. I actually thought Trump would win 2020 and didn't think Biden had a chance. I was wrong. See how simple that was?
You don't have to admit to being wrong, to be wrong. You just are. Here, me help you with that. "You are wrong." Accept it. It is the final phase.
As it has been pointed out to you, this subject was already hashed out and it was agreed on by everyone tha
Re: (Score:2)
Well,
perhaps I have a comprehension problem?
As far as I can tell: I was not wrong in our discussion.
And except saying "admit you are wrong", you never proved anything of my text to be wrong.
So: no idea what this is about.
Re: (Score:2)
You might very well comprehension problem. I imagine is probably something not to serous. I wouldn't worry about it.
Here, lets see if this helps. While the original subject is close now, but we can review. As it was pointed out several times the subject of the discussion was already settled. Now then, you don't seem to agree that it is a settled issue. Which to be blunt and I'm not trying to be rude here, Isn't my problem.
So, I think the best course of action is for us to just move on and stick
Re: (Score:2)
China emissions are almost twice that of the United States.
If you look at China's emissions province by province, they are an order of magnitude lower.
Every province in China has emissions that are only a tenth of America's or even lower.
Re: (Score:2)
Natural Gas is cheaper.
The big thing that changed isn't Climate Science, or Liberal or Conservative politics, just the fact that Natural Gas power is cheaper than coal. Also being cleaner than coal is, makes it much cheaper and easier to get approvals to build, and operate with less oversight.
Solar and Wind are also economical compared to coal too.
We use to have Ice Cutters, who would cut Ice from Lakes and Rivers, store them in an insulated building, then ship it across the world, for people to put in the
And monkey may fly out of my butt (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Some facts about carbon dioxide emissions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
per-capita is interesting, but more people does not mean the earth can handle more CO2.
Overpopulation should not be a license to pollute more. It is the biggest contributor to global warming.
Huge credit to China for dealing with their overpopulation problem though.
Re: Some facts about carbon dioxide emissions (Score:2)
China has instituted previous population control measures. However they don't seem to see population as the biggest issue with climate change. In fact they are up to a three child policy now with lots of policy work going into families having more kids. Even Chinese ethnicities that would generally have larger families are having fewer kids because of the pressure of modern living. So I am not sure I would give China the credit you have. The one child policy was a pragmatic solution relative to a time perio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
A vow to not build coal plants at home (Score:5, Informative)
ie in China would be much more welcome and meaningful. What China does at home is a major problem: in 2020, China Built 3X The Number Of Coal Plants Than Any Other Nation [climatecha...spatch.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's like promising to stop murdering puppies. (Score:4, Interesting)
Now we know better. (Score:1)
Yep. We should all have not run our cars on oil, and our electricity on coal.
But now we know better.
Re: (Score:2)
The developing nations they were building those plants in all have just a fraction of the per-capita emissions as the developed nations.
That's not to say it's okay, but we also can't expect them to have a much lower quality of life when we already benefitted from massive CO2 emissions and are still pumping out multiple times as much per person. We have to develop technologies to reduce emissions and make them affordable and available to developing nations.
empty words for a vague future date (Score:2)
China says they'll start winding down coal use at home after peak in 2030. And now they make this "promise".
In other words, for the present, the increase in carbon emissions will continue as planned.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Did they commit to winding down gain of function testing? Asking for a friend...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong, the planet doesn't care about "per capita" only total emissions. China has a government, a central point of control, and they are the biggest emitter on the planet. They are the ones that have to change policies.
Stop the stupid "per capita" arguments, means nothing. Soon USA emissions won't even matter, and we'll have another huge emitter India.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not "twice as dirty", China emitting over 2.5 the carbon and have full control of that and plans for increasing until at least 2030. Meanwhile USA carbon emissions are dropping. Again, stop with your stupid fallacy, engage your unused brain and start using logic.
So they're going to the next more polluting thing (Score:1)
dung
Clean Energy From Trash Comments (Score:2)
If only we could find a way to make clean energy from all the trash comments on /.
There is 20% ASCII art, 50%+ off topic, poor translations of Chinese phrases and not a single positive comment.
China could say they cured AIDS and people would still open their trash holes to spew more bullshit.
Yes, China needs to ramp down domestic coal but this is still a commitment in recognition of the gravity of climate change. The world is pretty much in agreement that economies enter a modern development stage cannot ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Complaints can be helpful at reminding communities and people what should be improved.
I live in China, so of course I buy a lot of Chinese goods. I also import a lot of goods like alcohol. I don't know my Asus laptop is pretty freaking awesome and good bang for your buck. It's been going solid for 5+ years and all I have ever had to replace is the battery which is pretty normal, though getting at it was annoying which again is pretty normal. So I think there are many good Chinese products but the truth is m
Why isn't China building more nuke plants? (Score:5, Interesting)
They already have a huge domestic nuclear industry (to the point that they need no outside imports in order to build a nuclear power station) and unlike most countries, if anyone complains about a nuclear power plant in their backyard, the government can just ignore them (or even send them to whatever jail they send people who criticize the government).
So they could just build a couple hundred gigawatts of new nuke plants without needing to care about such things as "environmental approvals" or "planning laws" or other things that have made it all-but-impossible for countries like the US to build any more nuclear power plants and not need to build a single watt of new coal generation.
Re: (Score:1)
One way to silence the NIMBYs is to host them offshore.
China should offer to build 20 for the Australian government. Stick them underwater so that they don't create an eyesore from the coast.
I think the Latin word is submarine.
Re: (Score:1)
Because they're too expensive? Just like in the Western world?
While they are building nuclear plants, it seems to me they've scaled down their ambitions.
Nuke is just too expensive. (Score:1)
>>Why isn't China building more nuke plants?
Because nuke is too expensive, and will get worse every year.
Re: Why isn't China building more nuke plants? (Score:2)
So, China no longer wants to export coal (Score:2)
Re: So, China no longer wants to export coal (Score:2)
Re: So, China no longer wants to export coal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But they will finish several hundred (Score:2)
A possible motive for Chinese pollution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because China is the top polluter, and has so far only given lip service to cutting back. They do not have to be,
They aren't. Top polluters are the US, Kuwait and other strange nations.
Especially if you look at the accumulated pollution over the last 200 years.
Xi is developing Natures Battery the atom (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
China has NO plans to back off fossil fuels [yale.edu].
China is building 43 new coal plants [time.com].
Yes, you read that right. While the West is being sent into an energy black hole, China is building new coal plants on a daily basis.
Ever been to eastern China? Some days, you can't see more than a few hundred meters in front of you due to the smoke. Not smog. SMOKE.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
and large penises.
the chinese said americans have them
Re: (Score:2)
Cool story bro.
Re: (Score:2)
Congrats. Everything you say was written for you by Rupert Murdoch's goons, and not one word is true.